Jump to content

SRTouch

Member
  • Content Count

    2.3k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

8.2k Excellent
  1. SRTouch

    Pit Bulls And Parolees

    Watching old episodes (around 2015) Animal Planet has on during the day today. One thing that really struck me was in the episodes where Sui's Mom comes to visit. Tia is at a b&b/hotel trains get a dog not to bolt out the door, and she sort of skips up and down the steps..... had me checking the dates and googling when exactly she had her big couch jumping leg injury ('16) and marveling how much that injury stills seems to slow her down
  2. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    Laws for compensation of lost/damage of property often seems skewed when the 'property' is claimed to have sentimental value - and nothing has more sentimental value to me than my critters (well, except for whichever cat puked up the furball in the hallway that I stepped on in the middle of the night - that one I'll give away - and Silly I think it was you!). None of my cats cost a penny to purchase - but if someone's negligence caused their death/injury the statutory max wouldn't cover my loss. But, depending on local laws, and judge hearing case (and sometimes just the mood of the judge on any given day) I MIGHT get reimbursed for my out of pocket cost of treatment. And I'm not even talking cost of cremation and urn. Course, like I said that goes for everything when sentimental value enters question. Remember Dolly Parton's song "Coat of Many Colors" about a poor girl's coat made of rags stitched together with love? Wonder how much the girl would get if she sued the dry cleaner who lost the coat?
  3. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    Feuding business owners: when intro clown says P owns a highend ice cream shop next door to D's low end hair salon, I figure feud must be because D did that to P's hair - that looks to be a cross between a bozo 'do and an afro that is seldom, if ever, combed - anyway, P wants nice quiet atmosphere for her ice cream parlor, but claims D caters to the loud music, pot smoking, trashy crowd - apparently P confronted one of D's customers, and 'physical altercation' ended with P with an injured wrist and knee - these folks must be California nutcases where the nuts get to sue for 10 grand max... defendant: claims she's a celebrity hair stylist, and she's had to deal with ice cream lady for past 2 years - not sure how good a stylist she is, but I wouldn't go to either of the two on the defendant side if today's look is an example of their 'stylist' work - course, D filed a 10 grand countersuit...... ok, from intro I get that these two hate each other, but must have missed exactly what it is they're suing each other over, so have no idea how it will end - from the looks of the litigants it may end for me when I hit the zip button.... testimony: P says part of her business plan/goal is to give back to community, doing kid story times, etc while selling desserts - doesn't sound too nutty, yet - says problems started as soon as D rented the neighboring storefront - ok, part of problem is P lives above her storefront, so these are not only neighboring businesses, but dwellings - actually, sounds like problems may have pre-dated D moving in, P starts to talk about problem with D's landlord - so, when landlord was there she was in her storefront all hours, blasting music, kids running wild outside, lots of loud, yelling, profanity laced back and forth within the salon.... sounds like previous neighbor was typical neighbor from hell stuff, but WTH does that problem have to do with this defendant - still waiting to hear what she thinks is worth 10 grand.... ok, when D first rented salon things were good - up til she started living in salon - once D actually started living there back to loud music/noise in middle of night - P claims she reported noise violations and cops came and cited D, but has no proof of the reports/citations and D says never cited - ah, maybe we're finally getting to actual damages - seems P was having one of her community outreach programs in her storefront, and one of Hair salon customers parked in loading zone in front of ice cream parlor - cops arrived and ticket car - salon customer blames P, though she says she didn't call in the complaint, kerfuffle, yelling screaming, P pushed and falls down - uh, but what did D do, that was her customer/client, says MM - P tries to say D should be held liable for her customers actions - MM scoffs at that idea, saying she, MM, sure doesn't want be held responsible for actions of litigants - P backs away from that PDQ, and shifts to D putting her trash in front of the ice cream shop.... uh, maybe a code enforcement issue, but surely not a 10 thousand small claims case - doesn't matter though, as no proof of any trash just like no noise complaint proof.... ok, again with other people doing stuff, P says she has video from her security camera of friends/customers/family putting trash in front of parlor - MM again says doesn't count in case against D, and gives P time to produce any video of D doing anything while she chats with D for awhile - just like with P, defendant sounds surprisingly normal when she finally gets a chance to talk - unlike P's timeline with no problems until D moved into salon, D tells us problems started before she even rented the salon, going back to when she was just renting booth space from the previous salon - says P worse than Gladys Kravitz (noisy neighbor on Bewitched) - D would be working on client, look up and find P with nose pressed against window.... hey, maybe P was just looking for ideas on how to control that mop on her head.... ok, not getting much here, so MM drifts over to question D's claim to being 'celebrity stylist,' asking what celebrities' hair D does - D hesitates, names a couple names I've never heard of, but that really doesn't mean much since I don't recognize a lot of today's celebrities.... ok, again with trash - now it's D saying P was leaving trash out on porch, and that there were times she picked up P's trash.... ok, I can just imagine D being steamed when she finds P trash scattered by feral cats/dogs/rats, or maybe just wind, cleaning it up and putting it back on P's porch - don't know if that happened, but might explain video if P ever produces it... hmmmm, sounds like we're getting to counterclaim for harrassment already - D says P has made numerous calls to police about noise, cops came, interrupting her working on clients but never once citing her or even asking her to turn down loud music.... ok, lots of flapping gums, but not seeing/hearing any actual evidence from this side, either, and I'm about over this non-case - 'bout time to go back to P and see if she ever found the video she claims will damn defendant as real hellish neighbor.... uh - no idea what video is supposed to show, but can't watch it as it's hand held video shot while she was driving in her car and about to make me seasick.... really, going back to Gladys comment, P apparently takes it upon herself to go out in middle of night to video D because she left the salon and came back an hour later - yep, nutcase P just lucky D isn't really the trashy pot smoking gangster she thinks she is - P's evidence isn't doing much for HER case, but might help D's counterclaim for harrassment.... MM goes into lecture mode, both of them have lots of video and testimonials from people in neighborhood damning each other, this drama bad for both businesses, how do you live like this, yada yada....times up, case and counter tossed.... as MM is telling them her decision I get a flash of a scene from a church service where someone in congregation is shouting 'yes' as preacher preaches and expecting an 'amen' when MM finally gives them the boot dog attack - skipped as soon as I got to remote - going to have to carry the thing with me when I get up for coffee refills between cases As is means check the thing before you close the deal: have to laugh at the intro - big muscled P with a high and tight haircut apparently paid for old clunker, hopped in and thing wouldn't start - pushed it out of seller's backyard and then calls a mechanic - mechanic says it needs a new engine... defendant: says P noticed old veeHICkle in her backyard, asked if he could buy it, she said sure, but it has problems (which might be why it was in back yard) - he said he could fix it and bought it - his problem now, let him park it in HIS backyard.... unless intro clown left something out, no case here, dude has new yard sculpture... testimony: ok, P actually asking for more money than he paid for junker, paid $850 for truck, but now also wants money he paid mechanic to check it out, so wants total of a grand... apparently his case is based on notion that lemon law protects dimwitted idjits who purchase broken down heaps they find in other people's yard, want to scoff at his idea, but seem to recall that at least in one State, can't remember which one, that is, in fact, the law.... unless this jurisdiction has some super duper consumer protection laws, this case is over before P finishes telling us what a great truck this non running heap is - let's see, he thinks he got a great deal on this 18yo trunk that he is being told has mechanic issues, buys it from the little old lady he just met delivering a fridge without even trying to start the truck, and when gamble that it's an easy fix fizzles he wants to claim protection from court - yeah, and I'm sure if the problem was just a loose battery cable he would have gone back and offered old lady more money for the suddenly more valuable truck.... ok..... not worth recapping, just going to sit back and watch new level of dimwitted idjit (just to add, idjit knew truck had been sitting at least 1 year, though D says she told him it hadn't been driven in 4 years) - yeah, little old lady keeps money..... after decision idjit still claiming his jurisdiction lemon laws say he should get the money back
  4. SRTouch

    All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    when I was told I needed a new AC compressor to make my 18yo Ranger blow cold air I started rolling down the windows when it got hot - drove it a couple more years - when the 5 speed decided to become a 4 speed I sold the truck - only had a couple hundred thousand miles on it, too
  5. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    unpaid child care: (neglect case with kids instead of animals - no good guys here, Douglas needs to call Byrd and the two of them give both these litigants a good "talking to") P wants to be paid for taking care of defendant's 3 kids for a couple months. Wants 5 grand... defendant: says he never agreed for P to take care of his kids - says when he started working nights his kids were supposed to stay with his cousin, not plaintiff, so there was never a child care agreement - says real reason for the lawsuit is he rejected P's advances after she broke up with previous bf... hey, that makes sense - finally get a litigant with a job, of course there's probably a flock of women chasing him.... anyway, he also wants 5 grand - says P 'basically' kidnapped his kids, and made false accusations of child abandonment to CPS.... lots of cross aisle glares and looks of disbelief while intro clown goes through his shtick... poor kids, if these two are the best guardians they could find - from intro I don't see how either side gets a penny, just hoping CPS keeps an open file with a case worker checking on the kids.... Testimony: ah, P's 5 grand claim is not just for child care, seems she also wants money for a phone the kids broke while in her care... P tells her story, throws in a little digs to bash D's gf, saying when other kids wanted to fight D's 14yo daughter, the gf refused to stop the fight cuz she was too busy eating - anyway, she says she (P) broke up the fight, and since that time has been watching over the daughter, especially as daughter and P's niece became besties - time goes on, P claims kid spending more and more time at her place - says D 'put 14yo out' and eventually 3 of D's kids were living with P - course D denies ever 'putting out' any of his kids - oh, and we learn the 14yo isn't his biological child - says he only has two biological kids, an 18yo and a 9yo - the 14yo's mother is one of his kids mother (probably the 9yo but whole sordid mess getting too confusing to follow) and apparently baby mommy split and disappeared in the wilds of Virginia to do god only knows what, leaving the 14yo and whichever other kid she birthed with D for D to raise (or let run wild).... whole time D is telling his story, P standing there glaring at him with her hand on her hip - I'm waiting for MM to tell her to stop, but really hoping Douglas goes over, bops her upside her head, telling her to keep her eyes to the front.... ok, worst neglect case in a while - I skip animal abuse/neglect cases because I don't want to hear what A-holes people can be, and this case is another neglect case, but with kids instead of cats or dogs.... time to zip ahead - one thing before I zip - P claiming D's 3 kids living with her, yet despite being repeatedly asked sounds like at most it was just the 14yo who was 'basically' living there, and 'most nights' sleeping there, and never with daddy's permission - and I never heard anything about daddy agreeing to pay P anything - just 'I got you' when asked to help buy food.... ok, zip time as P going off rails with nonsense I don't care to watch - didn't even slow down for decision or hallterview, though I notice D is second out of courtroom.... tow case with a twist: this time P isn't suing tow company, instead going after neighbor who called and got his car towed - says neighbor doesn't like him for whatever reason, waited till P went on vacation, then called and got the car towed, which ended up costing P $722.46... defendant: says "not me!" says he never called to get car towed and doesn't know why P decided it was him - says P was parked in no parking zone, so anyone could have reported it, or perhaps cops ticketed it and had it towed for being illegally parked for who knows how long while P was off vacationing in Costa Rica..... don't know if D reported car or not - if car was illegally parked doesn't matter - but surely tow company would have records of why car was towed and who authorized the tow.... another non-case which should be easy to judge if anyone brought evidence.... testimony: even with CC having hard time making out WTH P is saying - ok, seems these two have been feuding over parking ever since P moved in - in past they've traded getting the other in trouble for blocking the driveway they both claim/use... nice that P actually brought pictures of the crime scene.... unfortunately not the picture we need, since despite repeatedly asking for clarification MM isn't sure where these two live in relation to each other or whose driveway they're fighting over... maybe D can explain things better, this guy is giving me a headache... ok, in past P called to report D, which resulted in D being ticketed, now while P is out of country someone calls and gets P's mini Cooper towed, and to top it off, P is hit with storage fees because he's in Costa Rica and car sits in impound til he gets back... okkkkkk, this is second lawsuit P has filed about this tow - seems when he got back and went to get his car, he was told property owner authorized the tow - nope, owner denies authorizing it, and P sued tow company with owner as witness - turns out P wasn't ticketed, towed because someone claiming to be owner authorized the tow - judge in first case dismissed case against tow company - to recoup the money P's out, he starts tracking down whoever pretended to be the property owner - course D denies it now, but seems he admitted to P he was the one who got the car towed - problem now is P has no proof D admitted anything such thing - what he does have is a typed letter, in Spanish (do you read Spanish, he asks - yes, just so happens MM reads Spanish) from D's friend saying D told this friend he called.... lucky P, not only can MM read Spanish, unlike JJ, MM will actually read it.... ah, but the letter is about the worst hearsay - just a typewritten letter - and, despite P saying this supposed witness was D's best friend, D denies being friendly with the 'witness,' saying he's just another neighbor finally admitting they used to be friendlying - BTW, he's also feuding with witness and has a separate ongoing case where D claims the neighbor assaulted him... glad I don't live in their neighborhood!.... so, not like P's hearsay witness/letter writer doesn't have an ax to grind with D.... ok, even though the witness might just be lying, MM takes P up on his offer to call neighbor letter writer up - not much comes of the exchange, but when she's finished with the call MM finally spends more time asking D questions.... personally, I think D called the tow company, but not sure P proved his case - letter & phone call questionable at best - course, standard in small claims gives MM lots of leeway, and she believes D made the call - P wins.... as is washing machine (?) sale - yep, washing machine: old guy bought used washing machine - turns out to be junk - wants money ($200) back... defendant: younger old guy, says machine was 2 grand new, P just doesn't know how to use the fancy machine.... started to say MM would automatically side with P cuz of age, but then D isn't a youngster, either - ok, I could see why D would refuse to take it back and refund the money, but I would - after making sure P didn't screw it up trying to get it to work - preview adds into mix P was once a washing machine repairman, so why would he buy a piece of junk without testing, and even more reason to question what he might have done trying to 'fix' machine - I retract my previous offer of taking back machine and go with AS-IS sale means as-is (minus some written warranty or guarantee, of course).... testimony: ok, P bought it without testing because D had moved out of house and water had been turned off - which D says was why he was willing to sell expensive machine for $200 - didn't own house and needed it out, and guess he figured better to be rid of it than store it til he could sell for better price - P has pictures - yeah, big fancy front-end loading machine, can't help but notice access panel has been removed, so no, I would not want to take it back - ok, next thing which catches my ear - P admits he 'played around' with machine, something about machine would only use cold water... so, something wrong with a control panel, maybe? - anyway, still stuck on as is sale and especially not willing to unwind sale with P admitting to 'playing around' trying to fix machine - and enjoy look on D's face when he learns P was once repairman - ok, P has no case, but D gets a hard time because once he unloaded the machine he didn't return P's calls after P reached out that something was wrong - makes you wonder if he didn't know something was wrong when he sold it... maybe shady, but still as-is sale of used machine, bought without ever seeing machine work because buyer "trusted" the stranger who was selling it through a third party (D's gf, who was neighbor of somebody or something, I forgot just how they came together).... funny thing is when MM says as-is sale means buyer beware, the P agrees, so MM laughs and asks why he sued, and P answers cuz I wanted my money back.... case dismissed
  6. SRTouch

    All Episodes Talk: All Rise

    But - but - then what will the rest of us do!?!
  7. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    can't buy love: tired story, but still hard to believe. P is gf who showered unemployed fugly D with trips and money for everything from rent to child support - now that they broke up she wants every penny (asking for 5 grand) she spent on da'bum - that's not the hard to believe part, that part is par for the course with TPC litigants - what's hard to believen is that fugly found someone to have his kids, then found P to foot his bills and, to top it off, found other woman to cheat on P with.... well, course that's par for course, too, but mind-boggling every time. Didn't get much past intro before I was holding remote playing with FF button. P practiced her lines about cheating humpty dumpty, and is a little thrown off when she's telling MM had she had to pay for their trips (and freekin' child support!) and MM tells her no, she could have dumped his ass... What is with people who think being unemployed means it's time for a road trip?... Yada yada, same ole same ole, only way she gets anything back is if she has something, texts work, but promissory note would be golden, where he acknowledges he was to pay back anything, and even then there would be a limit on how much she can collect if she kept throwing money away on dumpty while he wasn't paying anything back - ok, liberal use of zip button is made so not trying blow by blow recap - yep, while zipping through I see MM holding a phone, I stop and hear her reading texts where P is asking for money, and instead of dufus saying these things were never loans, he's asking for more time before paying... zip zip... next stop, MM has some paper which I guess P prepared showing all the money she lavished on da'bum - well, ok, but MM is sort of scoffing at the self-serving list purporting to be a promissory note, not believing dufus ever agreed to these amounts..... ok, thankfully time running out, so rough justice time after commercial break (if I ever make it into the gallery for one of these court tv programs and they start on one of these 'money can't buy love' cases, I'm getting up and walking out).... ok, first we get to hear a little drama, seems she has video of one of their kerfuffles, we hear he was arrested for domestic abuse, oh, and turns out P is one of those sainted single mothers whose baby was there for the kerfuffle (zipped through too much to hear who her baby daddy is, hope not dufus, but he IS paying someone support)..... ok, rough justice - MM announces both litigants are lieing, but she's trying to be fair instead of just tossing them out - dufus owes something for rent, since he was still there shacking up with P after they're fighting over money in the texts..... oh dear, MM dragging this out, looks like case will take up half an hour on this nonsense.... rough justice has MM awarding $1450 of the 5 grand P was seeking - some of the rent and I guess part of a trip (guessing she found something in texts where he talked about paying her back).... just realised I skipped so much of this I never heard dufus talks until hallterview - and totally missed story of how P catches dufus cheating - not going back to listen..... wants deposit on apartment she never moved into: P wants deposit back, claiming when she went to move in her future landlord refused to let her, rented place to someone else, and refuses to return deposit - defendant says nuhuh, it was P who backed out after changing her mind.....so, MM will get to do some sleuthing to determine who changed their mind, and when - enjoy these cases much more than 1st case type, since you actually have to listen to more than 1st 30 seconds before knowing the ending.... testimony: ok, P put down a grand deposit to hold an apartment until 1st of month move in ('bout 10 days) - thing is landlord kept right on showing apartment, and another potential tenant was willing to move in right away and pay prorated rent for the partial monthly - so, now landlord asked for an additional $250 to hold the apartment..... uh, no, deal was already struck, apartment to be held for $1000 so no more potential tenants should have been shown place - no bidding wars allowed.... crossing aisle, MM asks for landlord's story - hmmmm, maybe be little language problem, but sounds like D agrees that she accepted a grand to stop showing apartment and hold it, but then turned around and wanted additional $250 because someone else was willing to take place right away..... uh, sounds like she just admitted she was one to change deal, so she breached agreement, deal unwound, P gets full refund - oh and reason P only suing for $500 is because landlord generously refunded half the deposit when she reopened negotiations after reneging on original deal.... ok, commercial break - and shockingly, MM's hair changes color when I look up to see preview (too much blond) - course it's back to previous color after commercial.... ok, case over unless there's a switcheroo in works, which doesn't appear likely - we come back and waste time with MM going over D position a couple times trying to explain why she can't do what she did - not sure if D is a little slow or just trying to play like she doesn't understand English - geez, 2-3 minutes explaining, re-explaining, and going over it again, and D still not getting it and trying to restate her position - not changing anything, just saying same thing a third or fourth time - I give up and zipped through the nonsense.... thing is DirecTV must have given up, too, since I get several minutes of black screen and commercials, then Judge Mathis - don't see last 20 minutes
  8. SRTouch

    Judge Judy in the Media

    Another Blurb off my Chrome 'this might interest you' page. Old news for us regulars, but still an article about JJ's new look. Personally, I like - and hate - the new look. In some stills it looks good, others terrible. But hey, if she's trying out a new look maybe she'll ditch some of the old worn out Judy-ism shtick.
  9. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    'nother tow case: yep, picking up where we left off yesterday, 1st case today is another blocked driveway, ticketed car getting towed with driver insisting he did no wrong, with a couple differences - today's P is angry black man suing about damages he claims tow driver caused... actually only watched beginning and ending - took shower in middle thinking I'd rewind and watch if sounded interesting - it didn't, so I didn't - what I caught was the nicely dressed P, who looks so dignified in his suit, screaming on video about tow driver stealing his car, claiming race card, in general acting like an idiot. What's funny is he's going off on tow employees about coming in to the neighborhood and stealing from the black residents, yet car was ticketed and towed because a neighbor reported the blocked driveway, asked cops to ticket car, then the neighbor called asking for the tow. His claim had to do with damage to the car, so MM asks about any pre-existing damage - no, he claims, damage was from tow - ah ha! says sleuthy MM, what about this here paper where you put in for insurance claim 2 days before the tow - case dismissed (may be another example of me giving up early due to low caffeine blood level - may go back and watch later) limo no show: older gentleman planned big night out with wife, hired D's car service to drive them to some expensive wingding - Driver was a no show, repeated calls unanswered, then it was too late to make it to the show - says D offered to refund everything, including cost of tickets, but didn't come across with any money - wants $2500 for the tickets and ruined outing... defendant: claims it was simple schedule mix up, says P longtime customer, and this is first time she's seen him so unreasonable - besides, says he could have just called for Uber ride.... thinking the uber bit is intro clown shtick - would a car service actually come to court recommending their long time client call uber.... oh, and claims tickets he wants 2 grand for actually cost $99.... testimony: right off bat, MM confirms last bit of D's intro - P suing for $99.30 for the theater tickets, plus $2400.70 for the ruined evening.... good thing this recorded earlier, as power just hiccupped and now I'm waiting for satellite to reset.... ok, didn't take too long, just time for quick coffee run.... ah well, no riveting legal battle here, more like retired guy substituting night out at theater with fun day spent on TPC, he and the wife probably going to go out to lunch with the $99 afterwards.... thing is, I didn't find him nearly as entertaining as MM apparently does - I hit FF before he finished his opening soliloquy... when I stop MM is playing Monty Hall, laughing it up with both litigants - yeah, P wins, not only gets his $99 but a couple round trip fares for future car rides to Manhattan tenant wants treble damage security refund: quicky summary - Odd Couple story with P renting room from D. P complains about D complaints when she left tomatoes on counter - D complains of dirty dishes and P not cleaning up after herself - somehow this ends up escalating until cops are called. P moves out, but here looking for court max of 5 grand because D withheld her deposit - oh, guess she wants rent she paid refunded, and added on punitive damages to get to the max. D says she left a mess and owed back rent, so she's within her rights to keep deposit. Silly case - betting starting from CL ad, and probably no written agreement, and D probably another person playing landlord without knowing the law..... ok, not really interesting, and I zip through most of this one, too. As expected, when I tune in for decision we hear defendant didn't followed law requiring written notice of why security was withheld within 30 days, so even if she could show damages she wouldn't be able to keep deposit (MM says what she claims as justification for keeping deposit fails even had she given the written notice) P wins, in that she gets back deposit, but other nonsense tossed - $400 to P, not 5 grand (somehow a puppy is involved, not going back to figure out how, but I gather puppy ate stuff it shouldn't have when P didn't pick up after herself - gotta puppy/kitten/baby proof when you have little ones, no matter how many legs they have)
  10. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    Allergy to restaurant food: P claims she told waitress about her food allergies (allergic to peppers) - was served dish with the green pepper she's allergic to - when she had an adverse reaction she was accused of faking to get out of bill - D demanded she pay bill before she left for hospital - suing for hospital bill and dinner she had to pay for that sent her to hospital $1853... defendant: admits her dinner had pepper in it - but says her dinner charge has already taken off bill - says he has already paid for the 2 epi-pens she used, and not willing to pay any more after woman slammed his restaurant on social media..... ok, not understanding either side here - I will never understand people with severe food allergies who eat out in unfamiliar restaurants without making sure their food will be safe - and telling the waitress isn't enough in my book, there's too much chance the info won't be passed along - thing is, many people shrug off allergies without realising how serious - deadly even - they can be - if your allergy is bad enough to carry epi-pens make darned sure everyone who will be handling your food (and plates, and eating utensils) knows.... I equally don't get restaurant owner/manager's appearance here, even though he doesn't want MM telling us restaurant's name - dude should be bending over backwards apologizing for the screw up, no matter who messed up the order - cook, waitress, whoever, doesn't matter - not coming on national tv... testimony: ok, P says she's been allergic to peppers for years, and always makes sure restaurant staff knows - says she was out with son and his friends celebrating a birthday, but made sure she told waitress and had waitress check with cook what she ordered would NOT have peppers - problem was, turned out red pepper was used in the breading on her dish, so as soon as she took a bite she had a reaction.... ok, bad on cook for not double checking ingredients, but comes back to customer, too.... ok, she says no one in party completed their meal, she reacted to her first bite, son rushed to get her epi-pens and everyone else gathered around - she says kerfuffle with waitress, first denying peppers used and she's faking to get free food, then says she dug out peppers out of food and put pieces of paper in waitress' hand, so waitress goes back to kitchen, finally cook admits peppers were in food, waitress insisting she pay before leaving.... not looking good for restaurant, especially since, if I heard correctly he took price of her dinner off the tab, but not rest of party's $150 bill.... ok, over to defendant, who it turns out was the cook - he admits waitress told him about customer not wanting peppers, but he "interpreted" that to mean she didn't like spicey food - dude not sounding good here, blaming waitress for not making allergy clear when doesn't matter, so he let the red pepper slide because - not sure, WTH he's saying, either he knows better than the customer whether the food is too spicey or is he saying he was told no green pepper but red peppers were ok, either way he'said wrong.... MM trying to impress upon him how serious food allergies can be and a$$hole coming off as some fancy know it all chef foody primadonna.... ok, didn't think much of P position when it seemed she didn't stress her allergy enough, but now I'm not sure how big a hammer she would have needed to knock this 'chef' over the head with to get him to listen - I would have leaned toward making P partially responsible for her own damn health bill, but am disliking this D enough to make him solely on the hook - especially as he sort of accepted partial liability when he paid for 2 epi-pens and comp-ed her (uneaten) meal, but demanded payment for the rest of party's uneaten meal and the $1700 hospital bill (yes, he acknowledges she needed treatment at hospital - but again with blaming her for not saying she's allergic to "all" peppers) - oh, and he doesn't help his case any when he says back at the restaurant they now call P "the red pepper lady".... ok, MM has slammed D enough, now she starts in on P, asking how many times she has had to use the epi-pens at restaurants (twice) and questioning why she eats out.... oh, and we learn the $1700 actually is just her out of pocket, actual bill "much more" according to MM. P gets everything she's asking for roomy kerfuffle: P claiming D gave her the boot and put her stuff out on the street, and some of her furniture was ruined - wants 3 grand... defendant: D agrees stuff was put outside, but says nothing was rained on, and besides she didn't put the stuff out there, it was the landlord who gave them the boot and put stuff on curb, so P is suing wrong person... testimony: hmmmm, when P starts talking sounds like intro clown got everything wrong - but easy to understand the goof this time because I'm having trouble following WTH P is saying - apparently she needed out of her old place, her good friend D was thinking of renting her downstairs, so ) ended up moving in - then some nonsense about a fight about putting food on the grill, and friendship started going downhill - ah, MM is doing her routine where she gets litigant to relax and say too much for their own good - P smiling, acting like MM is her bestie, while telling us about the various kerfuffle the two got into after she moved in.... thing is, she has testified about the rent she was to pay, so sounds like she was a legal tenant - which would make D a landlord and mean D was required to know what a landlord can legally do when they have a problem tenant.... hmmmm seems D's lease was ending, and she told P early Oct that everybody had to be out November 1st according to real landlord - if I'm understanding her correctly, P was very loose with her rental agreement, not paying on time and expecting D to cover for her when she was late, after all she had covered for her in the past - yep, she says, no big deal if she's late with her rent, and I love to hear MM say it IS a big deal whenever you short your landlord, since they have bills they have to pay and are depending on you to pay on time - ok, so first kerfuffle was over food on grill, then there was rent not paid on time, now something about P washing her BF's laundry (who wants to bet D's real problem was P not kicking her share of expenses (food, utilities, freekin' tide pods) along with being late with the rent. Anyway, trying to jump ahead a bit, if I understand what P is saying she unilaterally switched to a week to week agreement beginning in Oct, paid $300 for first 2 weeks (should have been $350) - everybody to be gone November 1st - when period she paid rent for ends SOMEBODY puts her stuff outside - D says wasn't me!.... hmmmm, D not making much sense with that line - who else would have come in and put the stuff outside, not HER landlord, since as far as he knew lease still had a couple weeks to go. Ok, that whole line is intro clown smokescreen - she ends up admitting to moving stuff outside - Oh, and now sounds like after D got the boot P decided to stay - uh, and sounds like the laundry kerfuffle happened mid October after period P had paid rent for and P had her stuff there, but wasn't actually living there, just came back to do bf's laundry in D laundry room (and messed up the dryer in process).... ok, whole case confusing, and yes, I have had plenty of coffee - not worth backtracking - ok, guess bf laundry was straw that broke the back, rent not paid up, dryer overloaded or something with bf's stuff, and when D texted to complain P says she can use P's washer and dryer to wash whatever the hell she wants - big kerfuffle, and I bet D locked P out and moved her furniture out just as soon as she could. I get why D would, but just because P may have been a lousy tenant doesn't mean D can toss her stuff and lock her out. Oh yeah, and despite D trying to spin things, MM gets her to admit she put P's stuff out. Ok, D just lost, but how much will P get? Does she have anything showing value, or will D get to pay extra for not following landlord/tenant laws? D tries to brush right over MM telling her she broke the law and just admitted to a misdemeanor in their jurisdiction (NY). OK, MM is ready to talk damages, but P's evidence is sadly lacking - D admits to putting stuff out, but nobody has pictures and P doesn't keep receipts, so this could be Goodwill thrift store junk or expensive top of the line. Apparently when D learns her stuff was put outside, she just abandoned it. My guess is we're talking about crappy particle board stuff that fell apart when it got wet (D says it didn't rain, P claims it did, but some of that low end stuff gets ruined if left out in a heavy fog)... ok, to further complicate things, P claims she was still making payments on the furniture - but again, can't produce anything showing what the stuff cost or how much she paid - oh and the d, our landlord who admits to illegally locking out her tenant and committing a misdemeanor by putting tenant's belongings outside now claims P was trying to sell the furniture for $500.... no good guy litigants here, I really don't like P, but then D deserves a spanking for the lockout..... absent anything from P showing the value, I'm going with D's claims she wanted $500 (P eventually agrees she was asking for $500), and tacking on an extra grand for the lockout, so, my rough justice decision would be $1500. MM is much easier on D - yells at her, tells her she actually broke the law with the lockout and putting P's property outside, but only gives P $575, the value of furniture (plus $75 for a mattress) - nothing for the lockout.... hmmm, I know on Hot Bench they sometimes access punitive damage amounting to whatever the fine would have been when a litigant admits to a misdemeanor, wonder how much D would have been fined for the misdemeanor she admitted to committing? tow case: P says he was parked legally, went to court and proved it, wants fees returned - suing for $320 defendant: says he was called to town car by cops after they ticketed car for blocking driveway - he did job he was contracted to do, if P has a case against anyway it isn't him and his tow company ..... yep, sounds like yet another case where tow company will win.... testimony: huh? Not sure how P got ticket dismissed from what he's saying.... says he parked his car, admits blocking a driveway, but claims because there was no sign saying it was an "active" driveway it's legal to park there? Soooo, it's legal to block a driveway unless it there's a sign? Well, here in court he claims he wasn't blocking the driveway, even though MM says in his papers he admits he was (well, admits his car was a couple inches into driveway). Oh well, doesn't matter except for entertainment value, he could be totally right that it was a legal parking space, if all tow company did was perform as contracted they deserve to be paid. Oh, and P admits he was ticketed... not sure, but could it be that the laws in their jurisdiction prevents the driver from suing the city for a tow when the city wrongfully has a car towed/impounded. Again, not sure it matters, because everything P is saying indicates to me he was illegally parked.... ok, more chuckles - he's not suing for the cost of the tow, no he wants double because instead of going to pick up his 1997 caddy at impound, he paid to have it towed back to him at 10pm - well well, guess what, P has the dismissal papers from traffic court, and sure enough according to the city that is NOT a driveway... I'm assuming it once was, but now it's fenced off and no longer a driveway - though I would think it should be marked no parking to be left for fire/emergency vehicles to get to the school yard/building through the gate shown in pictures... ok, as expected, P told he may have case against the city and cops (MM tells him to drop her a line if he sues NYC), but tow company did nothing wrong, and they keep fees they earned
  11. SRTouch

    Pit Bulls And Parolees

    Sad news from the VRC FB page. Last of the California OG dogs, Rhino, is gone 😢
  12. SRTouch

    Hot Bench

    Granted I was only half listening as I got ready for work. But from what I heard, her very large tree was leaning due to the storm. The city notified her it was unsafe. She contacted her insurance and a tree service company. Insurance denied claim and tree service colony wanted to be paid upfront. She didn't have the money, let it slide a couple days, did nothing, tree fell on neighbor's car. What did her in was the delay after the city notified her that her tree was a danger. She had time to call her insurance company and a tree service company for an estimate, but presented nothing showing she actually tried to hire the tree service company. She claimed tree service company wanted money up front, but had nothing to prove her claim, and even if true what was she doing to raise the money. She could fight the insurance company later, but tree was leaning and needed to come down before falling and potentially killing someone.
  13. SRTouch

    The Incredible Dr. Pol

    50 years ago we were pretty ignorant about spay/neuter. As a kid I thought it kinda of neat that more and more of the neighborhood kittens were being born polydactyl tuxedo like our tomcat Mittens - now I remember his many fight wounds and that he died at a very young age - maybe 5 or 6 years old. These days spay/neuter is something all my cats (currently have 5) get done.
  14. SRTouch

    Judge Judy in the Media

    This came across my Chrome page as something I might be interested in.... a little interesting, but not really... sort of about JJ and Hit Bench, but more to do with production company and profit split than the shows
  15. SRTouch

    The People's Court

    'Nother day with an incomplete recap - getting the tires I ordered last week put on car today nightmare tenant? old bald dude seeing ex landlord claiming deposit wrongfully being withheld - comes into court with a service dog, so hoping camera crew knows where to focus defendant: younger dude (first impression aging surfer dude) - comes in with armful of papers, so maybe there's some evidence in the pile - claims old dude a nightmare.... and this is old dude we've been seeing in clips lately that MM goes off on - countersuing for addition damages over and above the security testimony: ok, we start with plaintiff, and yeah, from get go I can see him being a nightmare - seems he didn't feel need to inform his new landlord about his service dog, so D found out through other tenants - when asked he informs MM that fact he has a service is not important, since law says landlord can't refuse to rent based on a service dog..... well, I'd think he should inform the landlord out of common courtesy, and he's displaying some attitude as he informs the judge what the laws are regarding service animals - which is where clip comes from as MM tells him what law actually says - which he doesn't like and he argues about.... not sure why P even brought it up, because when MM tells him the law and says he doedn'the really matter to case and carry on the P tells us landlord had no problem with dog.... yeah, only problem was tenant not bring upfront about the pup (actually appear to be a well behaved rottweiler).... ok, next he actually gets to something pertinent to case - says floor was laminate (calls it pressed wood imitation hardwood) was coming up in spots and that he informed landlord early in tenancy - ah but no evidence of his having told landlord - ok, when time comes he gives notice that he'll be leaving and moving to Puerto Rico - landlord inspects place anxiety provides list of things which need to be corrected for deposit to be returned ..... old dude sounds paranoid, says he just knew all along how landlord's would try to rip him off - could be right, some landlord's do, but can also be self fulfilling prophecy Ah, well, times runs out - looks to be good case so far, but not even 5 minutes in.... time to get new rubber under my veehickle.... who knows, may even go to DC for a sundae after
×