Bobby88

You touched on something that I think I've mentioned before, but I'm not sure a lot of others have. Has anyone noticed all the anecdotes about Jazz's early years, such as the infamous story about the good fairy changing her penis into a vagina (anybody else think that that never actually happened?), all come from Jeanette? Granted, as a stay-at-home mom while Greg worked, she would have spent a lot more time with the children. But she is literally the only one who recounts these type of things. It makes me wonder how many of those stories are true and how many were made up by Jeanette after the fact to bolster credibility. I don't know. It just seems like there's a lot of stuff with Jazz's story that sounds off, to say the least.

So did I. The minute I saw the preview yesterday, I immediately got an abusive and controlling husband/father vibe. You know, the kind who wants his kids home-schooled not because they weren't doing well in mainstream schools, but so he can keep tabs on their every move. I got the impression that the wife was intimidated by him as well. He reminded me very much of another plaintiff from a case back in 2001 (I saved it to my hard drive before YouTube took it down). This plaintiff was suing his neighbor for having his car impounded after he filed a false hit-and-run charge. Even re-watching it, it's hard to explain since JJ basically has to drag the story out him, but he did in fact hit the neighbor's car and said that he basically hid out when he saw the police towing his car because "I'm afraid of the police". Well, it turned out that the reason he feared police so much was because the defendant contacted said police multiple times because he suspected the plaintiff was beating his wife. JJ questions the wife who is very hesitant with her answers to questions about whether or not her husband yells at her, etc. JJ obviously denies the plaintiff's claim and says that if the plaintiff's wife would like to talk with her in her chambers privately, she'd be happy to arrange it. Although he was more nervous and agitated than today's plaintiff, he gave similar evasive answers and just came across as not a nice person. Anybody know which case I'm talking about?

I didn't get a chance to watch this case yet, but I had to laugh at the Judy's Not-my-America. It sounds it should be a theme park with attractions that could include a steakhouse called simply "You Ate The Steak". Disneyland/Disney World may have some competition. LOL

Speaking of Officer Robinson, I never understood why JJ pressured him into giving half of the judgement money to the police officer's charity on his second appearance. The bitch-ass defendant clearly lied and defamed him and he should have been allowed to keep every last penny and do with it as he pleased. Why did she feel the need to basically call a halt and ask what his specific plans were for the money? That may be one of the only times I've ever seen her do that in a case where it was painfully obvious that a litigant was wronged to the max and the judgement was basically a given. She's given people large sums of money who we know (and I'm sure she knows) are only going to piss it away on drugs and booze without much question. Was it because it was his second appearance?

I have to say that I'm so glad that I found this forum. So much discussion of this show on other online venues is very one-sided, either super positive or hateful. This seems more objective and critical. Some of what I have to say may not be the most politically correct stuff in the world, but I have a feeling I'm not alone in some of my views. I remember watching the very first Barbara Walters interview 10 years ago with Greg and Jeanette (or Scott and Renee, as they were referred to then) and to be honest, Jeanette instantly rubbed me the wrong way. I don't know why, but I just got the impression that she was enjoying this media attention just a little too much. I'm always bothered by interviews with couples, especially about serious matters such as this, when one partner basically does all the talking while the other is largely silent. If you look up the interview on YouTube, everything out of Jeanette's mouth is "I, I, I, me, me, me" while Greg, as he does now, sits on his ass in quiet deference. I'd be curious to know if this how their entire marriage has always been or if Jeanette unilaterally sort of took over when it became obvious that Jazz was transgender. I just don't know why he never just stands up to her. Is she really THAT intimidating? Something tells me that after Jazz moves out and goes on with her life (if she does), the marriage won't last much longer. And please tell me that I'm not the only one who never really bought Jeanette's story about 3-year-old Jazz asking her when the fairy was going to change her penis into a vagina, using those exact words. Even for a kid as articulate and well-spoken as Jazz, that seems like a stretch. As usual, we only have Jeanette's word about this.* I think the main problem with Jazz — and it goes back to the parents — is that she doesn't really have a sense of identity other than the fact that she's transgender. It seems she was never really allowed or encouraged to just be a kid, nor was she ever really treated like one. It's excellent that they support their daughter and her gender identity all the way, but she's still a child who needs boundaries and discipline. Somehow, they (namely Jeanette) have equated calling out Jazz's bad behavior as "stifling her identity". Jazz of course knows this and takes full advantage. I have a feeling that this is why we basically don't see her cisgender friends from early on in the series anymore. Every get-together probably turned into Jazz pontificating about transgender issues. Friend disagrees? They're transphobic! Friend misunderstands? They're ignorant and narrow-minded! Friend asks politely to talk about something else for a little while? They're invoking their privilege and are trying to silence people like her! I think you get the point. They keep bringing up the fact that Jazz has no friends her own age. To be honest, I wouldn't be totally shocked to find that there are in fact classmates of hers who have tried to befriend her and get to know her as a person, but soon found her to be self-righteous and victim-playing. Even the kindest people can only take so much, and not everything needs to be a "teachable moment". I get that Jazz is also depressed, but she shouldn't just get a pass. I always wanted to know more about how the siblings really feel about how their parents treat Jazz as well as Jazz herself. It's clear that much of their childhoods were centered on Jazz. It's completely understandable that they would defend her, support her, etc. But I get the impression that they were all sort of expected to handle her with kid gloves at all times and never upset her in any way. It's not hard for me to picture a scenario where, say, 10-year-old Sander and Griffin want to go play with some neighborhood boys at the park and 7-year-old Jazz wants to tag along. Like most boys their age, they don't want their little sister constantly following them around and tell her no. Jazz goes crying to Jeanette who then guilts the twins into taking her. It was probably nothing that extreme, but I'm sure they probably were made to include Jazz in more of their activities than was really necessary. And I highly doubt Ari or the twins would have ever gotten away with talking back to their grandfather the way Jazz did. * I don't believe for one minute that Jeanette "made" Jazz transgender. I'm merely saying that a lot of the stories and anecdotes about what Jazz said or did as a child seem to only come from Jeanette sans any real verification, namely Greg.

The mother and her special snowflake struck me as rich snobs from the very beginning. When mom mentioned about paying for the defendant's food or something on the trip, making a point to tell JJ "I knew she [defendant] was having money problems", I have little doubt that they spent most of the trip rubbing her nose in her financial situation and generally being passive-aggressive toward her. I have a feeling that's why the friendship ended, and for good reason.

The minute it came out that the assistance program declined the defendant's request, I immediately thought that the son had been killed during the commission of a crime such as a drug deal or that he was assaulting someone and was killed in self-defense. And like you, I suspect that the defendant knew all along what really happened to her son. I get the impression that his death was one of those situations where it was BLATANTLY obvious around town what happened to him and that the funeral fund basically declined her on the spot. Now I kind of want to know more about this case.

Now that you're saying that, I think I do remember him silencing the audience. Do you happen to remember which case that was? I don't think it was that long ago.

I actually have this one saved to my hard drive since it's also one of my favorites. I love when she goes through the defendant's answer to the complaint and basically picks it apart word for word, especially this exchange: JJ: (reading statement) My husband is white and my 17-year-old son is Hispanic. (look at officer who is a lighter-skinned black man) What are you? Officer: I'm black. (audience chuckles) And my wife is Puerto Rican! (cut to a shot of the wife) Some of my favorite cases are when JJ lays a verbal smackdown on a litigant and the audience erupts in applause at the ruling. There haven't been many of those lately. The only one I can really think of was the case a few months ago with the woman being sued by her elderly mother over a trailer and JJ told the defendant in question "You're a lousy daughter!". I honestly don't think I've heard the audience get that loud with their applause and JJ didn't even admonish them to be quiet. Probably because the defendant totally deserved it.

I agree. JJ is also sometimes biased against some litigants. I get that she has seen COUNTLESS people who are abusing the system, but it seems that she sometimes gets immediately annoyed and suspicious when a litigant mentions something about being on disability, especially when they don't appear obviously disabled (i.e. wheelchair-bound, blind, etc.). Well, not all disabilities are visible and although someone may look and sound normal to the public, it sometimes takes a HUGE amount of prescription medications (which JJ also likes to sarcastically inquire about when someone says something out of line) and frequent trips to a specialist to keep them that way. My mother is a perfect example. She has had sarcoidosis of the lungs since 1992 and has been on total disability since around 1994. She looks perfectly "normal" and can drive, shop, cook, carry on a conversation, etc. Never mind that she takes so many different pills that she doesn't even remember what most of them are for anymore and sometimes gets so out of breath from something as simple as vacuuming that she has to sit and rest for a few hours. But people sometimes give her the side-eye when she mentions that she can't work. And, no, Your Honor, every time a teenager's mouth is moving doesn't mean they're lying. And I say that as someone who didn't like or trust most teenagers even when I was one.

EXCELLENT point! I think this is one of the points I was trying to illustrate when I started the thread for worst rulings and moments. Feel free to check it out as it sounds like you share some of my frustration with JJ. JJ really does seem to have a problem with understanding that just because people don't do things the way she would do them, that doesn't automatically mean they're lying idiots out to scam people. Her "My America" thing kind of gets old too.

I was just thinking of my initial post in this thread about the smug traffic cop and it raised a question. Has there ever been a case (I've only ever seen one) where a cop sued someone for a false accusation or something and it turned out he was lying or at least exaggerating and that the defendant's complaint actually had some merit? The only one I can think of is from way back in 1998: Officer Charles Muse is suing motorist Larry Pasley for hitting him with his (Larry's) car door when he was writing him a ticket for being illegally parked at his daughter's soccer game. He says his leg was severely bruised and he had to miss the next few weeks of work. The defendant pleaded guilty because he said it was an accident (the plaintiff implied that the he did it carelessly in anger), but says that Officer Muse is lying about how badly he was injured and how much time he missed at work. Larry and his wife somehow managed to get the plaintiff's hospital records which state that not only was he cleared to go back to work the day after the injury, he did! A couple weeks after that, Officer Muse went to the hospital saying he hurt himself when he slipped at work. There were a bunch of "injuries" this officer sustained right around the time of the ticket incident. Judy is understandably disgusted with the plaintiff, but since the defendant already pleaded guilty, she legally MUST award the plaintiff something. She renders the lowest figure she can legally give the plaintiff: $1. Anybody know of others?

I was actually expecting JJ to make the plaintiff pay half of his own bills. She's done that before on similar cases where a plaintiff's "fresh, filthy mouth precipitated this incident". I really think that despite the defendant's obvious disregard for the rules about picking up after his dog, the plaintiff was also just a hot-head who was really itching for a fight that day. I have a feeling that the reason the defendants shot back with a smug "What's it to you?" was at least partially because the plaintiff probably approached him in a verbally aggressive way from the start. Sometimes, it's not what you say but how you say it. I'm surprised that JJ didn't tell the plaintiff that he had too much time on his hands if he's constantly photographing people from his condo to document infractions. That behavior is just creepy.

What got me about the plaintiff wasn't just him obsessively taking pictures of the defendant and his dog (and presumably others), but that he said he had been taking said pictures for a whole year before suddenly deciding to confront the defendant. If it bothered him that much, why didn't he go to him the first time he saw it happen instead of stewing for a year? I guarantee you that the defendant isn't the first neighbor he's gone off on like that.

The ruling on the case shown a month or so ago (don't know if it was a rerun) where the defendant kept trying use his security deposit to cover not only damages, but late rent and all sorts of crap. The plaintiff certainly deserved at least some of the money she was awarded (namely rent), but not all of it. She claimed he left the apartment a mess, but her photographic "evidence" was a picture of a small pile of dust and dirt with an old pencil that she found behind the washer/dryer and a dirty microwave or something stupid (don't quote me on the last one, but it was something dumb like that). Basically, stuff that we've seen JJ declare to be normal wear and tear and refuse to consider. Then she claimed that the apartment was so dirty that she took 54 bags of trash out of there. Yet she had not one picture a single bag, let alone 54. JJ awarded her that too. The only thing that she rightfully withheld from the plaintiff was damage from a few years prior when the defendant's ex-wife lived there. At the time, the lease was in her name and only when they divorced was the lease signed over to the defendant. While the defendant came across as shifty, I don't blame him for being pissed about the alleged damages. When JJ showed him the picture of the dirt and pencil, he deadpanned, "Well, that's dirt." And when she continued to admonish him about leaving the apartment such a mess, he came back with "Your honor, she says I left 54 garbage bags but all she can show you is dirt on the floor?". JJ awards the plaintiff her money and gives the defendant a "Gah-bye!" I think this is one of the cases I talked about earlier where it seemed like JJ didn't like the offending party and that clouded her judgement. Just because a litigant did something wrong doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE STUPID LITTLE ALLEGATION leveled at them by the plaintiff is true. She took the snooty plaintiff's word about the trash bags and such and I really think it was grossly exaggerated if not made up. I'm sure you've all seen other examples of cases like the ones I've mentioned where JJ's dislike for someone kept her from being totally impartial.

I remember when I first heard the term "baby daddy". I was about 15 or 16 and eating lunch in the school cafeteria when a fight broke out between two girls. Several teachers intervened and managed to separate them. I overheard a teacher ask one of the girls what started the fight and even though all the noise, I heard the girl scream out at the top of her lungs "That bitch fucked my baby daddy!". Mind you, like myself at the time, these girls were about 15 or 16. Sounds like a Judge Judy case if ever I heard one!

I know. I think he actually felt justified in contacting CPS. He's one of those vindictive people who makes false reports to CPS to get back at somebody and tries to pass it off as "I was only thinking of the children.". I would have loved to have seen JJ annihilate this weasel if this case happened nowadays. She was noticeably calmer and quicker with her rulings in many of the early shows. I don't know if I buy that the defendant's child ever exposed himself in the first place. Cursing, maybe (and I have a feeling it was some words like "damn" or "hell" rather than straight-up F-bombs), but I believe the defendants when they say that the fathers of the little girls never spoke to them about the incident and that the first time they heard about it was when the case worker showed up at their door.

An oldie but a goodie. You know damn well the plaintiff is one of those neighbors that has CPS, 911, the city ordinance department, etc. on speed dial in case your dog's paw grazes a blade of grass at the edge of his property line or you decide to let your ten-year-old walk unattended to a friend's house down the street.

I just thought of a few snap judgements (at least, I felt they were) JJ made on a few old cases. What's your take on them? * I'm sure many of us JJ fans have seen this heated closing hallterview clip from 1997 on YouTube: The entire episode was on there briefly before being yanked and some of you had to have seen it, but for those of you who didn't, here's a brief synopsis. An entertaining yet sad case of parents who act like bratty children in front of their own kids (but the plaintiff is the FAR more obnoxious of the two, IMO) . Cathy Burgess (lady in red) is suing neighbor and former friend Ronna Rojas for failing to pay her for babysitting her children while Ronna and her boyfriend went out of town. Ronna never did pick up her kids that night; she and her boyfriend went EIGHT hours away to San Diego ("Because we wanted to," was her explanation to the judge) and didn't bother to get them until 6pm the following night! She never called in the meantime to tell them! While this is clearly irresponsible on its own, Cathy's handling of Ronna's absence is outrageous. She takes the three children (aged 9, 5, and 3) to the local police station and in their presence, tells officers she that their mother needs to be found and arrested for child abandonment and neglect! JJ yells at both litigants and does end up reluctantly awarding Cathy (Ronna admitted all along that she never paid up) the money for the babysitting, but not of the other crap she tried to sue for. The scariest part? The kids were in the courtroom THROUGH ALL OF THIS! JJ never had them removed! My objection was that JJ went so far as to scream at Ronna "You are clearly an unfit custodian for your children!". Irresponsible, yes. Inconsiderate, yes. Unfit seemed a bit of a stretch to me. No evidence apart from this lapse of good judgement was presented to suggest that Ronna was in any way an unfit or abusive mother. Her nine-year-old daughter Brittany was questioned by JJ and was extremely well-spoken (naturally, not in a coached-by-mom sort of way) and polite, although I'll admit that that doesn't always mean anything. What stood out most was that Brittany sat properly in the chair behind her mother while Cathy's son and daughter who were about the same age could be seen squirming and chewing on their shirts. JJ just really appeared have a dislike for Ronna that seemed out-of-proportion to the situation at hand. She had Byrd remove her from the courtroom before a commercial break because she called Cathy a liar, stating "That's why you got that red dress on lookin' like Satan!". But Cathy was in bitch-mode the whole time. She repeatedly talked over both Ronna and JJ and even got smart with JJ a few times, and JJ was remarkably calm and restrained with her. Ronna seemed far more pleasant and likable, despite what she did. JJ even asked Brittany at one point how long her mother had this boyfriend and whether or not she liked him. I didn't think that was any of her business and it felt like she was trying get a little dirt on Ronna that she didn't end up getting. I seriously doubt there was any abuse going on in Ronna's household. Cathy seemed far more volatile in my opinion. A little tiny part of me was glad that Ronna never paid her. * In the famous case of LAPD officer Brett Robinson vs. spoiled daddy's girl Anissa Davis, JJ tells Anissa that she can tell that she didn't write the letter of complaint herself because "the words weren't all yours [Anissa's]". What exactly does that mean? Does that mean she thinks it came across as too articulate for an 18-year-old to have written? If so, JJ had no way of knowing just how articulate or well-educated the defendant was and it was inappropriate of her to imply that she wasn't smart enough to have written it herself. I may be a bit biased about this one because when I was in seventh grade, my history teacher accused me on two non-consecutive assignments of plagiarism (although she didn't use the word plagiarism) by writing on the paper "These are not your words.". She had no evidence of any cheating other than the fact that some of the words were not typical of most 12-year-olds. Never mind that I was one of her best students and it was common knowledge among all my teachers that my best subjects were English and creative writing. There's no question that Anissa was a spoiled brat and that Officer Robinson deserved every last penny for her bogus complaint. But JJ had no way of knowing or proving that she didn't write the complaint without assistance and if she did, it was edited out of the broadcast. Basically, the following meme sums up how I feel JJ viewed the litigants in these two examples (and I'm sure there are other examples.) Thoughts?

I love Judge Judy just like everyone else, but like many of you, I sometimes find myself shaking my head at some of her decisions. I thought it would be neat to make a thread to discuss such moments. This thread isn't limited to just rulings you disagree with, but also: * Certain remarks JJ made to litigants that you feel were inappropriate or overly-insulting or judgemental (Seriously, we've seen her use that "haven't missed a meal" line sometimes out of nowhere. That's not necessary.) * Cases where it was obvious that there was more to the story than we're being shown and that if such info had come out in court, it may have affected the ruling. * Irrelevant questions asked by JJ. (I don't think this happens as often as some of the other things I've listed. I have to admit that when it does happens, I get a slight sense of satisfaction at those few litigants who politely ask the relevance or tell her it's none of her business. Not the ones who do so in a smug or combative fashion, though. Anybody else feel similarly?) * Certain biases expressed by JJ. I think you get the gist. I'm really not trying to bash the show or JJ, but after reading some of the posts in the All Rise thread, I can see that some of you get just as frustrated as I do sometimes. Consider this a place to vent. My contributions to this thread to get things going (I haven't seen many of these in years, so apologies if my memory is foggy on certain details): * A cop suing a motorist for filing a false complaint against him for rudeness at a traffic stop. Although the ruling in favor of the plaintiff was totally fair, I thought JJ was slightly harsher than she need have been with the defendant. On the tape recording of the stop, the cop is somewhat curt (even JJ admits that the officer could have been a bit friendlier) toward the driver who is perfectly cooperative and admits that he was speeding. When the officer hands him his ticket, the motorist notices that the cop mistakenly wrote down that his car was brown instead of gray and calmly inquires about it. The officer replies somewhat smugly "Well, it looks brown through my sunglasses ." From there, a slight argument ensues, which understandably irritates JJ. The reason I think she may have overreacted a little is because she seemed to be annoyed with the fact that the defendant even found the error in first place. They always tell you to read any document, especially legal one, carefully before signing. He did and found an error. To the cop and JJ, who know the law, it was a silly mistake that likely would not have caused the defendant any problems in traffic court. But the defendant, who has very little legal knowledge, probably didn't know that and that's why he brought it to the cop's attention. The argument beyond that was of course unacceptable. This was one of those cases where although the officer was not unprofessional and rude in this case, his smug demeanor in court and on the tape made me think that he could potentially be, if that makes sense. * A case where a father leaves his 18-year-old daughter home alone and she invites her 19-year-old boyfriend (that dad doesn't care for) over. The TV gets broken and the boyfriend gets blamed. Eventually, JJ is able to get the plaintiff's daughter to admit to her role in the incident. Although JJ was actually nice to the defendant (who initially came across as a slight smart-ass) and even admitted that he seemed like a nice young man. She gently stated that his girlfriend's father may have a problem with him is because he was somewhat of a wise guy. The defendant agrees with this and when she asks what he does for a living, he states that he works at McDonald's and that he's not in college. JJ replies something like "Well, McDonald's isn't going to get you very far in life and I have a feeling that the plaintiff wants more for his daughter than that.". I'm sorry, what? What's so bad about working at McDonald's, especially at 19? How many 19-year-olds does she admonish for sitting around and not even trying to work and choosing to collect "her and Byrd's taxes" or mooching off their parents? McDonald's may not be the most glamorous job, but it's an honest living. Besides, some people aren't cut out for college.