jilliannatalia

I really doubt Kim or the family could sit on the information for that long if she passed, though I may be underestimating all of them in terms of what they are capable of or willing to do in order to remain relevant and thus make their new show marketable. With regard to the actual California Bar Exam, those who are registered with the California Bar and who have log-in information may see a list of names of all those who passed the actual bar exam. The names of those who failed are not listed, though it it's known that a person took the exam and he or she is not listed among those who passed, it's not much of a leap to infer that the person failed the exam. FYLSX (baby bar) results are not posted/listed on a website. Each examinee's/applicant's scores are sent to his or her individual portal.

Not to beat a dead horse or kick a man when he's down or whatever hackneyed metaphor anyone would care to insert, but results are now available to those who took the FYLSX, AKA Baby Bar, in June. Did Kim take it? If so, is she going to sit on the results until the HULU show premieres? Or is she maybe going to quietly give up her study of the law and hope everyone forgets? My guess is that if she had passed, she might already have shared the good news, but I obviously don't know much about it.

I replied to this earlier, but I don't think the reply went through. You probably already know this, but the binding nature of the arbitration exists primarily to protect one litigant (typically the one who prevailed) against the other in the event of re-filing. If a person agrees to binding arbitration in a given court, forum, or setting, loses the case, then ignores the fact that he or she agreed to binding arbitration and refiles the case elsewhere, all the other party has to do is to pull out the previous settlement and agreement to binding arbitration, and the other court won't hear the case. (If the person lost his or her paperwork, it's usually easy enough to get a copy even from a TV courtroom program.) It's all on the litigant(s)to inform the court of an agreement of binding arbitration. In some jurisdictions, it's a misdemeanor to knowingly re-file on a case for which one has signed off to binding arbitration. The case is only heard again when both parties want it to be retried -- in this case, because both parties were on the take and wanted the free trip, free hotel room, and whatever other freebies accompany having one's case settled on a TV courtroom show. If a person were to refile a case that had already been settled in an actual small-claims court, there's a decent chance that court personnel wouldn't catch that the case had already been settled even if it were in the same jurisdiction. (The same parties are involved in multiple cases of small claims court litigation against one another frequently enough that the names alone wouldn't necessarily present red flags.)Unless it was the same judge and a memorable case, or a really small town, it probably wouldn't be caught. It's all on the winning party to divulge that a binding settlement exists, whether from an actual courtroom or in binding arbitration. It would have been very interesting to watch the litigants' two cases back-to-back in JJ's courtroom and again in Judge Milian's courtroom. Did you notice, Crazy in Alabama, if the facts were presented similarly and if Judge Judy and Judge Milian just happened to see things differently and to rule differently, or if the litigants changed up their stories to some degree? You may have seen the cases too far apart to recall the specific stories. I wouldn't have remembered.

I' ve read more than a week's worth of recent reviews to see if anything will clarify a question I have, but I have not come across anything promising, so I shall ask the real experts. Quite some time ago, as in well over a decade ago, JJ tried a case featuring a woman who bought a suit for a short-term suitor. I think he counter-sued because he said her son damaged his truck, but I'm less clear on that. I believe I was in law school, teaching kindergarten, and just barely married when I saw the episode. That was two children and almost half a life ago for me , and I'm not even certain I saw the episode on its original airing. On the old Television Without Pity forum, the defendant was referred to as "Suit Studmuffin." The woman was disparaged on the forum for the number of cheap accessories she wore. She referred to herself more than once as "a professional woman," and repeatedly asked Judge Judy, "Do I look like a Sugar Mama to you?," pronouncing it more like "shooguh;" I recall having to back it up and replay it multiple times to discern what it was she was trying to say. My extended family has very vague connections with this woman's family. My cousins are close in age to her two children and went to school and participated in various activities with them. The woman's family is well-known in their area for reasons I won't divulge here. I attended a couple of baseball games and sat near the woman and her extended family. When the episode was slated to run, my cousin called me and told me to record it. Even though I was very busy as both a full-time teacher and a full-time law student, I made the time to record and watch the episode, and I was not disappointed. Anyway, many years later, because of mutual Facebook friends, I caught a Facebook political post made by this litigant. The post had only one response, which was "Stfu moron...just watched your dumbass on Judge Judy! You are a gold digging slut!" (The gold-digging reference may allude to the former JJ litigant having married seemingly lucratively since then to an ophthalmologist. She was a divorced single mother when she appeared on JJ. Her current Facebook introduction lists her as "Doctors [sic] wife and administrator at *** Eye Institute." ) I could provide a link to the FB post, but I doubt anyone cares enough for me to bother. I'm quite curious as to the timing of the post, which was made yesterday. Does anyone know if that case aired again recently or if it was included on any of the Judge Judy DVD sets? it seems odd that someone would post something to her now about the more-than-a-decade-old JJ appearance. Thanks for any help anyone here can provide.

I could certainly be wrong, but to me the woman sitting beyond her right shoulder in the top photo looks more like the one sitting beyond her right shoulder in the bottom photo than the one who is sitting on the opposite side. Regardless, the three of them could be triplets.

I agree totally with you and with JJ. I can't see how the defendant thought she could justify her actions.

A bailiff is so incredibly relevant in the new remote format.

For unknown reasons (or maybe just because a pool boy-type was involved) the case reminded me of the Falwell situation. I would love for Marilyn Milian to adjudicate that case on the air.

The lady who (with no medical or scientific qualifications) came up with the remedy of cannabis-infused epsom salts and oil for lupus, among other ailments, is off her rocker.

Four years later, I have to agree with the other poster that nothing about the child other than the birth certificate (real or fake?) seemed to align with her being a six-year-old.

It would, indeed, be a triple negative.

Is the maximum award still $5,000, or has it increased?

Did anyone catch the motivational speaker's name? I forgot to make note of it and would like to google him.

JJ said she disliked the word. Did she actually mean that she was opposed to the whole concept?

In the case of Finnegan versus Bentley/Roberto over baseball or softball tournament entry fees, does anyone understand why JJ had a problem with the term "ringer" or "ringers" ?