Surprise Tuesday Blog: RESPECT in the Workplace: June 18, 2013

A familiar theme: Respect.

Why do people feel the need to treat each other poorly in the workplace? 

The workplace: this is somewhere you spend much of your time. You spend more time at the workplace than you do at home. Think about it, your co-workers should become a second family. Maybe they do! Family feels very comfortable to treat each other poorly, we see it all the time. People's Court is a place where we see family suing each other all the time. So why am I surprised that co-workers and bosses have the audacity to treat others with less than RESPECT.

I am at my job for many years. I have always treated my co-workers and superiors with respect and expect the same in return. It does not happen.

What happened to The Golden Rule? Do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you. This is something we learn in kindergarten or before if you have parents that teach it. The practice of public humiliation is not expected in the workplace. Someone who chooses this approach as a way to manage their staff is severely lacking in ... oh so much!

When you have good people working for you, it is time to acknowledge and appreciate them. For over twenty years, I was treated with respect and then ... a change in management. How quickly things can change.

Which brings me to the next question ... Why does someone who gets power and control abuse it?

I am thinking this is an age-old question with many answers and yet, no answers. A study in human nature. What I do know is that we are all people who deserve respect from each other. We need to be at work. We need to feel appreciated on some level. I know, I know, we get a paycheck, we should not expect thanks. But ... we should not get treated poorly. What do you think?

Shout-out  to Megan!

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Maybe together we can figure this out. 

Thank you for joining me today.

Please check out this animal rescue group and find it in your heart to support their efforts. 

Many of the fundraisers are NO COST TO YOU!

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

Shopping Fundraiser:

 

People's Court Blog * 12-11-12 * Tuesday Case 2 of 2

This is the second case from 10-29-12.

There Is A Proper Way To Do Business

Steven is suing Dominic for $457.26. Steven hired his uncle's nephew, Rick, to do two roofing jobs for him. One at his personal house and the other at a rental property. Part of the cost of the jobs included dumpsters at each property for the construction debris. Rick contracted with Dominic for the dumpsters. After the jobs were done, Dominic needed payment for removing the dumpsters and disposing of the construction debris. Rick did not pay for the dumpsters and Dominic wanted payment from Steven. When Dominic contacted Steven by phone, they had a very angry exchange.  Steven did not want to pay for something he thought he already paid for. Rick gave money to his helper, Sam, to pay Dominic. Sam did not pay Dominic. Instead of suing Steven or putting a lien on his property, Dominic dumped the debris on his driveway. He says it is the debris from the dumpster, Steven says it was from someone else. Either way, it does not matter, it was illegal for Dominic to dump the debris. He also damaged the basketball hoop when he backed into the driveway. Dominic does not think he did anything wrong and he also is countersuing for $544.00 for the 2 dumpsters. Why does he think he should get paid for removing the dumpsters when he left the debris? Dominic does not have a good answer to this and he does not recover on his countersuit. Steven does get his money for having to remove the debris from his property. Dominic did replace the basketball hoop because the sheriff's officer told him he had 24 hours to replace it. 

What do we learn from this?

Anger has no place in a business proceeding. These two men should have been able to solve this issue without bringing anger into it. There is a legal way to handle a problem of nonpayment. Dominic could have put a lien on the property and should have dealt with Rick, not Steven. Bringing back the garbage and dumping it on Steven's property was not a good idea. Dominic also indicates that he will do it again if he does not get paid for a job. Someone did not learn from going to court. Damaging the basketball hoop almost seemed like an afterthought to Dominic. Who thinks that the only reason he replaced it is because the sheriff's officer told him he had to?  

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

A Word To Learn:

Disport: to frolic, amuse or display

People's Court Blog - 10 9 2012 - Tuesday

James And Road Rage

James is suing Danielle for $500.00. This is for damage to his car during a road rage incident. Both of these people were wrong wrong wrong for their actions. James and Danielle's stories are slightly different. The damage done to the car is not in dispute. Danielle admits to throwing a grape jelly jar at James's car. She broke the back window. James had 2 car seats in the back seat and they were covered with glass when the window shattered. Thank goodness the kids were not with him. James does admit he would have behaved differently if the kids were in the car. Danielle does not believe there were car seats except that the pictures shown were taken at the scene. What is wrong with these people? James does not get the replacement value for the car seats, so the ruling for him is $431.67. Danielle needs to control her temper, she has a baby on the way. James needs to grow up and be a better role model for his kids. Both of these people need to take stock of themselves and stop the road rage! This could have ended so much differently with two people who do not know how to walk away!

Shantel And The Lost Friendship

Shantel is suing Katisha for $2412.35. This is for the cost of a money order, a loan, bank fees, and pain and suffering. These two women have known each other for years. Shantel describes Katisha as her godsister. Her parents are godparents to Katisha's son. Shantel thought she was helping out Katisha when she cashed a money order for her for $1900.00. This was for work Katisha had done as a mystery shopper. Katisha did not know the company was going out of business and the money orders were fake. Shantel gave Katisha the money and deposited the money orders. They were no good!!! Did Katisha give Shantel the money back? No, she says that they were both victims. I do not know how Katisha was a victim. She has the money, Shantel does not. She also claims that she gave Shantel $600.00 for cashing the money order and then borrowed $100.00 from her. Shantel denies getting $600.00. I believe her. Why on earth would someone pay that kind of money to cash a money order! That does not make any sense! Of course, Katisha has to pay Shantel the money. In total, Shantel recovers $2012.35. She is not entitled to $400.00 for pain and suffering. The really sad part of this is that these two women are not talking to each other anymore. Does anyone know how Katisha can keep saying that Shantel is a victim also? Shantel is an innocent bystander that was trying to be nice and help out a really good friend in her time of need. What do you think?

Lorraine / Vashti And The House In Guyana

Lorraine and Vashti are suing Sugrim for $3487.00. This is for the deposit and fees associated with the purchase of a home. The house is in Guyana. The contract was completed in April of 2006. Sugrim told them it would take three months for the contract to be processed for approval. In Guyana, the government owns the land the house is on. Lorraine claims that she was never given proof of the approval. She tried to contact Sugrim and he did not return his calls. Lorraine sent Sugrim a certified letter. Soon after this  he let her know the contract had been approved. It was a little over three months later. Lorraine told Sugrim she did not want to go through with the sale and claims they had a verbal agreement that she could cancel if the process took over three months. There is nothing in the written contract that references a time limit. At the time Sugrim offered Lorraine half of her $2500.00 deposit back. She refused. Now 6 years later she is suing him. She does not recover any money on her lawsuit. She should have taken him up on his initial offer. AND  why on earth would she wait six years to file a lawsuit? I do not know, do you?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

Start Where You Are.

Use What You Have.

Do What You Can.

~Arthur Ashe

People's Court Blog - 8 28 2012 - Tuesday

 

She Cut The Medals Off  My Uniform!

Jonathan is suing Paulette for $4707.68. This is for rent money and also for a broken television. They reconnected through Facebook, had an online relationship and moved in together. When Jonathan was honorably discharged from the military, he rented a 3-bedroom apartment. Paulette moved in with Jonathan with her two sons, ages 4 and 2. The apartment was $1600.00 a month. Jonathan says they were each paying half of the rent. Paulette denies that this was the agreement. Although, she does admit paying half of the rent while they lived together. After living together for 2 months, Paulette told Jonathan she was going to have a girls night sleepover. He left the apartment for the night, so she could have fun with her friends. In the morning, Paulette called Jonathan and asked him to call before he came home. He thought this was suspicious, so he went home unannounced. He found Paulette in bed with another man. When Jonathan asked what she was doing, she assaulted him. He called the police and Paulette was arrested. Jonathan did not let her stay in jail, he got her out and also dropped the charges.Sometimes, people need to learn from their mistakes. 

 

Soon after this incident, there was another one. When Jonathan gets home one day, Paulette is on the phone in the children's room. Paulette's uncle was visiting that day and he is in court to testify. Paulette and Jonathan have another fight. Paulette cuts the medals off of Jonathan's uniform. She also throws something at the television and breaks it. Paulette's uncle broke them apart and kept the fight from escalating. Paulette says that Jonathan broke her television first, she has no proof. Her uncle did not see this. Paulette also says that the television she broke was not Jonathan's, it belonged to the family. She admits that she cut the medals off of his uniform, how horrible! A new kind of low, according to the Judge. It is obvious that Paulette has anger management issues. She really needs to gain control over her anger. Jonathan moved out and Paulette continued to live in the apartment. Jonathan's name was on the lease. Neither of them paid the rent. Paulette lived there five months rent free until she was evicted. The judgement from eviction court for the back rent was against Jonathan. Paulette is found responsible to pay Jonathan the full amount he is asking for in court today. She cannot expect to live somewhere rent free and damage someone's property. She needs to continue to work on managing her anger issues. Cutting the medals off of Jonathan's military uniform is inexcusable. How did she have the audacity to do something so terrible? Jonathan served our country and Paulette should show respect for the uniform. This is definitely a toxic relationship and they are directed by the Judge to move on mentally. They are not together anymore and are both in new relationships. People should not move in with each other so quickly , especially when there are children involved. Why are women so willing to expose their children to these unhealthy relationships? What do you think?

I Do Not Want The Murphy Bed Anymore!

Claudia is suing Tom for $1607.60, the deposit (half of the purchase price), paid for a custom bed. She purchased a Murphy Bed from Tom's company. Tom explains that he is able to advertise the product as a Murphy Bed, since the hardware for the bed is purchased from the Murphy Company. This is a type of bed that folds up in the wall when not in use. Claudia purchased the bed in September 2009, and was going to pay the balance, when the bed was delivered and installed. When Claudia found out she might have to move out of her rent stabilized apartment, she contacted Tom. Claudia wanted to know what the cost would be to relocate the bed if she had to move. She was told the cost would be $1000.00. At that time, she decided to cancel the order. The cancellation fees are listed on the signed contract. Claudia wanted her entire deposit back. So much time had passed that she was not entitled to her deposit back. Tom tried to help her out and offered to try to sell the bed. He would give her the deposit back, if he sold the bed. It could not be this easy! It wasn't!

Hurricane Irene hit the area in New Jersey where the Murphy Bed was stored in Tom's warehouse. The bed was on a pallet on the floor and was water damaged and could not be sold. Claudia said the flyer about the bed lists it as in stock and ready for immediate delivery. Why would it be in a warehouse in New Jersey? It can be delivered from the warehouse when it was purchased. It did not have to be in the showroom to be available for immediate delivery. Keep in mind, this is now almost two years after the original purchase. I would think that Claudia should have had the bed by now or lost her deposit. Tom was being nice to a customer to try to help her after all this time had passed. Claudia is the one who changed her mind about the purchase. She could have had the bed delivered and installed and dealt with the other issue later. The case about her apartment is still pending. While the Judge is ruling on this case, Claudia is trying to interrupt her. This is very rude, Claudia keeps saying she wants to finish. The Judge is quite clear during her ruling, that Claudia is finished and does not get her deposit back. I give Tom so much credit as a businessman to have done everything in his power to help his customer. There were unforseen circumstances called Hurricane Irene. Claudia tries to continue the case in the hallway, this is not the time or the place. If there was some other information she wanted the Judge to know, then she should have said it in the courtroom. Tom describes Claudia as a ridiculous and unreasonable customer. Yet, he tried to help her out for almost 2 years!
Claudia did not want this case aired. She took it to the New York Supreme Court, there were three hearings, yet here we are. Interesting!

 

Who Broke The Window?

Elanna is suing Nancy for $970.00 ($550.00 for rent and $420.00 for moving fees). Nancy runs a trailer park for her parents. Elanna went to look at a trailer after seeing it on Craigslist. Elanna signed a 7 month rental agreement. She was moving in with her two children and a co-worker. Elanna explains that she asked Nancy about the environment in the park. Elanna wanted a drama free environment. She was worried about racial problems because she has 2 biracial children, ages 3 years old and 6 months. Elanna says that Nancy assured her they would be fine. Elanna was also concerned about a pile of trash that a neighbor had stockpiled and Nancy assured her it would be taken care of. Elanna says it never was taken care of and it is still there. Did Nancy have a chance to take care of it? And why would it matter, Elanna moved out after living there for one day.

The first night at the trailer, Elanna said she saw someone running from the trailer after they broke a window. She did not have a phone and was too scared to go ask the neighbors to call the police. In the morning, when her co-worker came home from working the night shift, he called the park office. He told Nancy the window was broken. Perry, Nancy's fiancee, went to fix it. He was not told about someone breaking it and running away. He went inside and found a large rocking recliner near the window. He believes this is the cause of the broken window, since the glass and the screen were on the outside of the trailer. There was no glass on the inside. Perry fixed the window. Elanna moved out this same day, her co-worker still lives there. If Elanna was so frightened why didn't she call the police the next morning? Why not tell Perry to call the police? Why not call the police when she got to work? Elanna does not have answers to these questions. She expects to get money back for changing her mind. The general belief is that she got back together with the father of one of her children. He is in court with her, standing right next to her. Her boyfriend is not there to testify, so why is he there? It appears as if they are back together, even though Elanna denies it. The Judge rules in favor of Nancy. Elanna does not get any money back. It seemed that she changed her mind about her living situation and there are consequences attached. If someone is that afraid for the safety of themselves and their children, they should call the police. What do you think?
 

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

 

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

 

Happiness often sneaks in a door you did not think was open.

- Anonymous

 

Peoples's Court - 8 21 2012 - Tuesday

Another Friendship Ruined Over Money!

Vincent is suing his friend, John, for $575.00. John is counterclaiming $3000.00 for pain and suffering. Vincent explains that they lend money back and forth to each other all the time. This is what friends do. In July of 2011, John  called Vincent and asked for help because his house was in foreclosure. Vincent helped his friend by lending him $875.00. John told Vincent he would pay him back in a few days. Vincent said that John  gave him $300.00 back, $100.00 a month for three months. Vincent wanted the rest of his money, so he went to John's house to ask for it. Vincent says that when he was face to face with John, he got closer to John and then John moved back and hit his head against a brick wall. Vincent went home and the police came to his house later that day. There are criminal charges pending against Vincent for the assault on John. When the Judge asks John to explain, he admits borrowing the money. He admits paying some of it back. He shows the Judge two checks that were given to him. One of the checks has "loan" written on the memo line, the other check does not. John explains that the one check was the loan and the other was a gift. John says that for the past two and a half years, he has helped out Vincent in so many ways. He says that Vincent gave him part of the money as a gift for all of his help. He said $400.00 of the $875.00 was a gift. The funny thing is when the Judge is looking at the checks, the word "loan" is written on the memo line of the check for $400.00. This would make the gift the check for $475.00. John did not realize this. Vincent does not remember writing on one memo line and not the other. My question is, why give him two checks? If he was lending him $875.00, why not give one check? John is counterclaiming for pain and suffering because Vincent shoved him and his head hit a brick wall. John did not go to the doctor for the injury. The police report documents a small visible abrasion on his head. The police report also documents that Vincent shoved John. Vincent may deny it now in court, but the police report is the evidence. John does not have any other evidence to support a claim for $3000.00. The Judge does not want Vincent to get away with vigilante justice. She awards him $475.00, the balance of the $875.00 loan after deducting the $300.00 John paid back and $100.00 for the attack on John. There is nothing awarded for the counterclaim. This is another example of friendship ruined over money. Why do people allow this to happen? When a friend asks for money, it is very important to consider this question: Is it worth it?
 

Clueless!

Kenneth and Ann are suing Lindsay for $2374.53. This is for repairs Kenneth did on Lindsay's car. Ann is caught in the middle because Kenneth is her cousin and Lindsay is her friend. Ann operates a yoga studio. Lindsay does work for her in exchange for yoga classes. Over the course of a year, they have become good friends. Lindsay's car was vandalized, sand was put in the gas tank and the side was keyed. The shop it was towed to was going to charge her $3000.00 to fix it. Ann told Lindsay that her cousin, Kenneth, was a mechanic and could fix it for less money. Lindsay had the car towed to Kenneth's house. In order to have her roadside assistance service pay for the tow, Kenneth's house was recorded as a sister shop. Oh what a tangled web we weave... Once someone admits to being less than honest, everything else they say is suspect. Lindsay claims the car was totally repaired and she just wanted Kenneth to look at the car and verify the repairs were done properly. Kenneth says the car still needed repair work. Why would Lindsay have the car towed if it was driveable? Why would Lindsay think Kenneth would look or work on the car for free? The receipt from the body shop shows that the work done on the car cost $1450.00. The car still needed a fuel injector replacement and service. This was the work Kenneth was going to do. He paid $1600.00 for parts and repaired the car. When Lindsay came over to get the car, she offered Kenneth $16.00 for the repair, not $1600.00. Lindsay denies this and says he was checking the car for free. I do not know what world Lindsay lives in, but rarely is anything done for free! Why would Kenneth spend that kind of money and time for someone he does not even know? Kenneth would not release the car to Lindsay without payment. Lindsay came back with her spare set of keys and took the car. Lindsay really does have nerve! Ann felt bad because Kenneth was out money, she claims that she paid him the $1600.00. She has no proof of the payment. Whether she paid him or not, the Judge finds she has no standing to sue Lindsay and dismisses Ann from the case. Kenneth is awarded the full amount that is being sued for. Lindsay needs to pay for the work that was done on the car. Ann and Lindsay are no longer friends. It seems that Ann tried to help someone that justs takes advantage of people. It is very important to know who your friends are. The Judge says it very clearly, if Ann wants to help out people, she should volunteer in a soup kitchen!
 

Splatters Of  Paint Everywhere!

Melissa hired Ron to do construction work at her house. She paid him $1350.00 and wants her money back. She is not happy with the job, feels it was not finished and it was not done properly. Melissa hired Ron to do some repair work and painting. Melissa shows pictures of the work. There was an open paint can with a brush left in the yard. There is wood showing through the paint job. There is paint splattered everywhere, on the porch, the trees, the driveway. The place really looks like Ron left it a mess. Ron denies this and says that Melissa sabotaged the area for the pictures. Why would someone do this? It does not make sense. Ron does not seem to care about the entire situation. It was like he was doing her a favor! He was paid to do a job, it was not charity. Ron comments that he has been in business for 26 years and works on million dollar houses. So what, who cares! Melissa paid him to do a job and he made a mess of it. She deserves to get her money back. She actually will get back part of her money. Ron did some work, so he does need to get paid something. Ron is ordered to return $750.00. Ron states that Melissa got more than her money's worth. Really? We all saw the pictures of the way Ron left Melissa's property. He should just admit that he could have done a better job. I give Melissa credit for bringing Ron to court. No one should have to pay for shoddy workmanship. What do you think?

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

The happiest people do not have the best of everything.

They just make the best of everything.

- Unknown

People's Court - 8 20 2012 - Monday

How Many Times Do I Have To Return To Your Store?

Valerie is suing her dry cleaners for $400.00 ($100.00 for her dress and the rest is for harassment). Valerie left 10 garments to be cleaned, when she picked them up, one was missing. She was asked to come back. When she returned, she met the owner, Emmanuel. He explained to her that the beads on the dress exploded during the cleaning process. He wanted more time to clean it. Valerie agreed and came back to the store a third time. The dress was still ruined., Valerie wanted $100.00 for the dress. This is what she paid for it, several years ago. Emmanuel offered her $50.00 due to depreciation of the dress. This money was to be used in store credit. Valerie did not want store credit, she wanted to be paid for her ruined dress. Emmanuel said he would think about it and she should come back. Valerie left and came back to the store a fourth time. When she got to the store this time, Emmanuel was waiting on a customer. Valerie waited and finally Emmanuel helped her. He asked her to wait, while he pressed the dress. When he brought the dress out, he hung it up and then asked her to wait again while he called his lawyer. Valerie was tired of waiting, she took the dress and left the store. An employee of the store saw this and told Emmanuel that she was leaving with the dress. Emmanuel ran after her, yelling and then tried to stop her from driving away. He leaned on the back of the car. When another car pulled in, he had the driver block Valerie from leaving. Emmanuel called the police. The police said it was a civil matter and Valerie should take him to court. And here we are....what a major ordeal to make over a dress. I really think the police have better things to do. Although, the way Emmanuel acted, something far worse could have happened. It is never a good idea to try to stop a moving car. Why did Emmanuel have to make Valerie return to the store four times? The first time she returned, he needed to explain to her how the dress was ruined in the dry cleaning process. Emmanuel explains that his staff is not trained to tell customers this type of information. Why didn't Emmanuel call Valerie to explain about the dress? Why make her come back to the store so many times? There is no excuse for this! Valerie is awarded $50.00 for the cost of the dress. She does not get harassment, even though she was very convincing that she almost had a heart attack when Emmanuel chased her when she was trying to drive away! Valerie is satisfied with the outcome, she just wanted Emmanuel to learn that he has to be fair to people. I hope Emmanuel did learn this. I also hopes he trains his staff to explain problems to his customers. This way they do not have to keep coming back to his store unless it is to drop off and pick up clothing. What do you think?

I Want Tony Montana Back!

Tracy is suing Cindy for $1216.70. This is for the value of her cat, rent and damages to window blinds. Tracy rented her second bedroom to Cindy for $170.00 a week, including utiities. Tracy had a dog and a cat. Her Maine Coon cat, Tony Montana, and her dog were the loves of her life. When Tracy went away for a week, she asked Cindy to take care of her pets in exchange for one week's rent. While Tracy was away, she asked her friend, Roger, to keep an eye on everything. Tracy did this because Cindy had recently moved in and she did not know her that well. Why didn't she ask Roger to care for her pets? It would have made sense since Roger was her good friend? During this week, Cindy decided to move out. Tracy said when she found this out she came home early. Cindy says she was gone from Saturday to Saturday, a whole week. When Tracy got home, she said she found a sticky note from Cindy asking Roger to walk the dog. She saw that Cindy was in the process of moving out. Then, Tracy realized that Tony Montana was missing. Where was her cat? Tracy is convinced that Cindy stole her cat. Cindy says she really liked Tony, but she has two cats of her own. Where did the cat go? Maybe through the window that Cindy leaves open in her bedroom. Why does she leave the window open? Cindy says she does not allow Tony in her bedroom. Really, a cat does not try to go where it is not allowed? That is what cats do! Is Cindy responsible for Tony? I believe so, but Tracy is not able to prove that Tony was stolen. Where is Roger, Tracy's good friend? He is not able to be in court, even though he lives locally. Tracy has a recording on her phone from Roger to the Judge. Tracy starts to play it and then the Judge tells her to stop. The Judge is not able to cross-examine a recording. It seems that Roger is making up a story after the fact. If he was so worried about the cat and the dog during the week, he should have done something about it. Does Tracy have any other evidence? She has a series of text messages from herself to Cindy's boyfriend and there is nothing to prove that she knew any of the information that is included in Roger's recording. If anything, the text messages prove that Tracy is a good liar. In her text messages, she says she has two eyewitnesses to Tony's theft. She does not have any witnesses. She is willing to say anything to get her cat back. I understand her frustration, but lying about it, does not help at all. Remember, honesty is always the best policy! Since Tracy has no proof that Cindy stole Tony, she is not awarded the value of the cat. Tracy does get some of the rent money back, since Cindy was not up to date on rent when she moved out.  Tracy is not able to prove that Cindy damaged the blinds, so she has to return the security deposit. This case is not about money. Tracy misses her cat and just wants him back. In the hallway, Cindy's boyfriend says that Tracy did not give the cat attention and he probably left to find a better home. Really, what does this mean? A cat does not leave to find a better home. Does anyone think that Cindy and her boyfriend helped Tony to find a "better" home?

What Happened To My Driveway?

Gary is suing Frank's paving company for $1935.00. Gary hired Frank to repave his asphalt driveway and to seal it. Frank was recommended by a neighbor. When Gary hired Frank, he also got him several more jobs in the neighborhood. Frank did those jobs before he did Gary's. Why? This is never answered. Gary is not happy with the outcome of the job. He shows pictures of the driveway. It is discolored, crumbling and deteriorating. There are even weeds growing through the asphalt. Frank explains this damage is from a snowplow. Gary says he never used a snowplow on the driveway. He only used a snow blower. Why is the driveway a gray color and bumpy looking? Franks says there is only one place in the county to buy asphalt. There is no way to be guaranteed to get the same quality material. The other driveways are perfect. Gary wants his driveway to look like those driveways. Why should he get inferior material? Frank says it is not inferior, it is just different. The weather has so much to do with it. When it is over 75 degrees outside, the asphalt gets soft and and the tires from the car can damage it. This is not the type of damage that is shown in the pictures. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. Should Gary have to live with an inferior job? No, he does not. The Judge awards him the $1935.00. In the hallway, Gary says he should have asked for more money. After all, it is going to cost him more to have the driveway removed before it is replaced. I think Gary should have had an estimate from a company for the removal of the driveway. I think he would have won. Whay do you think?

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

The most simple things can bring the most happiness.

- Izabella Scorupco

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 - 8 13 2012 - Monday

I Will Not Let You Take Advantage Of Me Anymore!

Lisa is suing Steven for $955.55. They dated for several months after meeting online. For some reason, Lisa kept laying out money for Steven, even though he did not pay her back. After they broke up, she tried to get her money back. When she had no luck, she filed this lawsuit. Lisa says the first time she laid out money was for Broadway tickets to Jersey Boys. Steven wanted to get tickets for his sisters. Lisa's mother works in the industry, so she was able to get the tickets. Why would Lisa put the purchase on her credit card? Steven admits he was going to pay her back for the tickets. Why didn't he pay her back right away? He does not have a good answer. He says he kept asking to see a receipt. This is ridiculous. The prices are on the ticket. Also, since Lisa wanted her money back, I am sure she would have provided a receipt for him. Lisa got plane tickets for the two of them with her earned miles. Lisa says she got the tickets because Steven could not afford them. He was running in a half marathon in Virginia Beach. How was he going to get there if Lisa was not around? Steven changed his mind about the marathon and Lisa had to cancel the tickets. It cost $100.00 to restore the used miles. She asked Steven for this money and he told her he was not going to pay her. Is it time for Lisa to dump him? I would think so. The Judge even thinks so. Does Lisa set him free? No, she continues with the relationship. Now, she invites him to a spring training trip along with other friends. Lisa explains that their relationship consisted of meeting at his house and going to bars. Did they go out to dinner? No. Did they go to the movies? No. What kind of relationship was this? Lisa says she broke up with him when she found out he was cheating on her. Good for her. Now she wanted her money back. Steven explains that he would have paid her for the Broadway tickets if he saw a receipt. Good news, Lisa has the proof in court. Steven says he does not owe her the $100.00 for the cancellation of the plane tickets to Virginia Beach. His reason for this, it was her idea. Really! He sent her numerous text messages about paying her back. He never said he did not owe her the money. He said he saved that to say on the phone. What else does he owe Lisa? Lisa says a movie and a wii game. Steven has brought the movie to court with him and returns it to Lisa. He denies having the wii game. He says he has his own, why would he need to take her game? The Judge rules in favor of Lisa for $930.55. She gets almost all of what she was suing for. The Judge takes the opportunity to address Lisa about learning a lesson. The Judge hopes Lisa has learned something from this experience. The real way to learn would be to lose the money she lent to Steven. The law is on her side, so she does get her money back. In the hallway, Lisa does say that she has learned her lesson and will not lend money anymore. I hope she means this. She seems like a really nice person and should not let men take advantage of her. Why are women so quick to lend money to the men in their lives? If their boyfriends cannot afford something, they can wait until they have their own money. Remember ladies, if he cannot afford it, he cannot afford to pay you back!

We Are Here Over $30.00!

Kent is suing Carl and Cynthia for $221.67. Carl brought his laptop to Kent for repair. Kent owns a computer repair shop. Kent agreed to remove the data, wipe the hard drive clean and restore the data. When Carl got home after picking up the computer, he found there was no information on it. This was especially troubling, since he wanted to print pictures of his mom for her memorial service. He called Kent to let him know there was a problem. Kent told him to come bace to the store, he probably forgot to put the data back on. Carl drove the 10-15 minutes back to the store and waited about an hour while Kent restored the information. Carl explains that when he got home, he decided that was not right and stopped payment on the check. He felt that Kent wasted his time. He sent Kent an e-mail explaining that he stopped payment on the check. Carl offered to pay for 30 minutes of labor. The Judge expresses her astonishment regarding the way Carl handled the situation. Carl should have let the check clear and then negotiate with Kent. Carl created a major problem over this situation. When all the charges have been figured out, this case is really over  $30.00. Kent is not so reasonable either. He is trying to explain that Carl should never have stopped payment on the check because he provided a service. Kent feels that when Carl returned to the store it was for a warranty issue. Kent mishandled the job, this is not a warranty issue. Kent was supposed to restore the data and he did not. It is not like there was an additional problem or something he fixed had to be corrected. Kent does not seem to understand that he is also wrong. Both men are at fault in this situation. The Judge rules to give Carl a rebate on the service charge. He will pay $100.00 for the repair of the laptop, instead of $125.00, the original amount. Carl also has to pay the $35.00 stop payment charge. After the decision, the Judge tells both men that they were foolish. I totally agree with this. In the hallway, Carl says that he was not foolish, since he did not initiate the court case. Did he already forget that he stopped payment on the check for a service he received? Kent says that he had to fight him because anyone can write a check and stop payment on it. Did he forget that he wasted this man's time by not doing the job correctly in the first place? It seems to me that both men left the courtroom less informed then when they entered. Neither of them listened to the Judge. Neither of them seemed to learn anything from this experience. What do you think?

I Want My Daughter's Belongings!

This next case is very sad. Sylvia is suing her daughter's friend for $5000.00. Valcharal, her daughter's friend, is countersuing Sylvia for $5000.00. What occurred to bring these two women to court today? Sylvia's daughter passed away. Sylvia wants her daughter's belongings back. The belongings consists of jewelry, laptops, debit cards and a phone. Valcharal has the belongings and claims that Sylvia's daughter, wanted her to keep the belongings from her mother. What occurred to have these two women at odds with each other? Instead of supporting each other after the death of someone close to both of them, they are suing each other. Sylvia explained that she took money to her daughter, so she could have Valcharal deposit it, to pay bills. Her daughter was in a rehab facility and told her mom she was not feeling well. Sylvia told her she should go to the hospital. Her daughter told her she would go the next day. Sylvia explains that she tried to get in touch with her daughter the next day and could not. It seemed that Valcharal took her to the hospital. She was admitted, there were complications and she passed away. Sylvia explains that she was contacted by someone at the hospital. Sylvia is distraught over the loss of her daughter. Valcharal claims that Sylvia's daughter had told her to keep her mother from getting anything that belonged to her. Valcharal has brought a witness to court and an affadavit from a family member. No one has anything nice to say or write about Sylvia. Valcharal even accuses her of doing drugs at her own daughter's funeral. Things can get nasty very quickly. Of course, Valcharal does not have any proof. Just to say such things, is very hurtful. Sylvia's daughter did not leave a will. The Judge dismisses the case without prejudice and explains that they need to go to probate court. Someone has to be appointed administrator of the estate, in order to determine how to distribute the belongings. The Judge directs Valcharal not to touch or throw away any of the belongings. This matter needs to be decided in probate court. The Judge directs Sylvia to call a lawyer to handle the case. Why is Valcharal countersuing for $5000.00?She explains that Sylvia has been calling her and leaving numerous messages. Sylvia even called Valcharal's mother! The Judge rules against Valcharal, explaining to her, this does not make a $5000.00 harassment suit. After the case is over, Sylvia says to Valcharal that her mother smokes crack. Valcharal responds to this by saying, my mother does not smoke crack, only you do. This is so sad. Two of the people who loved someone very much, are attacking each other. During their time of grief, it would be so nice if they could lean on each other. I would hope they could get past this and be a comfort to each other during this time of  great loss. What do you think?

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

Kindness, I've discovered is everything in life.

-Isaac Bashevis Singer

People's Court - 8 7 2012 - Tuesday

My Cat Almost Died!

Jill is suing Juan for $5000.00. Juan owns a pest control company. Jill received a lovely gift from one of her cats. He left a mouse on her pillow. Jill called Juan to take care of the problem. She had a contract with his company for termite control. Jill said she told Juan what the problem was and left the doors unlocked for him. About one month later, one of her two cats started to act lethargic. Jill's daughter took the cat to the vet. She brought him home with instructions to give him the prescribed medicine. The next day, the cat was worse. Jill rushed him to critical care. He was being poisoned by a rodenticide, a poison used to kill the mice. Jill found bags of poison in the basement. These bags have instructions on them to keep out of reach of children or animals. Juan claims these bags were used years before when the basement was separated by a wall. He used a different type of pest control for this occurrence, because he did not want the cats to have access to the poison. Juan says he used bait boxes in the basement. He claims the cat got sick from eating a mouse that ate the poison. So either type of approach would have caused the cat to get sick. Jill did not mention finding bait boxes in the basement. It is very clear from the cat food and the litter boxes, the cats spent a lot of time in the basement. The Judge finds that Jill can not prove her case. There is no proof of when the bags of poison were put in the basement. There is no proof of how the cat ingested the poison. For these reasons, Juan is not responsible to pay the vet bills. The good news - the cat survived and is enjoying life. In the hallway, Jill said she is happy that her cat is fine. Juan said he would have done it differently if he knew there were cats in the house. Wait a minute...Juan knew there were cats in the house. Jill told him her cat brought her the mouse, also the cat food and litter box were in the basement. What would he have done differently? Maybe he wouldn't have used poison at all. There are other ways to remove mice from a home without using poison. Hopefully, Juan will approach his job with a more humane approach towards the animal residents of a house. What do you think?

I Want My Guccis!

Samuel has been going to Ed's optical shop for many years. This most recent visit was not a happy one. Samuel had his eye exam and had his lenses upgraded. At this same visit, Samuel asked Ed to adjust his sunglasses. When Ed worked on the adjustment, he broke the temple (arm) of the Gucci sunglasses. Ed tried to locate a replacement arm, but could not. The frames were six years old. Samuel wanted replacement frames. He says that Ed has many Gucci frames in the store. Ed did replace the frames with a comparable frame. The frames were not the Gucci brand, just comparable in shape and color. Ed explains there are signs in the store explaining the store is not responsible when customers provide their own frames. He says that Samuel routinely brings his own frames. Samuel returned to the store two weeks later, and demanded replacement Gucci frames. The manager spoke to him in the back room since Samuel was being very disruptive. He was offered a solution and left the store, only to file a lawsuit. Samuel says there is a gap between the lense and the frame where light comes through. The Judge agrees with him after examining the sunglasses. The solution to this problem is that Ed is found responsible to pay the depreciated value of the six year old Gucci sunglasses. This amounts to $255.00. Samuel is suing for $5000.00. The rest of the money is for pain and suffering. Samuel is not able to prove that he had pain or that he suffered by not being able to wear Gucci sunglasses. In the hallway, he says that if he had walked into a train because he could not see, there would have been pain and suffering. He also says that he likes Ed's store and he will definitely go back. Oh lucky day for Ed! 

Never Lie To the Judge!

James, a photographer. is suing Jim, for copyright infringement. James has a verbal agreement with the owner of a nightclub. One night a week he took pictures for the nightclub's Facebook page. He was paid $50.00 for the one night a week. The nightclub is out of business. James does not have any proof from the owner about the agreement they had. Jim has a website that promotes local businesses. The nightclub is listed as an out of business venue. Pictures from the nightclub are still available on this site. James believes Jim is selling the pictures and is making money from his work. Jim explains that a third party actually sells the pictures. Jim also says that he made $38.00 in commissions from the sale of the pictures. None of the pictures that were purchased were James's pictures from the now closed nightclub. Now, it is time for James to show proof of his copyright. He hands the Judge a paper when she asks if he has a copyright on the pictures. He says yes, but he does not have a copyright. Why did he lie in court? He says his attorney says he does not need a copyright in order to sue. Yet, he is suing based on copyright infringement. It is a shame that James received such bad advice. Yet, it was his choice to lie to the Judge. It is always better to be honest. Remember - honesty is the best policy. James does not prove his case, he does not get $5000.00. In the hallway, James says he will now get the copyright and sue again. Jim says that James is suing him personally and should have sued the company. Hopefully, James will not sue Jim again. It is time to move on. What do you think?

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

Sometimes all you can do is walk away, hide your tears, and pretend you're okay.

-Unknown

People's Court - 7 31 2012 - Tuesday

We Met On Pogo!

Barbara and Della met online playing games on Pogo. They chatted for awhile and then met in person. After a whirlwind courtship of a little over a month, they decided to get an apartment together. This is so fast. People do need to know each other better before making such a huge commitment. The two women rented an apartment together in Massachusetts. This was near Barbara's family. Della moved from Kentucky. After 5 days, Della went back home. Barbara describes a fight that seems to be about nothing. I think the bigger picture here, is that they did not know each other well enough to live together. Barbara is suing for back rent, a ring and a plane ticket. Barbara has no proof with her that any of these costs were loans. During a relationship, people spend money on each other. To expect the court to divide these into gifts or loans is asking for too much. Proof needs to be provided in order to make this decision. Barbara does not have the lease with her, she gave the ring as a gift and there was no agreement to be reimbursed for the plane ticket. Barbara seems very bitter about the relationship. When she leaves the courtroom, she is still throwing insults at Della. When Della leaves, she is so sad and is crying over the lost friendship. Why do people insist on moving so quickly with a relationship? Savor the journey! This could have been a very nice friendship that would have blossomed, if they were not in such a hurry! What do you think?

She Curses Like A Sailor!

Rae hired Larry's pool company to repair her 27 year old above ground swimming pool. Larry gives her a price of $1890.00, Rae says she rounded it up to $2000.00, because she is just that kind of person. Larry said there was tax on the original price and the few extra dollars were a tip for Charlie. Charlie elegantly describes his position with the company as, "he's the boss, I'm the horse". I like this, Charlie seems like a really sincere person. When the work was being done on the pool, Rae kept a close eye on the job. She claims she pointed out a few times when things were being done incorrectly. Charlie denies this claim. After the repairs were completed, the pool was filled. Rae said she noticed the sides were buckling and the pool was losing water. She called Larry to let him know the pool was leaking. Charlie came to look at it and realized there were holes in the liner caused by the ladder. Charlie asked if she used a ladder mat to protect the liner. Rae installed the ladder and said a ladder mat was not necessary. This is not what was causing the leak. She knows this because the leak was caused by the inept way the repairs were done. Unfortunately, Rae does not have any proof to show the Judge. She was so upset that she was being charged for a service call, she loses her temper and curses in front of Charlie. Charlie seems genuinely uncomfortable to describe the way Rae cursed after talking to Larry on the phone. His words are bleeped as he recounts the way Rae spoke. She does not deny that she lost her temper. She feels that she overpaid $110 at the beginning and should not have been charged for them to come back out. Larry says he was charging half of the $150.00 service call fee as a courtesy to her. Rae does not see this as a courtesy. Rae did give Charlie the $75.00, even though she was not happy about it. She is suing Larry's pool company for $1500.00. She said this is what another company wants to charge to fix their mistakes. She does not have the estimate with her, describing the new company as clowns. Is there any company out there who could properly fix her pool? Rae is unable to prove her case. She is not pleased as she leaves the courtroom. She says she had more evidence and did not get a chance to show it. Charlie is still shocked as he describes that Rae cursed like a sailor! Why do people resort to such bad behavior if they are not getting their own way? Where is common decency? Why are we so quick to yell and curse at others? Do you feel that respect is a thing of the past? 

Your Plow Damaged My Driveway!

Robert hired Alexander to clear the snow from his driveway. Robert did not actually speak to Alexander. He was in the room when his significant other spoke with him on the phone. This was an emergency snow plow job. Alexander did not have Robert sign a contract for the job. He came out, cleared the driveway and was paid $20.00. Alexander says this is the going rate, it was a 5 minute job. Now, there is a second snowstorm and Alexander is called again to plow the driveway. This time the job does not go smoothly. Alexander has problems and tells Robert he cannot finish the job. Robert says he heard scraping sounds. When the snow melts two days later, Robert sees the damage done by the plow. He gets an estimate for $750.60 to repair these damages. Alexander does not deny that he could have caused the damage. He tells his customers that he would not be responsible for damage and they usually sign a waiver. Robert did not sign this waiver. He said he did not agree to waive responsibility for any damage caused by Alexander. He wants Alexander to repair his driveway. I feel bad for Alexander. I believe he told Robert's significant other the restrictions about what could happen when the driveway is plowed. His only mistake was not having Robert sign a waiver. He is paying dearly for this mistake, as he is found responsible for the $750.60 to fix the driveway. This is a difficult way to start out in business. Alexander has learned a valuable lesson that will save him problems in the future. He will now keep a waiver in his truck, for emergency situations. Good luck Alexander!!!!

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

Don't wait for your ship to come in, swim out to it.

-Unknown

Life Lessons

I am amazed by people.  In our everyday life, so much happens. There is always something to learn. Years ago, someone told me that each day we should strive to learn something new. People-watching is so much fun. Sit on a bench and watch the people go by. Watch them interact with the world or ignore the world around them. Or....watch it unfold on TV from the comfort of your own home. A very interesting show is People's Court. I wonder what motivates people to sue. Some of them are about being cheated, scammed or swindled. Others are families and friends. One thing we should all have learned from court TV is never ever put anyone on your cell phone plan. Unless you do not mind paying their bill, one day something will happen and they will not pay. Hello Judge!!!! 

The most recent People's Court episode I watched had the typical three cases. Two of them were fairly straightforward, one of them gave me pause. A woman rented out her daughter's room to a male friend. They admittedly had an intimate relationship and her biggest worry was that her 19 year old son was becoming friends with this man. She locked this man out of the house because he was drinking. She did not understand that she did not have the right to do this and would not even open the door to the police!

I know times are difficult and we all are looking for a way to pay the bills. What happened to our morals, our scruples, protecting ourselves and our family, and being a role model for our children. Granted her son was an adult, but bringing a virtual stranger into her home - anything could have happened. Bringing this man into their home was her first mistake and then showing her son that dealing with a problem was to ignore the police at the door shows so much more lack of judgement. What are we teaching our children???? What have we been taught? This woman made so many mistakes and she left court unaware of all of them. When the people take something positive from the experience it gives me hope. Those of us watching might not make these same mistakes. I know I will not be renting out any rooms! It is a good day when we have learned something.

Let me leave you with this thought for the day: 

Smile and the whole world smiles with you.