Losing The Pictures
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2024
- The plaintiff brought his disposable camera into the defendant’s developing store to print photos of his deceased grandmother. When he went to pick up the photos, the defendant said he never received the camera, so the plaintiff is suing. The defendant insists the plaintiff never dropped off his camera, and the plaintiff is making this all up. The defendant is countersuing for aggravation.
Subscribe to our channel:
/ @peoplescourttv
Case #28245
#PeoplesCourt #RealityTV #Court - Zábava
I understand officer 😂😂😂
I know! What was that??
😂😂😂
It means this man have often encounters with the police
@@GloriousJohn316 Kinda sounds that way, lol.
Classic example of Freudian slip!!
😆😆😆
she was already assuming he was scamming him from the beginning
turns out he WAS a scammer . u know as well as the rest of us that there aint no young men suing over grandma pics on a 21 year old disposable camera unless they make it all up in the hopes of getting a significant payday ! he wanted 2500 bucks , so yes he IS a scammer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any one with common sense know it’s a scam
1. Waiting for proof (ie the receipt he eventually shows) does not mean she was “assuming he was scamming him from the beginning”.
2. It turns out once he showed the receipt and it was an actual receipt from the defendant’s store, the balance of probabilities was in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant could not disprove anything since he had no evidence, the plaintiff won.
Not sure what you’re talking about when you say “already assuming he was scamming” when that never happened in the case 🤦♂️
Agreed!
Outside 7:17 with Harvey, did anyone notice the grey haired guy in the background, it looks like he might have tripped, saved himself, then raised his hands in victory.
Good eye 👁️
lol yes
Hahaha me forwarding to 7:15 to see the victory😅
@@szblle00f hehehehe
Can’t unsee it now 😂 glad he’s okay
Frank lost the pictures.
EXACTLY!!!
plaintiff is a scammer 100 percent .
I wish the judge will let the Plaintiff and Defendant finish their sentences without her INTERRUPTING them. She can be VERY Rude at times. If you are trying to state your case, the Judge should LISTEN first...then ask her questions SECOND. I think that is why some of the litigants lose the Cases because she is trying to 'Talk Over Them' and NOT Listen to them.
Yes, she is asking a question then interrupts and when the person still trying to finish the sentence,she is like: " can you hear me talking?!!"
I am wondering how her family can stand the constant yapping and interrupting
She’s rude to them because neither is Hispanic I notice that a lot
@Robbemm ya I'm seeing that a lot too! A few episodes when she wasn't letting them finish talking.... they would say something at the end, then she would look back and cha ge the verdict. Listen the first damn time. And judges shouldn't be discriminating period. But I do see it. And she always has to speak the spanish crap.
Would u rather they keep talking nonsense and drag out the case? Why do u watch her if u feel this way 😂😂😂
Right! And to say how Important we're the pics kept for 20yrs?? WHO TF is she to determine how important something is to someone no matter the time??!! She be missing g me.off sometimes!
He won $12.99 . He can't even get the number one meal at McDonald's for that.
An entire dollar short here in Ohio.
Well I guess I don't need to watch this episode.
@@tresha2104 You're welcome.
@@MrAlienmagnet smh
@@MrAlienmagnet 🙄🤦🏾♀️
I 100% believe him because my mom had Sooo many disposable cameras from 20 plus years ago that have not be developed yet. Where I go the send them out of state and it takes forever to get back
Me too, I found 6 and took them to get developed & then later found 2 more. I still haven’t gotten them developed 😂
yeah but u aint gonna sue if the old cheap camera gets lost unless u are a scammer that needs a quick 2500 bucks like this plaintiff was .
But would you remember exactly what was on one of them? That was the part that was fishy to me.🤷🏻♀️
@@juliecranford534 All I knew was there was family but which ones & from what event, no clue
@@AC081361 I know that’s how I would be! It just seemed suspicious that this guy said he knew this camera from 20+ years ago (that he found in someone else’s storage) had pictures from a year before his grandmother died.
Idk he took a copy of the receipt but don't have it. He's lying
plaintiff is lying , he dont know what was on that camera , maybe nothing was on it , maybe he found it in a trash can in an alley , u can tell he is a liar by the way he was stuttering when the judge cross examined him about the camera in the beginning .
@@marleonetti7 “plaintiff is lying” but yet he’s the only one with proof of what he’s saying. Glad I don’t live in whatever reality you live in 🙃🤣
@@redapol5678 he only proved he gave a cheap old camera to the defendant , but he didnt prove that he knew what was on the camera or where he actually even got the camera so my reality is doing just fine and thats why the judge only gave him the 12 dollar verdict .
@@marleonetti7 yes correct. He _proved_ he gave something to the defendant with evidence (regardless of his story about what was on the film, which was irrelevant either way because the law doesn’t allow for the emotional value of property), as opposed to the defendant who claimed a lot of things without _any_ evidence to back it up. At least the plaintiff had _some_ evidence, so really if you had to be calling anyone a liar, it should be the defendant 🤷♂️
@@redapol5678 but suing for thousands of dollars gives the plaintiff MOTIVE FOR LYING .
The use of disposable cameras were often given to people at functions like the party for his grandmother so finding the camera years later undeveloped makes perfect sense knowing when it was from. Sometimes the judge’s world colors her judgement (prejudgement) of the case. Seems like the shadiness of not wanting to give one’s last name while choosing to appear on national tv is shadier behavior.
Yassss!!!! I agreee
Judge you are being VERY unfair here. Maybe YOU would not have a camera that long. Maybe YOU wouldn’t know what was on the camera, maybe YOU believe everything that shady photo developer says, maybe YOU believe the slick shady photo developer when he comes up with all kinds of excuses to not have the photos and then says that he made a photocopy of the receipt and then when YOU ask for it he can’t produce it and what is YOUR response?!?! “Oh okay!” YOU CALL YOURSELF A JUDGE.!?!? You believed everything the slime ball developer said. Your brown nosing is blatant and embarrassing. Same goes for the people outside brown nosing to the interviewer.
But as you said, they were often given out. Even if you only attended one event a year, that'd be 2-4 cameras within that range and if they were given out, they'd be given out to multiple people. So it's hard to believe that in an event where dispoable cameras were handed out at this important event two decades ago, that only one person used it so there's no alternative images from the event and he knew that this one lost camera was the exact one from the event even if it could be from any other event they were handed out over the many years inbetween. I believe Frank that the plantiff said they were model photos and once Frank couldn't produce them, it became "They were the only images of my grandmother before she passed, now I want thousands of dollars".
oh shush , the plaintiff was a criminal scammer , from the beginning calling the judge OFFICER to the stuttering about the camera details when cross examined to the ridiculous 2500 amount that he thought his criminal ass was gonna hoodwink the judge into giving him . he is a street hood ghetto scammer 100 percent .
If the camera was in storage for 21 yrs …the film would be faded af!😊😊
Plaintiff thought he was going to make money…. off grandma’s old photos!😆
No matter what was on that camera, the memorable moments they took photos of are lost forever! It doesn't matter how long they had the camera stored because they still had the camera that held the pictures!
Title should be “Not Getting The Picture”
P.s. I’m available for hire People’s Court! Hit your boy up!!
Anyone else got any good ones?
Old Photo Frame Up.
I would have said in the case of "A picture is worth a thousand dollars "😂
@@kimberlyrawls8618 loveeee that!
@@kimberlyrawls8618 🤣🤣
😂😂😂 good one
There is a lot overlooked on this case. What is the issue of a CD being copied be a previous person? Frank is a careless businessman. He doesn’t keep good records. The man has a receipt with the company stamp so why can’t frank look up the reference number? Frank is lying.
The issue with the CD is the defendant saying the plantiff was trying to figure out what to lie about based on what would be most common for a customer to have. Something was up with frank but the plantiff was also lying. "I know that this dispoable camera from 20 years ago had pictures from this meaningful event". Even if the plantiff did bring in a camera, they lost all credibility when he started to lie about knowing exactly what was on the camera and how important the pictures were.
the plaintiff is a scammer , plain and simple . he lied about knowing exactly what was on the old cheap camera and his receipt at best only told the judge that the plaintiff found an old cheap ass camera and left it with the shop but the plaintiff could have found that camera in a trash can in an alley for all we know . he is a total scammer that tried to get a free 2500 bucks !!
@@Fribee83he didn’t lose “all” credibility. He was still the only one with actual proof that he dropped _something_ off to be developed. That’s why he won. Even if he had evidence that the photos were of his grandmother, he still would have only received back what he won in the end since the law doesn’t allow for the emotional value of lost property
I don't believe anything the defendant said. Boloney
and i dont believe the plaintiff . no young men are suing over grandma pics unless they are trying to pull off a scam in court .
What do you think the defendant is lying about?
@@juliecranford534
A receipt he can't produce, and how he has no records .
@@mikieanthony777 Oh, ok. Maybe, but lying about that doesn’t help his case any, so I’m not sure what his motive would be. Thanks for responding, though. I’m always interested to see how each person interprets the case. Have a great weekend!!
@@juliecranford534 , thank you 🤗
I have a disposable camera that I never developed from back in the early 2000s. I don't know all of the photos on it, but I know that there are pictures from me going to the Columbus zoo. I remember that because my mother told me to stop wasting the film on exhibits with glass because the glare would make the pictures worthless.
It’s the case of grandma’s gone 😂😂 dang That was a good one
😂
I'm not saying I believe in the planiff,this whole episode is fishy.
Yet I have disposable cameras and film from the 90's I've kept and never developed.
same here, and I guess the question for all of us is, why? 🤔
Same. This case actually made me consider developing them. I’m a little nervous of what’s on them
@@natashakhamo8696 I like to know how long you had that role of film or camera, and please let me know when you develop it and if you got anything.
If you can’t get photos developed in two or three decades I’d hate to know what other disarray the rest of your life is in.
@@thefonzkiss its not that deep. sometimes you pack things away and it is in storage for a while
Damn, why ask questions if you aren't going to allow them to answer😡
She's does that all too often and it's annoying
Oh please 🙄🙄🙄. She was never going to award $2500 for aggravation lmaoooo. She never awards for that emotional distress
Whats the purpose of the guy "interviewing" at the end? To be a jerk and try to get a reaction? lol
To rub it in when they lose.
I think he's the show creator's nephew or something.
Yes. That’s his job.
@@S.K.Smith-Green good answer.
😂😂 Pretty much !! He loves to be petty !!
Picture?!? I hardly knew her.
😂😭
Thanks Harvey 🙄 🤣
His grandma is pissed off at him from up above because he lying and just using her to get some extra $$ 🤣🤣 he didn’t start valuing her until this issue happened plus he didn’t even know what was in the camera! 🤣🤣
Officer Milian! 😅
😂😂😂
Dude is lying 😂😂
The photo developer is absolutely lying!!!
😮I've never been so early! Hi peoples court fam!!!
The hell Harvey....grandmas gone!!
Frank had no way to find the pictures w/o a number.. He lost them.
EXACTLY!
The Plaintiff was definitely exaggerating.
However, the Defendant definitely dropped the ball by maintaining poor business records. He at one point claimed to run a solo operation. But, who the hell issued that claim ticket? What a liar.
As ex photographer and person who developed B/W and color films, there is no way you could get anything off of that camera after 21 years. Most of the chemicals would detariet the film and if (and that is an if with Capital letters), you could develop the film, there would not be anything on that film. The plaintiff got lucky here.
You are wrong!!! I had a couple of cameras with photos of my niece’s wedding. We had put disposable cameras on all the tables and everyone took pictures with them and then left them on the table once they were full. They were a lot of fun to develope and see what others had experienced. A few cameras got misplaced and were discovered 32 years later among a box of some wedding paraphernalia. We took them in and had a great time enjoying the wonderful memories!! The pictures were bright and sharp as ever!!!
@@skeetsneufeld6305 I am really happy for you and your family.
Why didnt the def say any of that?
@@skeetsneufeld6305 You're definitely lying. Camera experts, people who actually develop film, say disposable cameras start to fade after two years and by ten years, they're turning colors. Yet you're saying that 32 years later, the pictures were crisp and perfect? Nah.
Oh no..I just found film from 25 years ago
That’s not a fair ruling. It’s ashame-she is sooo loud idk how her family tolerates her. The defendant is ridiculous and careless.
Those pictures were cherished memories of the plaintiff's grandmother. He should receive hundreds of thousand of dollars!
Not the way it works.
Are you joking? lol There is no way that a person would remember what was on a disposable camera 21 years ago that was found in an attic. This guy was stretching it to make a quick buck. At least he got 12 bucks instead. 😂
@sunflowermama4297 Exactly!!!! 😂😂😂
his grandma aint nothing special , nobody gives 2 cents about his grandma memories let alone the money u mentioned .
Ridiculous comment!😆
The fact the defendant had not a single care after the fact. He is disgusting and I hope he gets less customers.
I think he was saying the camera was LOST/HIDDEN in storage… super sad .
Both of these people are clueless.
How does this guy have a receipt with a unique number on it, but is unable to tell when the film came in or was processed? Like what? How incredibly lazy to not keep basic records for even just a few months.
So the defendant puts a number on each receipt but doesn't have any way of knowing when or for what it was issued. What a terrible way to run a business. He knows full well that he lost his film, one day it will be found and I hope the defendant contacts the plaintiff to tell him...
I can almost guarantee the photos contained the following images:
Grandma's thumb, the kitchen floor, and the bottom half of a group photo(knees and feet). The rest are the rose bushes around Grandma's house😂.
So what!?!? They mean something to him!!! He doesn’t need your permission to want those photos regardless. They are HIS!
Nawwww ain’t no way this man coming to court lying about this!!!! Frank @ss lost that camera or either messed up when trying to develop the pics!!!!!!
I know the judge doesn’t care but sometimes she gets on my nerves!!!!!
Harvey and Doug would get smacked talking like that to people in real Life
“Grandma’s Gone” is crazy 😂😂😂😂😂
That kinda sucks the defendant has no accountability for faulty business practices
If that's his only disposable camera he has he could possibly remember
I've actually heard of people using a disposable camera for one or two pictures each at several events and then taking it in.
The twenty years thing is a little weird, even with that, though.
Yeah, I have a disposable camera that has yet to be developed from years ago, and I remember what’s on it because I bought it to be silly and fun instead of shooting digital.
You and the next commenter PAY ATTENTION!!!!! The camera was not in HIS possession. It was in his MOTHER’S storage unit where they found it and played the “do you remember” game and realized what they had there!!! They took it to be developed to the slime ball who then lost it. Got it now!?!?!?
@skeetsneufeld6305 Calm tf down. What I wrote was in his defense to the judge questioning how he could remember after all that time. I can see you read to respond and not to understand 🙃
I think the defendant lost the pictures & the plaintiff is trying to get a wind fall.
both sides are sketchy here.
as a business practice whats the point of even providing a receipt with some sort of itemized number on it if you can't use that number to find anything?! (if it was me I would also put the guy's name and number in my system as well so I can search for it that way).
Why would the plaintiff wait that long to develop a picture of his grandmother from over 20 years ago 😳.
the camera was in storage and was recently found again.
@@Van-hb2lk thank you for letting me know.
Things often just get overlooked.. I don't think it's a representation of neglect, lack of love or sentiment. I have quite a few film little cartridges that are in a bin full of old pics that I just never got developed..& they r too in storage. 1 day when I get a chance, I will develop them . Just not a priority to me at this very moment Just my lil opinion
@@mitulu74 great to know.
Thank goodness @@Van-hb2lk
What a waste of time!
I knew within the first 30 seconds of the plaintiff talking his wasn’t getting all that
Where I used to work, we took in disposable cameras and sent them out for development. We input the envelope number into the computer which allowed us to check if they were being processed..and also had a binder that we documented the number, date and name. If he develops on site, the binder will benefit him so he could easily refer to that.
When they said it’s the case of “grandmas gone” I lost it
I love the way your host introduces the Plaintiff and the Defendant,
he passionately changes his voice into how he thinks their feeling, almost like he's telling a story.
You must be new here. 😂
Very inconsiderate intro
It's legitimately my favorite part of the show, always cracks me up
Why did he wait 15 years to develop his film
He just found it.
@1:57 Plaintiff how do folks know you been to jail without actually saying it. Just stand up in peoples court and say to the Judge I understand officer in the opening sentence. 😩🤦♀️
I understand officer 👮 😂what?
Lmaoooo he was not worry about grandma 😂 21 yrs???
Imagine going to court for $12.99 😂😂😂😂😂
I think Harvey meant “quantifiable”, not “tangible”.
If he had won, i was ready to file a lawsuit for 2,500 for my non existent camera😅
I have a couple of CDs with pictures on them, from film. The mail-in developer I used did that at one point.
I sometimes got two prints of each shot, and the CD.
Nobody takes model pictures with a disposable camera 😂
When folks get greedy they always seem to be lying or their testimony becomes a little questionable. Both sides are greedy.
His reaction with Doug says it all, scammer. I would have been livid.
plaintiffs over exaggerated and the defendant is a liar
Not the case of "grandma's gone" 😂
How old is this episode... what could he have got for $12.99 ??😂
Lost work because someone lost a camera? Come on!
And making it seem like a single trip from Pennsylvania to Brooklyn costs $1000. I'm assuming Philly because he didn't mention moving, that's around 3 hours by train, maybe $30 each way.
More to the point he LOST THE PICTURES!!!!
The defendant looks like Eugene Levy
If he found the disposal camera years later how does he know what is actually on the camera?? He is guessing that 1 camera had pics of his granny. What if that camera didn't have any pictures of his grandma? With the disposal camera you don't what or how the pictures look like until they are developed. They both seem fishy.
I think the defendant has the plaintiff confused with someone else who took in a receipt without the store's "stamp" on it.
This was an outright lie of an interpretation of the law, the defendant was a liar and I outright believed the plaintiff and yes you can sue for punitive damages, what she's referring to is compensatory, I guess she thinks the whole world is stupid.
$2500 for a few lost pics? another scammer
Takes one to know one.
@@skeetsneufeld6305 Go put on a dress and drink a bud light
the defender isn't very bright. she gave him all the help she could
I believe he took the disposable camera to the defendant but the thing I don’t believe is how much he valued the camera and pictures that were taken on the camera, bruh was just trying to make so extra cash, he don’t even know what pictures are in the camera that’s why he took it to get the photos developed in the first place 🤣 bruh didn’t even value it until he found it and when the defendant lost it 🤣 please just stop your Gma from above is disappointed in you cause she know you just using her as an excuse to get some $$
This entire lawsuit is frivolous, but the judge is full of crap when she thinks that you can't possibly remember what's on something like that. Most people don't use a lot of disposable cameras especially nowadays but even when they were more common people didn't make a habit of using them all the time so yeah they probably would remember what they use them for. Besides she can't just assume that just because she wouldn't remember that other people wouldn't
I agree.
Jamal the rapper or basketball player can go get a can of hairspray or S-curl spray for his jerri curls or get a fake grill or fake jewelry with the $12.99. Bet he thought it was $1,299 when Judge Malian rendered her verdict.
Why is nobody talking about the science behind a roll of film stored in a 21 year old disposable camera? The film would surely have been overexposed during that time inside a one-time use camera, which is not designed to endure.
It's probably not something admissable in this venue. But yes, it's very unlikely you'd get much of anything from 20-year-old undeveloped film.
Spoken like a true criminal or con man. I understand officer.
Plaintiff & Defendant are ridiculous
Believable, yet ridiculous
"Really important sentimental pictures".
That we didn't bother to develop for two decades.....
I have undeveloped pictures, as well. I'll get them developed one day.
Film is film digital is another story
Calling JM officer tells me a lot about this guy. Methinks he's been confronted by officers in the past.
2pac came back to get them pictures ❤
They’re BOTH liars
He found that receipt on the ground on his way into the store.
Yeah, how come the first thing I hear when I hear the case introduction is a double zero judgement
Grandma's gone, he hardly knew her!
I never knew my Grandma. She died before I was born!! I have tons of pictures of her together with stories of her life and personality. How I wish I had known her and I’m so glad I have photos of her and the stories!!! You obviously have no connection with family from your past or sounds like not from the present either. How empty your life must be!
@@skeetsneufeld6305 You must be new around here if you don't get the joke.
Really judge 😒 it doesn’t matter how they knew what was on the camera
I can't wait until I receive my degree in law!! Ugh
They didn't have any other pictures of grandma? Plaintiff is a scammer. I wonder how he came up with this?
If it was a special occasion then those pictures would have been important. The occasions surrounding why pictures are taken is very important.
After nearly thirty years, would they even be able to develop the film?
Yup! I’ve done it from old film
Plaintiffs a scammer
I feel bad that he had to close his shop for this.
Why!? He was so lying!!! The receipt had a number and he turns around that he can’t do anything with that!!! That was a blatant lie!!! He lost the pictures and has probably done stuff like that before. Very slick.
👮♀️Milian 😂
Plantiff’s face when JM said $12.99!😩😩😂😅🤣
The blonde lady in the background reminds me of Kelly from Bev Hills 90210.
2500 pfft that's hilarious
What a scam
those receipts are kept for years and filed by numbers.......wow
I know. Milian had made up her mind before she sat down!!! I guess the case wasn’t “RAW” enough to trouble over! If Milian would spend less time and energy yelling and talking over people she “might” actually learn something like the truth!
Lmfao trying to get 5000 for a 15 year old disposable camera??? 😂😂😂😂😂 I have seen it all now 😂😂😂😂
all you people crying racism are completely full of it. This is not area situation, and nowadays especially everybody cries racism over stupid crap. I mean seriously to force a syrup company to change their bottle or to want to tear down his historical monuments just because they represent something that happened in the past come on seriously
He’s lying.
Fun fact: I still have brand new film from Kodak 35mm and the Canon camera to go with it. I also have a disposable camera from polaroid. Just never developed it. I think I will now try to find a place. What could be on there. Hmmmmmmmm lol
Maybe the pictures of Grandma😂
@@pipesmoker4238 Good one