Jump to content

SRTouch

Member
  • Content count

    1,946
  • Joined

Community Likes

6,757 Excellent

About SRTouch

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SW Oklahoma

Recent Profile Visitors

2,083 profile views
  1. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Way she was carrying on about how her evidence said what it clearly DID NOT say, I wonder if she is illerate. Hey, that's the scam I ran into back when I was thinking about renting a room out. Put an ad online (yes, on CL) and found potential tenant who said she was go8ng to attend our local university. I wrote about this at the time - so will just say I received check for WAY more than deposit/1 month rent by mail shortly after sending email with rental agreement and house rules. Whoa, WTH, why the check before we even have a signed agreement? Looked out the check and it's drawn on an account from some YMCA in Maryland. Instead of depositing/cashing check took it to my bank - they called and account didn't exist.... told to report it to FBI, I did, but never heard back except a message saying hold on to the check and all emails - still have them - never heard anything else - took down the ad and went back to delivering pizza for extra money instead of becoming a CL landlord case on court tv.
  2. Small Talk: General Gavelery

    Thread in episode/case forum getting me thinking about one of my pet pet peeves. All too often litigants - and just people in general - have problems with their dogs because they chose the dog based on appearance rather than WTH the dog was bred to do. Personally, I'm not a big fan purebred dog organizations (such as the AKC) - often the emphasis on appearance is contrary to what is best for the health of the breed. Don't be surprised if your terrier, born to hunt and kill vermin, has a strong prey drive. A hunter will hunt, runner will run, etc. Sure, dogs can overcome their breeding, but don't be surprised when they revert to doing what they were bred to do - especially if you're not spending quality time with the dog and training/socializing it - foreign concepts to 90% of our litigants. Dalmatians were bred as coach dogs, meant to run mile after mile all day long... along came 101 Dalmatians and thousands of dogs were adopted into a lifestyle they were not meant to live. A working dog bred to problem solve, act on its own, and be active will go looney toons sitting in an apartment all day waiting for someone to come home - especially when his human finally comes home, takes it for potty break, then plops in front of TV or goes out for the night - expect problems if you get a sled dog and only have an hour a day to spend with it... actually, a husky would probably be happiest helping you train for a marathon in a freezer. One of saddest dogs I ever ran across was a husky here in SW Oklahoma that was kept in a smallish back yard. An extreme example of breeding taken too far is the bulldog. Originally bred as a fighter, but still around because - well, they're goofy looking and fun, even though not too smart. The original breeders wanted a stubborn and fearless dog that would continue to fight when hurt, they also bred it to be loyal and friendly to humans. Now, original purpose has long been outlawed, but it's cute, loyal, and good with people (and too stupid to realize how bad humans were treating it) so it's still around.... ah, but humans have messed so much with the genetics that not only does the breed have a short lifespan and a host of genetics problems, 70-80% require c-section to be born. Ah, while I grew up a dog guy, today as a cat daddy I have to admit we have some cat owners out there more concerned with appearance than what is healthy for the cat. Actually, I think cat breeder snobs just haven't been around creating breeds as long as the dog purebred folks.... not only are they out there, but they don't even have the excuse that their breeding for useful traits - it's almost all about looks when you look at designer cats.
  3. My Spotty wasn't feral - just abandoned like the mama cat in your story. Supposedly, when she stopped being a cute kitten and went into heat the first time owner's gf put/let her outside and she never went home. She showed up on my patio starved with her kittens. Anyway, at the time I took her in (ears full of mites, abcess on shoulder, and down to 7 pounds - now 13 but could maybe lose a pound). She has zero interest in the Big Out - she'll look at birds or sit in the sunny spot - but she won't go out even with the door left open. I brought her into the home 16-17 years ago. Another part of her story is that after I had her awhile and she was healthy, her previous owner saw her through the window and tried to reclaim her. I told him if he paid me what her vet bills was - Ok - and told him where I took her. Probably never went to see what I paid (and they probably wouldn't have told him anyway without my ok). I never heard from him again. Oh, and I was on good terms with vet - at time time I was feeding a feral colony and doing TNR before I knew it had a name and he was one of the volunteer vets who would spay/neuter at cost - sometimes free. Soon as guy left I called Dr and he said if asked Dr would "forget" to mention the discounted price he charged and would quote full boat prices. Surprised me when he told me what he COULD have charged - but he did get to keep 2 of her kittens so he still came out ahead πŸ˜‰ Not that I believe these folks will ever train the pup - but as I remember puppy was part beagle. I had a great-Uncle who raised beagles back in the day. He claimed beagles were the smartest and dumbest dogs around - very intelligent, but stubborn and easily distracted dogs who may smell something and forget all about what they were supposed to do.
  4. πŸ‘πŸ‘ interesting case about collectible toys - I didn't think P proved his case - but MM decided alternative was to far out and ruled for P... πŸ‘πŸ‘ŽπŸ‘Ž well, this one gave me heartburn and I zipped through most of it - overly entitled P received money from disaster relief and wanted more - gave it 1 πŸ‘ because MM ferreted out the math and made him return a tiny - tiny - portion of what he received, which left P ""flabbergasted"... πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘Ž Interesting alley mechanic case with mostly intelligent plaintiff, but clueless auto owner suing alley mechanic over botched repair collectible toy case: another of those subjects I have little knowledge or interest in - collectibles. I have a friend that is into Star Trek collectibles in a big way. I once went with him to a store where he paid a couple hundred bucks for a fold out cardboard advertisement piece that once upon a time would have been sitting in stores where the toys were being sold - something I would have tossed in the trash without a second thought. I mean, this thing was falling apart, had water damage, etc - and two or three guys were all excited talking about what a great find at such a great price. This case is similar - except these litigants are into vintage 80's Transformer toys. Seems plaintiff purchased some of collectibles from the defendant that turned out to be reproductions/counterfeits. Thing is, plaintiff in case says he's been a collector for 25 years - and seems like "BUYER BEWARE" type case where he should have known better than to spend thousands without making sure of what he was getting - he says 19 of the toys he was sold are fakes and is suing for $5,500. Defendant's intro says plaintiff came to D's house and spent 3 hours inspecting his collection before buying. While intro for D was going on we get a couple shots of P shifting his eyes back and forth - if I hadn't already seen the preview and known guy is hearing impaired I might have wondered WTH, but actually they have somebody signing for him. Turns out D also partially deaf, so his body language and speech also a little off until you realise he's keeping his good ear towards the speaker and lip reading. As for the case - unless D made some guarantee/fake certificate of authenticity or P can prove fraud, I can't see P winning. Especially, since testimony indicates P has a business dealing in memorabilia - sounds like he was just branching out into toys, but still should know not to spend thousands without an expert verifying what he was buying... seems to remember a case where someone bought a box of barbies and then decided that after the inspection was over the box was delivered minus the best dolls... sort of sounds like litigants buying a car without a test drive or mechanic... I get why MM takes time to go over real vs counterfeit vs reproduction - she's making sure the audience knows - but I zip through that - hope we're not also going to get schooled on how big a difference condition can make - oh and how important "new in the box" can be - I learned that from Sheldon on Big Bang. Anyway, if this is really P's business, hope he hires a toy expert to handle his toy buying/selling. Back to case.... D also long time collector - but where P many into comics, sounds like D specializes in toys. D admits he was told 2 hours into the inspection period that P was only looking to buy original - first run production model, and says several of P's choices were removed from consideration. Is that enough to decide dude was committing fraud by not catching additional reproductions or second production models.... not in my mind. There was no guarantee or certificate of authenticity, and to me P needs to prove D knew they were 2nd run or counterfeit. Soooo purchase was made - P takes toys home - a week later he starts questioning authenticity and sends a text to D, which begins an exchange which eventually becomes a request to unwind the deal and get a refund. Case started out interesting but turning into same old AS-IS nonsense and buyers remorse. D, who is the more experienced toy guy, still thinks the toys are the coveted first run models, and wants sale to stand. Here I was getting bored and about to hit the button, (typing that reminds me of the old Gong Show). Then we get a game changer (well, didn't think P had a case anyway) - there's a new element to case. P says he brought all the toys he purchased to court, and has them displayed on his table. MM decides to let D go over and see if he sees anything wrong with these items. Whoa, he quickly starts pulling items which he says are NOT originals, but then stops and tells us there are only a couple originals, everything else P has on table are fake or 2nd run. Uh oh, is P trying to scam the judge or is D introducing a new reason not to unwind the deal by saying P has substituted fakes for the originals... ah, wouldn't it have been nice if they had at least written a list of what was sold at the time (oh and taken pictures 1 you know your phone is not just for dirty pictures) - now D is saying he didn't sell any duplicates and P has a couple duplicates on the table that D is calling fake. Not sure how MM is going to tell who is lying (maybe something in texts) but obvious someone is lying and not just mistaken - and of course if she can't point at the liar the P hasn't proven his case. Ah, but will this be a case where MM decides on "preponderance of evidence" vs "reasonable doubt" she seems to be leaning towards not believing P would make up this scenario and come on tv to get out of the sale - but we see lots of litigants on court TV with flimsy cases where I end up wondering WTH. Yep, that's where she goes - quick ruling (and 5 minutes early) for P..... hey, both sides win, especially as D has the original 5 grand and takes home the toys on the table. Not only does he not really have to pay the award, but he has a couple real collectibles and several second tier collectibles which are worth money, just not as much as first production run toys. Course, the turning point was when D went over and looked at the collection on the table and found so many 2nd run models - that's the thing that made MM rules for P... another litigant was other side's best evidence contractor case: another Hurricaine Sandy case. This time, homeowner (P) hired contractor (D) to elevate his house so next storm wouldn't flood him out. Says contractor didn't raise house level, and floors and countertops were damaged to tune of $3227 - which he wants contractor to pay. Ok, from D intro, we hear D actually hired by State - job cost $300,000 and P paid nothing. He says damage P is suing for was from hurricaine. Hmmmm, wouldn't you expect several inspections, with photos, were done before taxpayers paid hundreds of thousands, and wouldn't those inspections/pictures mention/show damaged counters and floors. Ok, not liking P on general principles if tax payers actually paid $300,000 on his house and he's suing over paying $3000 - even if contractor screwed up and did the damage. I can only guess at reasons taxpayers are footing the bill to raise houses above the flood plain, but can't think of any good reason.... oh, maybe those folks in New Suffolk, Long Island with their house 300 feet from the bay pay boat loads of taxes and insurance and just deserve a helping hand from taxpayers who will never be able to afford to live 300 feet from the bay in a flood plain.. Ah well, can't think to hard about that and watch the case, but is that really the best use of taxpayer money. Another case where MM uses time to teach the audience - this time how to lift a house to put in a new foundation. Oh dear, guess location IS EVERYTHING... did P just say we're talking a 1200 Sq ft house that the taxpayer spent THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND bucks raise😲.. hope I heard wrong. Yep, just backtracked - 1200 sq ft says P, and D says 300 grand and 6-8 months on job 😨.... Anyway, little bitty 2 story house which must sit on VERY expensive lot 300 ft from the Bay that NY State deemed so valuable the taxpayer, with average income of maybe $60,000 in NY, needs to pay 300 grand to preserve in a flood plain.😯...sorry, can't get over the numbers😀, I zip ahead before I hear P explains why he's entitled to MORE money. Not going to rewind, but when I stop to hear the judgement it seems not only was P the beneficiary of the taxpayers, he also double dipped. Seems, just guessing because I didn't go back and listen, the relief program paid to fix some incidental damage to the house as it was raised. Thing is, he convinced D to pay $600 for same damage, saying the program didn't issue the check. So, now, still assuming here, when D is sued for additional 3 grand, D goes back and double checks, and discovers P collected from both the State AND his company... almost tempted to go back and listen to MM's reaction to THAT, but I already have heartburn from this case and am satisfied hearing D awarded the amount of over payment. Didn't hear most of the case, but P is speechless during hallterview - flabbergasted he says - and not helped as Doug is laughing at him saying he should never have filed this case. transmission shop rip off?: plaintiff complains D put in cheap used transmission instead of what she paid for - wants $3748.91... ah thanks for the laugh, dude - not sure where D was headed, but he comes marching in, bypasses his lectern, and is almost out of screen at front of courtroom before Douglas corrals him and guides him back - then guy stands IN FRONT of lectern inside of behind the microphone - really, maybe they need to put footprints on the floor like in hallway where litigants are supposed to stand - nah, doesn't work there, so wouldn't inside court either. Anyway, that display may make us question how good a mechanic he is, but from what I'm hearing I'm thinking old junker, falling apart, he fixes transmission and something else falls apart - she wants every penny she spend back, plus plus. Ah, heard enough in pre-ad preview to turn on CC - P sounds fine, but D has accent which left me wondering WTH - oh, and we heard MM asking D for evidence, he says no evidence, and she replies, of course not... not looking good for well dressed mechanic. Ok, case starts out fine... P clear, sounds intelligent, knows what she paid when, etc - just wondering how she ended up going to D for the repair when she says she met dude when she took her car in. She says she paid $1850 (parts and labor) for the "remanufactured" transmission to be installed - actually said "remanufactured" instead of used. Hmmmm, could she be one of those English as second language people who puts the rest of us to shame? 4 days after the repair, engine light comes on and car is duplicating symptoms from before the repair. Thing is, her description of symptoms has me thinking if transmission was the problem. Then she says car had trouble accelerating the day after the repair - hmmmm, now she says engine light was still on when she picked up the car.... maybe not as intelligent as I thought. First she said 4 days after she picked up the car light comes on, now light was on when she picked it up, and car wasn't running right when she drove it away from the shop. Ah, ok, seems it was both - light was on when she went to pick it up, but he fiddled around and got it reset... then car wasn't running right, but light was out for days before it came back on.... back to wondering what else might be real problem as it sounds like she's depending on Leroy and idiot lights that can mean any of several things are messed up. Apparently Leroy is one of so-called mechanics that can't diagnose a problem without his cheap trusty plug in computer... I remember several years ago I had a problem on a road trip from Oklahoma - California and back. Had a problem on way out, mechanic fixed the problem after I had it diagnosed at Ford dealer, fix lasted until I got back to New Mexico, had another mechanic look at it, but instead of letting him fix it (wanted $1400) called regular mechanic in Oklahoma - he assured me it was safe to drive, so I limped home - upshot is, regular mechanic diagnosed problem over the phone, fixed it in an hour and a half (an hour of which was waiting for part to be delivered) once I made it to Lawton - and his fix lasted 10+years (and turned out $1400 fix by NM mechanic would have had nothing to do with my problem)... Uh, definitely not as intelligent as first impression - now she knows car isn't running right, but she keeps driving it waiting for Leroy to find time to work on it - oh and turns out Leroy doesn't have an autoshop - he's doing this off the books after hours at a friend's shop. Guess she has her moments, though. She may not be smart about the car - but preview shows MM getting a laugh when she presents a receipt from Leroy - apparently off-the-books Leroy doesn't do receipts - so she grabbed a piece of paper and gets him to sign one she scribbles out on back of vet visit receipt from dog's last visit. Anyway, now Leroy is getting a turn - almost painful listening to him, might have excused him thinking maybe English isn't his first language - but then remember his confused act as he came into the courtroom, nope, thinking Leroy is a few bricks short. Then I hear him saying from the beginning he was telling P there was more to the problem than just a bad transmission... I don't doubt that, I start of thought same thing and wondered how she decided it needed the transmission replaced... but thing is he charged woman almost 2 grand and now says he knew all along that wouldn't fix the problem!?! Seems transmission was diagnosed bad by "Pep Boys and others" (probably more plug-in mechanics who plug in a computer and get a list of possible problems). I'm thinking that's Leroy - plug it in, then instead of doing cheapest fix jumps right to $2000 repair and work backwards. Ah, this is the part where preview has MM asking for his estimate where he warns transmission may just be beginning of repair - he says no estimate - MM says, course not. Ah, finally! When we have these cases I wish they'd tell us up front what age/model car we're talking about. This time, once I hear 2000 dodge caravan, quicky KBB check (without knowing actual options, mileage etc) looks like a good chance she could gave replaced her minivan for what she paid for the transmission repair. Ok, definitely she wasn't smart when she let off book Leroy work on the car, but I think she may be stupid foolish with her car but still smart otherwise. Now, we learn when Leroy tells her his cheap plug-in diagnosey machine can't print out problems, she whipped out her phone and took a picture - not something she routinely does, as she doesn't usually take pictures, had forgotten she took this one (Leroy helpfully informed us when MM asked if he had a printout) - and needs MM to figure out how to pull up the picture. Not sure why Leroy helped out, since the picture, once we see it, indicates a problem in the replaced transmission. Ok, she has had enough of trying to cheap out, she heads to a dodge dealer, who actually has a mechanic who diagnoses several problems with the transmission installed by Leroy. Ok, back to P being not so smart as we hear how she decided to sue for almost 4 grand over a repair done to an 18yo car with private party KBB value $1400 - 2300 range.... seems she's suing for what dodge dealer charges for the repair (and now we get to laugh at the receipt on back of puppy's vet visit bill.) Not sure is she actually takes the vehicle to dodge - she ought to just take the 2 grand MM awarded and invest in a newer vehicle.
  5. πŸΆπŸ˜ΏπŸ‘Ž dog attacks cat - watched more than I normally would for a dog vs cat attack case, but saw enough to gets pissed off - oh, and case runs long... πŸ‘πŸ‘ very simple case, legally, but nice to hear litigants talking where I don't need CC - and P opens calling the judge "your honor" and using big words like "rapport" like he actually knows WTH they mean instead of like they're special words brought out to address the court when you're trying to make bail... πŸ‘πŸ‘Ž plaintiff gets rear ended, and D has zero defense dog attack: from intro heard as I was getting coffee, I understand D's dog got out and attacked a neighbor's (P) cat - which resulted in big vet bills and kitty losing some toes. Instead of immediately hitting the button, I actually watched part of this one. From bits and pieces I DID see, feisty female defendant might have been worth watching had subject of case been something else - but, no, here she just makes excuses for not containing her dog - and from little bit I saw during ruling D woman has as much trouble controlling herself as she does her dog. D intro denied their dog was in the attack, say their pooch gets along fine with their 12 cats - so it would not have attacked the cat. Sounds like wishful thinking from people who have forgotten their dog IS A FREEKIN' DOG. Mini-rant - dogs and cats, as much as we may love them, are not 4-legged humans. A dog might attack for many reasons which make perfect sense - to the dog - but no sense at all to us humans - NEWS FLASH - your dog doesn't reason like a human (is supposed to) and often acts instinctively. In this case, dog is a "designer mutt" a mix of a terrier and a scent hound - both hunting dog breeds which may be great with "their" family cats while viewing all over neighborhood animals as potential prey. It's up to us, the human, to train, socialize, protect, and just plain maintain control of our animals - cats included. I bailed on this case after MM's opening summary because it seems - to my mind - neither side are responsible pet owners. Went back later and watched a little more - heard cat owner say cat is strictly an outdoor cat, and heard about dog's breed - then started getting mad and deleted the recording. As the walking can opener serving 5 cats, I place at least as much blame on the cat owner as the neighbor with the dog - guess MM saw/heard something else, as she awards $1125 to cat owner. To me, controlling your cat is as important as controlling your dog. If, for no other reason, because your cat's life expectancy soars once you stop letting it roam. But, in most jurisdictions cats are allowed to roam and dogs have to be contained or leased. Was tempted to rewind and listen to more to see what exactly MM said that had D so mad in hallterview - but, nah, on to next case. heater repair dude wants to be paid for work: plaintiff claims he was hired by Defendant to service furnance in 4 of defendant's rental properties - says he did the work, but D hasn't even paid for parts that he replaced - suing for $725. D argues he did a poor job - 2 of the 4 (or 5) furnaces didn't work right and she hired someone else to repair the repair P did. From preview seems she not only didn't pay, but she just ignored the bill, and stopped all communication with P - no call to complain, just ignored the old repair dude. Ah, MM is going to get hot about this one - she's going to look at old dude and get her elder bias going - then think what if someone treated her daddy like D treated this kindly old dude.... wellllll, some old dudes are crafty old bastards who are more than willing to scam their customers - we'll see where this guy fits. Testimony starts and dude sure starts out sounding reasonable - and my, such an improvement over the trashy semi literate speech which we normally hear. Ok, no way (assuming intro close to actual case) does D not end up paying for the work - but from the intro I'd expect this was a one time repair job - no, P says he's done work for D several times over the years and they always "had a good rapport..." which makes the clip as we went to commercial even stranger where MM is questioning D about ignoring the guy... ok, dude sure sounds like he knows his furnaces - about all I understood when he was listing his repairs was one furnace needed a thermostat. There is a hole in his case - seems the agreed upon price was $500+ because he was giving her a discount - now that he has had to go to court he wants to do away with any discount - which is why he's suing for $700+. Defendant also sounding more intelligent than the normal litigant I've come to expect. Her case paints a slightly better picture... she didn't just ignore the guy - says she started to pay, but there were problems with some of the furnaces not working, so she called repair guy back multiple times, but he failed to fix the problem. Says after he didn't get it working, and with her tenants getting upset, she ditched the old guy and brought in another technician - who sold her 2 new furnaces for close to 6 grand. Soooo, she figures P's time, effort, and money for parts to fix the furnance was wasted, and she shouldn't have to pay. P has a problem with how he does his service calls, or at least how he's presenting his case. He wants to be paid for these repeat service calls, but he doesn't have the individual invoices or anything to show customer approved the work - and D is claiming she thought these additional charges were covered under the first service call. Ah, but he says he told defendant how much these service calls and his repairs would cost - and wonder of wonders, D admits he verbally told her what it would cost - but she doesn't remember his verbal estimate. Hmmmm, maybe I was starting to give her more credit than she deserves - I was thinking she was being a good landlady when she decided to ditch the old 20-30yo furnaces and spend 6 grand on new ones - then I realise her tenants were living with heat that sometimes quit in the middle of the night from at least December til February - and she stopped calling P back to fix the bad finances in either December, or January depending on who you believe. Hmmm thinking of that old Danny DeVito movie where, as punishment for not maintaining his building he has to move in. Anyway, no surprise here, D has to pay the agreed upon discounted price of $510, not the 'pissed at you price' of $700+ he's suing for. car wreck: plaintiff says he was rear ended by defendant, has spent months chasing D, but still owed $1738.42 - ah, back to normal - bet D is unlicensed/no insurance and says not my fault. Drats, D says he has insurance - but still, not his fault - says he was cut off, swerved into P's lane to avoid a 5 car pile up, P stopped short, D innocent and expected his insurance to cover any damage when his car barely tapped P's bumper - ah, but it doesn't take much more than a tap to damage today's car safety bumpers, there can be little visible damage, but still big repair bill. Ah, here the claim has grown from just the damage ($1200) to damage, time and attorney fees ($1700). Ok, still not back on schedule after first case ran over - so this case will be a quick one. P testimony has him driving along - not stopping short - and first hint he has of a problem is when D hit him square on from the rear. D - knew it was too good to last, I turn on CC so I can read his testimony instead of listening to all the hm, haws, and filler words from this Einstein. We have the infamous white board - but only one toy pickup truck and both sides had PUs. Sure seems like D is making it up on the fly as he moves the toys around - maybe should have thought before he started as he pretty much admits liability. Sort of see why his insurance would deny the claim if this is the story he told them - barely tapped P, P stopped short, etc while P is presenting a big repair bill and denies stopping - enough inconsistencies to let insurance deny the claim. (Actually, sounds like D, despite saying he was letting insurance cover things, was trying to avoid insurance and trying to pay out of pocket the cheap way possible.) Here... well, here MM pokes holes in his scenario and makes story sound silly, and in zero time he's admitting fault. MM wastes time commenting on cracked phone screen making it hard to see damage, but really, I wouldn't pay much attention to the picture and would want estimates from the body shop - too often bumper damage is hidden from view. Ok, so now D isn't disputing liability, he just argues amount of damage, saying P padded damage claim. But - but - P was nice and actually went to body shop recommended by D, and the shop that he recommended gave an estimate which essentially matched where P took his truck. Ok, giving P too much credit - he SAYS D's friendly shop was, maybe, $100 cheaper on labor - but just flapping gums as he can't prove what he's saying. Meanwhile, same thing from D - says his friend would have done it for $750, but no evidence backing that up.... besides, P was under no obligation to go with D's shop recommendation, and P's estimate of $1258 doesn't sound that inflated to me. Ah, and more to that story... P says he was willing to let D's shop do the work, but wanted D to pay the bill and D was a no show. After a week, P gave up on D paying. Ok, as expected - D has no defense and has to pay the repair bill - also as expected, the add on time and aggravation bill is out - says he paid $300 for a lawyer to do the small claims court application - nope, not happening, and dude knew that wasn't happening as he almost smiles when MM questions him about it. Ah, and another litigant says he learned something from his appearance - D tells Doug you need to bring evidence... what a strange notion!
  6. πŸ‘πŸ‘ cheap is expensive case - P hired landscaper to move her stuff, dude didn't have foggiest idea what was needed or how to move a house full of furniture, has trouble showing up on time, P pays a bunch of front money - move a disaster - wants money back... πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘(need the CC for this one) started out thinking D was ok, but wow, once he started he quickly talked himself into trouble, and by the end - wow, what a conceited little ass - MM ends up awarding several times what P sued for. (Case started early and ran long)... πŸ‘ŽπŸ‘ŽπŸ‘short and quick - dummy would have won as P had no proof of a loan, but first thing out of D's mouth was he borrowed the money, but didn't sign anything. .. so MM asks doesn't he think his admission is all the proof she needs think of hear suing the movers: P (both P and witness daughter sporting cross necklaces) hired D to move her household goods, but says he flubbed the job and she's here to tell the world not to do business with the guy - it's the principle, you see - oh, and the $1720 she's out. D, named Steve Martin, argues he did a good job for the lady. One of P's complaints is that ole Steve is not a professional mover - Steve says she knew from the start his regular job is a landscaper. Says after the move she had no complaints, so he was surprised when he received notice she was suing him, as he thought she was happy with his work. Hmmm, going by MM's opening summary, P actually planned to move twice - first move over and done with, but suit is over money for move which has was put on hold. The moves came about when P sold her condo. She sells some of her stuff to a family friend and meets D when he ends up moving her old bedroom set for the friend. They get to talking, and she says he gave her an estimate for moving rent of her stuff to Virginia and she hired him. MM asks to see the estimate - P doesn't have the estimate, but does have the contract. She was supposed to pay 50%, $950, up front to Steve Martin Landscaping and Cleanup Company - uh, says MM, not like D hid fact that he isn't a professional mover when the contract is clearly from a landscaping company. Ah, but seems after the first signed agreement, after she pays the upfront $950 deposit, the Virginia move is put on hold. But her condo has been sold, so now she wants D to move her stuff into a storage unit. New agreement entered, and she points out that on the new agreement D now calls himself a moving company. Anyway, she says the already paid $950 was to now to pay for the storage unit move, with left over to go towards the Virginia move - which still hasn't taken place. Ah, but she claims when D realised he had her over a barrel, her closing was right around the corner and she needed the condo emptied - like yesterday - so she agrees to the new contract - dude increasestopped price and she has to pay additional $750 for him to move stuff to storage. MM turns to D and asks why P needed to pay the additional money. Sort of saw this coming - part time mover D says he was renting a moving truck, and the $950 went to the rental deposit - which he lost when she made her last minute plan change. Uh oh, looks like Steve spent all his pre-trial prep picking out what to wear instead of gathering evidence. Steve IS better dressed than your average landscaper - but when your defense sort of hinges on claim that you used the deposit to rent a vehicle to do the job, it would be nice if you brought something to show you ever contracted to rent a truck. Back to P's side, and now she's telling us how good Ole Steve started gouging her. She needed her stuff out of the condo yesterday - too late to hire someone else - and now Steve was insisting she sign a paper saying the move was completed satisfactorily, nothing was damaged, etc - nothing wrong there, oh except Steve wanted it signed 4 days before move was done. Time for MM to question why in the world, if dude was so obviously gouging her, she's signing a release prior to the move. Waah waah nonsensical excuses, then commercial break. After break MM questions Steve why he would have her sign such a thing prior to the move. Oh, he didn't "make" her sign it, says Steve. But why even give it to her prior to the move, asks MM? Stevie doesn't have an answer to that one, and MM gets loud when he tries to just skip past answering her question. Ok, actual move date comes - No call-no show, til 3:30 when he finally calls to say he can't come today as promised because he's at home watching his kids. Really! At this point she's paid him $1700 and he couldn't afford a babysitter... don't worry, though, he has the signed paper saying how well the move went. Ok, more poor preparation on part of D - almost feel sorry for dude, as he can't seem to avoid stepping in it. Story he's selling is that he is home stuck with the kids, MM is asking when he was supposed to show to work, he says between 11 and 1, and that he called at 1230 to say he couldn't make it (and P holds up her phone records saying nooooo, didn't call til 3:30). MM asks him when he found out he was going to have the kids - again with the no answer, doesn't remember why he had the kids, maybe not school that day (uh, talking pre-school, maybe, didn't he just say youngest is 1 1/2). Gotta hope Steve is just not too sharp - because if he's really this dumb he doesn't have a future as a con man - what am I saying, court TV litigants will be lining up to hire him after his appearance today. Next day he finally comes - with little $19.95 uhaul and 1 friend driving the bus from the VA center (apparently friend works for the VA center driving the van - wonder if his supervisor knew, and hope none of the vets needed to get to any appointments that day. I live just down from a fairly big VA center, see lots of the same size bus as the one P took a picture of, and know that those things stay busy here running vets out to post and up to Oklahoma City.) Hate to say it, but any sympathy I had for Steve is long gone (come on Steve, we share the same first name and you let me down). The 2 guys finally show up, after noon and a day late, 1 in misappropriated bus from the VA and other in small uhaul truck, and these two are to empty a 2500 square foot house of all the house hold goods in 4 hours - and let's not forget P prepaid $1700. Sounds like she should have rented her own truck and swung by and picked up a crew of day laborers and saved a few bucks. Move to storage unit was supposed to take 4 hours, and P has all kinds of evidence - including pictures and evidence Steve took 9 hours to get everything piled into storage unit, and proof she later paid someone $200 to reorganize the mess. Ok, rough justice time.... D had to return the $950 deposit for the move to Virginia - MM says normally she'd let him keep it since P postponed the move and now wants out of the contract, but way he flubbed the move to storage is enough to justify P not using him for Virginia move... says he earned the $750 for moving stuff to storage, but he has to cover the $200 P paid someone to straighten out the mess he left the unit in. Steve wanted to say something, but MM wouldn't let poor Steve make any more excuses... Net: D keeps $550 and P gets $1150 back. driving school: plaintiff hubby was enrolled in defendant's driving school - complains that on day hubby was to take his driver's test to get his license, D was a no show, so P ended up using car from another school to take the test - here wanting the $80 spent to on car to take test. Defendant says he was there at time scheduled for the test, but P was late and missed the appointment. Says then P had to wait in long line for next open slot, but then D had to take car and go to another appointment. Says he offered to be available for a rescheduled test, but P got his back up, they had a kerfuffle, and D washed his hands of silly P says he did his job, as per their contract, and it was P who fouled things up. Ah, tried and true (but seldom successful) countersuit for missed work. Ok, entertaining by play between MM and plaintiff. Seems plaintiffs have been married a year now, and hubby wants to become an Uber driver. Yep, hubby, who has no license, and even after attending driving school has failed driving test twice, may be driving you around next time you call Uber if he can only pass the freeking parallel parking portion of the test. Wifey is doing most of the talking here - thankfully - but even as she's presenting her case I'm wondering if she's not helping def a bit. First, not really sure how realistic the plan is for a newbie driver with zero experience and multiple failed attempts to get a license is to become a professional driver... but also, she's talking about how she rescheduled the test - uh, did she consider the reason D scheduled test on different day was because his schedule was tight on day she found an opening at the DMV - oh, and doesn't bode well for P showing up on time when she changes test time from 8 to 8:30 - leaves me wondering if she may have had hubby, driving school dude, or both, show up at wrong time. Ah, not only that, but admits hubby was late (but don'cha know they were supposed to give hubby a 15 minutes grace period). Have to laugh at the part where wifey says hubby was supposed to be there "an hour in advance, like previously." I was a little confused just where hubby was supposed to be an hour before the test - turns out they're talking about where he was supposed to meet the driving school guy to get the car to be used during test. So, hubby was either 10 or 40 minutes late, depending on actual test time since wife waffles between 8 and 8:30. So, hubby is there, late, wondering where dude with car is - calls but call goes to voicemail, finally he heads over to testing site hoping car will be there. No car. Manager at test site tells him if he shows up before 1pm they'll squeeze him in, otherwise he'll have to reschedule. Defendant has yet to say anything, but I'm thinking the public may owe him thanks for delaying P hubby in his quest for uber-driverhood. Ah, but hubby really wants to test. He takes his third cab ride of the morning, back to driving school - still nobody there - ah, but he knows D works out at the gym down the block, so he goes there and convinces somebody to give him D's personal phone number (a no-no says MM, gym should not be giving out personal numbers). Ok, finally reaches D at 9am, and D says come back to driving school and sends P back to test site with his adult son in a company car. Uh oh, here I thought it was time challenged plaintiffs who screwed up the time, but maybe not. As we go to commercial D is asked why there wasn't a car there when test was scheduled, and D gives some BS answer about how DMV always tells you to be there at 8 or 8:30 - guess that sort of blows defense as stated in intro out of the water. (D's gravelly voice also benefits from CC - though mute would have been better) Anyway, we know D is going to say DMV wants people to show up at 8 or 8:30 because of the pre-commercial preview - yet here he is telling us his practice is to have son transport test-ees to DMV for the test at 8:45 - so, another time challenged person who thinks appointment schedules are just a general guidelines to be ignored. Soooo, forget how D was there on time, he tells us DMV never - ever - starts on time, so he never tries to show up on time (oh, and while P was looking for time DMV told hubby to be there, D helps her out by producing letter from DMV saying appointment is at 8:30.... dude - that's the case for me - to me, D breached by not being available when instructed by DMV, so P gets back the $80 he paid dude to be there. Actually, turns out D doesn't even have any first hand knowledge of time P was told to be there - his secretary tells customers when to be there - and she "always" tells people such and such - which apparently changes with the season. D had no defense - but like so many before him feels totally justified. This time, plaintiff was part of morning group of drivers to be tested, he finally hooked up with son at 9:30 and spends rest of morning waiting to be tested, but at 12:30 as he's finally getting to head of the line, son boots him from the car to go pick up the group of folks who are to be tested that afternoon. 0h, and more hearsay, before it was secretary who D was testifying for, now he's telling us what son saw/said/did with no actual firsthand knowledge. P frantically checks with other driving school who have car there available for THEIR students to test in, finds somebody that will let him use their car, and takes the test - but not in Def's car - oh, and fails test. Wifey explains she filed the case when she felt D and his school insulted hubby ... starts around the 40 minutes mark and I totally believe her and, if I hadn't already been against know-it-all, arrogant little D this would do it for the no defense joker. Heck, half of what D us saying contradicts his earlier testimony... oh, and some bull about how examiner tells P he can't be tested that day, yet we know he WAS tested when he borrowed a car from another school. That isn't doing it for MM, and when she tries to get D to answer her questions he gets mouthy. MM is not impressed, in fact, MM invalidates entire contract, and ends up returning, not just the $80 for a test car, but $355 - which I guess is everything P paid the school. Yep, like I said a couple times - we have a litigant with no defense who feels totally justified. Oh, and when he gets outside, he tells Doug "business is business - you deal with these types of people all the time - no big deal" - he claims he's the best in the businessman.... yep, but Doug was thinking same thing - about defendant.... uh oh, as Doug wraps up P hallterview we learn hubby finally passed his test - he starts driving for uber-driverhood the next week - watch out New Yorkers car sale gone wrong: quicky case as 2nd case ran long. P with iffy employee/defendant,hires and fires guy a couple times (to give him a second chance, don'cha know). Also loans D money to buy a car. D says P runs a sweatshop and he quit. Now they're here with P saying money is still owed on car loan and D saying he's still owed wages from before he quit (or was fired). Iffy case - no signed IOU, not a single receipt, etc, MM frequently interrupting for clarifications.... only way P wins is if D admits (or admitted in texts) that he owes money. Okkkkk, that said, first thing out of D's mouth is he admits borrowing $700, but doesn't think it counts since he didn't sign anything. Sooooo, still 8 minutes, guess we'll talk about back wages after the break (oh, and half that time will be eaten by commercials and Shorty yapping.) Nope, not even getting to countersuit for wages - MM has too much fun with D - "how stupid can you be? I'd fire you, too!" Actually, MM does ask about the counterclaim. From back wages it morphed into another claim for D wasting his time having to come to court - dufus, you wasted everybodies time when you didn't just pay what you admit you owe --- but you were good for a laugh. Even Doug can't get dude to make sense during hallterview - everything is bogus and stupid, him getting sued for $700 he admits he owes and refused to pay. P offered some excellent advice during his chat with Doug - don't lend money to morons!
  7. Whoa 😀😀 maybe a good thing my channel provider messed up - can't afford a new tv and stuff may have been thrown if that was today's case..... only question - how many two legged babies have these cretins spawned?
  8. No recap today because.... no TPC. Well, not entirely true. We HAD TPC, but it was a repeat of yesterday's first cases. When I FF through, about halfway through they started showing Judge Mathis, which normally follow TPC. Oh well, kind of cloudy, maybe I'll waste 10 minutes switching my screen door for the glass.... nah, we need some rain, and if I get things ready for rain it'll stay dry... if only I had a weatherman to give me a forecast πŸ˜‰
  9. πŸ‘πŸ‘ interesting tow case - not the usual entitled driver, this time we have entitled property owner creating an illegal parking space and getting driver ticketed and towed... πŸ˜•πŸ‘ŽπŸ‘Ž not sure WTH happened in this case - case about security, but P had me confused from the get go and I gave up - FF is my friend... πŸ‘ŽπŸ‘ŽπŸ‘Ž mommy of the year nominee defendant stiffs babysitter after she leaves her 4 kids for a month to go to the Caribbean .... and nobody filed counterclaims, today tow case: intro for plaintiff claims D runs a tow scam. Claims D isn't a licensed tow company - has a set up where there's an unauthorized driveway - when someone parks, he swoops in, tows away the car, then refuses to release car until owner pays exorbitant fees. D comes in with his posse (4 of them). Dude leading the way has a folder, so maybe he brought along a copy of his license - but then P brought along a big envelope, too. Apparently their defense is that P had already been ticketed by the cops when they towed the car. Uh, if that's true, sounds like usual sour grapes from a towee, and another win for a tow company. Oh, and Defendants are mad, saying woman went online and accused them of running a scam. Ok, when testimony starts it comes out that this is something of anew ongoing neighborhood feud. These folks all know each other from the neighborhood, and P knows all the defendants, she says both tow truck driver and his gf park where she had parked when she was towed. P claims she went online and researched the driveway she was towed from, and City Public Works does NOT recognize the driveway as legitimate.... Ok, I seem to recall another case where a property owner created his own no parking area, someone was ticketed and towed, and the tow company lost... sure enough, this case is similar. Parking is at a premium in the neighborhood, property owner cut the curb and created additional parking in front of his building without the proper permits/permission from city - way back in 2001. Yeah, P was ticketed - because defendant homeowner called and complained she was blocking his driveway and responding cop didn't realize driveway was unpermitted. Ok, backing up a little here - all of the bunch that came in with defendant are NOT here for the tow company - P is also suing the property owner - who sent his know nothing 25yo grandson who supposedly came to court without bothering to ask gramps who created the illegal driveway. MM is not happy when she asks grandson and he denies knowing anything - you'll have to ask my gramps - can't ask gramps, cuz he sent you, now didn't he? Case not going as I expected. Don't know about the whole "tow scam" theory, but ticket would have been tossed and MM just told grandson that who ever created this illegal driveway stole a parking space from the public. Next thing - can P prove the intro claim that tow company has no license and had no right to tow the car. Cop ticketed the car "THINKING" car was illegally parked, but did he (or dispatch) call for it to be towed, or did driver hook it up when he saw the ticket and impound the car illegally... oh, and tow driver lives in building which has the illegal driveway. Ok, sounds like cops called for the tow, and the driver followed procedures for logging the tow through the local precinct. Ah, more mix up - supposedly on way to impound the tow truck breaks down - big kerfuffle when P arrives to reclaim her vehicle and car isn't at the lot. She actually watches (and takes video/pictures) as another tow truck goes and hooks up to the broken down tow truck, and pulls original tow truck, which is hooked to her car, into the lot. Whole thing is pretty ludicrous, and definitely doesn't help the defense when tow company owner tries to dance around, telling P he would talk with company owner to see if he could waive the fees when he is the owner - then he steps in it when he spouts nonsense about how he was trying to make it convenient for car owner - really, make it convenient how? asks MM. Ok, guess he was going to waive the fee, but decided to charge because of P throwing a tantrum. Anyway, P should not have been towed - but who gets stuck with the fees. She did nothing illegal - but sounds like tow company didn't either.... actually, only one I see who we know was in the wrong is gramps, who created the illegal driveway/parking place and called the cops to come ticket/tow P. Yep, that's the ruling - property owner, represented by know nothing grandson, pays - while co-defendant tow company is off the hook. Oh, and not only does property owner pay the tow fee, MM also tacks on missed work and wasted time fee. tenant wants security: tenant wants three grand for security and ruined belongings - claims place was full of bugs, mice, squirrels - even an opposum. D says there was once A MOUSE in the basement - says tenant is just making stuff up and trying for a boNANza after making false complaints to Housing... oh, and he sort of squares off to stare at D when she comes into court... D also says dude didn't even pay a deposit. (Second case in row without a countersuit) Uh oh.... going to need CC and flowchart to figure out this one as P is mumbled and all over trying to make his case - never good sign when MM has to pick up a pen and take notes to figure out WTH a litigant is saying and keep track of the money. Ok, if I understand dude, some organization gave him $850 to either use as first month rent or security - after that - I'm lost and just going to let MM figure it out. Apparently the rent is $750, and he paid a total of $1750 when he moved in - uh, like I said, numbers don't exactly match - apparently rent was prorated for half a month, maybe then first month paid, plus the deposit? MM crosses the aisle, but D is as fuzzy with her numbers as P... yep, this is one of those where I give up and let da judge figure things out. D has a handwritten ledger sheet which she starts to read from - but MM asks Douglas to bring it on up. Huh, when MM reads off dates and amounts, P agrees, but says that while he was hospitalized for "hearing voices" he gave her his card (ATM?) and she took money out of his account but never gave him a receipt. Hmmmm could it be landlady is trying to take advantage of P? Dude came in with a wife, why give D his card to pay his rent instead of having wife do it. Halfway through case and I'm lost - which dovetails right in with MM asking these two why paying rent is such a major deal with these folks ... anyway - I hit FF and zip ahead... case dismissed and defendant wins childcare/babysitting case: P says she watched D's 4 kids while D was off on Caribbean vacation, was supposed to be paid, but is still owed $2,500. D agrees she owes money, but says their deal was that P would be paid when D got her tax refund - says P wanted the money as soon as she got home - big kerfuffle - defense is that while she does owe, repayment not due until tax man gives her her refund. From preview I know D gets slammed by MM for leaving her 4 kids while she heads off to the Dominican Republic for a month if partying with her bf. (Sure seems like I've heard this story before - but think I'd remember heavy browed D) ok, looks like another litigant after a boNANza. When MM summarizes the case, she says agreement was P was to be paid $600 - how did that balloon to $2500 lawsuit? MM sort of starts out kidding around with D, but not long before she changes from joking about D going to see her man to mama bear, how could you leave your kids for a month? D doesn't help her case any when she talks about negotiating the babysitting fee for a month of watching 4 kids (13yo, 11yo twins, and a 9yo) from $800 down to $600 - then not even paying that. Ok, when D is getting ready to leave, she gives P $200 cash and $96 in Metrocards (public transportation passes) P agrees, but says the metro cards weren't supposed to count towards the $600 ... ok, second case in a row where litigants math is out there - now babysitting fee was $600, P was paid either $200 or $296, but is seeking $2,500. Creative math has been scratching my head.... ok, when she gets home, P owes either $304 or $400, but since P wants her money right away instead of when the refund comes, D says she offered to go tack on a couple hundred - back to original $800. Ah - big kerfuffle - they stop speaking - D pays nothing. Somewhere in here, P agreed to accept $200 additional to wait til March when refund was to come - but she DOES start asking for the money 2 months early (seems she wanted to move out of state, and needed the money for the move). Soooo, she agreed to wait and take $504, changed her mind and wanted the original $304, but D didn't pay her, so we're back up to $504... oh, and she wants an extra 2 grand for stress and aggravation - uh, nope, no 2 grand bonus, but she does get the $504
  10. Finally watched last week's episode tonight (working nights sure plays havoc on keeping up). Agreed with everything you said... but what really struck me was the horror of 13 healthy, beautifil, husky pups almost put down when puppy mill saw profit margin go down. 😒😒😭 really, too old at two months to sell, so just put them down 😠
  11. Yep, that's another option to finding sleeping cats in all available seats.... I've also been known to pick up the phone and take a picture of the cute sleeping kitties
  12. intermission over - and another double recap day as @ANGELAHUNTER posted as I was writing thisπŸ˜‰πŸ˜‰ - back to today's cases πŸ‘πŸ‘ interesting crooked used salesman case where rough justice is called for... #3 😴 promises to be a yawn fest - another case where litigant entered into a real estate transaction represented by both a broker and lawyer - and the pros left the client holding the bag --- anyway, once I heard lack of defense I took a nap few posts up thread used car deal: just like yesterday, P suing because he failed to read the contract he signed. Yesterday woman with yellow Lil Abner clodhoppers claimed she had a warranty even though contract said AS IS. Actually, when today's case begins, it turns out this "contract" was borderline fraudulent. P bought a car with SALVAGE TITLE right there on title, and now wants money back because the car had been in accidents and had a salvage title. Ok, both these litigants are here with gaping holes in their case. D's whole defense is that the title he gave P said salvage title - but when MM asks to see a copy of the SALVAGE TITLE, dude says he doesn't have a copy of THAT title, but here's a SALVAGE TITLE from some other random car. Wth, being sued by P who is claiming vehicle fraudulently sold by hiding fact car had a SALVAGE TITLE - and his evidence proves some other car has a SALVAGE TITLE. Ah, but P has equally stupid gaping hole in HIS case - dude has possession and drove car for a year and a half before he discovered it was a salvage vehicle. OK, his copy of title DOES say SALVAGE - but MM doesn't see it until D tells her where to look. (Course, now days anybody with a smart phone can get a CARFAX in seconds, and when you're buying a used car from an auto repair shop (or really anywhere) why not get the carfax before paying several thousand bucks.) Ah, but the bigger problem is wocky purchase contract D says he always uses - very much simplified and MM points out that it doesn't meet state law (says sales purchase contract about what she'did expect when buying a new sweater). Dude admitting none of the paperwork he gave the buyer at the tine of sale said car was a salvage vehicle - only paper saying salvage was title that was received weeks after sale. He SAYS P was verbally informed it was salvaged - which of course P denies. Ah, a puzzler, MM is inclined to award damages - but how much? P has driven the car almost 2 years, wants not only money he paid for the car, but maintenance (including tires!). Says reason he finally decided to sue now is that he went to get a new car and was told they'd only give $1000 on the trade in... uh, an awful lot can happen in 18 months that would lower the trade in value. Wait, says D, here's a copy of KBB saying car is worth over 4 grand. Ok, MM takes the time to explain her reasoning - says she believes D violated state and federal laws, but he's the one with best guesstimate of true value of the car - and she straight out says she doesn't trust him to tell the truth. Rough justice time - D to pay P 4 grand. I'm thinking ruling mainly based on distrust/dislike of defendant and way he runs his business - I think she went overboard to punish defendant and ended up coddling P who needs to read a "buying car for dummies" book rental deposit case: from intro, this is another landlord who should spend a little time learning to landlord (and buy property). Backstory is is that tenant lived in place when D bought the property. D doesn't seems to dispute the tenant paid a deposit. No, her thing is that the previous owner received the deposit, so the tenant should go to the previous owner to get the money. Huh? How would that even work. Is the previous owner supposed to come do the walk through and pay to fix any damages to new owners property? Hopefully this is another time when intro is total nonsense and real defense has yet to be heard. Nope, that's really her defense - Ok, second recent case where someone bought a property, working through a broker and had a lawyer - and the real estate professionals left their client hanging. Ah well, no work tonight, maybe I'll take a nap instead of trying to translate this accent into understandable English - can't even turn on CC cuz remote is WAY over there and I have three cats on me and all 5 are on the couch. Any other cat people here ever bring a dining room chair to sit on to watch TV because you don't want to wake up a kitty.... who said my cats are spoiled!
  13. Yep, pretty much what I thought - my clowder of cats, priceless to me, are essentially valueless in the eyes of the law in many jurisdictions - what is "fair market value" for my Spotty, who I rescued as a stray 17 years ago, and immediately spent hundreds of dollars at the vet making her healthy, and more hundreds of dollars since in food and vet visits? I suppose her legal value is whatever her adoption fee would be if she was at the pound/humane society.
  14. appointment this afternoon to get to, so partial recap failed BD bash pictures: ah. Please, MM, don't go all Dr Phil with this one. Family group of middle aged women all up in arms over BD pictures. Seems P paid D, a cousin, to snap some pics at her witness' birthday party. Then D took forever producing the pictures, got tired of being asked when she'd deliver them. Not even finished with P intro, and I'm wondering if this wasn't maybe BD girl's wish when she blew out the candle. D says it took so long because she was editing and putting the pics in an album - maybe it was more work then she thought. Have to wait and see - P suing for $175 she says she paid for pictures she never received, while D has countersuit for $248.48 for the same pictures plus food she contributed to the party. Oh, and I guess we'll get to see the final gifts being exchanged, as D has 2 gift wrapped boxes on her table. Ah, and preview has MM all giddy, wanting to know what's in the boxes. Ok, testimony changes things a bit. Seems actual pictures were being taken by a different cousin, who happens to be D's brother. Ah, but even before party D's brother and P were on the outs and not speaking. Soooo P asks D to ask the brother to take the pictures, then at end of party P says she gave D $175 to give to the guy... whoa, anybody think that is a tad out there - not to mention, if they can't even speak to each other about a paying job, why would you expect his best work to memorialize the special occasion. Foolish D sort of brokered the deal, thinking it might help heal the family rift... Uh, brother is notable in his absence... ah, and reimbursement for the food - not sure where that's going to end up. Apparently D makes a great seafood dish, which she agreed to prepare for the bash, and she says she agreed to buy a couple shrimp platters to bring along - says P promised to pay her later - well, only receipt is for spices and ingredients used to prepare her dish - nothing for the shrimp platters... I have no idea what is on her receipt, but I find whatever is there suspicious. Are we to believe that D is known for preparing this dish for family events, yet doesn't have the needed spices in her pantry. No problem on night of party, and brother supposed to have pictures ready in 3-5 days. Ah, now there's the rub - weeks go by, no pictures, not even a call to explain the delay. First P is calling D (remember she was already not on speaking terms with photographer brother) - excuses, but no pictures. Then P tries calling Bro direct - he won't pick up - finally she calks from a different phone - amazing, when bro doesn't recognise her number he picks up. Ok, seems he has a "situation" where he's apparently been locked out of his place the past month. (Apparently, crazy gf has locked bro out, and won't let him in to get to the 'putter with the pix and bro is now in the wind and homeless.) So, bro has breached the contract (P gave his pay to D to deliver to him). D offers pix she took on her phone - don't know what equipment Bro was using, but we know he was supposed to take video as well stills - so phone shots not exactly the same thing and probably worth no where near $175. What I'm hearing is P should get her money back for pix/video... but, as MM says, P needs to find brother and sue HIM for not delivering. Not sure what to do with no receipts for food, maybe rough justice with MM guessimating value. As for her phone pix... heck, looks like D went to a lot of trouble, and spent $120 of her money, getting the phone pics printed out and making a nice photo album - problem is, nowhere did P agree to pay for it, so hard to now make her pay. Case ends with nobody getting any money and D leaving with nice album of pix (MM tried to get P to buy the album - maybe she will, but I get why she would drag her feet since she's already out the $175.... then D really has no use for it, maybe she'll end up tossing it in the trash - or just giving it to P. Ok - off to appointment
  15. All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    Yeah, this was on while I was fixing dinner... only reason I watched was to see the inevitable hammer come down as both mom and daughter kept raising their hands, and hammer never came.... really, obviously it was P's fault his dog was attacked, your honor, he should have left when he saw teenagers with big dogs coming. (Like mother like daughter) New one - I have DVD set to only record new cases, and still have the thing filling up with stuff recorded while I'm at work. About all I watch on same day is TPC, and that's because I turn it on when I get around in the morning - or sometimes afternoon, when I close and don't get home til after 2am