CrazyInAlabama

Yes, she stole the trailer, it wasn't a loan by defendant. It boggles the mind that plaintiff claimed defendant was going to be surprised when she moved out, using his trailer as a moving van. It was more like a shock.

26 April 4 p.m. episodes- p. 500, 30 September 2021 Pedestrian Teen Hit by Truck! ; College Payback Gone Wrong! Adult Assaults Disrespectful Tweener?! -Plaintiff mother Latasha Crenshaw suing defendant/ volunteer class monitor Devetta Jackson for pinching her 12-year-old daughter, Amia Sneed, and telling to stop sitting with her legs wide apart. Plaintiff mother thinks her daughter is a wonderful child, and wasn't a problem at school. Defendant says daughter was disrespectful, talked in class constantly, eye-rolling, and other disruptive behavior. JJ reprimands the defendant for pinching the 12-year-old. The defendant also told girl not to sit with her legs wide open in front of the male teacher, and then complain about teacher looking up her dress. Mother of plaintiff claims no one at school ever said her daughter was a behavior problem. There were no medical bills for the daughter, and mother put Neosporin on it. Mother's excuse is all of the kids at school are equally bad. The plaintiff mother's expression throught the entire case is total rage at JJ. Officer Byrd put down his crossword puzzle, so you know Ms. Crenshaw is making him go on high alert.. Plaintiff gets $10 (yes, ten dollars). (The look on plaintiff's face when JJ announces the verdict is total rage). 5 p.m. episodes- America Not So Great Again! – Plaintiff Elizabeth O’Farrell is suing defendant /(prisoner regular in Missouri) Christopher Clokey for a false restraining order, travel costs (she gave him the bus tickets, and expense money), a wardrobe (she sent him in prison for release to her home), and six months back rent. Defendant worked as their nanny for their special needs child. Defendant is an ex-convict who receives disability for PTSD from being shot in prison, moves in with plaintiff, and her family. Even though he's considered mentally fragile, and disabled the woman hires him as nanny for her special needs little girl, and I found that super creepy. He also was trying to potty train the six-year-old child. Defendant has four biological kids with ex-wife, Angel Clokey, and maybe more kids are out there. Plaintiff says four of his kids are actually adopted by other people. Christopher Clokey was arrested for parole violation, by going from Missouri to California (where Ms. O'Farrell lives), so he went back to prison for another year or so. He lived with O'Farrell in 2016, then 2017, and then back again between prison incarcerations in 2018. (I may be wrong on this, because I'm totally confused). Defendant was released to plaintiff's address, in California from Missouri, where he was in prison, again. His ex-wife, who he calls his wife, was not eligible to have him move in. No, I don't know why. (His ex-wife who he calls his wife is his witness in court) Defendant never repaid plaintiff for anything over the years, so she had no expectation of repayment. Ms. O'Farrell was his payee for his Social Security Disability, and cashed one check, and keeps it. Defendant drives, and does everything else, but still gets disability, and has a payee? As JJ says, he can do everything else other people do, drive, cook, tend children, make babies, etc, except he can't work. (Nothing is mentioned about what his convictions are for, but he can't live with his ex either?) Case dismissed (no expectation of repayment, and plaintiff received money from his one SSDI check). I Won't Rat out a Friend!; Plaintiff / car owner Renne Knutsen suing defendant/neighbor Patrick Clifton for car damages after defendant’s huge party, when one of his drunk guests did a hit-and-run on plaintiff’s car. Defendant who had huge party at his place won't tell which of his friends hit, and left after smashing the plaintiff's parked car. This is the young man who does nothing, and just has big parties. Defendant and fiance, both 20, have a 1 year old kid, he inherited from his father, and does nothing useful. 20-year-olld defendant was also serving liquor, and drinking. Plaintiff car was hit at 2 a.m. or so, when defendant's friends were leaving party. When fiance of plaintiff walked out into the parking lot a bunch of people were standing around the damaged car, laughing and taking cell phone pictures. Fiance of plaintiff knocked on 80 doors in the condo to find out who had the party, and who hit plaintiff's car. A neighbor's door bell camera taped the accident, and the hilarity from the party guests, and defendant is on video looking at the crashed car. There are texts between litigants, and defendant says that he knows who hit the car, and now denies it. Plaintiff's witness is a neighbor, who saw the damages to the car, and took photos. There is another neighbor with a ring-type doorbell who has a video of the car hit-and-run. JJ points out that he's under the legal drinking age too. According to the Oregon statutes, he's responsible for the damages of his drunken guests. Plaintiff gets $ 2,555. Bartender Blackmail-Plaintiff Michelle Lyon gave defendant Timothy Armstrong $1500 cash, and says it was a loan. Defendant claims it wasn't a loan, because he claims she was stealing from the bar he was going to purchase. Plaintiff claims money was a loan to defendant for his car replacement. $1200 to plaintiff.

26 April “This is Bull Shih Tzu” New, Season 10, Episode (Ramona Jones vs. Lily Yoon) From the show site: An earless dog is allegedly the result of a tragic grooming mishap. Her owner had her hair dyed purple, and an allergic reaction led to severe chemical burns. The groomer claims she advised against the coloring, but the owner was insistent. Should she have stood firm in her professional judgment instead of giving in to keep a client happy? (I’m confused, I thought the coloring they use on animals is food coloring, not some chemical process that could cause burns? Or am I wrong? I remember watching a dog grooming competition quite a few years ago, and they did use a non-toxic food coloring on the dogs. ) Plaintiff suing defendant/dog groomer for $5,000, court maximum, because groomer agreed to dye dog purple at owner's insistance, and due to an allergic reaction the dog suffered severe chemical burns, and is now earless. I agree with Judge Tewolde, groomer claims she didn't want to do the dye, told plaintiff not to do it, but still groomer dyed the ears and tail purple, which is bizarre. After the dye job, a week later dog was uncomfortable, and vet said allergic reaction and Plaintiff's dog Pebbles had a litter well before she was one year old, and after puppies are weaned, the dye job happened. Defendant claims the color is safe on animals, and she's never had an issue with a reaction on the dog. Defendant has been using the same brand of dye for eight years. Plaintiff originally wanted the dogs ears and tail dyed when dog was 2 months old, and groomer refused until dog was over 1 year old. The dye job was two months after her first litter was weaned, and I'm guessing sold. I can't believe that plaintiff bred the dog very young. I bet it was only for money, because Pebbles cost $5,000. Plaintiff claims dog had chemical burns, and all for a trendy dye job. Plaintiff cliams she only trimmed the dog's hair, and still delayed going to the vet until over a week after the dye job. Corriero mentions that four states don't allow dying dog's hair. Defendant did refuse several times to do the dye job, but claims plaintiff kept demanding the dye, so she finally did the color job. Original request by plaintiff was for groomer to pay the vet bills. Now she wants vet bills and pain and suffering. (Plaintiff says she'll never dye the dog's hair again or her own, so I guess that awful wig is the result of that?) Plaintiff has no vet report about the situation. Defendant reads the Korean dye warnings, none of them say harmful. Without a vet report, how can the judges give a judgment? But vet bills, and grooming total $700. Corriero wouldn't give pain and suffering, because it might encourage others to dye their dog. So, 700 for vet bills, and grooming. $1,500, with Corriero dissenting for $720 because plaintiff demanded the dye job. Plaintiff gets $1500. “Car and Driver Missing Wire"” Rerun, Season 10, Episode p. 45, 10 January 2024

Kristen did say they may chop two cheftestants in a future episode. So, now they're down to ten? Or did I miscount again? This episode was a big fail for me, and I'm hoping they gave the chefs more explanation that we didn't see.

Sounds like a job for Simon Cowell. I keep wondering what kind of venues Brandie is touring with her performances, and if it's a paying performance, or something else. I wonder how the trio are really doing now?

For me, the switch to Wednesday night is very disconcerting. I don't know why, but it is. Because of conflicts with My 600 Lb Life, I only get to watch the ending, and have to watch the On Demand for it. Watching it backwards is very strange. This episode was very confusing, and I still don't understand Chaos cuisine.

First airing Wednesday, 1 May 2024, 7 - 9 pm Central, 8 - 10 Eastern (I'll try to remember to post the air date from now on). Update on Nathan and Amber from Palestine, TX. He was a drama teacher, she was a teacher, and he became Dr. Now's patient in S10:E01. From IMDB: In this special episode featuring bonus scenes, viewers will catch up with Nathan and Amber as they navigate their weight-loss journeys. Nathan, who underwent weight-loss surgery, is making strides towards a healthier life and is even returning to work as a teacher. However, his wife, Amber, is facing her own challenges as she struggles to qualify for a second surgery to update a previous one she had years ago. As Nathan and Amber confront their respective obstacles, viewers will witness the highs and lows of their transformations, highlighting the physical and emotional tolls of their weight-loss journeys.

25 April 4 p.m. episodes- p. 500, 29 September 2021 Family Emergency Upset! ; Cancer or No Cancer? ; Prison Visit Crash! p. 503, 24 December 2021 Same Sex Wedding Woes! ; Hit-and-Run Detective! 5 p.m. episodes- Child Support From Hell -Plaintiff Raul Cervantes suing his child's mother/ex Patty Hammons for money he gave her to prevent his daughter from being homeless, and says mother turned child against him. He pays his court ordered support, and defendant wanted him to pay her bills off. The litigants got back together, and she claimed she was pregnant again (no she wasn't). Plaintiff claims he loaned her $4,000 to $5,000 to pay off her debts, but she claims $1,000. She wanted the money before they started to co-parent. Byrd needs to take the Fly Swatter From Hell after motor mouth defendant. Defendant says they weren't intimate, but plaintiff says they were, and she claimed a false pregnancy. Defendant claims she was never behind on rent, but plaintiff says defendant claimed she had an eviction notice, and was really behind on rent. JJ is going to call apartment manager. Now defendant is lecturing JJ on what's relevant (Byrd get the Fly Swatter, please). JJ talks to apartment manager, and defendant is absolutely lying. $3501 is what he paid the defendant. Plaintiff has paid child support for 10 years. The day they broke up, she stole his car, threatened to get his child support raised. JJ advises plaintiff to show the payments he made that exceeded his child support payments to the family court judge when she takes him back to court. $0 to plaintiff, because there was no expectation of repayment. c**** Cat Custody--Plaintiff (room renter) Libby Crawford suing defendant/former landlord Dawn Jarman for return of her cat, and an assault by defendant. Plaintiff moved in with the cat, Melvin, but defendant still has it. Cat is in court with defendant, and a designated cat holder. Police were involved with the dust up, and plaintiff did get some property back. No rent owed. Security deposit $150, according to defendant loon, and plaintiff says she paid $650 total. Ms. Jarman, defendant was emergency contact on vet paperwork, not as co-owner. I really hope Byrd takes the Flyswatter of Death after the defendant, and I get to see it. (This is the case where the defendant states "A cat isn't a roommate, it's an infant". When JJ says something's wrong with the defendant, the defendant looks at JJ like she's the nutty one. ) Officer Byrd is totally over the defendant's ranting. She better not advance on JJ's Sacred Bench of Justice, or Officer Byrd will stop her cold. Cat was declawed before plaintiff adopted it three years ago. Defendant got a license in her name, vet bills, and other 'proof'. All of this happened a month or six weeks ago, so plaintiff gets her cat back. Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to punch her. Plaintiff gets her cat back, and defendant gets nothing. Crash Sob Story-Plaintiff John Velani suing defendant Tina Prewitt for repairs to his parked car that defendant hit. Defendant has a bunch of garbage excuses, including the mysterious truck that ran her off the road. (Must be the same truck in all of these cases, wandering the country, and forcing other drivers off the road). Plaintiff receives $5,000.

I am tired of cheftestants coming to TC, and saying "Desserts aren't in my wheel house" or "I haven't done a dessert since culinary school". If you want to come to TC and do well, you try a variety of local dishes when you know the location, a variety of dishes including a couple of desserts, and a full menu if you make the finals. I watched the elimination challenge instructions again, and I still don't know what the challenge actually was.

25 April “Moving Without a Hitch” New, Season 10, Episode ( Julie Ribiero vs. Justin Stephanson ) From the show site: A woman was between apartments, and her friend allowed her to tow his mobile home. Then she crashed the mobile home while hitching it to her SUV and using it as a moving truck! Plaintiff suing defendant. Defendant owned a mobile home, and was nice enough (OK, stupid enough) to let plaintiff to borrow it, and use it as a moving truck, at least that's plaintiff's stupid story, it was going to be a surprise when she moved out. Plaintiff wrecked the mobile home, and defendant is now homeless, and plaintiff is suing him. Judge Tewolde is angry with the plaintiff's lawsuit blaming the defendant for her property loss in an accident that was her fault. Plaintiff was allowed by defendant and girlfriend to camp out in his trailer. Then, defendant's mother showed up, and said plaintiff couldn't put her stuff all over the defendant's property. Then, plaintiff got the keys to her new place early, and she hitched the trailer to her SUV, and it broke loose, car went straight, and trailer went it's own way. Trailer was wrecked, (on Avenue of the Giants), and plaintiff called AAA for a tow, and they declined (they don't tow RVs, trailers, etc.). Plaintiff wrecked the defendant's trailer, which was his home, and how he's homeless. And the plaintiff has the monumental gall to sue defendant!!! Defendant claims plaintiff didn' have his permission to use his trailer as a moving truck, and he would have warned her that she couldn't use the trailer that way, since the hitch was defective. Defendant was stunned when he found out plaintiff stole and wrecked his trailer home, and police declined to get involved, and said it was a civil manner. Judge Juarez is livid at the plaintiff, and Judge Tewolde is too. Plaintiff tells Judge Tewolde she wanted to surprise the defendant by moving out, it certainly was a surprise. Actually, I would call it a shock. Corriero takes over, and even Bleeding Heart Corriero can find a way to make plaintiff's despicable actions plausible. Defendant's travel trailer was only insured in place, not for traveling, so no claim is possible. Trailer is still at the auto shop, and isn't repairable. Defendant gives plaintiff permission to get her property out of the trailer, most generous of him. The judges' discussion is bizarre. Plaintiff never even apologized, and judges have total contempt for plaintiff. Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's Bull Pucky. She will be given access to retieve her junk within 10 days, and I hope it's all destroyed. Defendant is awarded $5,000, court maximum. I wish they could give him double. (the way Judge Tewolde smacked her gavel makes me wonder if she wanted to smack something else with it). “Mind Your Loan Business ; Handi-Snapped” Rerun, Season 10, Episode “Mind Your Loan Business”’ (Jacqui Ramey vs. Baker) From the show site: Two ladies at a senior living center used to love watching Netflix together. But when a loan was made between them and nagging ensued, their relationship lost all its chill. The defendant says she'd pay it if she had it, but she's fighting a separate battle to recover lost wages. Is the plaintiff being too pushy? Plaintiff is suing defendant for an unpaid loan. Loan was $700, and defendant repaid $200. Defendant apparently had no reason she hadn't repaid plaintiff, so the loan was paid to plaintiff by the court. Defendant makes it clear that she has no intention of repaying the remaining $500. Judges give the plaintiff her $500. “Handi-Snapped” (Salomon Navarro vs Daniel Ong) Plaintiff suing defendant for car damages from parking in defendant's parking lot. Plaintiff parked in defendant's parking lot, and he heard a strange noise, and the concrete bumper was under his car, and caused damages. Photo shows the metal rebar securing the concrete parking space block was sticking up under plaintiff's car. However, plaintiff parked over the concrete bumper with the concrete piece going front to back under his car, not where his tires would hit the concrete stopper the way it does when you pull into a parking space correctly. Defendant sent a check to plaintiff, for $429, but plaintiff never opened the envelope or cashed the check. Plaintiff refused to pick the check up at the post office. This is what plaintiff is suing for, and it settles the case. Judge Juarez is slamming the plaintiff for taking this to court, and clogging up the L.A. County court system. Plaintiff is so stubborn. $429 check from defendant to plaintiff.

According to Titan TV, here's next weeks lineup. I'm shocked that they're actually showing them in order. Week: 29 April to 3 May Monday-"Jewelry tussle" 10/17/2017, Season 21 / Episode 32 Tuesday-“You Broke My Window" 10/18/2017, Season 21 / Episode 33 Wednesday-"Mom sues her daughter's ex!" 10/19/2017, Season 21 / Episode 34 Thursday-"Roommate Ruckus" 10/20/2017, Season 21 / Episode 35 Friday-"Sticky Finger Stepson" 10/23/2017, Season 21 / Episode 36

I hate that Rasika will have to go to LCK, but at least Michelle stayed longer. I didn't understand anything about the challenge, and still don't. To me Chaotic means messy, sloppy, and disjointed. However, if Rasika's was really the way the judges said, it sounds hideous. I pity the judges for having to try to eat that. Laura is not showing very well, and I'm guessing she's going to claim a bad edit. However, you can't show something that didn't happen or wasn't said, so I'm not believing anything she says.

Michelle or Rashika is going to be hard to take. Though eitehr one could crush LCK. I don't understand the challenge at all. Rasika, LCK may be a good restart for her, and she could come back.

I was hoping for a better outcome for the Perrios. Who would have thought Roshanda would be the most dedicated one. Clarence is not going to succeed with doing the program his way. Brandie is totally out of control, and I have no hope for her.

Yes, there are always good options no matter where you travel, even if you have to get a hamburger and take the bun off.

Roshanda is right, they need to make their own way forward. Clarence playing pool, and is playing with fire claiming he doesn't need to follow Dr. Now's program, and can do his own program. That's not the road to success. I'm afraid Clarence is going to eat through his surgery. Brandie may be the worst, because she doesn't care about anything but her own pleasure. I don't think she'll ever get back on her diet, ever.

Brandie just told Clarence that you can regain if you snack a lot. I'm guessing she means she eats junk food all day long. And she looks baked. Brandie is going to eat through her surgery, and I'm so sad about that.

Unfortunately, Brandie seems to have gained it all around her waist, which is the worst place to carry weight for your health. Roshanda needs to buckly down, she's come so far that I was proud of her, and she needs to get back on the program. Clarence needs to try harder too. Group therapy might help, but are they determined to embrace it?

Clarence is doing very well. Brandie saying she can't diet because of travel is a bad sign, and she gained 73 lbs. Roshanda looks so much smaller, and she's so mobile, she lost 28 lbs, and that's not wonderful, but she's still losing. Brandie seems awfully happy for someone who gained 73 lbs., unnaturally happy.

This is really Season 7, which apparently the ending episode of the Perrio family short series. Roshanda worried me, with her surgical risks. Brandie, and Clarence were in a better place. I love when Clarence said the trio had loss almost 700 lbs. Roshanda was the only one without the initial surgery because of her miedical issues I think, and Clarence and Brandie are trying to qualify for skin removal. Clarence was the one who was very worried about surgery, because of a relative's medical issues around surgery. This episode had the other doctor helping Dr. Now, but that doctor has since taken another hospital management job. This is definitely a recut rerun, I remember the music scenes with Brandie. I remember Roshanda getting surgery, and the physical therapist working with her, and Roshanda and Brandie's party with Brandie performing. I think Brandie had surgery first, then Clarence did, and finally Roshonda. I remember the birthday party with Roshonda, and Brandie performing. Everything says Season 7 WATN but I thought they were up to season 8 or something. I'm hoping for a big update at the end, and for it to be good news.

This is really Season 9, which apparently a reairing of the ending episode of the Perrio family short series. Roshanda worried me, with her surgical risks. Brandie, and Clarence were in a better place. But Brandie and Clarence gave up. I love when Clarence said the trio had loss almost 700 lbs. Roshanda is the only one without the initial surgery yet, and Clarence and Brandie are trying to qualify for skin removal. Clarence was the one who was very worried about surgery, because of his mother's death during or right after surgery. This episode had the other doctor helping Dr. Now, but that doctor has since taken another hospital management job. This is definitely a recut rerun, I remember the music scenes with Brandie. The update at the end from several years ago was only hopeful for Roshanda, Brandie and Clarence claim to still be losing, but I doubt it.

I bet Coachella refused to let them use the name free, and TC didn't want to pay. The festival also probably didn't want to have some of their people guest judge and film either.

24 April 4 p.m. episodes- p. 517, 6 November 2023 Sisters, Funerals and Guns! ; Ex-Lovers Laptop Fight! p. 517, 13 November 2023 Drugs, Arrests and Gas Poisoning?! (This is the case where plaintiff and landlady claim landlady paid for carbon monoxide safe windows, of course there aren't any windows like that. Plaintiff and landlady claim there are safety windows) (JJ gave $250 to landlady, I wouldn't give her a penny for her windows she was scammed on). 5 p.m. episodes- Fractured Jaw at the Rodeo-( or as Byrd is the Word titled this one-"Brokeback Mountain 2: Where Did The Love Go?”) Plaintiff Alec Cherry suing defendant Beau’d Hopkins for medical bills for breaking his jaw. Plaintiff and defendant were camping at a rodeo, drinking was involved, and had a fight. Plaintiff had his jaw broken by the defendant. Defendant refused to pay medical bills, the bills have gone into collections now. Plaintiff gets $3500 (Beau'd Hopkins, the defendant, I never saw that first name before). A Pit Bull is a Stupid Dog to Have-Plaintiff Laura Geoghagan is suing sister-in-law Melissa Smith and Austin Chin (nephew) for attack on six year old little girl, the plaintiff's daughter, by Austin's Pitt Bull. Little girl was removed from court by Byrd. Little girl has a huge facial scar. (I think the bite victim is plaintiff's daughter, but may be stepdaughter. 19-year-old is plaintiff's stepdaughter). Plaintiff is 19-year-old stepdaughter, living with 17-year-old boyfriend, and 18-year-old nephew of plaintiff, and 22- year-old stepson. Defendant is being sued for child permanently scarred by defendant's pit bull. Plaintiff was watching her sister, and dog attack happened in defendant's room on the little sister. The sister's (plaintiff's) classic response to why she wasn't properly watching the girl, is "I didn't think anything would happen". Stepdaughter claims she told the stepmother there is a new, adult pit bull in the house, and stepmother says it's a lie, she didn't know about the dog. The dog was the boyfriend's dog. Why would any one with sense (stepmother) let a six-year-old go to stay with the 17-, 18-, and 19-year-old fools for a weekend anyway? Stepmother (plaintiff) claims she didn't know about the Pit Bull, just the Husky. Stepmother says the dog was a new addition, and there was a husky in the household, then the pit bull left, and was brought back. The little girl was bitten in the defendant's (17-year-old boyfriend) room. As JJ says, stepmother/plaintiff hadn't been to the house for a long time, and allowed the girl to stay for the weekend with the fool step daughter. Case against defendant sister-in-law is dismissed. Nothing for the plaintiff, because it was her fault the child was there. How sad that this little girl will have lifelong trauma and injuries, because so many adults were careless. Man's Fear of Large Dogs Comes Back to Bite Him-Plaintiffs Hannah Kim and Brooke WIlliams suing defendant/former roommate Alexis Vasquez for breaking the lease, animal abuse, and filing a false report.. Defendant was bitten on the thigh by his roommates' German Shepherd/Husky moves out. As usual, the dog owner blames the victim, and claim dog was provoked. The plaintiffs blame it on the defendant, because he was warned the dog didn't like men. Defendant moved out and Dog owner didn't mention the size of the dog until the lease signing, but didn't know the size and breed of the dog until move in. Defendant says dog attacked him two weeks later, and dog bite his thigh. Plaintiff/dog owner claims it was a nip, and the defendant's fault. Defendant gets away without paying anything, and plaintiffs get nothing. Gas Explosion Anxiety-(I remember these two, the defendant is seriously wacky). Plaintiff Patricia Sloan planted a tree, between the driveways, and defendant Dr. Phyllis Popp, D.O., chopped branches on her side of the driveway. Defendant says the tree would eat into the gas line, and blow up the houses, so she chopped the tree on her side. However, plaintiff says the gas line was relocated before tree was planted. Defendant also says the gas explosion threat made her nervous, made her dog nervous, and a bunch of other garbage. Plaintiff wants $1169 to replace the tree, and she's not getting that either. I think the tree was too close to the house, but that doesn't allow defendant to chop branches off of it, and damage the tree. $1 to plaintiff. Tree is still growing, so no money for plaintiff. (I'm so glad I didn't move to Phoenix where these litigants live).

24 April “Motherboard Blues” New, Season 10, Episode (George Yannoulatos vs. David Gomez) From the show site: A cellphone repairman admits to accidentally breaking a customer's phone but claims he offered $300 worth of replacement parts to make it right. According to him, the plaintiff then tried to fix it himself, further damaging the phone. Does that absolve the repairman of liability? Phone is a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ulta 5G. Plaintiff suing defendant/cellphone repairman for replacement of plaintiff's phone. However, defendant admitted to accidentally breaking the phone, offered $300 worth of repairs. However, plaintiff demanded the parts to fix the phone himself, and it. Plaintiff claims the defendant broke the phone, and wanted the parts to fix it himself. So, defendant paid for the parts, and plaintiff wanted the phone parts, and defendant did that. Plaintiff says he didn't fix the phone, but only tightened a screw. Plaintiff kept going back to defendant's shop for parts over and over. Plaintiff wants a new phone for $1,500. Defendant says phone had been overcharged, because battery was swollen (it can also happen with aftermarket batteries that are counterfeits). Plaintiff says defendant's wireless charger made the battery swell up. Defendant says two screws on the back of the phone were broken or stripped, when defendant broke the sensor, he purchased $300 in parts for plaintiff, but plaintiff wanted the parts. Defendant claims plaintiff did the work himself. Plaintiff went to the phone repair shop four times in two weeks. Defendant says he offered to install the parts, but plaintiff only let him replace the motherboard. Defendant also recommended that plaintiff get a refurbished phone, much less than the $1500 replacement costs. Replacement phones are $300 to $800. Plaintiff gets $350, this was in addition to the $300 in parts defendant gave him. “The Gig Is Up” Rerun, Season 10, Episode 10 p. p. 42, 22 September 2023

23 April 4 p.m. episodes- p. 517, 7 November 2023 1,000 Beer Bottles Clean-Up?! p. 518, 12 February 2024 Shot in the Knee! ; Save My Business! 5 p.m. episodes- Pepper Spray Showdown in Atlanta- Plaintiff Kashira Martin suing defendant Jordan White for a false restraining order, and claims defendant started the fight with plaintiff. Both litigants claim the other assaulted and harassed them. Two women were fighting over some unemployed loser, who was texting and dating plaintiff while he was living with defendant. Defendant has twins with loser boyfriend, who has apparently never been employed. Plaintiff claims loser boyfriend Cory Pippin, contacted her, said he had no kids. The two women fought, and plaintiff later came to CDC (where defendant works), and threatened defendant, and sent her photos of guns. Boyfriend was living with defendant and their kids, and sending texts to plaintiff and boinking her too. Cory Pippin is a witness for defendant. Plaintiff ambushed defendant at gas station, and plaintiff pepper sprayed defendant . Plaintiff tried to get a protective order, claiming defendant attacked her, instead defendant received a temporary protective order. Plaintiff was arrested and spent six days in jail for the attack. Plaintiff claims she didn't get a restraining order against defendant. However, defendant has a TRO and no contact order against plaintiff. Video is of defendant cruising past the plaintiff's house (they all live in the same neighborhood). JJ asks plaintiff if she's cuckoo, and she says yes, she is a little bit. Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant gets $500. Charge Party With the Company Credit Card-Plaintiff/former employer Richard Fox suing defendant/former employee Timothy Weichert for unauthorized charges on the company credit card. Defendant fired after three accidents in company trucks in the same year. After firing, defendant used the company credit card to pay his cell phone bill for two months. Defendant says card was on file, and he didn't do it deliberately, even though it paid his three months of his back cell phone bill, and another month of bills. Defendant claims plaintiff forgave the money, plaintiff gets $739.38. p. 492, 19 May 2021 The Wild Party Injury and the Uneducated Fool?!