teebax

It's a show in which litigants present their cases. Instead of one judge, there will be three. I read up on it on the show's website. The three judges are all law school grads - one from Yale, one from UCLA, and one from Southeastern, if I remember correctly. They've all either practiced law or worked as judges. Also, they've hired Judge Joe Brown's former bailiff.

I am an Army veteran who served in Iraq. Fortunately, I don't have PTSD. As much as I wanted to be supportive of my fellow soldier, I just couldn't take it. I thought the show was way too heavy-handed about his condition. I'm glad the mentioned it and its devastating effects. But they just hammered us with it the entire episode. That was really painful to watch. I'm sure he's an excellent cook (and wish we had someone that talented cooking when I was serving!) but, my goodness, that was just too much. I love the idea of Chopped. I love the crazy baskets that forced creativity. I love when someone makes something amazing out of those crazy baskets. But I swear this show has got to lighten up. I watch in marathons (as I do many of the shows I watch), and I can usually only take two or three episodes at a time before I have to turn it off and watch something less severe. I don't turn on Food Network to be reduced to tears.

I am gayer than a three dollar bill. I clicked your link, and even I was like, "Dayum! That man is fine." He couldn't turn me straight or anything, but I can appreciate a good-looking dude when I see one. I wouldn't miss it for the world. I have already started calling it "Hot Mess" instead.

I wasn't really clear on what happened, but I got the impression that the bearded guy couldn't have the dog where he lived because he didn't want the neighbors to know he'd taken it. Again, I could be completely off base.

Your honor, please help me recoup money I spent on my stolen dog! Priceless. I'm glad MM wasn't able to reach the previous owners. I'm not a fan of uprooting pets and moving them from house to house. And I do believe the dog thief was acting in the dog's best interest . I'd hate to think of Pepper being returned to the family that neglected and abused him.

No love for the bearded lady case? Was that a beard on her face? Anyway, she's one of those people who can't be bothered to park straight and dings the crap out of the plaintiff's car. But then the plaintiff is one of those who becomes president of his condo board and promptly abuses his power. I was rooting for both of them to lose, but the video evidence sealed it. I was bothered that the plaintiff claimed he cleans and dusts his car every day. I hate when people lie to make a case better. Dude, you were going to win anyway. There's no need to lie. The defendant lied too, but I can at least understand her lying. She claimed he'd never complained to her about the dings to her car. I find that hard to believe. She also claimed she had to turn wide because there was no space behind her when that clearly wasn't the case. I have a gorgeous car, and I'm meticulous about it. You will rarely see my car dirty. It's three years old but looks like it did the day I bought it new. I worked really hard and drove a lot of beaters on my way to earning my dream car. And even I don't dust and shine my car every day! Can someone explain to me what happened in the case of the siblings living together but not paying rent? They explained why their grandmother refused to sleep in a bed after her husband died, but i didn't understand. MM indicated it was Cuban thing, maybe? I also don't understand why people insist on making death threats by email and text. Do these folks not understand that once it's in writing it never goes away and can come back to haunt them?

I agree with both of you, actually. JJ does what she always does; she thinks she knows what's happened and pre-judges her cases. That makes the plaintiff fight hard to be heard. The plaintiff, not understanding that she lost that case before she even showed up, goes into "did too" mode. I think if JJ had let the plaintiff present her case instead of opening up the case by castigating her, the plaintiff would've acted much differently. But that's not the JJ we know. Clearly, that plaintiff hadn't watched a lot of JJ. She comes to court, thinking her case is pretty open-and-shut and and gets blasted on national tv. How many times have we heard JJ say that someone can't testify to what they weren't there to witness? That doesn't apply to herself! The husband asked JJ how she knows what happened if she wasn't there, and JJ says she sees it in her mind's eye. What a hypocrite! Can you imagine a litigant telling JJ they know what happened because they see it in their mind's eye? I also disliked the way JJ handled their police report. I understand there's a brotherhood between people who work in the justice system, but JJ seems to thinks cops are infallible. As someone who had a person making death threats on my answering machine only to be told by cops, "what do you want us to do about it?" I find it easier to believe that a cop's report is inaccurate. I also had a speeding ticket dismissed because the officer listed my name as "Jane Doe." I respect cops, but they're not perfect. In the other case, I couldn't help but think of our recent case in Arizona in which a nine-year-old girl accidentally shot and killed the man teaching her to shoot an Uzi. This defendant had posted videos of him shooting guns around his kids and was arrested for it? I think there's probably more to that story, considering that gun laws in AZ are pretty relaxed. I know some folks grow up with guns and it's part of their culture. I'm a gun-owner myself. But maybe we don't need little kids being exposed to them.

Between the new court shows and football being back, I'm in TV-watching heaven.

I had never had the pleasure of seeing that one until last weekend. I wish I hadn't. It's the one week of the month when I'm overly emotional anyway, so that case had me in a puddle of tears. I understand that farmers routinely have to "put down" a sick animal, but for all intents and purposes the other family had taken in the cat. There was no reason to send his son trespassing in order to get the cat just to shoot it. Ugh.

I would have loved Amanda forever if she'd said what I was thinking in that moment, which was: "How the hell do I know if I'm on top or bottom? I haven't been able to figure out the judging all season long!"

I'm glad the Tim Gunn save is out of play. As others have said, I at least know it won't be used on Amanda or Korina. And I am beyond tired of Amanda and her rock & roll schtick. Has she gone an episode without saying rock & roll? I thought Sean's dress was as boring as Samantha's dress. (I will admit, I had to scroll up to previous comments to find her name; she was really forgettable!) I liked the way Kini's flowed on the runway, but the boob part was a complete mess. As much as I dislike Korina, I was okay with her winning this challenge. I'm sure she will take it like a true champion and win gracefully - who am I kidding? I can't even finish typing that BS. My jaw dropped when Sean asked Kini when he was going to win a challenge. I was so hoping Kini would have pointed out that he may have won one had Sean given him credit for his work last week.

If people would do this simple thing, we'd lose most of the court cases in America! Seriously, how many times do we hear that it's the principle and not the money? If someone owes me money and I, presumably, know they're struggling financially (otherwise they wouldn't have borrowed in the first place), I think a token amount each month would be enough to keep me out of court. We get a lot of cases in which the plaintiff is just exasperated after having waited for so long to get a dime. That's why I take umbrage with JJ's haranguing of people who wait a few months to sue. It makes sense to me that people would try to give the other person time to do the right thing instead of immediately marching off to court. And if it makes sense to me, it must be true.

I couldn't agree more. I don't even think most of them think they'll win. It's just a chance for them to humiliate someone they think did them wrong. And the sister-in-law and her husband, George Washington ("I cannot tell a lie") were pieces of shit to do that to a woman who showed them kindness. Loan or not, what they did was really low. As JJ pointed out, there was little income disparity between the two. I would guess that the sister who pays off her credit card every month (which I also do and am a proponent of) is just more fiscally responsible than the one who would rather put down a pet than scrape together the money to pay for its care. ETA: I looked it up. JJ tapes 52 days a year. With her salary, that translates to $900,000 an episode. Next time I tell myself she should hang up the robe and put away the gavel, I try to remind myself of this. Holy cow!

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on a message board. You owe me a new keyboard. I thought they taped in LA, not NYC, but I could be wrong about that. I looked into it a couple of years ago, and the show taped in LA. Has that changed? The only reason I'm thinking that is that when I looked into getting tickets the last time I was in LA, you couldn't get JJ tickets. I think the audience is comprised of actors. Again, this was a couple of years ago, so I could be wrong.

New episodes start Monday, according to the promos. Finally!

I can't quote from my iPad, since I don't know how, but the only follow-up from my potential baseball player is that the family is living proof that one bad neighbor can ruin an entire block. My house is on the market specifically because of these nightmare neighbors on whom I've had to call the police multiple times for loud parties and, one time, for two of their guests having a fist fight in my driveway. Seriously, this guy was beating the crap out of his girlfriend in my freaking driveway. My useless HOA (never again) is much more concerned about weeds and house colors in the neighborhood than they are about assholes like that. But I digress. New episodes next week would be great. I know The People's Court is also new starting Monday. I'm excited to get new litigants to snark about!

I certainly hope she wasn't an English teacher; her grammar was horrific. Once again, we have a parent defending their child for reasons I can't even comprehend. This woman is, presumably, educated. On what planet would it be the plaintiff's fault that the defendant's son hit her car with a freaking golf ball? I had a similar incident when a child playing catch on my street hit my car with a baseball, denting it. The child's mother asked me why my car wasn't in my driveway or garage instead of parked in the street in front of my house (where it's perfectly legal to park), as if it was my fault her idiot kid hit my car. She said since her kid was playing catch before I got home, I shouldn't have parked my car IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE! Yeah, that argument lasted all of two minutes. I told her to produce her homeowner's insurance information or I was calling the sheriff. Then she decided she was just going to pay instead of filing a claim. She dodged me for a week, and then I said to myself, "screw it" and filed the claim with her insurance company, which was promptly paid. Unfortunately, that ended my chance to be on Judge Judy.

I had the same thought. When did yellow become a terrible color. I'm a black female, and when I do wear yellow I get tons of compliments on it. My skin tone is halfway between Sandhaya's and Char's, for what it's worth. I don't tend to wear bright clothing often, but when I dress in yellow, orange, and red, I get the most compliments. I'm sad to see Char go, although that's solely based on the fact that I like her personality. I was surprised to see her get caught up in the Korina/Amanda drama, especially since she's the only one who defended Sandhaya during money-gate. I don't trust the editors, though, and refuse to completely believe Amanda's account of what happened. I hated, hated, hated that Korina and Amanda ended up on the same team, even though I knew it was going to happen. This show really ticks me off sometimes. I'd have more respect if they just told the designers that the producers have selected the teams they want to see work together. It'll never happen, though. We get this BS every season, and it's because the show doesn't trust its audience. I don't watch for manufactured drama; I watch to see talented designers send bad-ass clothes down a runway. I watch because I like seeing the process from idea, to sketch, to execution. I wish the show trusted its viewers and its core product.

I'm right there with you. For all the grief they give contestants, it was BS for him extra time. And I'd have liked it more if they had judges for the food instead of them sitting around giving each other tongue-baths. It was nice to see the judges acting more loosely. I like the camaraderie they have. And Ted impersonating them was really funny.

My question while watching that episode was how in the world he got an opportunity to total the second car, much less the third. She claimed he didn't have permission to drive her car. I guess hiding her keys so he couldn't do so was just out of the question?

I couldn't even re-watch that one. I remember how disgusted I was watching the first time around. I'm with you. I was very sure she was getting an ass-whooping when they got home. Hell, it may even have started before they left LA.

I was relieved when they showed Vince's car that they didn't go the route of making it into a commercial like they had previously. Then, unfortunately, they gave us a commercial for cars.com or whatever the hell that was. I watch this show mostly for the leads, but they are really testing my patience with it this season. I was sure we were going to get a commercial for whatever tea Angela was drinking. I don't mind natural product placement, but this show gets on my nerves with their blatant advertising.

Turns out, I had this one in my DVR queue. Yay! And I agree with you both: I'd have never guessed her for 22. That's a hard 22 years!

You all seem to get much better cases than I get. I don't think I've seen this one. The plaintiff you describe sounds like one of those litigants who makes me see red. They know the guy is a loser who won't support a kid, but then they have a kid (or multiple kids) with him anyway. If he was a loser when you met him, you're not going to turn him into a winner!

Agreed, for this specific case. However, I was wondering about JJ's logic of going by how much a thief sells an item for. If someone is desperate for money and steals my TV, I imagine they'd sell it for a lot less than its actual value at the time of loss. Maybe there is no blue book for travel trailers, but they could have at least gone online to see how much a similar one is selling for, rather than take the word of an admitted thief. Like Brattinella said, if someone steals my car worth $10,000 and sells it for $50, my judgment against them should not be just for $50.