All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Intocats said:

The defendant was Laura, and I don't often feel sympathy toward JJ litigants, but I felt bad for her. Mr. Wallen was a class-A jerk, and Miriam sounds like a snake in the grass.

OMG, YES! Poor Laura Brown -- I thought she was having a breakdown right in front of my eyes. And for that asshole?! How does an old, gross, ugly degenerate like that even get past a "hello" on a first date? God. He and Miriam certainly deserve to live out the rest of their miserable lives together. And then the nerve of him to announce later that he had planned "at least seven" more lawsuits against that poor woman???? I hope he gets bitten by a rabid animal and is too busy with his "lawsuits" to seek medical attention.

[AZChristian]

9 hours ago, Maharincess said:

I'm also damn sick of the way she treats people who choose to live together without the "benefit" (lmao) of marriage.  I have my 28th happily unmarried unniversary next May.  A couple who has a piece of paper saying they're married are no more committed to each other than my man and I are. We are happy, committed to each other and still very much in love.  How many marriages last 28 years these days?  Not too many I would guess.  I have nothing against people who choose to marry but that piece of paper means nothing to me. 

She needs to realize it's not 1955 anymore. 

Maharincess, I usually agree with so much of what you write.  And you are correct - lots of marriages don't go nearly as long 28 years.  You definitely have a strong commitment.

But I have a friend who has been happily unmarried to a guy for 14 years; they bought a house and a car together.  Last week - out of a clear blue sky - he told her that he was leaving.  Divorce is seldom easy (is there such a thing as an amicable divorce?), but her financial entanglements to him do not include any legal protection that she would have in a divorce.  We are all hoping that she comes out of it without having to go bankrupt.  

:-(

[EtheltoTillie]

On 12/8/2016 at 11:28 AM, SRTouch said:

" Or here's a novel idea, instead of making rulings based on "her America ideals," maybe she could relieve some of her boredom by spending a little time researching the actual ordinances and laws in the relevant jurisdictions. One of the reasons I like TPC is that MM takes the time to tell us when she rules based on the law in the litigants' jurisdiction.

JJ specifically does not base decisions on law of the jurisdiction.  MM does.  It just seems to be a choice of the producers.  That's why JJ lets landlords collect on illegal rentals, and MM does not.  In real life, landlords can't collect on illegal rentals--doesn't matter whether the tenants ate the steak.  Also, JJ won't let tenants collect on various state statutes providing for triple damages on security-deposit violations.  MM will allow that.

[momtoall]

16 hours ago, Maharincess said:

I lost a lot of respect for her on the episode with the backyard breeders when she spoke of the many puppies she has "bought" over the years.  

I know the system is set up for those who have "legalized" their relationships, what in I find objectionable is the tone of disdain she uses to the litigants who have chosen to "play house".  If as though she finds them "less than" ....  She often uses the same tone when addressing stepparents.

Edited December 10, 2016 by momtoall
Spelling is important

[EtheltoTillie]

On 12/8/2016 at 11:05 AM, Angeltoes said:

Wow, you have to be a special kind of stupid to go on national TV and take the risk of having the other party blurt out about you that,"He gets SSI.  He doesn't want Social Security to know that he's making money under the table."  I wonder if Social Security and Food Stamps (and all the other agencies that pass out JJ's, Byrd's and my money like candy) ever find out about these shows and go after the people that are blatantly and cheerfully scamming the system.  

I really wonder about this too, but plaintiff must have had some kind of psychiatric disability and didn't really seem to understand what was going on and how to start a web site.  But there is trial work allowed.  There is also continuous work allowed were you make small amounts under a level called "substantial gainful activity."  This would be way over JJ's head, because she is so predisposed to calling disability recipients scammers.  She always yells at disability recipients when she hears that they are minding their grandchildren occasionally, or helping out with their sick elderly parents or minding their OWN children.  That does NOT disqualify them from continued receipt of disability. 

What really got my goat was that JJ kept referring to the "Department of State" reporting the plaintiff's income to Social Security.  Now, let's make clear--she is not talking about Hillary Clinton's former jurisdiction.  She is referring to the department of state in whatever state plaintiff lives in, and with whom he might file his paperwork to form a small corporation.  That department is NOT going to be receiving his income information, and it is not going to be reporting to Social Security.  Overkill by JJ.

Edited December 10, 2016 by GussieK

[EtheltoTillie]

On 12/8/2016 at 5:45 PM, Jamoche said:

Tech support people take note: having an upcoming court date on Judge Judy is apparently incredibly hard on smart phones. There's a high number of people who had a text proving their case but oops! their phone just broke! Maybe the space around the court is some kind of electromagnetic anomaly.

Definitely the same gremlin that makes their car insurance expire.

[augmentedfourth]

1 hour ago, momtoall said:

I know the system is set up for those who have "legalize" their relationships, what in I find objectionable is the tone of disdain she uses to the litigants who have chosen to "play house".  If as though she fins them "less than" ....  She often uses the same tone when addressing stepparents.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but in this and other similar cases involving the breakup of long-term non-marriages*, I didn't really think she was showing disdain and mocking them. She was just pointing out, admittedly in her usual brash way, that without that piece of paper, it doesn't matter if you've been together 9 years, 9 months, or 9 days, the law doesn't change. The courts just aren't going to sift through your mess. And I think the "play house" snark is saved for the younger crowd who hops from relationship to relationship in a relatively short period of time, leaving a trail of babies along the way, and then wants JJ to determine who was responsible for rent and groceries six months ago and who gets the car that's financed in both their names.

*I vaguely remember some case from a ways back where the litigants had been in a long-term relationship, had several kids, but had never married. I want to say they were suing over something that wouldn't have been covered in a divorce anyway, but I can't be sure. JJ asked one of them (the woman, I think) why they had never gotten married after living together and raising their kids together for so long. I can't remember what the response was, but she was fairly eloquent and put-together, so JJ just sort of shrugged, said okay, and moved on.

[Quof]

JJ's disdain for those "playing house" is the same disdain she shows to other people who do stupid, or at least careless, things and expect others to sort it out (renting cars for other people, buying a puppy off Craig's List in a Walmart parking lot).   Mingling assets and finances with no written plan as to what will happen when the relationship goes tits up is stupid.  JJ's derision isn't any judgment on morality, it's about stupidity. 

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, momtoall said:

I know the system is set up for those who have "legalize" their relationships, what in I find objectionable is the tone of disdain she uses to the litigants who have chosen to "play house".  If as though she fins them "less than" ....  She often uses the same tone when addressing stepparents.

Absolutely. I grew up with a step mother and step siblings - fairly common nowadays. It never fails to piss me off when JJ abruptly dismisses this type of relationship. Hey, Dad raised my little brother and sister from the time they were in diapers. He was the only "Dad" they knew their whole lives, but we all know that in the eyes of the law he was never their "real" father.  I can hear JJ telling a witness/litigant in her court that their 50 year father-son/daughter relationship means nothing. Ok, legally true but instead a gentle statement that the law doesn't recognize the relationship, JJ is likely to snap that they have no relationship, so shut up and sit down. Same with her stance on those who "play house". Yes, we know the courts aren't set up to treat these folks like those with a marriage certificate, but she doesn't needed to be so abrupt and scornful when telling litigants this.

[momtoall]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Ok, legally true but instead a gentle statement that the law doesn't recognize the relationship, JJ is likely to snap that they have no relationship, so shut up and sit down. Same with her stance on those who "play house". Yes, we know the courts aren't set up to treat these folks like those with a marriage certificate, but she doesn't needed to be so abrupt and scornful when telling litigants this.

Exactly my point! I know the courts can't correct the mistake of co-mingle "resources", I just feels her attitude towards these litigants are unnecessarily "superior".  Just my opinion.  For the record I was married for over thirty years.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Plaintiff in dog case looked like a freakin' jacked up jack o lantern with those meth riddle 'teef'. Yikes.  I'm gonna have nightmares thinking about that gaping maw.  Not sure if it's just my local station, but those damn singing dental ads that run constantly during JJ need to get her in a chair stat.

And they kept playing her "reaction" over. . and over. . . and over. . . . . and my commercial was the place that offered a deal on dental implants (I think she sold enough puppies to buy at least one toofie, but would have to pull out the electric fry pan and cook up some more meth for the rest).  I  HATE backyard breeders.  However I did have a friend  who bought vaccinations for her numerous rescue cats and dogs from a vet supply place and gave them their shots (her husband had medical training and knew how to give injections). I'm pretty sure Ms Meth Mouth was experienced in the needle although the pipe was another story.  I think I saw the litigants were from Ocala which is a pretty horsey place. Lots of expensive horse farms and a collection of tornado-attracting single wides. 

Quote

Yes, we know the courts aren't set up to treat these folks like those with a marriage certificate, but she doesn't needed to be so abrupt and scornful when telling litigants this.

Judge Marilyn has a similar speech - something about separating the pots and pans of a relationship. It's equally disdain-filled. 

Quote

Tech support people take note: having an upcoming court date on Judge Judy is apparently incredibly hard on smart phones. There's a high number of people who had a text proving their case but oops! their phone just broke! Maybe the space around the court is some kind of electromagnetic anomaly.

I've always replaced my phones and there's this new fangled thing called THE CLOUD where everything on my phone lives - I have managed to keep all my text messages and pictures and email sas long as I have had a smart phone - of course, I have been with one carrier and I pay my own bill - my baby daddy's cousin's  dog sitter doesn't have me on her plan. Gosh, this paying-your-own way deal is just dandy!!!!

Edited December 11, 2016 by ItsHelloPattiagain

[Zahdii]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 9:45 AM, SRTouch said:

Absolutely. I grew up with a step mother and step siblings - fairly common nowadays. It never fails to piss me off when JJ abruptly dismisses this type of relationship. Hey, Dad raised my little brother and sister from the time they were in diapers. He was the only "Dad" they knew their whole lives, but we all know that in the eyes of the law he was never their "real" father.  I can hear JJ telling a witness/litigant in her court that their 50 year father-son/daughter relationship means nothing. Ok, legally true but instead a gentle statement that the law doesn't recognize the relationship, JJ is likely to snap that they have no relationship, so shut up and sit down.

I also grew up with step parents.  I didn't even know I had another father aside from my step dad until I was four or five.  He'd checked out and only through the insistence of my step mother did he renew his relationship to me and my siblings.  She was pretty good at staying out of stuff between my mom and my dad, although as I grew I realized that he was taking his cues from her.  But she was also really good at making sure that her kids, my dads kids, and the kid they had together were treated equally and fairly.  I never tested her impartiality over a couple of incidents, but that's on me.

As for how JJ views step parents, anyone remember the case of several years ago where the step mother was suing her step son's mother for the cost of a necklace she bought for the boy?  Step mom was a real piece of work.  She showed a video of her wedding to the boys father, and after exchanging rings the step mom put a chain with a medallion around the boys neck and proclaimed that he was now part of her family.  It was supposed to be sweet, but it was obvious that the necklace represented that she was staking her claim on the boy.

Step mom said that when the boy was with her (and his father), he wore the necklace.  I had visions of her putting that on him before even letting him hug his father hello.  One day she forgot to remove the chain before allowing the boy to return to his mother.  The next time he visited, he said that he'd hung the necklace on his bedpost at the end of the day and it was gone in the morning.  So step mom had another one made and was suing the mother for the cost of the replacement.  She also said that the mother wasn't a good parent, she'd already consulted an attorney to get custody of the boy, and was following the attorney's advice to build a case against the mother and build a paper trail.

The mom had very little to say, as most of the conversation was between JJ and the step mom.  The mom said that the boy came back home when she was in the process of moving, and when the mom and her friends packed up the boys room the day after he arrived home, she didn't see the necklace and it was probably lost in the move.  I think the mom also said that the step mom was only after her boy because she couldn't have children of her own.

JJ went ballistic on the step mom, accusing her of sending the boy back to his mother wearing the necklace to taunt her, and although there was no proof the mother took the necklace, JJ thought she did and approved of it!  The step mom's face was a wonder to behold, she truly thought that she'd come across as a better mother to the boy than the flighty single mom that had a lower standard of living and dated other men!  (She was also prettier than the rather plain step mom.  Seriously, the step mom was so conservative in her grooming and dress, she looked like she was a good 20 years older and had a permanent stick up her butt.)

JJ also talked to the boys father, but he was making it clear that his new wife ran the show.  I think he seemed almost afraid of her.  JJ yelled at the father for a while to stand up to his wife and stop letting her bully his son's mother, take control of his relationship with his son and keep the step mother out of the decision making process where his son was concerned.  It was beautiful.  While all this was going on, the mom was laughing and at one point yelled out "Go Judge Judy!"

Case dismissed.  I'd dearly love to know how those people are doing today.

[Guest]

A few years back, there was also the case of the father and step mother suing the mother of the boy for half the cost of the jungle prison camp (or something) they had his ass carted off to. The step mother was a shrew who kept insisting the mother neglected to follow through on the terms of the at-home instructions and the father was a passive douchebag who allowed his uppity wife to take the stand for the hearing. I think it was one of those cases where I thought JJ was gonna get off the bench and beat everyone on the plaintiff's side with her gavel -- and I would have been pleased if she did.  

[Jamoche]

3 hours ago, Zahdii said:

As for how JJ views step parents, anyone remember the case of several years ago where the step mother was suing her step son's mother for the cost of a necklace she bought for the boy? 

Wow... I wish the JJ producers would put stuff up on Youtube instead of taking them down, because I really want to see this one.

[Maharincess]

On 12/10/2016 at 5:51 AM, AZChristian said:

Maharincess, I usually agree with so much of what you write.  And you are correct - lots of marriages don't go nearly as long 28 years.  You definitely have a strong commitment.

But I have a friend who has been happily unmarried to a guy for 14 years; they bought a house and a car together.  Last week - out of a clear blue sky - he told her that he was leaving.  Divorce is seldom easy (is there such a thing as an amicable divorce?), but her financial entanglements to him do not include any legal protection that she would have in a divorce.  We are all hoping that she comes out of it without having to go bankrupt.  

:-(

I'll reply in the Small Talk thread so I don't go off topic. 

[augmentedfourth]

2 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

A few years back, there was also the case of the father and step mother suing the mother of the boy for half the cost of the jungle prison camp (or something) they had his ass carted off to. The step mother was a shrew who kept insisting the mother neglected to follow through on the terms of the at-home instructions and the father was a passive douchebag who allowed his uppity wife to take the stand for the hearing. I think it was one of those cases where I thought JJ was gonna get off the bench and beat everyone on the plaintiff's side with her gavel -- and I would have been pleased if she did.  

Oooh, I remember that one. If memory serves, the mother did sort of have a "meh" attitude toward her delinquent-in-training, but that is not a reason for a lawsuit in small claims court.

 

I kind of think JJ has the same attitude toward step-parents as she does toward unmarried couples - if they generally have their acts together and aren't suing over ridiculously stupid shit*, she doesn't make a big deal of it. But when someone, as in this example and the other one further up, is so blatantly overstepping boundaries and trying to edge out the present birth parent, she tells them to back off, and rightfully so. I don't have a lot of experience to speak from, but it does seem like a situation where those lines can get murky, and I'm sure she saw plenty of step-parent drama (aka "ways to stick it to my ex") in Family Court.

 

*And if that were the case for most people/litigants, we wouldn't have a show to watch.

[Beamish]

This past Wednesday's case with one former roommate suing another and there was 'stolen' ski equipment involved: what crawled into JJ's Special K and died? She was so hostile towards the plaintiff - it was like we were missing an important part of the case that invoked JJ's wrath. At first glance I figured JJ would destroy the smug defendant, but lo and behold, it was the plaintiff, who seemed to have a bunch of evidence to back her up, that got the JJ stink eye. And, of course, we get JJ's Home Depot advice of the week of how to fix a scratched floor.

[SandyToes]

Producers, are you listening?!

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, Beamish said:

And, of course, we get JJ's Home Depot advice of the week of how to fix a scratched floor.

Seriously, that scratched hardwood floor was NOT a quick fix-it!  That was GOUGED, and deep.  You treat your own hardwood floors like that, Judy?

[momtoall]

17 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

I kind of think JJ has the same attitude toward step-parents as she does toward unmarried couples - if they generally have their acts together and aren't suing over ridiculously stupid shit*, she doesn't make a big deal of it

I've episodes where she'll look a the person sitting on the side (plaintiffs or defendants) and snap "who are you"?, if the reply is "I'm the current spouse of the ..."  she'll dismiss them with a "You have nothing to do with the offspring of ....., you're not related to them".  I find the insulting to the many stepparents who have give a lot of love and care to their step children and I don't think they should be dismissed.  JMO.

[ElleMo]

On 12/9/2016 at 8:58 PM, Ilovecomputers said:

I'm a little surprised that Judy permits people to show print-outs of alleged text conversations. It would be soooo easy to create a phony graphic representation of a text conversation, and as long as I stood up straight, didn't cross my arms and didn't drink the forbidden water, JJ would probably believe me. If the opposing party tried to quibble about my fake text message print-outs, I'd counter by saying, "Of course he's denying it."

 

I am in agreement but apparently, most defendants don't know this because quite a few don't deny it or deny it in such as way that makes you think they are lying

 

On 12/9/2016 at 9:52 PM, AZChristian said:

Agreed.  Judge Milian on TPC always asks to see the actual phone.  She has teenagers.  LOL.

Do they have any forensic computer people who check the phones before she sees them?  I could easily create a string of texts with anyone then just change the name in my contacts to make it look like it came from the defendant.  Of course, that would take brains and some foresight, which many of the litigants lack. 

I wonder if dates can be changed too. Next time I am in a long line with nothing to do I will see if that is possible.  LOL

[Guest]

If I were JJ I wouldn't touch anyone's phone.

All I think when I see her pawing a phone is "where do you suppose that phone has been? Who touched it? and What did they touch before they touched that phone?"

She should put on sterile gloves before touching anything the litigants have touched.

Edited December 12, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[configdotsys]

So Time Warner cable is now Spectrum and I'm treated to "Welcome to Spectrum" commercials ad nauseam. The gent says they are the best blah blah blah.

So these geniuses updated my cable boxes the other day so now when I list the contents of my DVR, the JJ programs are sorted by seasons and episode numbers all in their own folders so the episode that it recorded today is buried somewhere in whatever season it's from or in the "other episodes" folder which has a ton of stuff too. 

I looked at the guide and today's 4 pm showing was supposed to be a guy buying rims and not paying for them with an original air date of August. I searched through my DVR and can't find the damn episode even though the Recorded tab indicates shows were recorded today. Thanks for nothing, Spectrum. If they wanted to improve the service, they'd enable us to "Play all" shows in a folder in straight up or random order. Instead, I have no clue where my shows are now.

/rant off

The last ep I saw was that creepy little troll that took up with Miriam. Ugh.

[SRTouch]

Hmmmph, we're treated to grumpy JJ with the dude buying the old Mercedes stuck in her "4 corners of the contract" rant. Basically, dude buys an old car off a used car lot for $4grand, with $360 monthly payments. Everybody agrees he made first payment, he says he made the second, but has no receipt and she denies payment was made. Dude is wrong for not having a receipt, but JJ is in one of her moods where she doesn't believe people pay in cash. If someone says they paid cash everything else they say is suspect. Hey, when I delivered pizza part time 2/3 of my money was from cash tips. No, I never paid my rent or car payment in cash (that was from my retirement check) but lots of drivers did pay cash, with only a few getting a money order or any paper trail for proof of payment. No payment the third month, and she repossessed the car. Apparently, sometime in the 2-3 months he had car he put $1000 tires and rims on the thing. Dude is furious with dealer and with JJ for not listening and believing his story, but he's smouldering with anger instead of erupting. I felt for the guy, as I think dealer seemed to be using a boilerplate contract which left holes which hurt both sides. No mention of warranty in contract, but he has a (bad) copy of a warranty he says was signed, just like he had a bad copy of the contract that JJ couldn't read until defendant provided the original. JJ says no warranty because it's not in the 4 corners of the signed contract, but he protests she has the signed warranty right there on her table. I believe him about the warranty. Not only that, but this is another time when I'd like to know what the rules are in their jurisdiction. As we've learned, at least in California, the seller is responsible for getting it smogged, and it seemed that was what he wanted fixed by warranty. He seemed to be saying he couldn't register the car without spending thousands of dollars to pass smog, which was covered by his warranty. JJ wasn't hearing that - maybe because he had it for months, driving it without registering it, probably without insurance (though nothing was said in court about insurance) and getting tickets that ended up back on dealer's desk. But, JJ treated defendant equally badly. Since nothing was stated in the contract about customer having to pay repo costs dealer got stuck with them... even ended up having to pay for the ticket plaintiff got with the car. This is a perfect example of what folks have been complaining about lately... a prickly JJ going off and ruling without seeming to consider evidence.

Edited December 13, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[SRTouch]

Crazy duplicate posts

Edited December 13, 2016 by SRTouch
Forum gone wild

[SRTouch]

Crazy duplicate post #2

Edited December 13, 2016 by SRTouch
Forum gone wild

[SRTouch]

And third duplicate post

Edited December 13, 2016 by SRTouch
Forum gone wild

[bad things are bad]

Quote

grumpy JJ with the dude buying the old Mercedes 

That dealer was a shady one though...

Did you catch his interest rate? 24%! That is some BAD credit. And if you're buying a $3500 car, and expect it to be a halfway decent runner, for the love of GOD do not buy an old German car! 

[vibeology]

I felt for that guy too. I do believe that he paid cash for his monthly payment and didn't think to get a receipt. I also believe that there is a signed warranty in her pile of paperwork. And I believe the car couldn't pass smog. It's a shame that JJ wouldn't allow him to recoup the cost of the tires and rims if nothing else since I'm sure that shady car dealer has come out ahead in pretty much every one of her deals.

[basiltherat]

IAs Judge Marilyn says, money doesn't leave one hand without a receipt going into the other.  Grab a roll of toilet paper and a crayon; as long as both parties sign, its a receipt.

[califred]

Yes and if that was California she'd be fined for selling a car that can't be smogged.

 

Today we get the brilliant men who say they bought a rebate check/debit card  off someone in the parking lot.  

[Guest]

In this season of reruns, a movie suggestion for anyone seeking some entertainment: Tooken! (Note: STILL NOT A WORD!) 

(I haven't seen it, nor have I ever heard of it until tonight when I randomly decided to see what Lukas Haas has been up to these days when he's not busy tailing Leonardo DiCaprio to exotic locales hoping to score with his cast offs.) 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I'm seriously sitting here wondering if Tooken was a double feature with Keanu

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4139124/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[SRTouch]

Couple noteworthy cases in this episode. First we're treated to two problem teens - twenty years later. Now, they're in their mid-30s, alcoholic, living in the condos their respective Daddys pay for, and bringing their daddys to court because of damage to one of the condos. Pretty sad state of affairs on both sides. Both the 35+ yearolds claim they no longer have drinking problems... yeah, right. Plaintiff drunk (who just happens to have a 1 year boy living with her) claims to have stopped drinking in 2013 - oh except when she was getting drunk with defendant who lived upstairs and would come down and drink with her - later on she says she's been sober for 60 days. Defendant drunk doesn't tell us how long he's been sober... maybe he always looks like he tied one on the night before. He tells us he works construction. That's like those people who claim to work health care and turns out they work as a hospital janitor, or in education when they work in the cafeteria. Is this guy a craftsman - or maybe the guy cleaning up after demolition. Anyway, plaintiff moved out - daddy probably found out she was drinking with the neighbor - and landlord socks it to her daddy with all kinds of damages. Defendant halfway admits to some damage, but being "in construction" says he repaired his damage better than new. Problem is, the picky landlord doesn't accept the "better than new" repairs, and billed plaintiff's daddy, who in turn wants defendant to pay. Plaintiff daddy just knows his little girl didn't cause any of the damage, and what does it matter that her bf (not the defendant) has caused the cops to respond to baby girl's residence. Geez, all I can say is pray for the 1 year old living in this mess.

Second case is swarmy antique/consignment store owner who accepts plaintiff's furniture on consignment. He's got a pretty good racket going. He has a contract that says if her stuff doesn't sell he gets to keep it, then he takes the stuff and sticks in in the back somewhere where no one will see it until time runs out. Plaintiff catches on when she finds something that goes with the stuff he has on consignment, so she goes to take it to the store and her stuff isn't on display. I don't need sound or to hear the case, just to look at the smug defendant with his chin up looking down his nose and I'm ready to rule against him. When JJ calls him on his shady contract and tells us everything becomes his property after 6 months, we hear someone in the audience exclaim "OMG." He wants to clarify this part of his contract, and JJ isn't having it. Lot of dancing around and "I don't remembers," and "I'm honest" but plaintiff has logical story and good memory... along with emails where defendant says he's sick, but will be sending her a check when he's able. She's also offers emails from other of his customer/victims. He protests these other emails and JJ tells him to just be quiet while she reads the emails he sent about being sick... JJ isn't going to accept the hearsay emails, anyway. As JJ reads from the litigants' email exchange he says he doesn't want his illness publicized... huh, you agree to go on JJ when you know plaintiff has these emails as part of her case and think you can stop JJ from reading them? JJ finally gets tired of listening to him and gives plaintiff what she's asking for. I was kind of disappointed with the producers after the case ending. Plaintiff walks out and her witness (who never said anything) is following her when defendant goes to cut in front of her. We just see Byrd put up his hand to stop defendant, presumably to let plaintiff's witness leave first, when they cut to the next case previews.

[speac]

It appears a lot of people thought the Antiques Dealer was a scammer

https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-antique-roadhouse-norwood

[shksabelle]

What a pathetic bunch of drunks.  Middle-aged people still being supported, and enabled, by their daddies.  D's daddy also looked like he has a problem with the bottle, as did the P's slack-jawed boyfriend.  Things are not looking good for the poor baby she birthed.

[Brattinella]

7 minutes ago, shksabelle said:

What a pathetic bunch of drunks.  Middle-aged people still being supported, and enabled, by their daddies.  D's daddy also looked like he has a problem with the bottle, as did the P's slack-jawed boyfriend.  Things are not looking good for the poor baby she birthed.

Very clever username, shksabelle!

[shksabelle]

Why, thank you, Brattinella.  Back at you.

[Silver Raven]

Ack, a woman in a rerun today said that she wishes that JJ would run for President.  I shudder.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, speac said:

It appears a lot of people thought the Antiques Dealer was a scammer

https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-antique-roadhouse-norwood

 I didn't realize that Charm Boy was in Massachusetts.  Not close to me but I'm up for a drive.

Thinking about donning the clown suit I bought for the kids picnic....driving to Norwood and stand outside his shop with a sign that says "He Terrifies Me". 

That'll knock him down a peg or two. 

And I was going to throw that costume out......

[Guest]

13 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Both the 35+ yearolds claim

And yet another case of poorly aged litigants -- I could have sworn she was in her 40s, he in his 50s. 

I got a rerun case of the disgusting pitbull "breeders." First of all, there is no recognized dog breed named "bullies." They are American Staffordshire Terriers if they are purebred and I highly doubt they were regardless of what the UKC (sounds legit) says. I'm glad JJ raked those scamming, inarticulate, dead-eyed sisters through the coals 'cause ain't no one believing those poor, uncared for puppies were sold for $500 a piece. I'm certain they were "sold" to any old dirtbag with a neighborhood dog fighting ring for a pack of cigarettes and pre-paid phone card.

[Jamoche]

15 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Ack, a woman in a rerun today said that she wishes that JJ would run for President.  I shudder.

I'd like to see her with Trump as a defendant, though - the only difference between his scams and the usual cases here is the scale.

[Brattinella]

Welp, bye now.

[WaitForMe]

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Welp, bye now.

Yeah, me too.

[Rabbittron]

I wonder why JJ has such disdain for step parents after all she is a stepmother to her husbands Jerry's kids.

[AngelaHunter]

I had to watch the rerun of the Honda/Prius kerfuffle. Plaintiff Valerie must be doing well, since she's buying a house and a new car. So I was confused that her choice of boyfriend was the dimwitted, tiny, stupid, pop-eyed baby Pug, and why on earth she wanted him. Poor Valerie, who chewed her lips into hamburger and tried a not-very-convincing tearless whine/crying, just couldn't take what JJ offered her (and which I thought was very fair) and left empty handed.  Women out there: Sometimes any man is NOT better than no man.  I know that falls unto deaf ears.

Quote

I wonder why JJ has such disdain for step parents after all she is a stepmother to her husbands Jerry's kids.

Maybe she minds her own business when it comes to hubby's children. I know I do with my own stepkids.

Edited December 17, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[ElleMo]

I watched a few episodes on DVR last night.  One had a plaintiff who rented out his club to the defendant.  A briefcase and some money were stolen from the kitchen where the defendant was counting money with some other people.  Plaintiff recognized several as the bouncers the defendant hired.   When plaintiff realized that briefcase was stolen, he questioned the bouncers and got beat up for his troubles.  

He was suing the defendant for the $500 that was in the briefcase.  JJ dismissed the case because the plaintiff couldn't prove that defendant was involved in the theft.  Thing is, cops could not question the bouncers because defendant wouldn't give their names.  Said that he didn't know their last names.  Because why learn the last name of someone who you hire to work for you as bouncers and were with you as you counted money?  I thought plaintiff should get the money because defendant is preventing him from going after the people he should go after.  In my America, that is how it would work.

[Jamoche]

Oh, honey, just tell the story, don't try to make yourself sound "smart": her opening statement contains such gems as "before prior to their divorce" and "because it was within the same proximity". Other than that, boring open-and-shut "you didn't pay the rent, you agree you owe it, the end."

[Quof]

Up early in the morning (actually, middle of the night) catching up on yesterday's reruns and google stalking litigants cuz I'm bored.   "My daughter's a nightmare" mom died in an MVA last month, leaving 4 kids with 3 different fathers. 

Edited December 23, 2016 by Quof

[patty1h]

I just watched the case with the M/M wedding where the couple were suing to get $1800 back for the photographer that they only paid $250 for.  How did I miss this when it originally aired?  First off, I was surprised JJ let the video run so long - that went on for quite a while.  However, that wedding looked dope - it looked fun and expensive.  I had a minor snicker about one groom's big white marching band jacket, but... OK.  

I do question why the couple would spend more on their cake than on the photographer - don't cheap out on things and then want big dollar results.  You know what I'm tryna say, right?

Edited December 23, 2016 by patty1h