patty1h February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, SRTouch said: broken family/INS case: intro indicates this is basically a suit over defendant not performing a service as promised. Plaintiff says defendant promised to help plaintiff get her kids into the country from Haiti, and she wants 5 grand because family hasn't been reunited. I got a good laugh at the guy's pathetic attempt to mask his hair loss - shoe polish! His painted-on hairline was blatantly obvious on camera. Also, the plaintiff was a scammer, lying like a rug (birth mother!) to get some people into the US. But she had the hubris to point fingers at the fake-y businessman that he's a crook. They both need to check their mirrors. I was surprised that JM awarded the plaintiff her money because it seemed to be one of those cases of her not having "clean hands". If this was Judge Judy's court I think she would have sent her packing for being shady, but seems like JM is more sympathetic because she knows what people will do to get away from a bad government, poverty, etc. Edited February 9, 2018 by patty1h 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: broken family/INS case: The defendant was one of those immigration consultants who charge high fees to potential immigrants for services that should be just about free or are probably unnecessary. It's a very active cottage industry in some jurisdictions. However, the plaintiff was as much as a scammer as him. I wonder how much she charges her "children" for her services as a mother-for-hire. I also absolutely loathed her histrionics: the strangled sobs, the exaggerated despair, the calls to Jesus, depicting herself as a naive and trusting victim and to top it all off, throwing herself on her knees. A disgusting performance but apparently it worked on JM because she awarded her the maximum. Despite her having unclean hands, as JM noted at one point. But she has an inexplicable and unreasonable weakness for that type of litigants, the older lady who poses as vulnerable and overemotional. "At least her fraud was out of love" is now a defense? JM may have come to her senses in the end when she decided to walk away as fast as possible from the kneeling and sobbing winner, but it was too late. Doug really has got to stop asking about body tats and tugging at clothes to make the "artwork" more visible. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, patty1h said: Also, the plaintiff was a scammer, lying like a rug (birth mother!) to get some people into the US. Today was All Crooks day. Yeah, I'm sure a contract signed, "I promise I'll go back to Haiti after I get my marketing and social media classes completed" is an iron-clad assurance that the taxpayers won't have to pony up yet more money. I can't help but think of people in other countries must find North America an hilarious easy mark - anyone can come here and even if they aren't overly facile with the language, even if they falsify documents, can start working the system ASAP. It really seems the only reason JM gave the scamming, lying, sobbing, mother/not mother plaintiff anything is that she hated def - who was an even bigger crook/scammer - more. I wish JM had asked where plaintiff got 5K. Most people don't have that kind of disposable income lying around. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: ah, bad car deal: Oh, the little Penguin plaintiff, when asked why he recorded the price of the 16 year old beater as 350$: "I don't know. I don't remember." He must have been in a fugue state. But he wants 5K for all his emotional distress, car rentals, etc. Def offered to pay for the emissions thing on said beater, but that wasn't enough. The Penguin smelled a big boe-nanza - money, honey! He's a single father, so deserving of special treatment and lots of cash. Try again. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: almost an iPhone sale: Another one - def - who excuses her crook-iness with, "I'm a sainted Single Mother. I had just gave birth" because getting knocked up is always a major surprise to litigants. Well, why not? Someone who buys a fancy phone she can't afford should give birth as often as possible. OTOH, when I"m looking for a phone or a new car, I always troll FB or CL, because I trust everyone who posts there. They must be honest, right? Listening to plaintiff was agonizing. I just wanted this case to end. 2 Link to comment
Aahz February 10, 2018 Share February 10, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: broken family/INS case: Despite being in "business" since April 2, 2014 and offering "marketing seminars" including social media marketing The Haitian American International Chamber of Commerce has neither a website nor any social media presence and shares office space with more than a half dozen other "businesses" including a law firm (Figeroux & Associates) specializing in (surprise, surprise) bankruptcy law! Seems legit ;) Edited February 10, 2018 by Aahz 5 Link to comment
teebax February 10, 2018 Share February 10, 2018 Cell phone cases are in the category of dog bite ones for me. I'll read the excellent recaps and comments here, but I rarely watch them. No one in the first case should've won a cent. I was shocked, shocked I say, at that ruling. Judge Judy would've thrown both of them out on their keisters. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 10, 2018 Share February 10, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, teebax said: No one in the first case should've won a cent. I was shocked, shocked I say, at that ruling. Judge Judy would've thrown both of them out on their keisters. Agree all around. JM was dismissing plainitff's case - which is when the mighty sobbing/wailing began - until she found out def called and asked her for plane fare after the 5K. That made him even more disgusting, but shouldn't have changed the ruling, IMO. JM is extremely emotional and although she usually can see past her feelings on cases I think she did not in this one. Now plainitff can take her 5K and go find someone else to help her continue her shifty manoevers. A mean part of me wishes we could have seen plaintiff with her case was dismissed. Would she have rolled on the floor? Fainted? Chased JM into her chambers? Would Douglas have had to tackle her? We'll never know. Yes, JJ would have said "You're both scammers and frauds. Take this to another court." Edited February 10, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
aemom February 11, 2018 Share February 11, 2018 I just watched the show with the fence, the unpaid utilities, and the 40th birthday party. The fence case was interesting and I can't remember the last time MM awarded punitive damages. But woman, get some freaking teeth please. I'm just gobsmacked at how people go around without front teeth! The utilities case was boring and if you continued to live in that kind of moldy environment with your small child, you are an incompetent parent. That place was disgusting. I'm amazed at what people will spend for birthday parties. She was going to spend $1,500 just on decorations! Battle of the wigs and fingernails indeed. MM called this one correctly in my opinion. 1 Link to comment
DoctorK February 12, 2018 Share February 12, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, AEMom said: She was going to spend $1,500 just on decorations! For God's sake! When I was a kid I got a chocolate cake with chocolate icing and walnuts on top, and all of the kids in the neighborhood were invited for cake and ice cream. This lasted until I was about 12 years old when it suddenly became not cool (because that is the age when most of us turned into complete jerks which lasted for about ten years). After that I still got the cake (my Mom was great at cakes) but the ice cream and party went away. $1500 is just low end trashy ostentation unless your family is well off. Like people I know who can always buy beer and cigarettes but can't pay rent, insurance, etc. Edited February 12, 2018 by DoctorK 3 Link to comment
teebax February 12, 2018 Share February 12, 2018 2 hours ago, DoctorK said: For God's sake! When I was a kid I got a chocolate cake with chocolate icing and walnuts on top, and all of the kids in the neighborhood were invited for cake and ice cream. This lasted until I was about 12 years old when it suddenly became not cool (because that is the age when most of us turned into complete jerks which lasted for about ten years). After that I still got the cake (my Mom was great at cakes) but the ice cream and party went away. $1500 is just low end trashy ostentation unless your family is well off. Like people I know who can always buy beer and cigarettes but can't pay rent, insurance, etc. I agree. My girlfriend turned 50 last year, so there was an excuse to have a bash. I threw it at my house and spent around $500 for everything, including booze, food, gifts, and decorations. I have an open floor plan, so I was able to turn my great room into a dance floor. Everyone who attended said it was the best birthday party they'd ever attended. If you have it, spend it how you like. But you don't need to spend a ton of money to have a great party. All it takes is fun friends, great music, and good food and drinks. Hell, they'll be talking about my last Super Bowl party for years, and I spent less than $100 on that. Maybe I just know how to throw a party. Lol. 7 Link to comment
SRTouch February 12, 2018 Share February 12, 2018 (edited) talk about BAD neighbors: (waste of time case that runs long) if what intro is true, the upstairs neighbor (defendants) are the worst sort of neighbors - people who have no concern for people living around them, neglect their dogs, and then harrass the neighbors who complain when the dogs are using the balcony as a toilet - which turns into yellow rain onto plaintiffs. Hmmmm, jurisdictional limit 10 grand (sounds like California), and that's what plaintiff is claiming. Course, defendants deny their dog is using the balcony as a urinal, say the wet spots on plaintiff's balcony are in fact from her watering her potted plants. They have a $6500 counterclaim for haresssment, libel and lost wages. Anyway, plaintiff's testimony is that she was long time resident at the apartment complex, came home from a trip to Indiana to find new upstairs neighnor. Granddaughter out on patio says she felt something dripping on her, and they look up to see something dripping from upstairs, sniff a wet seat cushion on the patio furniture and it smells of dog urine. Ok, not good, but could just be dog marking new territory. Instead of going upstairs, meeting the new neighbors, and asking them to watch the dog, she takes pictures of the puddle and complains to management (her testimony has defendant's making shocked faces and looking at her like they have never heard what she's saying.) When she complains, management promises to talk to defendant and she expects an apology. No apology, and a week later more wet patio furniture.... now doggy poop is ending up on her balcony (more incredulous looks from defendant, and MM tells them to stop with the faces). More pictures, this time of doggy poo, and another trip to management to complain. Hmmmm, MM questions how the dog poo fit through the balcony decking to end up downstairs... ah, now we're going all CSI on the sh*t. Hmmm, it's a mystery how doggy turds are ending up on her patio. At this point she still hasn't even spoken to her new neighbors, but has made two complaints to the management. Management again promises to talk to the neighbors... have to think management DID talk to them, and she had emails from her complaint, management's response, and management had maintenance come pressure wash her deck. (More with the incredulous open mouth looks from defendants). Next interaction happens when she's in her car with sister (witness #1) and granddaughter - defendants approach her while she's in the car - shouting back and forth - granddaughter (Maybe daughter - not sure) who isn't here sticks up for granny and uses some inappropriate slurs (plaintiff doesn't remember that part, but sis admits kid may have said ***** - not sure what ***** is, as it got censored). Anyway, she heads to office to make another complaint, and defendants tag along - big kerfuffle, yelling and cursing in the office, cops called - defendants claim this is a hate crime, apparently they think these complaints are all discrimination against them for being gay and an attempt to get them to move. (Not satisfied with making faces, now defendant is shouting out and MM issues another caution and tells them they'll have a turn to talk.) Management certainly not much help, now feuding neighbors are feuding in the office, but nothing much done. Plaintiff says again nothing comes out of the big office kerfuffle, upstairs neighbors step up their game - now they purposely make noise to disturb her and stand on the balcony shouting insults when they see her. Says she even asked management to move her within the complex, but nothing is done to rein in the neighbors. Eventually, she says, she does end up moving.... ah, another shout out, another admonishment from the judge, along with the comment that the continued faces and comments are just helping plaintiff make her case. Yeah, like maybe doggy turds not so innocently appearing on plaintiff's balcony. Hmmm, seems MM is ready to talk plaintiff's damages without even talking to defendant. Seems plaintiff has health issues, and she's blaming defendant's harrassment for causing her blood pressure to get out of control, resulting in an ER visit. Hmmm, maybe so, but then I had a similiar BP spike, a few years ago, ending in the ER - and no harrassing neighbors. She says hers was from the prolonged stress, but of course has nothing from a doctor saying that was the cause. (Not like she's the only black grandmother with high blood pressure.) Nah, she hasn't proven any connection - though MM leaves her looking for something in her medical records which she thinks may prove something. Over to defendant. Ok, fast talking - but understandable, and funny how now it's plaintiff interrupting and shouting out, and defendant complains he didn't interrupt HER, oh right that was co-defendant (who also is interrupting dude testifying). This guy, with his fast talking, seems to think the more words he says the better his case. First, he brings up how one of the maintenance workers died cleaning their decks... yeah, someone died at the complex washing a deck - not their deck, but a deck somewhere else in the complex on some other building. Then he thinks plaintiff targeted him because he apparently is a frequent crime victim who has been on the news multiple times - which has MM asking WTH are you talking about!?! Anyway, despite MM asking which defendant will be talking when she asked for their side, it quickly dissolves into both defendants doing auctioneer impressions, speed talking and interrupting each other to tell us how evil plaintiff and her family are. Actually, daughter may have made the threats they claim - we never learn why granny has custody of granddaughter. Ok, nobody has proved anything, they're no longer neighbors everybody go home and stop wasting the courts' time. repair shop scam: huh, does plaintiff really think motorcycle shop sabotaged his bike so he'd crash and need additional repairs? Surely another case where intro will prove wrong. But, what intro says is he thinks they put grease on his tires so he would crash, he crashed, he wants the repairs, new clothes, and to be reimbursed for what he paid for insurance. Defendant says case is nonsense, he's had his shop for 45years, and idea of greasing tires is preposterous. Nope, intro is right, he's really claiming they greased his tires! They wanted him to crash so they'd get paid for additional repairs. Really? Besides wild speculation, does he have any proof - like maybe testimony from other customers that this shop pads their bills and routinely has customers crashing in front of the shop seconds after they pick up their bike. Not only is his whole theory wild, but his proof is nonexistent. What he has is pictures of the tires - which shows me nothing. Even if there IS grease on the tires, how do we know he didn't roll through something in the parking lot, the gutter, or the street. As an experienced rider, myself, I'm having a hard time visualizing his crash as anything besides rider error. Even going with greased tire theory - nope, not seeing it. Heck, even with greasy tires he had to be hot dogging it to spin out.... oh, like maybe you would expect from someone on a super sport crotch rocket that, according to shop dude, does 186mph stock out of the factory. Guess this case is just to put us back on schedule as plaintiff has no case - though he'll no doubt never admit it and will go to his grave convinced the shop purposely sabotaged the bike. Case dismissed... and one of those cases where losing litigant, who came with zero evidrnce, comes out and announces it ain't over yet, he's appealing and will take it further... hmmm, even if this wasn't binding arbitration, is there a court of appeals for small claims? wedding decoration disaster. Plaintiff wants refund for balloon decoration at her wedding - says they leaked and before reception celebration was over they were all deflated. Defendant says she set up on time, everything was good when she left, and didn't receive a complaints until late several days after the event. Not much to find interesting with the this one - well, except bride and groom had been together for almost 30 years before the wedding. Of course MM has to ask - simple explanation, really, we're legally married at the courthouse all the his here years, but dreaming of a church wedding. Hey, more power to them, makes sense to have a small wedding, then when you know it'll last, have the big fancy wedding - heck, they could have kids and grandkids in the wedding - and everybody legitimate - no baby bump and premature baby 7 months later. Ok, really no question decorator flubbed. Plaintiff paid for something like 18 table centerpieces, and 5 of them were laying on the tables before folks finished eating. Ah, but is plaintiff out of line demanding a full refund - defendant already gave a partial refunded. Oh, and what's this with waiting days before complaining, and not even showing pictures of the deflated balloons (is it just me, but anyone else think decorator maybe should have waited around awhile and made sure bridal party was happy - I mean if they had maybe they could have had a portable helium tank to top off any sagging ballons). Soooo, plaintiff waited a week before complaining so defendant wasn't given a chance to fix the balloons, when she did complain admits she went overboard and was mean, and first time defendant is seeing how bad balloons look is in court since when plaintiff complained she just went off on defendant without showing her the pictures. Oh yeah, more than a little mean - well, MM says she was mean, all plaintiff admits is that she was irate. Anyway, when she finally makes her complaint, defendant says come to the store, I'll have a refund for you. Ah, when she arrives defendant has gone to a dentist appointment. Major kerfuffle, not the expected amount of refund, screaming and yelling, threatens store employee with calling INS to see if she's undocumented. And yet another person who thinks they get to be insulting and rude. Yeah, defendant was wrong - but she was offering a partial refund... poor employee had nothing to do with it, and even while admitting she may have gone overboard, plaintiff is still making excuses for how she treated employee. Sort of quick decision, MM orders a full refund. Not sure I agree. As I understand it, 13 of the 18 centerpieces were fine. Then, when MM asks if plaintiff regrets how she went off on employee, and plaintiff says no - I think bridezilla acted horribly - poor employee should have sued for pain and suffering. Edited February 12, 2018 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 12, 2018 Share February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: talk about BAD neighbors: (waste of time case that runs long) So name-calling is a crime? A hate crime? Cops better start visiting elementary schools. There's a lot of kids who should be arrested. This totally negates what my mother told me, that "sticks and stones" etc. but gotta keep up with the times. JM summed it up, "You are RIDICULOUS." All parties, looking for a lottery win, were, indeed utterly ridiculous. I have no idea what def. was rambling on about, with the news, and Motel 6(??) and all that other nonsense. I've had annoying neighbours in the past, but never did it occur to me to sue them for 10,000$, to "lunge" at them or challenge them to fight me. Missed opportunity for drama! I admit I thought plaintiff's daughter was her son. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: repair shop scam: huh, does plaintiff really think motorcycle shop sabotaged his bike so he'd crash and need additional repairs? I really wish JM would do what JJ does, and tell stupid, thick-headed ignorant litigants like this plaintiff to stop saying, "Yip. Yip. Yip" and start saying "Yes" like a normal human being. What an idiot. I"m sure the shop owners conspired in a diabolical plot to grease up the tires of their client so he'd have an accident and come back to them for repairs, assuming he wasn't killed in the accident they so evilly engineered. HIs witness was the perfect match fo rhim. Ohh, it's not over! I guess plaintiff plans to take his imaginary Conspiracy Theory case to the Supreme Court? I was thinking how awful it must be to be this dumb, but then realized he doesn't even know he's dumb. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: repair shop scam: Oh, wow. At first plaintiff seemed so in the right and reasonable but then revealed herself to be a nasty, vicious harridan. She doesn't feel badly at all for terrorizing some poor, minimum-wage employee of Esmerelda's. She likes taking out her outrage on innocent victims. What a vile witch, threatening someone with deportation and all over some limp balloons. Hubby had nothing to say. I bet he never has anything to say,. well, not if he knows what's good for him. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 12, 2018 Share February 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Talk about BAD neighbors: Initially I was ready to distrust the defendants because of the one who kept interjecting, but then as the testimonies progressed, I very quickly got from the plaintiff a vibe that she might very well have fanned the flames of the situation. And her posse seemed even tougher and more aggressive. It took JM a long time to finally dismiss both complaintes. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: repair shop scam: This may have been one of those days when JM wished she had a loony bin connected to her studio where she could directly send the craziest litigants, like this one with his outrageous conspiracy theory based on absolutely no evidence. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: wedding decoration disaster. What is it about mishaps at weddings that cause some people, especially brides, to turn into rabid harpies? Is it the social conditioning that leads them to expect a perfect fairy tale event similar to royal weddings? The plaintiff had absolutely no regret for her abusive language and behaviour towards the employee. I thought she was unreasonable in screechily asking for a full refund because 2/3 of the balloons did stay inflated, but JM inexplicably ruled in her favour. Defendant's explanation about temperature was dubious: it would have to be really really cold for helium to become heavier than air (and besides, most of the balloons did float). Edited February 12, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 12, 2018 Share February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: What is it about mishaps at weddings that cause some people, especially brides, to turn into rabid harpies? Is it the social conditioning that leads them to expect a perfect fairy tale event similar to royal weddings? I have no idea. I was once a bride. Not everything went as perfection would demand, but I never thought about suing the DJ because he didn't play a song I requested, or the photographer because he didn't get THE perfect angle on the cake. Maybe I should have ranted and cried that my WHOLE LIFE IS RUINED NOW and sued and could have had those lovely memories for my wedding album. 7 Link to comment
VartanFan February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 Wow - it was an ‘all crazy’ day at the People’s Court. I believe the Plaintiff’s daughter called the bad neighbor defendants “fa**ots”...that’s what I got out of it anyways. Both sets were crazy. Not-so-easy-rider....was...wow. I mean, not just saying the shop messed up but basically saying they were ok with hurting him or killing him for a few bucks? Finally, the HORRIBLE bride....I mean, viciously attacking the poor shop girl? And then not feeling bad about it? Never would my first question to a shop assistant be ‘you undocumented?’. God, these shows make me feel like such a normal person. 10 Link to comment
AKA...CJ86 February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 (edited) The motorcycle case... the Plaintiff's declaration to continue to pursue the matter in his hallterview... I'm taking it that that is code for burn the place down. I was somewhat sad for him because he's obviously a guy who talked himself and convinced himself of his crazy story, what was sadder he had his wife(?) cosigning the crazy story. The "you undocumented" thing with the bridezilla, I'm surprised MM didn't give the usual verbal smackdown as she would have usually done. Edited February 13, 2018 by CyberJawa1986 6 Link to comment
aemom February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 Holy moly, that landlord who cried that MM was anti-gay was a real piece of work. I'm glad it was a wash in the end, because she was horrible. I'm annoyed that they didn't give us all the details. Do the defendants have to sue her now to get damages for the stuff she wouldn't allow them to collect? Why wouldn't the cops come to enforce that particular court order? As for the mama and lawyer, I didn't watch the videos, because I didn't need to see that. I suspect that he overcharged her, and that she was a pain. I think that the settlement was fair. 2 Link to comment
Broderbits February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, CyberJawa1986 said: The "you undocumented" thing with the bridezilla, I'm surprised MM didn't give the usual verbal smackdown as she would have usually done. I think this was another example of MM showing sympathy for women having disappointments during one of those "sacred" milestones in the life of females: weddings, sweet sixteens, and prom. That horrible plaintiff had already been married for a long time and gets no sympathy from me because she wanted a fancy church wedding (although fancy wedding and balloon centerpieces are mutually exclusive in my mind). Can you really be considered a Bridezilla if you don't stuff yourself into a strapless gown that's 2 sizes too small? 5 Link to comment
teebax February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Broderbits said: I think this was another example of MM showing sympathy for women having disappointments during one of those "sacred" milestones in the life of females: weddings, sweet sixteens, and prom. That horrible plaintiff had already been married for a long time and gets no sympathy from me because she wanted a fancy church wedding (although fancy wedding and balloon centerpieces are mutually exclusive in my mind). Can you really be considered a Bridezilla if you don't stuff yourself into a strapless gown that's 2 sizes too small? MM does another thing that drives me nuts. If a couple has been together for a while without marriage, she'll ask the man why. It makes me stabby. Why does her default have to be all women want to get married and just need to convince a man to do it? It's condescending and obnoxious. We've seen female litigants say they're the ones not wanting marriage, but MM holds firm to her 1950s beliefs. I'm not surprised she gave that vile bride everything requested. The bride thought the employee deserved her scorn because the defendant wasn't there. What a piece of shit she is. You don't get to abuse the help just because they're there, you monster. One reason I get so many deals and perks is because I'm nice to people. I know it's a radical concept, but it really does work. I can't count how many times I've been upgraded without asking because a representative liked my smile or appreciated my patience when something went wrong. Edited February 13, 2018 by teebax 10 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 10 hours ago, teebax said: One reason I get so many deals and perks is because I'm nice to people. I know it's a radical concept, but it really does work Same here! There's a medical clinic I've been going to that has a sign at the front desk warning that people that abuse of the staff will not be tolerated. I sat there, amazed that people would hurl abuse at those who have no control over how long the doctors take to see patients, so much abuse they had to actually make signs about it! Does anyone think that screaming at the receptionists will get them in any faster? I'm so nice when I go there that when I was supposed to pay 10$ to have some files faxed and copied, the woman at the desk said, "Oh, it's okay. Forget it." I got a free oil change when there was a long delay getting my car serviced last year. I'm sure the man at the desk expected me to rant and yell when he said it would take longer than it should. I just smiled and said I wasn't in a hurry. Freebie! Woo hoo! 10 hours ago, teebax said: Why does her default have to be all women want to get married and just need to convince a man to do it? Well, to be fair, the kind of women we see on this show are so terminally desperate to hang on to any man and to get married they'll tolerate abusive, cheating, non-working drug addicts and ex-cons and will shower money on them. They'll even buy their own engagement rings! 9 Link to comment
teebax February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Well, to be fair, the kind of women we see on this show are so terminally desperate to hang on to any man and to get married they'll tolerate abusive, cheating, non-working drug addicts and ex-cons and will shower money on them. They'll even buy their own engagement rings! I get that; I just wish she wouldn't perpetuate the stereotype. I like it much better when she calls out women on their desperation. We see way too many women who have good jobs, are attractive, and seem to have their act together but still live their lives as loser magnets. I love when MM tells them they can do better, even if they don't believe it. 4 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, SRTouch said: talk about BAD neighbors I don't know what to think about either side of this mess. The defendants' tale of woe was sure long and sordid. I wonder if they (after the first incident) decided they liked being professional victims. Here is their take on the second incident with the attempted car jacking (after their first car was stolen with all of their worldly possessions - although they were supposedly working as ride share drivers at the time). Interesting.... https://www.change.org/p/jim-amorosia-motel-6-issue-a-public-apology-to-survivors-ricky-johnson-and-david-wells-on-fox-5-news Edited February 13, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 1 Link to comment
Katy M February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 32 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said: I don't know what to think about either side of this mess. The defendants' tale of woe was sure long and sordid. I wonder if they (after the first incident) decided they liked being professional victims. Here is their take on the second incident with the attempted car jacking (after their first car was stolen with all of their worldly possessions - although they were supposedly working as ride share drivers at the time). Interesting.... https://www.change.org/p/jim-amorosia-motel-6-issue-a-public-apology-to-survivors-ricky-johnson-and-david-wells-on-fox-5-news I just read that and I find parts of it confusing. 1. They said hotel reservations had been donated to them and that Motel 6 stole their reservations. What does that even mean? Did they mean that people had paid for hotel nights? Because donating reservations sounds like they just made reservations for you. And, how did the motel steal them? Did whoever pay for these (assuming someone did) get a receipt? Proof of payment? Or did they just hand over a wad of cash so there would be no paper trail? 2. Motel 6 stole $400 from their personal bank account. How? This should be easily fixable with the bank, if true. 3. Motel 6 refuses to pay for the stuff that was in their stolen car. Well, of course they did. When was the last time you drove your car onto a business property where there wasn't a sign that says something to the effect of "we are not responsible for lost, damaged, or stolen property." 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 (edited) rental kerfuffle: intro paints this one as an kerfuffle over an illegal apartment. Plaintiff says he was renting from defendant, paying the rent and everything just like he was supposed to, then she went looney and got the cops to put him out on the street, without his stuff. Defendant, landlady, says dude was a squatter - never signed a lease, just came to visit the tenant and never left. Plaintiff knows the game, so he's asking for the 5 grand max - silly defendant must not watch court tv, doesn't have a counterclaim. First impression while they stand there waiting for Douglas to swear them in - brash young dude dressed in bright suit thinking world owes him - mousy landlady acts unsure of herself, not sure what would motivate her to give a paying tenant the boot if she is the sort who would knowingly rent an illegal basement apartment - not saying she wouldn't skip getting a certificate of occupancy and rent her basement, just that I question her calling the cops to get him out if he was really a good tenant and paying rent on time every month. Testimony - ah, he wants back the security plus 8 months rent he paid for what Housing Authority eventually deemed was an illegal apartment - and of course stuff left behind when he was kicked out. Sorry dude, no such thing as a free lunch, you don't get back the rent you paid even if place was illegal. Deposit is different - off the top of my head I'd say he gets that unless he caused significant damage - not for a mess or scuffed floors, paint, etc - he doesn't need to return the place in rentable condition if Housing says it can't be rented. Oh, and maybe reason there is no countersuit is because defendant has learned she isn't able to collect on any back rent when she was never able to legally rent her basement. Ok, right off the bat he's lost me on the rent he paid, and also his claim for stuff he lost when he was booted. When Housing found the illegal apartment he was given 2-3 months notice he had to leave, and that he didn't have to pay any more rent til he moved... so he had plenty of time to move his stuff, and a couple months rent saved up when he moved. Ah.... never mind, he just said he knows he doesn't expect the rent refunded, he's actually just after the deposit - ok, most of what I just wrote is out the window, no longer after 5 grand boNANza, now just the deposit. Over to defendant to see why she thinks she should get to keep the deposit. Apparently, we're back to he's a squatter, doesn't know the dude, never agreed to rent to him, he never had a lease, never paid a deposit so no way should he get a deposit back. Ok, she has a point, can he prove he paid a deposit. Oh, and so much for first impression as a mousy little lady (figured that impression would fall apart after the preview clips)... all this double talk and careful word choice has me thinking she knew all along place was illegal. And what is with her nonsense story about renting to mysterious Mindy with no last name. Oops, total swing - after plaintiff trimmed his claim to something which I can agree with, and defendant careful and misleading answers (half of which I don't believe) I find myself willing to give plaintiff something - if he can show he paid the fricking deposit in the first place... can't help but think how much easier it would have been if he had insisted on a written lease and receipts - yeah, I know, he probably knew all along place was illegal - says rent was $650 - sounds dirt cheap from the little I know of NY City rental scene. Back to defendant's mysterious Mindy story... she just testified first time she met plaintiff was Sept 9th. Oh, couldn't have made it any easier - now all dude needs to discredit her is proof of communication prior to when she says they met... and he says he has LOTS of texts before that date - yep text exchanges going back to Aug when City first told him it was an illegal apartment. Defendant has to switch gears, now she says what she really said is that she never knew him as "Shaun Jackson" until Sept 9th... yep, guess that's what she said in her oh so careful testimony of half truths - not that she didn't know plaibtiff, but that she didn't know him as "Shaun Jackson".... could be true, after all, she doesn't know the name of the tenant she admits to. Yep, tide has definitely changed.... turns out dude even has a receipt (imagine that!) from first month rent and deposit... just a quick you note, when he says he has a receipt he says Mindy (so Mindy DOES exist) was there over a year before he moved in - didn't defendant testify she had been renting the basement less than a year. Oh dear, now dude is describing the car she drove the day she showed up to take his money and give him a key - oh, and that she works with a broker and the broker was there, too. Ok, any question I have is gone when defendant admits that she has a broker. She has a broker, but neither she nor the broker bother getting the tenant's names or a signed lease? Only way I see that happening is when she knows the apartment is illegal. Case is at the halfway point, essentially over, and MM will have lots of time to rake defendant over the coals. As if MM needs any more ammunition, now plaintiff breaks out videos of the "apartment"... whoa, $650 may be dirt cheap for a NY apartment - but seems too much for this place. Can't help but notice, whole time MM is slamming her and calling her a slum lord defendant isn't the least bit bothered. MM is so bothered by her attitude that she not only orders return of the deposit, but a month's rent as, I guess, punitive damages - so he gets $1300. First impression and intro definitely wrong in this one. child support case: not sure why this case would have been in small claims court - but have to chuckle at both litigants hair styles. If I have it right, plaintiff is suing because he figures too much money went to baby mama defendant in child support. Story is, two different states were withholding child support at the same time, so he wants defendant to return half the money. Says reason she won't is that she's jealous that he moved on and has new gf. Hmmm, as testimony begins I'm thinking karma bit the dude. He was ordered to pay child support, but didn't. She goes to court and gets an order to get support taken out of his paycheck. She moves out of State before money begins to arrive, so files again and Colorado issues an order to start taking money from his check. Finally, both orders go into effect, so for a couple months she gets double support. Now's where karma comes in. If dude had acted right and supported his daughter from the beginning that would be one thing. He didn't, so baby mama has to go to court to MAKE him support their child while she struggled to make ends meet. After she moved she knew he couldn't be trusted, so right away she asked the new jurisdiction to withhold support. Now he's having to struggle while the two bureaucracies get their acts together... eventually, they'll get it straight, but mama isn't going out of her way to help - don't blame her a bit, I think anybody who forces the other parent to struggle to support a child is despicable. Ok, sort of mean and spiteful if mama is refusing to return the double payment because he has a gf, OTOH, she knows he isn't above making her wait for court ordered support, so why return the double payment when the two bureaucracies will eventually get their acts in sync and withhold her payments til things are straight. Ah, but that's not her testimony. She says she received NO payments for two months - not only no double payments, but nothing.... ah, this is why this belongs in family court not small claims. Not saying MM doesn't know the law, but different states not only have different laws, but each bureaucracy has their own set of rules... already have Family Services in two states fighting over court ordered support - can't see where court TV judges (arbitrator) has any chance of making sense of the mess in 20 minutes (counting commercial breaks). Ah, but it's on ait, so MM is taking a stable at making it right. He has evidence in the former of his paychecks showing both NY and Colorado withheld money, but she says she never received the money. Hmmm could it be like disability where someone eventually gets a big check for backpay? Who knows? Like I said, I see this as a case which belongs in family court with people who specialize in this mess of conflicting rules, not here with MM reading letters from various agencies and asking the litigants what the letters mean. Finally, MM calls a recess and heads to chambers to try to figure out WTH. Ah ha, when she comes back after recess she lays into defendant because, guess what, despite claims to the contrary, she DID receive extra money. Didn'the she claim she received NO support - now we find she received double support. All this time she had been receiving 700 and change, but then it jumps up and she's getting 1200 and change... she just forgot that paperwork and the extra 500 buck slipped her mind. Still not convinced case belongs in small claims, but defendant played the fool with her defense of don't remember getting an extra 500. Ok, and what is with her hallterview - don't need his money, she makes her own money... uh, didn't we just hear she's on public assistance? parking lot smash up: plaintiff parked in store parking lot, and shopping cart full of stuff kamikazed into his parked truck. Says at the time he was told to get an estimate and store would pay, but now they refuse. Whoa, how big was this cart? Dude claims $2300 in damage. Not saying his claim is bloated or outrageous, but I'm used to seeing signs that a store isn't responsible for damage to your vehicle when you park in their lot. Sure, if he came back with a small estimate maybe the store would eat the damage - but $2300? Ah, defendant's intro paints plaintiff in an even worse light - claims dude actually parked near the loading dock where it was posted "no parking." And left it there for over an hour. Yes, his employee caused the damage, but plaintiff's vehicle would never had been damaged had it not been parked in a no parking zone. At best, I see shared liability. Not sure I buy store completely blameless... I mean if they had it towed that's one thing, but store manager admits an employee let a loaded cart damage the vehicle while they worked around the illegally parked vehicle for an hour before smashing it. Ah, not normal shopping cart bump... this was big cart used in loading/unloading and pictures show DAMAGE, not damage... we're talking smashed window, bent hatchback door - $2300 actually the low estimate, high was $2900. And, yeah, this defendant is a manager, but the general manager who works off site. When it happened, the store manager of this store told plaintiff to get an estimate and store would cover it... is the business bound by that manager - don't think so, and still see it as shared liability. Ah, as we go to commercial, defendant, smug ass who I hope is about to get slammed, is telling MM to just hold on, let me explain. Turns out plaintiff wasn't a customer illegally parked, he was hired to pick up furniture, went in to get someone too bring it to his vehicle, and left a sign in the windshield saying he was picking up furniture. Sooo, not a customer, but sub contractor hired to load, and deliver furniture, and he had the gall to park at the - gasp - loading dock. Yeah, took a while, almost an hour, for the store to get his load together, and when he came out he found his smashed van with a group of employees standing around. Again, tides shifted, now I'm thinking defendant ought to pay the whole bill. MM agrees, smug general manager loses... in fact, going with MM's analogy, sounds like she would have ruled for plaintiff even if it turned out he was illegally parked where I would have split liability. Edited February 13, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
NYGirl February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 (edited) Ok I officially hated every single defendant today. That bitchy slum lord made me want to punch her! She was so calm and collected during her testimony that it scared me! I felt sorry for the child support plaintiff and the defendant really thought she'd appear on TV and get away with taking that extra money ::ha ha:: (Judge Judy laugh). Did she say she live in Colorado with her wife's family? The third guy was just an idiot. No explanation..just an idiot who wasn't even there when the event occurred. Edited February 13, 2018 by NYGirl A sentence I just thought of..lol 7 Link to comment
SRTouch February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, NYGirl said: Ok I officially hated every single defendant today. Yes, and I admit every case started with me supporting the losing side.... first impressions were way off today. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 40 minutes ago, SRTouch said: rental kerfuffle: Seriously, could anything wipe the sickening, slimy smirk of the POS, lying slumlord's face? Being called "despicable" would have done it for me. It didn't even make a dent. Woman is a sociopath and every word out of her mouth was a lie. 42 minutes ago, SRTouch said: child support case: Oh another smarmy liar in the def. She didn't know nothing about nothing. I wonder if I can go on welfare to take a cross-country trip to "look at the scenery"? Not only is she a scamming liar, but after being caught in her lies she had the gall to roll her eyes at JM, who didn't take kindly to it. 53 minutes ago, SRTouch said: parking lot smash up: I didn't even care about the particulars of the case. I was fascinated with the wise-ass, smirking def, who looked like someone from a horror/comedy movie, like "Arachnaphobia" or some such. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 13, 2018 Share February 13, 2018 (edited) Was there any defendant in today's cases who showed a gram of redeeming value? For me it's a toss-up between the I-don't-know-nuttin' slumlady and the I-didn't-get-dat-money mother as to which one is the most despicable. Plaintiffs presented their cases well and were well organised, defeating the usual stereotypes of deadbeat tenants and fathers (even though the latter paid support under a court order). I pity the child in the second case for having to live with that dishonest mother, who probably used the extra money to pay for that ugly hairdo she must think looks soooo sophisticated. Yes, and I admit every case started with me supporting the losing side.... first impressions were way off today. That's exactly how I reacted to the three cases. Edited February 13, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
aemom February 14, 2018 Share February 14, 2018 (edited) The INS case / Car sale / Cell phone Well, the INS case wasn't boring. She was trying to scam the government by bringing those kids in, but he was one of those crooked lawyers taking advantage of desperate people. I was okay with MM forcing him to return her money. He deserved nothing, and she's back at square one. Doug deapan after the hallterview: "That is one happy lady." I bemoaned yet another case of "I bought an old car, it broke, and I want my money back because I'm special and laws don't apply to me." The plaintiff was so delusional that he could force the defendant to pay for a car rental. This was the opposite of minimize your damages. I was surprised that the defendant was legally on the hook for the smog testing and the related problem, but he was ok with that and I'm glad that's all the nutcase plaintiff got. The cellphone case was a naive man who bought a phone from the defendant who was stealing from Peter to pay Paul to get her bills paid. Well she can try reselling the phone to another unsuspecting fool now. Doug always asks the right questions. Me: Is that a skull? Doug: Is that a skull? Doug is the MVP of today's episode. Edited February 15, 2018 by AEMom Terminology change 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 14, 2018 Share February 14, 2018 16 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Plaintiffs presented their cases well and were well organised, defeating the usual stereotypes of deadbeat tenants and fathers (even though the latter paid support under a court order). I know! Here I was automatically thinking "Deadbeat Tenant" and "Deadbeat Baby Daddy" and ready to sympathize with both defs, but my world was knocked askew by defs who began by seeming so nice and sweet and revealed themselves under JM's questioning to be simply vile liars. So nice we can still be surprised. by little twists here and there. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 14, 2018 Share February 14, 2018 friendly storage: my thoughts as this one starts is that these two have to be making this up. Lisa (p), says she asked her good friend Nancy (d) if she could stash a few of her very expensive and sentimental treasures away in Nancy's basement. Nancy says sure, no worries - she thinks it's a temporary thing. Well, Lisa claims after a few months Nancy trashed her stuff - she claims it was 10 boxes. Nancy says it was supposed to be 4-5 boxes - which turned into 20 boxes - it was supposed to be short term, and after trying to get Lisa over to go through and/or move her crap, she felt it was abandoned and tossed it. Like I said, appears to me case was concocted so they could be on tv - they are just SO happy to be here. Lisa wants 5 grand for the 5 - 10 - or maybe it wss 20 boxes. Nancy wants to unilaterally establish a retroactive storage and packing agreement - oh, and also wants money because Lisa told all their fields she tossed the crap - also wants 5 grand. Lisa has a carefully prepared opening statement - "basically a story about friendship and betrayal".... would have been better if she didn't appear to be reading it - besides, I seldom find these creative writing openings help a case, usually they go to far and end up introducing unsubstantiated nonsense that ends up hurting their own case. Ah well, MM cuts them off before too long by asking her pesky questions. We learn Lisa was moving, and Nancy agreed to help - she was supposed to be paid after the move once Lisa was established in the new place. Problem is Lisa was downsizing, so couldn't fit everything in the new place. Oh, and forget the 5 or 10 boxes - she just said 18-22. Lisa is someone who figures those around her should automatically help her... she couldn't fit her treasure in the new place, says they went to Nancy's basement temporarily, and we're eventually going to end up at Lisa's brother's house - hey, Lisa, there are places that let you store crap (course you have to PAY for storage units). You pay for a few months, then either find a way to fit it into your new place, pay enough in storage fees that you could give all new crap, or leave it in storage til your unit appears on storage wars. Over to Nancy, who says she expected the stuff to be cluttering her basement for, at most, a month. Says has a string of texts/emails where she asks how much longer and keeps getting excuses... ok, Nancy, same thing - give Lisa a deadline, say be here by this day or everything is going in a storage unit - then pay minimum period for a unit and give her the key. Course neither think of that. Also some nonsense from Lisa about how she thought she could trust Nancy to store her treasure, then in the next breath she's saying should have never trusted the flighty Nancy. Somewhere along here Lisa finds out Nancy sells some hair/skin care products, and decides to buy in (not really sure what that's about - I'm more Irish Spring/Head and Shoulders) Anyway, the junk in the basement affects their friendship, and eventually creeps into their business arrangement. Their business arrangement was apparently already strained - but the boxes added to Nancy calling it quits. Soooo they're fighting over business, and Lisa announces she's coming after the boxes, Nancy says great, when will you be here? Ah, again Lisa hesitates, says she'll come "after the holidays." Come January Lisa still not coming to get her stuff. Sooo, stuff went to temporary storage in Nancy's basement, stayed there 8-10 months.... hmmm, didn't Lisa say in her opening that she was going to pay Nancy to help her move - wonder if she ever did? Anyway, January 23rd Nancy emails Lisa with an ultimatum - come get your stuff! Or it's abandoned and I'll dump it. Ah, but Nancy still doesn't dump it, instead she hauls it to her (Nancy's) mom's house (really, isn't she a little old for that, and why stick mommy with the junk because you don'the want to deal with it.) More months go by, over a year, Lisa STILL hasn't picked up her precious treasure, and now mommy doesn't want it cluttering HER house (anyone have any ideas why Lisa's brother, who at one point was supposed to store this crap, ran out of room and couldn'the take it? What do you call a hoarder who keeps their crap at friends' and relatives' houses?). Hmmm, maybe case is not a put on, as Lisa looks upset when MM calls her out for raking advantage of Nancy. Eventually, Nancy sends an email and says be here between these hours on either of these three days - Lisa is a no-show - Nancy contacts her church and donates anything the church will take. Ok, Lisa has no case... neither does Nancy, she can't unilaterally make up a storage agreement and charge... ah, but she also has a defamation claim over some FB posts - nope.... nobody gets anything... and I'm back to thinking fake case when everybody comes out happy. electrician wants to be paid: (ah, the bright lipstick blond and dude with funny hair that I noticed in audience a few days ago are back) seems a car rammed into defendant's building and power company shut off power and gas. Defendant hired plaintiff to get things turned back on. Plaintiff says he did the job and deserves $760 (200 for the job, rest in legal fees). Defendant says he only has power to 3rd floor, job not completed and he's not paying until it is. Plaintiff, who is rocking a red fez, says he was just hired to check power panel before power company turned back on the juice, not to check all the wiring in the 3 story building - makes sense, especially if all he was getting paid was a couple hundred bucks - and makes perfect sense why power company doesn't want power to 1st two floors when someone drove a car through a wall on the first floor. Soooo, electrician dude did his job, but city building inspector won'the allow the juice to flow to whole building until big gaping whole is repaired - not electrician's job. Ok, plaintiff sounds reasonable, but when MM asks defendant if it's true defendant says, no entirely false. Ok, simple, easy peasy, let's see contract/work order of what electrician was to do, and that inspection where city inspector declared building structurally unsound. Couple points now that defendant is talking. First, he says he has certificate from city granting approval for power to first floor. Second, he says he made multiple payments to plaintiff, but plaintiff wants more to turn the power on. Uh oh, plaintiff is starting does the slope. Defendant has canceled checks made out to plaintiff's company, and plaintiff denies receiving one of the checks.... reinforces defendant's claim that he paid and plaintiff held out for more money over and above the contract. Ok, MM sends everybody out to get their bank statements so she can see if all the checks were written and deposited into plaintiff's account. Ah, defendant is old school - he doesn't do on line vanking, so MM is going to give them a week to get the bank statements. Both sides come out convinced they'll be able to prove their case with the statements. Oh, and plaintiff gives Doug a short history lesson about his fez and being a Moor. Ok... have to wait for Harvey to tell us plaintiff did NOT deposit the check, so he ends up getting his final payment of 2 hundred bucks. motorcycle stunt ? Plaintiff claims defendant was hotdogging on plaintiff's bike, popped a wheelie and hit a car - totalling the bike. Instead of paying plaintiff bsck, defendant went out and bought his own bike to forget his Evel Knievel impersonations on. Defendant claims he was just moving the bike cuz plaintiff was in the pool drunk - says plaintiff didn't tell him bike had bad brakes, and he ended up wrecked with a bad broken leg - 3 surgeries so far, still not right. Both sides suing for three grand - wonder if that's the max where they come from? Ok, defendant WAS doing plaintiff a favor by moving the bike. OTOH his testimony doesn't make sense. If all he was doing was moving the bike so it wasn't blocking mom from leaving, how did he build enough momentum to total the bike and end up in the hospital. How is it anyone else's fault? In his testimony he forgets to mention the "bad brakes" . Ah, but as we go to comnercial we get a preview where he says he took responsibilty, paid to get it fixed, and plaintiff still wants him to buy him a new bike. Huh? Now it turns out defendant was GOING to pay to fix it, but it was impounded and plaintiff never went to spring it from impound. So, was it totaled or not. And why was it impounded if the owner was on the scene and presumably ready and willing to secure the bike? Must be more to the story, but short case and time's almost up. Forget defendant saying bike was repairable and he was willing to foot the bill. He needs to foot the bill, but what is it? Plaintiff can't tell us because he never claimed the bike.... well unless he has something, maybe an insurance adjuster report, saying bike is toast. Ok, defendant's accident story was making no sense, but WTH was/is plaintiff thinking. Right after the wreck, defendant says (and plaintiff agrees) he had $250 to give to plaintiff to get the bike out of impound. Instead, bike is still impounded and wracking up $25 a day, and it's been impounded over a year - up over 4 grand now. His explanation for not going to get the $250 or getting bike out of impound - no transportation! Dude must not know anybody with a pu or a trailer hitch. Just go to uhaul and rent a truck for a day - cost less than a couple days of impound. Heck, around here you can just sign over the total to the junk yard and not even have to pay the tow or impound fees. Question is, does not having the sense to get the bike out of impound mean plaintiff should be paid. If it was just the impound, I'd say no. Ah, but there's also damage to the bike (maybe totaled, maybe not.) Going to take rough justice... and defendant did not help himself by blaming the brakes in his answer to the complaint - but not once mentioning a brake problem in over a year of texts (or his testimony today until MM brought up his signed statement). Verdict is 3 grand to plaintiff. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 14, 2018 Share February 14, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: friendly storage: my thoughts as this one starts is that these two have to be making this up. I find it both amusing and annoying when litigants start with some BS speech they've rehearsed: "This is, basically, a story of friendship and betrayal." What is this, "Wuthering Heights"?? What a nasty, beastly, big-mouthed horrible hag. "I wasn't surprised when def. screwed me over, but I'm such an innocent, sweet, trusting person I couldn't believe she would do this." Personally if I left a bunch of precious items at someone's house and used that person as free storage for as long as I felt like it, I might decide to get off my girthy butt and go get this irreplaceable stack of... whatever she dumped there for nearly a year, when told repeatedly to come get it. I guess those precious memories weren't so precious after all. Def. should have tossed out all that crap ages ago. Then it gets serious, with FB fights and stuff. I didn't see the other two cases since there was yet another high school shooting, one of many, it seems. 6 Link to comment
momtoall February 15, 2018 Share February 15, 2018 I haven't been able to watch TPC all week because the sound track has been off every episode. The video plays but the mouth doesn't match the sound. It's about 3 to 5 seconds off and I find this very annoying. Anyone else having this problem? 2 Link to comment
DoctorK February 15, 2018 Share February 15, 2018 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Personally if I left a bunch of precious items at someone's house and used that person as free storage for as long as I felt like it, I might decide to get off my girthy butt and go get this irreplaceable stack of... whatever she dumped there for nearly a year Tell us how you really feel, don't be nice! Totally agree with you and the judge, if you have irreplaceable memorabilia (footprints, fingerprints, etc.) you don't leave them someplace at risk. It is not like they take up a bunch of space. 6 Link to comment
teebax February 15, 2018 Share February 15, 2018 1 hour ago, momtoall said: I haven't been able to watch TPC all week because the sound track has been off every episode. The video plays but the mouth doesn't match the sound. It's about 3 to 5 seconds off and I find this very annoying. Anyone else having this problem? No problems here, but I use an OTA antenna. Maybe check with your cable company if you have cable. Link to comment
DoctorK February 15, 2018 Share February 15, 2018 Lots of fun today busting blatant liars getting caught red handed. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch February 15, 2018 Share February 15, 2018 (edited) beautiful day in Oklahoma today - spring must be on the way. Even a chance of much needed rain in forecast - so I did my part and watered my winter flowers... only thing better to encourage rain would be to detail the veeHICkle... anyway, just now sitting now to watch. froggy feud: these two litigants are feuding over frogs - not your everyday swamp frogs, no these yayhoos are into poison dart frogs. My first thought is why!? Quick google and http://www.joshsfrogs.com/catalog/blog/2011/11/so-you-think-you-want-dart-frogs/ maybe not so crazy - but the article does say it can get expensive - and we'really talking 20 frogs, 5 tanks, food, etc. (Article says frogs run 30-70 bucks apiece, and each tank can run into the hundreds.) Apparently, plaintiff had some frogs, was moving, and needed to find them a home. Says he sold them to defendant. Problem is, he let defendant have the frogs before getting paid, now deadbeat won't pay the agreed price - he's suing for $800. Defendant says plaintiff offered to sell him the frogs, then when he said he didn't have the cash, plaintiff ended up giving them to him. But, after giving him the frogs, plaintiff started harrassing him, even calling and threatening to come to guy's job - he has countersuit for 5 grand worth of harrassment. Seems simple, if they didn't have a meeting of the minds, why didn't defendant just give them back the first time plaintiff called asking to be paid. These two weren't exactly friends, plaintiff sells tanks, aquariums, and frogs as a side business, and says defendant had been a good customer, having purchased 10-15 frogs in the past. Have to wonder what dude was doing, as the above article says these little guys can live 10 or more years. Certainly sounds like he may have made kid a great deal, but isn't sounding like something he would just give defendant. Oh, and when MM starts questioning defendant it doesn't take long for guy to blow his own defense. MM, did you ever say you would pay him? Defendant deadbeat utters not that I recall. Dude, that might be okay in a criminal case - not great, but not terrible - but here where so much is based on credibility that's like the kiss of death. How does broke ass kid NOT recall whether or not he agreed to pay $800 bucks? When MM presses him, he realizes that they did a lot of texting, and just maybe plaintiff has the texts... he switches from no never said I'd pay, to don't recall, to no, too much money, to don't remember. When asked, turns out he doesn't have the texts, but from the questions I'm thinking she has read them already - sure'nuf, plaintiff offers up printed copies as well as his phone. Ok, certainly seems like he agreed to pay. Ah, but the preview clips sounds like plaintiff may have gone overboard when he was trying to collect, so there may be some offset. Dude, not cool to say you're going to his job with "mad heads" and going to get him fired by making a big scene! Oh, and plaintiff's uncle works at same place as kid, and he says the uncle got involved by asking when he was going to pay while they were at work. Ah, but the calls weren't plaintiff. Seems defendant went to complain to cops, and calls actually made by a friend of plaintiff on his behalf. Ok, not cool to get a friend to call, but really no way to make that into a $5000 harrassment lawsuit when defendant admits it isn't plaintiff making the calls. Ah, the texts.... defendant talks about what a great deal it is, doesn't have the money, they negotiate a payment plan, and he's so happy he can pay it off a hundred a month. Ah, now we get the liar getting busted that @DoctorK talked about, with MM landing on him with both feet about lieing under oath. Oh, when confronted he remembers, caves, admits his pants are on fire, and gets the lecture - still trying desperately to think of any excuse not to pay - kid may start crying any second. Ok, MM is so mad at dude she doesn't have anything more to say about the aggressive bill collecting tactics. Actually felt a little sorry for the liar when he got outside, sure didn't have much to same to Doug - maybe the 20yo kid learned something... probably not with the lame excuses he tried after being caught out by the texts. (I usually fast forward through Harvey, but happened to catch some young kid offering up the opinion that "frogs are really bad! They murder people!" Huh? Says Harv. "Yeah, frogs have murdered several people in the past few months!" Hey, anybody remember that old horror flick Frogs?) boat sale commission rip off: plaintiff is a yacht broker, says he had a signed agreement with defendant to get a 10% commission when the boat sold. Says shortly after defendant canceled their deal, defendant sold the yacht. He wants a the commission, and is suing for 5 grand. Must be quite the boat, as he says the 5 grand doesn't cover what he would have made in commission. Defendant says he put boat on CL and was contacted by plaintiff who said he could sell the thing quickly. Months go by with no movement on selling the boat, he cancels the deal, and ended up finding a buyer without any input from plaintiff. Also, claims he never signed a contract so if plaintiff has a signed contract it must be bogus. Ok, plaintiff says what he does is market boats by posting pictures, description, etc on various on line sites - including his own LLC site. Says he and defendant negotiated and settled on the asking price, and he emailed a copy of the contract to defendant, and in return received an electronically sign contract. Ok, dude is in right court - JJ probably views e-signatures right up there with working from home scams. Anyway, plaintiff sent out his salesguy to snap shots and video, and ads were posted on the web. After a couple months, and a couple potential buyers coming to look at the boat, a third potential buyer expresses interest - but defendant won't return calls/emails/texts to set up a time for a viewing. Says his lawyer got involved, they asked WTH, boat will never sell if we can't show it. Defendant replies we never had an agreement, I never signed anything, prove that e-signature thingy. Over to defendant while Douglas collects various evidence from plaintiff (Oh, and plaintiff says he didn't learn defendant had sold the boat until after he filed suit.) Ah, this doesn't look good. MM asks what's going on and defendant mumbles while looking down, then keeps looking away while he tells his story.... sort of the personification of shifty. Second defendant in a row who would be terrible failure convincing anyone of pretty much anything... this one compounds that by interrupting MM as she asks questions. Never had an signed agreement! Well, yeah we had a verbal agreement. Yeah I agreed to pay him 10% commission. Hoboy, now he starts arguing about clauses in the contract - that he supposedly never saw. Hmmmm, OTOH, he's not really saying he never saw the contract, just that he didn't agree with giving plaintiff a year to sell the thing - he wanted it sold fast. Oops, doesn't matter, now he's contradicting his signed statement (remember, don't need a good memory to tell the truth!) Oops, indeed, now he tries to deny signing the answering statement, and MM sends Douglas over and says, remember this, you signed it today? Quick glance at plaintiff - my, doesn't he look happy with defendant's testimony thus far. What it seems happened, is that defendant was in a hurry to unload the boat and ended up using it as a trade-in on a new boat. Hoboy, dude just isn't making much sense. Never received the contract - plaintiff claimed it signed on the 3rd, but then sent me a contract on the fourth - obviously it wasn't signed on the 3rd... uh no, as plaintiff already testified, after he received defendant's e-signed contract, plaintiff signed in HIS spot and returned contract with both party's e-signatures. Ok, defendant has no defense - not sure if he's lieing or really doesn't understand. Ah, but plaintiff may win, but not the 5 grand. Original asking price was $51000 - if it had sold for that than, yeah, I agree his damage exceeds the 5 grand max. But his agreement is for 10% of the sale price - so what value was placed on the boat when defendant traded it in? We heard that original asking was 51000, but that was reduced to $44000 - what did he actually get? Ok, trade-in value matching best offer plaintiff received while trying to sale the boat - $35,000. So, $3500 should be the damages. Oh, and now MM takes the time to call defendant on the "I never signed" the e-contract - which has now switched to "I don't recall..." dog attack: defendant's pit hopped the fence into plaintiff's yard and attacked their doxy/pincher mix. Won't be much of a case, as defense seems to be "I don't owe because plaintiff's over reacted taking their injured pooch to the ER... May watch later, but skipped for now... no recap for #3 as I have to get out to Post for pills - pharmacy taking a 4 day weekend, so have to get the BP meds Edited February 16, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 15, 2018 Share February 15, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: froggy feud: these two litigants are feuding over frogs JM informed dweeby, pansy-assed little def he might want to get checked by a neurologist since he seems to have lost his memory. Silly little liar has zero memory of promising to pay plaintiff and that whole long text exchange is news to him. I thought he was going to cry when JM was reaming him out (a spanking he heartily deserved) but I guess he saved it for when he went home to his Mommy and cried that the judge was mean to him! None of this is his fault! Oh boo hoo! 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: boat sale commission rip off: Def. is another scammer who also seems to have serious memory problems. Another litigant - the kind I love - who insists that their own signed statement is a lie. Even after he saw what he signed in black and white, he merely conceded that "maybe" he did say that but it's not what he meant. Def is just another blustering weaselly crook, trying to duck what he owes. Okay, I know Judge Judy takes heat on these forums for not knowing what an "E-signature" is, but I must confess that I don't know what it is either. Good thing JM does know. 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: no recap for #3 as I have to get out to post for pills Did you use Western Union? 3 - as soon as I heard the word "doowg" I clicked off. Edited February 15, 2018 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
teebax February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 It's been a parade of liars this week, and not even good ones. At least practice your lie at home before going on national television! 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, teebax said: It's been a parade of liars this week, and not even good ones. At least practice your lie at home before going on national television! They seem to think if they stand there, denying over and over like a three-year old denying he wrote on the wall ("Did not!") as he stands there with a crayon in his hand it will be accepted as gospel. The reason scammers, liars and criminals usually get caught is most of them are not very bright. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 (edited) uh, not sure WTH to call this one: 'nother plaintiff who can't find his lectern, but this guy may have an excuse as he's wearing sunglasses and carrying a white cane. His hefty witness comes in wearing a shirt modeled after Evel Knievel's costumes. Maybe just my military background, and being NCOIC of a couple of my units' Color Guards, but it irks me when I see the Nation's Colors chopped up to make clothing. Course the official Code for the Flag https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8 is never enforced and regularly violated. Anyway, I got a chuckle when we catch Douglas, coffee cup in hand, stepping just into view to wave the two to the proper lectern. Next up, a litigant who may actually need to open both doors to get into the courtroom - defendant is FAT! - not fat, Fat, or even FAT - this open mouth breather may even deserve extra !!! points. Anyway, case is about plaintiff and defendant's daughter. Defendants want their sweet young 16 yo daughter nowhere near 23yo plaintiff, and resorted to the courts to keep them apart. Plaintiff says this resulted in his having to incur $343.20 in expenses fighting the frivolous false restraining order because of their fictitious claims. Not to be outdone, defendants have a $564.54 countersuit for money wasted looking for their daughter (guessing she ran off with 23yo and they filed a restraining order to keep them apart)... ok, spent so much time writing about the intro cuz I skipped this. geez, if I wanted to watch this type of nonsense, I'd watch Springer for sensation and/or Dr Phil for possible solutions. Worse, when I skip ahead, half the show is taken up with this freak show - didn't even stop for judgement or hallterviews, but note that defendants come out last to talk to Doug... (to be fair, sometimes, maybe even often, my first impressions are off, this may be a fun case to watch - just not for me!) dental imposter: elderly plaintiff says he went to defendant to get new choppers thinking the guy was a dentist - turns out defendant is ONLY a technician, who makes lousy, ill fitting bridges/dentures. Suing for 5 grand. Defendant is also elderly guy, says he's been in business 46 years - maybe time to retire. Says when plaintiff came in he warned him that what he was asking for was not the best solution for problem, but plaintiff insisted as it was the cheap route. Defendant says this is just a get rich scheme, he charged schemer $500 and now is being sued for $5,000! Hmmm, must be one of those days when I didn't get enough sleep and coffee isn't doing it. Old geezer, barely understandable because of accent, blows case as stated in intro with opening statement. Course intro is wrong, this time big deal was made of "only a technician" which is totally at odds with opening. Geez, the story of how he found the old geezer dental technician... seems he was at the diner having coffee, talking about losing a tooth and now bridge doesn't fit, and waitress says, hey we have a couple regulars who work in a dental lab, why not give that place a try. Again, maybe my patience is lacking today, but I skip ahead when I hear old dental tech stumble/hesitate when MM asks if he's allowed to see patients off the street without a referral from a dentist. As I'm fast forwarding I see Douglas collect plaintiff's partial to show the judge - wearing gloves. Quite the visual to see all these blue gloves in fast forward, LOL. Turns out this is another half hour case... oh, and another cheap is expensive case. Old geezer plaintiff went to old geezer defendant thinking he'd save a buck - got a partial he couldn't use - goes to dentist like he should have in the first place - dentist solved his problem for less than technician charged. Hmmmm tech must have goofed, he's ordered to refund his fee and MM tacks on some extra because of plaintiff's pain and suffering caused by ill fitting partial, rounding off the award to an even $1,000. Edited February 16, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
patty1h February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 (edited) I hated the blind bat plaintiff and his 44 year-old creepy buddy -- two grown men who have too much interest in a minor child. I would hope that the authorities take a peek at their PC's as I think these guys may have some... propensities. And he was the oldest looking 21-year old I've seen in a long time. I'm not sure about the dad - who knows if he's full of rage (he's full, all right). One thing about the dad did skeeve me - one of his arms was covered in scabs. Ewww. I need a shower after that case. Edited February 16, 2018 by patty1h 5 Link to comment
califred February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 @momtoall my sounds is rarely synced up on my tv. I live in Hawaii and just assumed it’s an issue bc I’m here. I have to hit pause and play to fix it. It happens on all my shows though not just this one. Link to comment
NYGirl February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 I just have to say that dental case was just so painful.. ( ha ha ) It really was though. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16, 2018 Share February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, patty1h said: I hated the blind bat plaintiff and his 44 year-old creepy buddy What a horrific freak show. First of all I want to know what kind of "Big Brother" program pairs up grown men with young teenaged girls? Can't see any problem with that, right? I understand why Rizzo (Ratso) might have a hard time finding women who want to help him get his "freak on" and use up his store of condoms (ewwww!) but a 16-year old girl shouldn't be on his hit list. His uber-creepy witness, who at 44 has an unhealthy interest in this girl, obviously chose his outfit with care. It might have appropriate for a an Elvis impersonation in Vegas. Ratso threatens defs as though he's a Mafia don? What, was he going to sic the dollar-store Elvis on them? Is he "connected"? I can only imagine what JM had to say about this gang after she left the bench. All I can say to Dad is if he wants to be around to care for his daughter, he better do something about the morbid obesity or he'll be conking out in no time since he seemed to be in distress just breathing. I couldn't stop looking at his massive moobs. I didn't want to , but they were so out there I couldn't help it. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: dental imposter: I was with the def. until plaintiff said def. filed down his teeth. If def. actually ground down plaintiff's teeth, that is definitely something a denturologist is not permitted to do. They may not touch natural teeth. That's for a dentist to do, but seems plaintiff didn't want to pay a dentist, so... I did enjoy the way Douglas and JM donned the "Blue Gloves of Disgust" to handle the partial. We know how much JM enjoys these things. "Thank you." 5 Link to comment
Megan February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 (edited) I am super curious about the living 1980's Nagel Painting that has been in the audience all the time lately. The runaway 16 year might have a crappy home life, but the plaintiff was a super creepy stalker. And I don't think he was blind. All of them were so inarticulate. Edited February 17, 2018 by Megan 5 Link to comment
DoctorK February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Megan said: the plaintiff was a super creepy stalker. And I don't think he was blind. All of them were so inarticulate. Yeah, the plaintiff with his Evel Knievel witness creeped me out more than anyone else I have seen. They were both way too involved in the life of a sixteen year old girl. As to his blindness, he said he was totally blind in one eye and couldn't see well out of the other. Sounds fishy to me, I have had friends who were blind in one eye and who wore eye patches (some things are unsightly and eye patches can be cool) but the "can't see well" sounds like someone who is playing the game; I am about 20-200 in my left eye which without glasses is really bad, but this guy who looks like he is playing the system and seemed to be able to see Doug's hand to shake it. I would love to know if he uses his white cane when he is not in public. I hate to be so cynical but in this environment we have seen so much hustling and dishonesty that it is hard not to be. Too much creepiness and dubiousness in this one for me. Edited February 17, 2018 by DoctorK 7 Link to comment
patty1h February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 There is a level of dysfunction between those two guys that is crazy. Mr. Magoo is way into the 16 year old and his creeper buddy has got his own game going. Why do I think that the buddy so involved in "helping" the girl because he was hoping that he could insinuate himself between the couple and eventually woo the girl away for himself. This is one twisted case of folie a deux -- these two winners perving on one girl at the same time. You'd think that Magoo would tell his buddy to take it down a notch re his involvement in the child's life. Hey, web sleuths who know how to do those background checks searches, are these guys in the system? If I remembered their names and knew how to work the internet, I'd look them up. 5 Link to comment
Guest February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 I agree with all of the above. I apologize for lack of originality but it's been a rough week. I did chuckle a wee bit over the plaintiff's glasses. Honest to pete I thought of Psycho and the cop that pulled Miriam over when she was sleeping on the highway. And plaintiffs witness...with the "chopped up" flag shirt (thanks SRTouch). Don't you just know that he spent a few hours fretting over what he was going to wear on the teevee set! He had to be prepared - you never know when another 16 year old with family problems will be right around the corner. It is was it is. Link to comment
Schnickelfritz February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, patty1h said: Hey, web sleuths who know how to do those background checks searches, are these guys in the system? If I remembered their names and knew how to work the internet, I'd look them up. Mr Magoo's name is Anthony Geno Martinson and here are some of the records available out there. This is the story of his 2016 arrest. It is the second case - listed under Arrest at Howard Johnson. The young lady arrested with him is also a student of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (but his age). Reading this I am shocked that the mother couldn't get a restraining order against him. http://www.staugustine.com/news-local-news/2016-11-13/law-enforcement-roundup Mugshot https://arrestfacts.com/Anthony-Martinson-1Y7x22 Arrest on 08/09/17 https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Anthony_Martinson_34046058/ Anthony's patriotic friend was only identified as "Greg". Darn Edited February 17, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 17, 2018 Share February 17, 2018 Nice work, Schnickelfritz. Quote Martinson had told the manager, “If the police come here they are going to get hurt.” Like, for realz? He attempted to pull a Samurai sword (which apparently he could see well enough) on a cop, threatens them with bodily harm and that girl's mother couldn't get a restraining against him - not that restraining orders are worth the paper they're written on. What does someone have to do in Florida to be considered a danger - chop off someone's head? 7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.