Talk:The People's Court/Archives/2014

Payday Discrepancy
The trivia section says "People appearing on the People's Court generally received a $100 fee for appearing on the show, plus money for two nights hotel accommodations, and money for six meals."

This seems to contradict the statement in Overview, which says:

"the losing party does not actually need to pay the judgment....both parties are paid from a fund ....for their appearance on the show. If a monetary judgment is ordered, the losing party's appearance fee is reduced by that amount, which is then given to the winner."

Given that the show handles figures up to $7500 according to the "New Version" listing, this doesn't seem to add up.

Silasthecat (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

aressted?
In all these court shows the bailiffs have handcuffs. I know some people have been kick out of the courtroom for yelling, but has anyoneone on any of these show ever been aressed for doing somthing "bad" in the court room? or would they not show this on tv?68.49.56.117 20:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I was present for a taping once. The "bailiff" does not actually have handcuffs, but rather has an empty hancuff case on his belt. There is plainclothes security present, but they aren't on camera. During one case I viewed a litigant became belligerent and had to be thrown out. The judge began to call for "security" at which point the real security guards came out. At no point did the TV bailiff do anything. The litigant was removed and the taping continued. This case, however, never made it to TV. All the others taped that day did. 76.7.177.159 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't actually get arrested on the People Court for being in contempt of court because it isn't a real court of law. You can tell the judge to go F herself and all that can happen is you get thrown out and lose the case. And even then you don't lose anything except your share of the fee they pay you. Douglas MacIntosh (the bailiff) isn't a bailiff. In fact he's not even a security guard. If you look him up he's an actor. Sometimes i think the people on that show don't eve read the contracts because they ask for things like court fees and things that don't apply to the show because it's an abritration not a court. DingoateMyBabyyy 05:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoateMyBabyyy (talk • contribs)

Rusty Burrell link

 * Rusty Burrell is hotlinked as an article, which redirects back to the main People's Court page. Perhaps the name should be de-hotlinked. 68.248.229.244 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I will remove the link.  Stiles 01:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I love the show!
I love to watch The People's Court on my sattilite. I watch it on WCBS as that is teh CBS I get. IT is the best show on televison. THank you, Scott Brown FunkyChicken! 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Money
Since the show's inception there has been a notation at the end of the show regarding a fund set up by the producer that is used to pay the litigants. Does anyone know nore about exactly how this works? And if so, can you add it to the article? I'm curious about that aspect of the show, but it isn't addressed in the article.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) –  July 6, 2006, 02:17 (UTC)

category or list?
Any objections to there being a category (or list) of the various reality judge shows? Judge Judy lists Judge Hatchett, The People's Court, Divorce Court, Judge Alex and Judge Joe Brown. (None of the above link to Judge Mathis show.) --EarthFurst 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Taping
During the Wapner era, an entire week's worth of cases were filmed in a single day. Thus the item under "Show Trivia" could not be true for that era. Has that practice changed or is the show trivia item incorrect?

Moustache
This video has become very popular. Does anyone think it should be linked to on the page? No. The video is stupid and not funny.Shanafme 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

you're nuts...the moustache is hilarious because of the delivery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.172.60 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hero Worship?
the paragraph on the new Marilyn Milian version seems a bit biased towards her. If not just flat out hero worship. In my opinion that needs to be corrected. Anyone agree with me? Cryo921 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Writer's Strike
Should the effect of the writer's strike on the show be added to the article?CoW mAnX (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to have been added. Milo 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good but I'm not sure if it qualifies as Trivia, it's not like the other points in that section like who liked to watch marathons of the show, this was the impact of a major labour dispute - a little more relevant (i.e. not trivial) than say the show being referrenced in Rain Man. CoW mAnX (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. If one can plainly see it on the show screen, it's a format change and not trivia. Milo 07:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Theme Song Section
How about a little more about the theme song itself and not where it's been featured, such as the musical techniques involved or instruments, etc. Coffee4binky (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How can this song be made for this show when it was in Malibu High which came out before this show was made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.190.222 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

UK version
The main site mentions a UK version that failed and was never recommissioned.

The principal reason for its failure could be this:

Assuming that it is similar to Judge Judy (which we get over here in the UK), most cases involve litigants suing each other for injuries sustained in a violent encounter or motor accident and cost of medical treatment resulting from that - here in the UK, we have the National Health Service to take care of that, so cases like that would never arise.

The best that a UK version could do would be somebody suing somebody else for mismanaging and misappropriating finances or whatever - or landlord/tenant disputes where landlords are overcharging or under-providing - or even both - though, today, the full rent is being met by housing benefit for people on benefits, so landlords can't make tenants pay the non-existent shortfall between the going rate and the asking price - theoretically, the UK version would, today, feature cases where the landlord would be being sued for trying to do that.

Also, they could deal with insurance claims where people have been let down by the companies, or, in the case of motor insurance, if an uninsured driver wrecked the car and insurance wouldn't pay up, sue the driver - or house insurance where a house has been burgled and the company won't pay up.

Arthurvasey (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Untitled comment misplaced on page copied here
Hello, I was home ill and watching your show when I heard some very erroneous comments by your current female judge on People's Court.

I work for one of the top 5 major insurance companies in the US. I have been a fire insurance underwriter for 15 years. I underwrite rental dwellings, as well as, Homeowners, Renters, Personal Articles, Boat, and Personal Liability Umbrella policy coverages.

I was very dissappointed that she verbally assaulted the plaintiff, a landlord, for requesting to be listed as an AI (Additional Insured) on a personal insurance policy, which generally provide coverage for both personal property and liability coverages.

1. When we take on a rental dwelling, we ask the landlords we insure to be listed as an AI on the renter's policy, for 'liability' only.

2. I wish to emphasize that this is NOT fraudulant activity with insurance companies, it's a measure to protect the interests of our landlords for liabilities the insured brings to the premises, such as animals, fish tanks (as they're not considered 'appliances' and would not be provided coverage due to water damage (specifically excluded). If the landlord isn't listed as an AI for liability damage,caused by the insured, they would have to claim it on their Rental Dwelling policy, which isn't right.  The person who caused the damage, should be recieving the claim and any surcharges that claim might generate due to claim activity, not the landlord.  Claim payments is what pushes up insurance premiums.

3. Adding an AI onto a policy is NO EXTRA CHARGE in premium. There is NOT a charge for an Additional Insured being put onto the policy. The judge was incorrect regarding this statement, as well.

The reason for our doing this is to cover liability lawsuits, as renters typically underinsure their exposures and property. In cases of liability, (such as a dog bite or an unsupervised minor who causes damage to the property, the court/jury typically will go for the deepest pocket, which includes the lawyers suing both the tenant (owner of the animal) and against the landlord. And, yes, we HAVE had both the tenant and landlord sued and have had to pay in these types of cases, It is in the BEST interest of BOTH the tenant and landlord, for the landlord to be listed on the tenant's policy as an AI.

Aside from the oil contract and refrigerator, which are part of the rental dwelling building coverage and ARE the responsibility of the landlord, it was totally within the landlord's right to ask for this. And it is a common aspect of the landlords we insure. Although we recommend they indicate this in their rental contracts, it in no way limits our landlords from getting and retaining good tenants and again, IS NO ADDL CHARGE TO THE renter's insurance policy. It is NOT ILLEGAL. We have these endorsements filed with state commissioner offices throughout the country.

I understand the judges are very intelligent and have much experience, but this doesn't make them specialists in insurance and other non-legal areas. These folks are seen by millions of people, and to have a judge show their lack of knowledge and unwillingness to verify this type of thing before accusing someone fraudulant activity....isn't this called, "defamation of character" on the part of the judges action?

She owes an apology to the landlord and should publicly correct her erroneous statements. I am always astonished and dissappointed in our legal professionals who don't check out their facts. For a judge to 'assume' and NOT check out the facts, shows very poor judgement, which I found greatly ironic.

Please pass this on to your current judges so they get the facts straight.

A Fire Insurance Underwriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.82.36 (talk • contribs)


 * 67.150.82.36, I should mention you totally have the wrong website. Wikipedia has absolutely no connection to The People's Court.  Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.  I am not sure you felt that Wikipedia is a place for contacting The People's Court, but nevertheless, you will have to visit the official People's Court website in order to contact them.  Check out the main page to find out more about Wikipedia.  Stiles 05:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I passed the message to the right people.

Trivia It should be noted in the trivia section that this show was referenced in the Nintendo DS video game "Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Justice For All" The quotation goes as follows:

Oldbag: "What did you want to be when you grew up, whippersnapper?" Phoenix: "Well, I... uh, wanted to be Judge Wackner, hero of the Public's Court. So what!?" Oldbag: "And look at you now! You're not Judge Wackner, ARE YOU?!"

"Judge Wackner" of course being "Judge Wapner"

Repeated addition of prohibited sources
DO NOT re-add deleted material with primary sources that are promotional materials for the show or comments on blogs. One particular user who will go unnamed has gone so far as to fabricate sources that link to unrelated web materials from the University of Wisconsin in order to forge reliable sources. So far I have decided to be lenient in reporting these violations. ToFeignClef (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)