MovieChat Forums > The People's Court (1997) Discussion > What did you think of Veronica Pearson a...

What did you think of Veronica Pearson and Mama Ra?

posted 9 years ago by sophia-03878
8 replies | jump to latest

remember that episode? where veronica moved in with her and was suing her. What did you think of that episode? What was your analysis? Who was at fault?

[–] greenronnyg 9 years ago

I don't remember their names. Is that the case where plantiff befriended the elderly defendant, and moved in with her temporaily but it became long term, and the old lady wanted her out and secretly recorded her yelling at her. The plantiff came dressed up in Jamacian clothes. That was a memorable case. I guess the old lady was too trusting, and lonely, until she saw the plantiff's true colors. It's scary that they're are a lot of scammers out there ready to take advantage of the weak and elderly in hopes of getting a free ride instead of actually working a 9 to 5 job.

[–] sophia-03878 9 years ago

Yes that is the episode! What did you think of it. I mean i know Veronica was kind of taking advantage of mama ra and all but the judge didn't really give veronica a chance to explain her side of the story.

[–] greenronnyg 9 years ago

It's been a while, so I don't remember the exact details. I forgot what she was suing for? Was it the cost of her possesions the defendnt threw away? Judge Marilyn has a habit of interrupting the litigants, so I'm not surprised if she wouldn't let the defendant speak her case. That seems to be a recurring theme: "The judge wouldn't let me talk" although in this case, I think the video hurt the defendant, but it does seem like Judge Marilyn is judgemental sometimes. She reviews the cases and reads the statements before the trials, so maybe she already made up her mind in this case.

[–] sophia-03878 9 years ago

She was suing for her possessions. she said that mama ra threw her stuff away. I do absolutely agree with you that judge milan as much as i like her she interrupts her guests way too much. I also wanted to ask you if you remember the L.C vs Dorothy stewart episode? That was the one those two were drinking buddies and l.c was suing dorothy for 19 dollars that she said dorothy stole from her. That one was hilarious

[–] Gubbio 9 years ago

Judge Marilyn has a habit of interrupting the litigants

Very true.

She asks a question, and in the middle of their answer, she asks another question.

Milian: "Talk to me. What's going on?"

Plaintiff begins to speak.....

Milian interrupts: "How do you two know each other?"

She does this in almost every case. Why can't she just ask one question at a time?

Bad habit. It's annoying.

[–] LittleBrother55 9 years ago

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I was a line interviewer for a state agency, but even for this grunt-level job we got some training on how to conduct interviews. This training included the common-sense principle that a good interviewer asks one question at a time, and gives the interviewee adequate time to answer it without interruption before asking another question.

I'm not sure what they teach in law school, but I reasonably assume that Milian got some kind of training in this area during her career. In fact, I'm sure she did, because this kind of proper pacing is the rule in courtroom proceedings, where the legal record still depends on being able to make a clear written transcript of the testimony.

Still, she's so full of herself, and impatient to boot, that she is the ultimate "Don't Bee" when it comes to interviewing techniques.

As my "Ding!"s reflect, this is a truly annoying and inexcusable trait for a judge, even a TV court judge.

Worse still are the cases where Milian gets down on one litigant early on, and doesn't even pretend to act impartial. Yes, there are outrageous litigants who come off as dead wrong, evil, crazy, etc. from the get-go. But she should save her outrage for the verdict.

I didn't finish watching the case being discussed here because I don't get off on the righteous bullying shtick so beloved by TV judges since Judge Judy started the trend. When I see Milian gurgling and cooing at one side, and spitting nails at the other, I fast-forward to the next case.

I'm a bit aggravated because I just saw yesterday's show, in which Milian shamelessly helped out a goofy, clueless plaintiff because she took pity on him-- and, in turn, unfairly put the most negative spin possible on the defendant's case (and character).

Like the little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead, when Judge Milian is good, she's very, very good-- and when she is bad she is horrid.

[–] There-Can-Be-Only-One 9 years ago

I'm a bit aggravated because I just saw yesterday's show, in which Milian shamelessly helped out a goofy, clueless plaintiff because she took pity on him-- and, in turn, unfairly put the most negative spin possible on the defendant's case (and character).

Which one was this?

[–] LittleBrother55 9 years ago

Since you ask, it was the second case in the "May 5 2016: Radio Riot" episode.

An older guy who presented himself as a handyman/jack-of-all-trades sued a woman for not paying him for building a wall on her property over a period of months.

Yes, he may have been a well-meaning doofus who was practically begging to be taken advantage of. But, speaking of yard labor, he started out in a hole and just kept digging.

There was no real contract, much less a "meeting of the minds". No set terms for the job, no agreed-upon price/cost-- IIRC, he told the defendant to pay him "what she could". For the purposes of his case, though, he decided after the fact that his work was worth $30 per hour because that's the rate of pay for his "real" line of work, which I can't recall at the moment.

I'm not saying the defendant was an angel, but she testified that she did pay the guy here and there during the six months or so he worked for her-- which is pretty much the arrangment the plaintiff made with her, such as it was.

I should say the defendant tried to testify, because fairly early on Milian took pity on the amiable but scatterbrained plaintiff, and decided that the defendant was an evil, nasty woman who was purely taking advantage of the guy. So Milian just kept lecturing, bullying, and snapping at the woman.

There was no objective reason for her to conclude that the defendant was viciously exploiting this guy; if she did underpay him, it's his own fault for being so loosey-goosey about the terms of payment in the first place.

Milian also blasted the defendant for filing a bogus countersuit for "storage" because the plaintiff left tools/machinery on her property. Yes, it was a bogus countersuit-- but almost all TV court countersuits are filed out of "spite". I don't condone this, but it's obvious that many people get aggravated and file some kind of half-baked countersuit if they feel they were wrongly sued in the first place.

Here, it was just another thing for Milian to pick on. Maybe it was all staged so she could use her latest catchphrase, "I want to bottle your 'nerve' (arrogance, chutzpah) for coming into court with this (outrageous) case and sell it!"

Milian awarded the plaintiff $1,500, even though Milian fussed with him a bit at the end for not getting his act together before he started the job. She should've awarded maybe a tenth of that, as a "lesson" to him to be more businesslike and organized the next time.

The aptly-named Curt, as usual, even tried to work the defendant over in the hallway. The defendant correctly objected to Milian not giving her a chance to explain further that she had paid this guy along the way. She also accurately pointed out that the plaintiff didn't have any proof to back up his assertions either.

Curt usually won't let litigants get away with dissing the judge, but he didn't really land a glove on this defendant.

Aren't you glad you asked?