dwarmed

Finally a platform I can get behind.

Well, if we ever do see a woman with boobs down to her elbows and cleavage up to her chin on tv, it will certainly be on Judge Judy.

I don't think that was cleavage showing. That looked like a surgery scar, most likely heart surgery.

Apparently Queen Judy doesn't realize that an ATM withdrawal taken out on a Saturday might show up on a bank statement as a withdrawal dated on the following Monday, because transactions post on the next business day. Again, she embarrasses herself with her ignorance of modern life.

That was quite a man bun on the defendant’s husband. He looked like a bridesmaid.

What really made that deadbeat goddaughter’s case sing was saying ‘supposably’ several times, with emphasis, to give you time to savor her stupidity.

@AngelaHunter When you get that big-ass chest tat, make sure to hesitate to explain it when people ask, claiming it's too complicated or an inside joke. Because nothing says 'I value my privacy' like an exposed chest tattoo.

@AngelaHunter I’m guessing you didn’t accept car maintenance as an appropriate second date gift, either. Or talked about all the indifferences you had in your long-term relationship of three weeks ?

Yes, she spoke as if it was suspicious and made up, just because she doesn't do the same thing. She's not really representative of a normal life. I love Byrd not playing along with that. Talking about brand preference for all kinds of items is super common... among people who don't have a staff to handle everything and have to make purchasing decisions carefully.

Even better, I think he kept saying, "We always had our indifferences." I think she was more indifferent than he was... after she got what she could out of him.

I’d bet anything the e-sig in the case we saw was the kind where you just enter ss#. If it was an actual signature, it would be too risky for a thief like this dad.

It certainly isn't a judge's obligation, but JJ often takes upon herself to school plaintiffs on what evidence is required. Almost every day, in fact. I just wish she would take it upon herself to be more informed. I dread the day when she ends up sounding about as intelligent as her litigants.

It was both. A printout with an esignature would just show her name printed on the form, not handwriting. It wouldn’t prove who actually ‘signed’ it. That’s what makes esignatures so great for identity theft. I’m not sure what evidence the plaintiff could produce to prove her case, unless she could get witness testimony from the apartment complex about who they met with. It’s true, JJ couldn’t help the plaintiff because she had no evidence. However, if JJ understood the technology better, she might be able to give better advice on what evidence was needed, rather than acting like the plaintiff made up the idea of an esignature.

@AngelaHunter I was thinking the same thing about this loser... WHY? I don’t get it. I think he got exactly what he wanted, totally undeserved attention on national tv. He was posing so hard I thought he would sprain something. Yuck.

I have no problem with that, in general. But if someone is in the position to judge facts and make a binding decision, that person needs to do the necessary research to understand those facts or refuse the case due to their inability to understand it. Instead, JJ just dismisses any facts she can’t understand, as if they’re irrelevant or made up, and makes decisions anyway. Then, she treats the litigants as if they’re bothersome grandkids who woke nana up from her nap. She’s getting paid more than any judge on earth and loves to talk about how many years of schooling went into preparing for that job, yet she can’t be bothered to even pretend to do that job anymore. She has a staff that she could use to do that research and explain things to her. She has producers that could skip cases based on current tech. I’m all for her dismisssing litigants’ ridiculous lies, but not dismissing basic facts because she ‘doesn’t use that machine.’ She just ends up looking like a moron. In fact, it’s not just the tech cases anymore, but anything case that’s a bit complicated. I think she totally screwed up on a dog case today. The breeder was supposed to get breeding/showing rights to a dog in exchange for not charging a purchase price. Then, the guy who got the dog decided to breach that agreement. JJ made him pay the purchase price of $2100, but not the $3200 surgery bill for the dog. I assume the breeder only paid that money in reliance on the contract they had for her to breed/show the dog. She certainly wouldn’t have paid vet bills for a puppy she had sold and had no claim to. Ultimately, it cost the breeder $1100 to give this guy a dog. JJ just dismissed it with her usual ‘I don’t care’ because the surgery happened years ago. She didn’t look at the big picture of how those expenses were tied to their agreement. It seems like her mental capacity is waning and she can only handle very simplified cases. I’m sure nobody in the production company wants to ruin this cash cow by admitting that. I wonder if we’ll get to the point where she just looks confused and annoyed at every case before dismissing it and walking off the bench. We’ll get half a dozen cases per episode that way!