People's Court - 8 14 2012 - Tuesday

I Stole From My Parents To Give To My Boyfriend!

Lindsay is suing Timothy for $1501.75. Lindsay is 19 years old and has been dating Timothy for a year. They are not together anymore. Lindsay explains they broke up when she kicked him and then he punched her. While they were together, Lindsay says that Timothy wanted a new bed. They went shopping together. When it was time to pay, Lindsay took a line of credit at the store. The purchase of the bed was put in her name. Why did she do this? If Timothy wanted a bed, he should pay for it himself. Lindsay's explanation is that she was in love. Next, Lindsay lends Timothy money for a softball team. She also lent him money to get his car fixed, to pay for his car insurance, to pay rent, to pay bills and for a trip to Florida. Where was Lindsay getting all of this money? She was stealing it from her parents savings account. This was an account that Lindsay's mom had many years ago and added Lindsay to the account. Lindsay stole $10,000 from the account. Why would she steal from her parents to give to her boyfriend? Why would her boyfriend allow this to happen? Timothy tries to explain that he thought it was Lindsay's child support money. Even if that was true, why would he be entitled to that money? When Lindsay's mom discovered the withdrawals from the account, she asked Lindsay to return the debit card. Timothy had the debit card. That is so ridiculous that Lindsay would trust him with the debit card. She really had no respect for her parents or even herself. Lindsay's mom explains that she has a $6500.00 lien against a personal injury suit of Timothy's. It seems Lindsay negotiated with Timothy to pay back $6500.00. Lindsay claims this money does not include the money spent on the bed. This is why she is suing him, to get back the money for the bed. Timothy says it does include the money spent on the bed. At first, they agreed on $5500.00. Then Lindsay brought up the payment for the bed. Timothy said he would give her another $1000.00. Lindsay agreed that he offered that amount and that is why the final amount is $6500.00. But, Lindsay says it was not for the bed. This does not make sense, since she brought up the bed, he offered additional money and she agreed. Lindsay also gave him a watch. Timothy has the watch with him and it is returned to Lindsay. What would possess this young woman to act this way? The Judge tells the mom that she is mortified since this is no way for a daughter to behave. Her daughter needs help. Lindsay is not awarded the the $1501.75 for the bed. This money is included in the lien and she cannot recover it twice. Lindsay needs to have more respect for herself. She should not be showering money on a man to keep his attention. This is a very important lesson to learn. Lindsay is young enough to move forward from this experience and not repeat this mistake. Lindsay is working and paying back her parents and I wish her luck in the future.

I Wanted To Go On The Bus Trip - Now Give Me My Money Back!

Amazetta is suing Denise for $105.00. This is for 3 tickets for a bus trip to the casino. Amazetta considers Denise like family. When they were both at a family reunion, Denise asked Amazetta if she wanted to go on a bus trip. Denise explained that she was working with the organizers. Amazetta wanted to go on the bus trip and also asked a friend to go. Amazetta laid out the money for her friend and  Denise's father. She paid Denise $105.00 for the three tickets for the trip that was scheduled for the 27th of the month. On the 27th, Amazetta called the phone number on the ticket, to find out where to meet the bus. The man on the phone would not give her an exact address, he gave her an intersection. He told her the bus leaves from the corner of Purdue and Agler. Amazetta had a friend call the number and found out the man's name was Cliff. Cliff also gave her an exact address. No one told Amazetta that the trip was cancelled. When she found out she wanted her money back. Denise said that Cliff and Juan are responsible to pay her back. Denise gave the money to Juan and he should give it back. The problem is that no one can find Juan or Cliff. Amazetta gave the money to Denise, she wants Denise to pay it back. Since Denise was helping to organize the trip and she admits she was going to travel for free, she is responsible to pay the money back. Denise can now sue Cliff and Juan to get the money from them. I think it is sad that Denise treated Amazetta this way. She let Amazetta pay for a trip and never bothered to let her know it was cancelled. And what about Denise's father? He never paid Amazetta for the ticket. She was nice enough to lay out the money for him. Why do people treat each other this way?

I Just Want The Title To The Car!

Dev is suing Artie for $3000.00. This is for the cost of a used car he bought from Artie. Dev does not want the money, he just wants the title to the car. Artie will not give him the title, since he claims that Dev owes him for the cost of having the car towed. Artie is also countersuing for $640.00, the cost of a lawyer and the cost of the tow. Dev bought a 2001 Kia Sportage from Artie's used car business. When he left the lot, he drove 8-10 miles, the car sputtered and died. He called Artie, was told the car ran out of gas. Artie informed him the gas gauge was broken and he was sending someone with gas for the car. In the meantime, a police officer stopped and called for a tow truck. It seemed Dev's car was blocking a snowplow. When Dev called Artie to tell him the car was being towed, Artie got upset. Artie told Dev to get the mileage on the tow truck. He did not know why Artie wanted this information. The cost of the tow was $140.00, Dev was not going to pay for the tow. He did not feel it was his responsibilty. The driver was going to leave with the car. Artie went inside and got money to pay for the tow. Artie claims that Dev was supposed to pay him back, Dev denies this. Artie put gas in the car and Dev drove away. Did Artie fix the gas gauge? No. Artie says he never said the gas gauge was broken. Did Dev ask him to fix it? No. Dev said he bought a used car and knows the rules. Dev is very calm about this whole situation.  He shows a video of his car, the gas gauge, putting gas in the tank and the gas gauge does not move. Dev says he knows when to put gas in the car. Why won't Artie give him the title to the car? Artie feels Dev should pay for the tow. Well, it does not work out this way. Dev wins his case and gets...the title to the car! I am so happy for him. Dev sounds like he really likes the car and is not bothered about the broken gas gauge. I really think Dev should have also sued for the cost of fixing the gas gauge. He did not know he was buying a car with a broken gas gauge. I admire Dev for the cool, calm, collected way he approaches life. Oh, and Artie loses on his counterclaim. Artie should be more upfront with his customers. Letting someone leave a used car lot with no gas in the tank is not responsible at all! What do you think?

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

Always keep an open mind and a compassionate heart.

-Phil Jackson

People's Court: 7-27-12

He Stole My Cappuccino Machine!

Kenneth is suing Ronnie for $5000.00. This is for back rent and for jewelry and a cappuccino machine that are missing. Kenneth is a promoter. He knows celebrities and is involved with celebrity events. Ronnie saw Kenneth's website and contacted him. He wanted to meet celebrities. Kenneth wined and dined him. In exchange for introducing him to this exciting life, Ronnie did work on Kenneth's house. When he needed plumbing done, Ronnie was a plumber. When he needed electrical work done, Ronnie was an electrician. Wow, this just seems all too good to be true. Then Kenneth loses his job, his wife leaves him and he needs help with the house. He asks Ronnie and wife, Donna, to move in with him. Kenneth says they were supposed to pay half the mortgage. Ronnie says they were supposed to pay the cable bill, electrical bill and provide food for the house. Kenneth said all went well the first month. It was at the end of the second month that the problems occurred. Ronnie did not pay his half of the mortgage, he moved out without saying anything and he stole jewelry and a cappuccino machine. Ronnie denies all of this except the moving out. He said he was not supposed to pay towards the mortgage. He denies taking the jewelry and cappuccino machine. He remembers that Kenneth's wife had been in the house. I guess this was to give another reason for the missing jewelry and cappuccino machine. Casting suspicion on someone else is a great defense! Ronnie claims he paid the bills, although he does not have any proof. He does admit leaving behind his coffeemaker. He really wants everyone to believe he did not take the cappuccino machine. This must have been a very special machine! Now, Kenneth says he has proof that Ronnie agreed to pay half the mortgage. It is an open and shut case!  Kenneth shows the Judge a signed agreement with Ronnie. This is the agreement for Ronnie to pay half of the mortgage. Ronnie says he never signed it. He shows several examples of his signature, they do not match the signature on the agreement. Kenneth explains this by saying that Ronnie is a con man. This does not make any sense. Showing this document hurts Kenneth's credibility. He has no proof regarding the stolen jewelry or the cappuccino machine. The police have been investigating and Kenneth does not have any answers. Ronnie said the police called him once and he told them he pawned jewelry that belonged to his family. Kenneth claims that Ronnie left a voicemail admitting to the theft. He does not remember the exact words and he does not have the voicemail. This is not evidence. The signed document is not evidence. Kenneth also shows a Facebook message, that does not appear very legitimate. Kenneth can not prove his case. Kenneth tells the court that Ronnie was selling  prescription drugs and his wife was scamming disability. Why on earth would he ask these two people to live with him? If he found out this information after they moved in, why not ask them to leave? Kenneth took a big chance asking two strangers to move in with him. He should be glad they moved out. It is a shame that his jewelry is missing, it sounds like so much of it had sentimental value. Kenneth was not able to prove his case. He leaves the court very disappointed but plans to pursue the case of the stolen goods. Ronnie assures everyone he will still continue to watch the show. He believes he would have been arrested by now if the police had any evidence against him. We all will continue to watch the show and hope to figure out what possesses people to make such poor decisions!

I Tried To Tell You What I Did Not Do!

Michael and Rosemary are suing Robert and Jim. Robert was driving the tow truck for Jim's company.  Jim said Robert is the dispatcher, driver and his friend. Robert was picking up a vehicle at Michael and Rosemary's house. Rosemary's neighbor saw Robert hit her fence with his tow truck. The neighbor called her to tell her to go outside. She ran outside in her pajamas, it was 7:00 am. She watched Robert load the vehicle and as he was leaving, she asked him about the fence. He said it was nothing, started pulling on the fence. He said he could pull it back into place. Robert said he did not hit it, it was loose. Rosemary asked him for his driver license information. She wrote it down and gave it to the police. Robert did not wait for the police to arrive. There is also a question about the validity of his license. Rosemary said it was expired, Robert says it was valid. He shows the Judge a Florida license. I think Rosemary would remember if the drivers license was from out of state. Robert says he has a license in both states. He does not have his other license to show to the Judge. Robert does not sound very believable about any of this information. For some reason, his boss, Jim, believes him. When the Judge is questioning Robert, he says he tried to tell Rosemary before she asked about the gate and the fence. This is the "aha" moment that does not always happen for us. What was Robert trying to tell Rosemary? If Robert did not damage the gate and fence, what was there to say? This is also when Jim realizes that Robert has not been truthful to him. He nods his head in agreement with the Judge. He knows he is responsible to pay the $575.00 for the repair to the gate and fence.  Rosemary is happy to have won the case and will now have her gate and fence fixed. Everything would have been so much better if Robert would have been truthful. Honesty really is the best policy!

I Ordered A Round Bed!

Mary ordered a round bed from Elliot's store. She had it on a layaway plan. When she paid enough to have it delivered, there was a problem. For some reason, Elliot was not able to provide a round base for the round bed. This does not make any sense since Mary ordered a round bed. It is not practical to put a round bed on a square platform. Elliot shows the Judge a signed agreement with Mary. Mary's signature is next to two descriptions. Both descriptions describe the size as a diameter. There is a separate paper with a drawing showing a square base. This paper is not signed by Mary. I do not think Mary would have signed anything that described the shape as square. She is very clear about the shape she wants. Why wouldn't Elliot give Mary her money back when he realized he could not fill the order? His response is that he would not return her money but would make her happy. He would have a platform custom made to accommodate the round bed. He does not tell Mary that the base would be square. When the bed is delivered and put together, Mary is not happy. She wants a bed she can sleep on in comfort. She does not want a bed that is unstable. Elliot is not able to make Mary happy. She wants her money back. Mary is successful in proving her case. She will get her money back. I hope she will be very happy with her new round bed. Elliot needs to learn a basic lesson of customer service - The customer is always right.

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

Adversity is a fact of life. It can't be controlled. What we can control is how we react to it.

-Unknown

People's Court: 6-19-12: Accountability

We all need to take responsibility for our own actions. When we do something or allow something to happen, we need to step up. Of course, if someone is refusing to take ownership of their actions, it is important to be able to address the situation. The person wronged needs to be able to prove what happened. Without proof, there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

This case is so complicated you need a score card to keep track.

1, A woman asks her friend's girlfriend to help her out.

2. She has lived with her previously and asks to move in again.

3.The boyfriend and his girlfriend have violated existing restraining orders.

4. The girlfriend is sent to jail because she has also violated her probation.

5. She is on probation for stabbing the boyfriend.

6. She spends several months in jail.

7. While she is in jail many people have access to her apartment.

The actual case is about the theft of her 62 inch television. She thinks the woman living with her is responsible for the theft.(see #1 and #2) Unfortunately for her, she does not have any proof. Since   so may people have been in and out of the apartment, no one knows what really happened. There is no evidence to find this woman accountable for the theft of the television. 

A woman is walking her dog on a leash. All of a sudden a larger dog runs to them and attacks the small dog. The woman gets bit trying to keep the larger dog from hurting her small dog. A neighbor tries to help, getting the large dog to let go of the smaller dog. The owner of the dog is not home, but her mother realizes the dog has gotten out and goes to see what has happened. The woman who was bit is taken to the emergency room for medical treatment. The small dog was taken to the vet and was lucky to have only superficial wounds. The owner of the larger dog states the woman was bit by her own dog. She does not think she should be responsible for the bills. Also, since her dog is a pitbull mix, she thinks that is why she is being targeted. Since her dog caused the woman to get bit, no matter which dog did it, she would be responsible. The owner of the larger dog has made no effort to find out how her dog got out of their yard. This is not responsible behavior for a dog owner. She is held accountable for the medical and vet bills.

A tow truck driver damages a car while he is delivering it. He admits the accident is his fault, he went down a one way street. For some reason he does not feel he should have to pay for it. He says his employer could have gone through the insurance company. The employer agrees this was an option, but he would have had to fire him to satisfy the insurance company. The decision made is to let the employee keep his job and to have him pay off the damages. He denies this and says he agreed to pay  only the deductible. This does not make any sense. Why would his employer pay for these damages? Why would he think he was not accountable for his actions? And to make matters worse, he quit without notice. There is no question that the tow truck driver caused the damages and is held responsible. 

It is refreshing to watch these cases and see justice served. People should not make accusations without proof, refuse to pay when their own dog causes injuries and shirk their responsibility when they admit they caused an accident. It is time that people are held accountable for their actions.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Believe you can and you are halfway there.  -Theodore Roosevelt