SATURDAY POST: 8 * 17 * 2013

Today was one of the most important days in my daughter's life and I missed it! Does that make me a poor parent, a bad mother? I really hope not. I missed it because I had to go to work. I am the main income for my family. I take my responsibilities very seriously. I also want to be the best mom ever. It is challenging to do both. I requested the time off and it was denied. I did everything I could to try to be home for my daughter and I failed her. She will never tell me that, she may not even feel that way, but I do. I feel like I let her down and that is not the mom I want to be. I am so sorry I was not here for you today and I hope it never happens again. It is a promise I want to make to you, unfortunately I am not in a position to make that promise at this time. As long as I work for someone else and I am not the one calling the shots, I can only try. And try I will - that I can promise you.

I would like to know what causes people to want to ruin other people's lives? Denying vacation request time is a very powerful controlling move. You have just proved to me and others that you are in control, in power. You can move the pawns around at your will.

I am sure this is an age-old issue. I am not the first to experience it nor will I be the last. I want to think there are kinder, gentler bosses that would not do this. Hopefully those bosses are alive and well and treating their staff with respect. Someday I may even work in such an environment. For now, I do not. 

I want to apologize to my daughter for missing such an important day. You know I love you, I am proud of you and I will always be there for you in spirit. Even after I have left this physical world, I will be there for you. You are the best daughter anyone could ever have. I consider myself fortunate to have you in my life. Thank you for being you!

Good Luck and Godspeed on the most important day of your life. You will do amazing because you are amazing!

People's Court Blog - Saturday - April 27 2013

A week of new shows!!!! This is great. I am so glad there are new cases. 

Here's one that makes you think about how someone can get away with being a con artist. 

Steven is suing Jeff for $3700.00. This is for the cost of a New England Patriots jersey that belonged to Tom Brady. Also, he has included the cost of authenticating the jersey.

Jeff is a huge Patriots fan. He claims the jersey is fake and that Steven is a con artist. Jeff provides so much evidence to the Judge to prove that Steven is a forger and that he uses aliases when he sells items on eBay.

Jeff purchased the jersey on eBay from Steven and tried to have it authenticated. The evidence he provides to the court is proof that the jersey cannot be authenticated. Why is Steven allowed to sell fake items on eBay? It seems the FBI and local police has been investigating. Steven says this is nonsense and he was never arrested. When Jeff contacted Steven to let him know he was not happy with the jersey, his money was refunded. Even though he got the money back he did not return the jersey. He has it with him in court and hands it over to the Judge. She does not want to smell it because she does not believe it belongs to Tom Brady!!!!!

The Judge rules that the jersey needs to be returned to Steven. She lets him know that she is watching him. Hopefully he will stop cheating people. Jeff is happy that he was able to bring Steven on national TV and let everyone know to be aware!!!!

Why do people feel the need to cheat others? It is hard enough in this difficult economy to make ends meet! To have to worry about scams and con artists is an extra burden, but one we must all be watchful of!!!!!! Buyer beware!!!!!! What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Check out this animal rescue group, they do great work!

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

Help them raise money - with no cost to you!

Please support them - check out their unique fundraisers!

People's Court Blog * Saturday 4 - 6 - 2013

Hi everyone. I am going to post weekly. During the week there are approximately 15 court cases. I am going to pick my favorites and share my thoughts with you. Please share your thoughts about the cases I write about and other cases also.

It is so interesting to watch everyone interact with each other. There is so much to be learned as people find a way to make the wrong right. Some people are so patient waiting to  be paid or waiting for a service, others are very impatient. Some people treat others with respect, with others the disdain is palatable. 

Even though everyone should be respectful to others, it does not always happen that way. When everyone is in court, we hope they are on their best behavior. Again, this is not always the way it happens. It constantly amazes me when people disrespect the court. The Judge deserves the ultimate in respect. 

The other issue which I find amazing, is the lack of preparation. Some people do not bring any evidence. Where do they think they are going? This is the day they are in court, this is the day they need to prove their case. 

Here is a case from Friday, March 29th. A couple moves and their TV is broken. They submit the claim to their renters insurance and then decide to sue the movers. The couple cannot prove the movers broke the TV because they did not unwrap it right away. There are so many excuses on their part why they waited. When you move and there are expensive electronics, they need to be checked right away. Because they submitted the claim to their renters insurance, it appeared they broke the TV. The woman explains that she did not know how renters insurance works. Really? She also did not know what it meant to send a certified letter. Again, really? It is not that complicated. It was no surprise that they lost the case. 

I hope to hear from you about your favorite cases. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Please check out this rescue group: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/NJ617.html

They do great work for the animals. Please help support them. 

Shopping Amazon.com? Use this link: http://www.fundinco.org/orghome.php?orgid=301

Thank you for joining me today and thank you for helping the animals!

Please remember to spay or neuter your pet!

People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

Linda is suing Andrew for $2554.89. This is for injuries she received as a result of Andrew's 4 year old driving into her with a motorized scooter. Yes, 4 years old! and Andrew is a proud father to say she has been riding since she was 3! Not only that, she is obviously so experienced she does not need adult supervision. Andrew seems fine with the fact his 6 year old was outside with the 4 year old. Linda describes the incident and it is very believable that a 4 year old lost control of a motorized scooter and injured her. Andrew says that his daughter told him that Linda walked out in front of her. Who would you believe? Linda shows the pictures of her injury and also show the scar on her ankle. Andrew does not seem to be concerned at all by Linda's injuries. He did not even check on her after the incident. After all, his kids did come home and tell him the neighbor had been injured. How does he rationalize letting his kids play outside unsupervised and on such dangerous vehicles for kids their age? Well, that is a very good question. We will not get the answer in this forum. The Judge finds in favor of Linda and tells Andrew that he needs to be a better parent. A 4 year old should not be playing unsupervised and should not be driving a motorized scooter! What do you think?

A Yankee Weekend

Andrew and Denis are suing Paul for $3109.40. Paul is counterclaiming for $5000.00, Andrew, Denis and 2 other friends traveled from Boston to New York City to spend the weekend. They wanted to see a Yankee game. They purchased tickets outside the stadium from a scalper for $50.00 each. They were stopped in the line and told the tickets were not valid. They were not counterfeit tickets. Andrew was able to find out where the tickets originated. Paul has a business in Connecticut and sends unsold tickets to the city to be sold. He claims he did not know these tickets had been sold online the Thursday before the game. Andrew contacted Paul and was offered the $200.00 he spent on the tickets. He asked for $600.00 and Paul turned him down. Andrew then called the Yankees to find out if this has happened before. Paul feels this was slander and could hurt his business and that is why he is counterclaiming. Why are they suing Paul for so much money? Well, they want Paul to pay for their entire weekend expenses. This is outrageous! I think they are lucky to have found Paul to begin with and to have the opportunity to get back the $200.00. When you buy tickets on the street, you are really taking a chance. This is exactly the ruling. The Judge finds in their favor for the $200.00. Paul does not recover anything on his counterclaim. He has not lost anything because of the phone call to the Yankees. This should be a wake-up call to Paul to change his business practices. Andrew and Denis should not have expected to get a bonanza of a free weekend in the city because they bought tickets on the street! What do you think?

A Cuban Gold Necklace

Jimmy is suing a pawnbroker for $2400.00. He says this is the value of a gold Cuban necklace the pawnbroker sold. When Jimmy pawned his gold Cuban necklace he received $450.00. He failed to pick it up within the allotted time and to pay the interest payments. The store tried to notify him but did not have the correct address. There is so much that went wrong here on Jimmy's part. He should have made sure he went back to the pawnbroker within the proper amount of time. He should have made sure they had his current address. Why would any of this be the store's responsibility? The store even waited longer than the allotted 4 months to sell the necklace. I feel bad for Jimmy because this necklace seems to mean so much to him, but he really dropped the ball.  Jimmy loses his case because he cannot show that the store did anything wrong. And what was the money for? Jimmy went to Atlantic City! Really! what a shame! Hopefully in the future, Jimmy will make sure information on an application is correct and he pays attention to the calender! What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

People's Court Blog - 8 24 2012 - Friday

The Door Was Already Broken!

Anthony is suing Kyle for $1380.00 ($1200.00 for the door, $180.00 for his time). Kyle is Anthony's daughter's former boyfriend. Anthony wants Kyle to pay the replacement cost of a patio sliding door. After Anthony's daughter and Kyle broke up, Kyle decided to come back to the house. He did not have a key, so he broke the sliding patio door to break in. Kyle claims it was already broken. It seemed when he was living there with Anthony's daughter, he used that way to get in when he was locked out. Kyle explains that there used to be a lockbox with a key, but that is not available anymore. It seemed Kyle did not have a key most of the time. Why did Anthony come back to the house after he moved out? There never is a clear answer. His girlfriend said it was for the furniture and then he changed his mind. Kyle said he needed dog food and while he was there he took his cigars and some documents. He also says that all of the furniture belongs to him. Also, he paid his share of the rent for 2 months after he left. Wow, not many people do something like that. He admits to having feelings for his girlfriend, but denies wanting to get back together. She hesitates when the Judge asks if she wants to get back together with him. They broke up because he was cheating on her and those are difficult wounds to heal. There is no doubt that Kyle broke the door, whether it was while he was living there or after he moved out. The timing does not really matter. It seems so sad, these two young people really do act like they still care for each other. They are very young and maybe just need more time. Kyle is found responsible to pay for the door, but not the cost of a new one. He would be responsible for the depreciated value of the door. The Judge estimates this to be $300.00. He has already made a payment of $100.00 to Anthony. In total, Kyle will pay $400.00 for a 30 year old sliding patio door. This seems acceptable to him, although Anthony is not happy about it. On the way out of the courtroom, they both express the desire to stay away from each other. That is a shame, they showed such promise!

My Car Was Impounded!

Myra was on her way to get her car inspected when she was in a car accident. Her car was towed to Anthony's auto repair shop. Myra is suing Anthony for $1128.86. After Myra got her car back from Anthony's shop, it was towed for unpaid parking tickets. Where did all of the parking tickets come from?  Anthony had Myra's car for several months due to insurance issues.  Anthony fixed the car without an appraisal and it took months for the insurance to pay. Since Anthony has limited storage space, he would park Myra's car on the road. The car was ticketed many times. Anthony blames Myra because her inspection sticker was expired. Myra was not able to get the car inspected because it was in the shop. Why would Anthony feel Myra was responsible? Well, Anthony shows a picture of a manila folder used as a sign that says management is not responsible for "expire" stickers. Really, when did he make this sign? It is definitely not a professional sign. All of the other signs shown in the picture are professional signs. The Judge is insulted and offended when she views the evidence that Anthony provides. She actually rips up the pictures! Why would he think the Judge would accept this as proof that his customers are receiving the proper notification? In this case, even if he had provided Myra with proper notification, she would still not be held responsible for the tickets. How could Myra get the car inspected when it was in Anthony's shop. I feel bad that Myra had to deal with her car being towed and getting it out of  the impound yard. Myra is awarded the full amount she is suing for. Too bad she is not able to receive more for aggravation! She would deserve it! What do you think?

It Is All About The Paint!

Bertila and Jimmy are suing Emanuel for $2100.00. This is the security deposit they paid for their house rental several months before. Bertila and Jimmy moved out because of the damage done by Hurricane Irene. Bertila tells about their wedding the day the Hurricane started. They came home after the reception instead of staying at the hotel. The flooding was so bad, their refrigerator floated out of the kitchen. Bertila and Jimmy went back to the hotel. When they returned to their home, the flood waters had started to recede. Because of all of the damage, they decided to move out. The landlord understood and returned $1500.00 of their security deposit. Why are we in court? Is it because the landlord wrongly withheld $600.00 of their security deposit due to Hurricane damage. No, it was because Bertila painted 4 of the rooms with very bright colors. Emanuel, their landlord, explains that he did not give permission for these rooms to be painted. These rooms needed to be repainted and that is the reason for keeping part of the security deposit. He explained all of this in a letter to Bertila and Jimmy when he sent them the check for $1500.00. Bertila and Jimmy did not cash the check because they wanted the entire amount returned. So, here we are in court. After hearing about their wedding, the Hurricane, the flooding, the floating refrigerator, we find out none of this has anything to do with the security deposit money. It is because of the paint! The Judge awards them $1500.00, so we find out that their landlord was fair and just! A breath of fresh air in the landlord tenant business!

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

 

Subscribe to stay updated!

 

If you want to be happy, be.

- Leo Tolstoy

 

 

People's Court - 8 3 2012 - Friday

The Blue Collar Is Faded!

Ceasia is suing the cleaners for the cost of clothing that she claims they ruined. The clothes were all Ralph Lauren, purchased for a polo party. She has not brought any of the items with her. This is Ceasia's day in court, this is when she should bring the evidence for her case. Because of this oversight, her lawsuit is reduced from $369.50 to $150.00. Dulce is representing the cleaners. She admits that the items brought in, a sweater, a tshirt and the polo shirt were damaged. She fixed the sweater and the tshirt and Ceasia accepted them. The polo shirt is the problem. The blue collar was faded. Dulce explains that the shirt is not going to look brand new after being worn and cleaned. Dulce had offered $60.00 when she was told the shirt was damaged. When she saw the receipt, Dulce said that was too much money. She was not going to pay for it. Ceasia's boyfriend thought Dulce was being disrespectful and he called the police. Why would someone call the police over a polo shirt and disrespect? He explains that he felt he needed to call the police before Dulce called them. I think he should have left the store and then decide how to proceed. I do not think the police need to use their resources responding to someone who is upset over a faded collar. Ceasia's boyfriend wanted it on the record that he was not satisfied with the dry cleaners. Okay, now we get to see the polo shirt. Dulce has brought it with her. The Judge examines the polo shirt and is struggling to see the problems. Looking at the shirt, the Judge says she would have liked to see the other items. It is a shame they are not available for her to look at. Ceasia forgot them. Ceasia's boyfriend says they were damaged, repaired and now the fabric is ruined. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. Ceasia loses the case. In the hallway, her boyfriend says he is going to donate the shirt. Having high expectations is not a bad thing, but we all need to be realistic. Once an item of clothing is worn and cleaned, it will never look brand new. What do you think?

I Am Selling You A Free Boat! 

Marc is suing Bill for $500.00. Bill is counterclaiming for $500.00. Marc has a case, Bill does not. Marc was going to buy a fishing boat from Bill's good friend. He gave Bill a $200.00 deposit, a battery and $100.00 for his time. Marc believes Bill is acting as a broker for the sale. Bill admits he received the $200.00 and the battery from Marc. He said he returned the battery, he even took a picture of where he left the battery. Bill shows the picture of the battery left outside of Marc's garage. Why leave something outside when no one is home? How do you know they are going to get it? Marc says the battery was not left for him. The Judge does not believe him. The bigger issue here is the fact of boat ownership. Marc takes his friend, Robert, to see the boat. Robert is going to go in on the purchase of the boat. When the two men are looking at the boat, someone tells them it is great they are removing the boat from the property. The two men also find out that the boat is being given away for free. This causes a tense moment between the two men, since Robert was going to give Marc money towards buying the boat. You do not have to purchase a free boat. Bill has so much to explain. He was getting the boat for free and was selling it to Marc. He did not tell Marc any of this. Marc thought he was buying the boat from a friend of Bill's. Bill did not remove the boat from the owner's property, he did not transfer the title to his name. Is Bill really the owner of the boat? Can Bill sell the boat? No, he cannot because he does not own the boat. Marc has a letter from Bob, the owner of the boat. In the letter, Bob calls Bill a scamster. Bill says there is no proof the letter is legitimate. He says Bob is his friend and he did not write this letter. The Judge wants to call Bob. Bill should have his phone number since they are friends. Bills says this is a new cell phone and he has Bob's phone number in his rolodex. Do people still use a rolodex for phone numbers? Now, Bill shows a letter that Marc sent to his ex-wife. Bill claims this letter caused tension  between himself and his wife, oops! his ex-wife. He said they are divorced, but live in the same house for financial reasons. This tension is the reason for the counterclaim. He is not able to prove that any tension caused by this letter would be worth any amount of money. On top of that, he needs to pay Marc back the $200.00. Bill denies receiving the extra $100.00, so Marc does not get this money back. Marc did not breach a contract of sale, since Bill was not the actual owner of the boat. Bill had no right to sell a boat that did not belong to him. Beware of deals that are too good to be true! Also, get receipts when money changes hands!

My Diamond Ring is Missing - I Know Who Stole It!

Marita hired David's moving company and is now suing him for $5000.00. This is the value of a ring that was missing after the move. David gave her an estimate of $1600.00 for the move, the actual cost was almost double. The Judge says this is normal for the industry. David tries to defend this practice. The Judge says it is not necessary. This is not an issue, since the case is about a missing ring. Marita claims her diamond ring was missing after the move. She packed her jewelry box and the movers put it into her car. Marita remembers that she carried the box into her house and put it in her bedroom. Initially, she has problems with the movers because they scratched the the floors in her new home. It was beneficial for Marita that she purchased insurance for the move. She put in a claim for the scratched floors and was paid. Ten days after the move, Marita notices her diamond ring is missing. Where can it be? Of course it has to be the movers! I do not understand why Marita is so quick to jump to this conclusion. She says they are the only ones who had access to her bedroom. She did not see anyone actually take the ring. She has no proof. Marita contacted David, he suggested she file a police report and submit to insurance. When the claim was denied by the insurance company, Marita decided to sue David's company. David says that he has never had a problem with theft in the past. His employees have been with him for many years. He has complete trust in his employees. Marita loses her case. In the hallway, Marita says she does not understand why she bought insurance. David says he would like to change the image of moving companies, he is a nice guy! I have a feeling the ring is going to show up, I do not think the movers took it. What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

Remember being a success without happiness is meaningless.

-Richard Denny