History Series / ThePeoplesCourt

--> '''Judge Milian:''' ''[laughing]'' And did your headache get worse?

->''What you are witnessing is real. The participants ARE NOT ACTORS. They are the actual litgants with a case pending in a California (or New York Metropolitan) Municipal Court. Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here... in our forum... The People's Court!''
-->-- '''Opening narration''' [[labelnote:Current version]]''"What you are about to witness is real. The litigants are not actors. They are actual litigants with a case pending in civil court. Both parties have agreed to drop their claims, and have their cases settled here..."''[[/labelnote]]

-->-- '''Opening narration''' [[labelnote:Current version]]''"What you are about to witness is real. The litigants are not actors. They are involved in legitimate disputes, and they have agreed to have those disputes settled here..."''[[/labelnote]]

Due to the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic, Season 24 has a few differences. Milian and the litigants communicate through Zoom, with only Douglas in the courtroom, with Llewelyn stationed next to the logo sign in the hallway. Levin continues to provide commentary from his office at TMZ headquarters in Los Angeles, although his banter with viewers in Times Square has been replaced by having viewers send in legal questions for him to answer, and a new segment called “After the Verdict” was added, showing Milian and her husband, John Schlesinger (a real judge in his own right) discussing the verdict of the case. The intro was changed as well, with Chaplin narrating an altered version of the disclaimer, represented by scrolling text as in the Wapner and Koch eras.

Due to the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic, Season 24 has a few differences. Milian and the litigants communicate through Zoom, with only Douglas in the courtroom, with Llewelyn stationed next to the logo sign in the hallway. Levin continues to provide commentary from his office at TMZ headquarters in Los Angeles, although his banter with viewers in Times Square has been replaced by having listeners send in legal questions for him to answer, and a new segment called “After the Verdict” was added, showing Milian and her husband, John Schlesinger (a real judge in his own right) discussing the verdict of the case. The intro was changed as well, with Chaplin narrating an altered version of the disclaimer, represented by scrolling text as in the Wapner and Koch eras.

Due to the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic, Season 24 has a few differences. Milian and the litigants communicate through Zoom, with only Douglas in the courtroom, with Llewelyn stationed next to the logo sign in the hallway. Levin continues to provide commentary from his office at TMZ headquarters in Los Angeles, and a new segment called “After the Verdict” was added, showing Milian and her husband, John Schlesinger (a real judge in his own right) discussing the verdict of the case. The intro was changed as well, with Chaplin narrating an altered version of the disclaimer, represented by scrolling text as in the Wapner and Koch eras.

Due to the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic, Season 24 has a few differences. Milian and the litigants communicate through Zoom, with only Douglas in the courtroom, with Llewelyn stationed next to the logo sign in the hallway. Levin continues to provide commentary from his office at TMZ headquarters in Los Angeles, and a new segment called “After the Verdict” was added, showing Milian and her husband, John Schlesinger (a real judge in his own right) discussing the verdict of the case.

-->-- '''Opening narration''' [[labelnote:Current version]]''"What you are about to witness is real. The litigants ARE NOT ACTORS. They are involved in legitimate disputes, and they have agreed to have those disputes settled here..."''[[/labelnote]]

-->-- '''Opening narration''' [[labelnote:Current version]]''"What you are about to witness is real. The participants ARE NOT ACTORS. They are actual litigants with a case pending in civil court. Both parties have agreed to drop their claims, and have their cases settled here, before Judge Marilyn Milian..."''[[/labelnote]]

** Compared to the current version and its contemporaries (particularly Judge Judy), Judge Wapner from the original series rarely did this – almost never in the first few seasons, but it became somewhat more common (although still comparably rare) by the late 1980s. But it was a sight to see when he got pissed – and when he did, Wapner didn't hold back. One example was from 1987, when Wapner had an obnoxious plaintiff suing for damage to his car. The Plaintiff acted very poorly, bringing a crying baby into the courtroom, and tried to manipulate the proceedings accusing the judge of being 'overly reactive'. Wapner's usual patience quickly wore thin, and he was not shy about calling him out on his bad attitude, stopping just short of throwing him out. The plaintiff went on to actually win his case, but not without Wapner making it clear he only won because the law was on his side, and not because of the way he acted, (and that Wapner would never handle a case for him again). However, the plaintiff had clearly learned nothing, and strutted around the courtroom taunting the defendant.

** Compared to the current version and its contemporaries (particularly Judge Judy), Judge Wapner from the original series rarely did this – almost never in the first few seasons, but it became somewhat more common (although still comparably rare) by the late 1980s. But it was a sight to see when he got pissed – and when he did, Wapner didn't hold back. One example was from 1987, when Wapner had an obnoxious plaintiff suing for damage to his car. The Plaintiff acted very poorly, bringing a crying baby into the courtroom, and tried to manipulate the proceedings making the judge look like the bad guy, Wapner's usual patience quickly wore thin, and he was not shy about calling him out on his bad attitude, stopping just short of throwing him out. The plaintiff went on to actually win his case, but not without Wapner making it clear he only won because the law was on his side, and not because of the way he acted, (and that Wapner would never handle a case for him again). However, the plaintiff had clearly learned nothing, and strutted around the courtroom taunting the defendant.

-->'''Judge Milian''': No, that's my RULING, pal. And let me tell you something, Mr. University of Miami Law School! I taught at U-M for many years, and you, right now, are embarrassing us. You do not show that kind of disrespect, okay? If you don't like what the judge is doing, you take it to the next forum, but you do NOT stand there and say "That's your opinion" like a BABY, when a judge rules against — DON'T EVEN UTTER ANOTHER WORD!! — ... You've got a lot to learn about what it means to be a member of the Florida Bar, and if you think that this kind of petulance and babyness on your part, to tell around and tell a judge who you disagree with "WELL, THAT'S YOUR OPINION!" is going to get you anywhere, you are sorely mistaken. If there's nothing you should have learned in the last two years as a law student, that's something you should have learned as a human growing up, that you do not show that kind of disrespect. You don't like it, take it to the hallway, but you do not look a judge in the face — because, I don't care what you think of me, you've gotta RESPECT THIS PROCESS! And if there's anybody who I expect to respect this process, it's a second-year law student at the University of Miami. Verdict for the plaintiff, $450 and court costs.

-->-- '''Opening narration''' [[labelnote:Current version]]''"...They are actual litigants with a case pending in civil court. Both parties have agreed to drop their claims, and have their cases settled here, before Judge Marilyn Milian..."''[[/labelnote]]

->''What you are about to witness is real. The participants are not actors. They are the actual people who have already either filed suit or been served a summons to appear in a California (or New York Metropolitan) Municipal Court. Both parties in the suit have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum.''

* ScrewThisImOuttaHere: One plaintiff, upset at the way Judge Milian was ruling, not only stormed out of the courtroom, but kicked the door as he did so. He attempted to re-enter the courtroom, but the judge angrily yelled at him to leave.

** While far less common during the Judge Wapner (1981-1993) era, it was not unheard of for Wapner to get upset if a litigant was outright lying, broke the law, engaged in neglect or otherwise violated a code of ethics. More than once, both litigants drew Wapner's ire and – in calling both out on their bad behavior – he would dismiss both the plaintiff's claim and defendant's countersuit, calling it a "$0, $0." He also didn't take kindly to members of the courtroom gallery acting disrespectfully in court; more than once, he warned several observers who were snickering at one of the litigants' testimony, and it was not unheard of for him to ask the bailiff to throw an observer out for repeatedly ignoring the judge's directives to be quiet.

** In a case aired 02/08/2018, the plaintiff was suing her ex-girlfriend's daughter and daughter's fiancee for past due rent, among other things. When the plaintiff kept trying to interject during Judge Milian's ruling and the judge ordered her to be quiet, the plaintiff accused the judge of homophobia. Judge Milian overheard this comment and tore into the plaintiff while throwing her out of court and ultimately dismissing her case.

** While far less common during the Judge Wapner (1981-1993) era, it was not unheard of for Wapner to get upset if a litigant was outright lying, broke the law, engaged in neglect or otherwise violated a code of ethics. More than once, both litigants drew Wapner's ire and – in calling both out on their bad behavior – he would dismiss both the plaintiff's claim and defendant's countersuit, calling it a "$0, $0."

* MamaWolf: As the mother of young daughters, Milian will not hold back on a litigant who's actions caused a young girl to get hurt in some way.

The UrExample of the judge talk show, ''The People's Court'' had its pilot episode taped in October 1980 and premiered on September 14, 1981 when Judge Joseph Wapner took the court to the TV. The premise is that two parties, a plaintiff and a defendant, that would otherwise take their cases to small claims court would instead agree to have their case settled on television by Judge Wapner. After the verdict was given, each side would be interviewed by host and court reporter Doug Llewelyn, who would often end the show with the CatchPhrase "Don't take the law into your own hands: you take 'em to court." On the other hand, if a case ended with a verdict for the defendant, Llewelyn would instead end the episode by saying "If someone files a lawsuit against you and yet you're convinced you've done nothing wrong, don't be intimidated. Just be sure to stand up for your rights: go to court." The show's other two regulars were bailiff Rusty Burrell and announcer Jack Harrell. The show was created by John Masterson, who previously created and executive produced ''Series/QueenForADay''. It was executive produced by Ralph Edwards, who previously created, executive produced, and hosted ''Series/TruthOrConsequences'', and his production partner, Stu Billett. Both men packaged the show under their own separate eponymous production companies, Ralph Edwards Productions and Stu Billett Productions, until 1987, when the companies merged. The show was originally distributed by Telepictures until 1986, when that company merged with Creator/{{Lorimar}}, creating Lorimar-Telepictures. Lorimar-Telepictures continued to distribute until 1989, when it was purchased by Creator/WarnerBros, who continued to distribute until the show's cancellation in 1993.

* TakeThat: One of Judge Milian's early cases involved an elderly woman suing a hair salon for pain and suffering over a botched hair extension job. In her testimony, the plaintiff described being in pain while hearing JudgeJoeBrown playing on television in the background.

* TearJerker: The case aired February 28, 2018, may be one of the saddest and most tragic cases in the series' history. Two parents whose adult son had recently died of a drug overdose were in court over a dispute regarding the deceased's ashes - the young man's father claimed that the defendant had not given him half of the ashes as promised. Both parents openly blamed each other for their son's death, the father claiming that the young man had turned to drugs because the mother had made the young man's life miserable, and the mother, who sobbed through her entire testimony, alleging that it was the father who had gotten her son into drugs and even had him sell drugs for him at school. Judge Milian, who visibly had tears in her own eyes while delivering her verdict, tried to deliver words of encouragement, particularly to the defendant, before dismissing the case because the plaintiff's proper legal recourse was to take the case to probate court, not small-claims court, as the litigants' son had died without a will.
** The drama continued while the parties were being interviewed by Doug after the verdict, as the plaintiff exposed himself as a world-class {{Jerkass}} by taking that moment to mention the defendant's past as a prostitute runaway. Doug himself was appalled at this and scolded the plaintiff for saying that, and apologized to the still-tearful defendant afterward.
** When even LemonyNarrator types Curt and Harvey have no bad puns to describe the nature of the story, you ''know'' it's a sad case.

* {{Tearjerker}}: The case aired February 28, 2018, may be one of the saddest and most tragic cases in the series' history. Two parents whose adult son had recently died of a drug overdose were in court over a dispute regarding the deceased's ashes - the young man's father claimed that the defendant had not given him half of the ashes as promised. Both parents openly blamed each other for their son's death, the father claiming that the young man had turned to drugs because the mother had made the young man's life miserable, and the mother, who sobbed through her entire testimony, alleging that it was the father who had gotten her son into drugs and even had him sell drugs for him at school. Judge Milian, who visibly had tears in her own eyes while delivering her verdict, tried to deliver words of encouragement, particularly to the defendant, before dismissing the case because the plaintiff's proper legal recourse was to take the case to probate court, not small-claims court, as the litigants' son had died without a will.

** The drama continued while the parties were being interviewed by Doug after the verdict, as the plaintiff exposed himself as a world-class {{Jerkass}} by taking that moment to mention the defendant's past as a prostitute runaway. Doug himself was appalled at this and scolded the plaintiff for saying that, and apologized to the still-tearful defendant afterward.

*** Various [[GratuitousSpanish Spanish sayings]] part of Her Honor's Cuban-American heritage, such as:
*** "''Un clavo saca el otro clavo.''" ("One nail drives out the other.")
*** "''Lo barato sale caro.''" ("The cheap becomes expensive.")
*** "''Me pica que, me rasca aqui.''" ("It itches me here but you scratch me there." Said to a litigant who is not answering the judge's question directly.)
*** "''Toma chocolate, paga lo que debes.''" ("If you order a hot chocolate, pay for it." In other words, if you received a service, you pay for it. Judge Milian's equivalent of Judge Judy's "You ate the steak.")