All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[teebax]

People's circumstances change. Sure there are litigants who continue to make bad decisions, and I agree with her ire toward them. However, sometimes a person loses their job, loses a spouse who had been contributing, has a health issue that puts them in financial distress, etc. My problem with JJ these days is that she doesn't seem to discern between people who fell on hard times and people who have spent their lives finding ways to support themselves. She seems to think everyone is scamming the system, and not everyone on the system is scamming it.

 

Anyway, I'm ready for some new episodes, too. I don't even watch regularly, and I'm seeing episodes I've seen at least once before!

[zillabreeze]

To me it's usually pretty clear when a lit is a career scammer. I just get sick of her rolling her eyes whenever someone is supporting themselves through anything other than a 9-5.

The reruns are getting old. I just don't get why they only go back 3 or 4 years. If she's been on for a decade or more, why not run some really early stuff? I for one would love to see the original season(s)

[Brattinella]

Ooh, yesterday's episode was so wrong!  Lady shops at a boutique sale, buys $3000 worth of luggage, shoes, clothes.  Wears them on her vacation cruise, then her hubby complains about the money she spent on the stuff.  So, six months later, she takes ALL the stuff back to the store for a refund.  The store offered I think a 60 day return policy.  The kicker was, the store had advertised a "half-off" sale.  This sale (like LOTS of other stores do) was a half-off sale off FULL RETAIL price, not half-off their regular price.  This is not an illegal practice, lots of places do this.  So, JJ ruled for the store-abusing plaintiff who used the clothes for six months and gave her all her money back!  GAH!

[zillabreeze]

Bratinella I feel SCREWED!!! I did not get and have never seen that case. I would have loved it! On what grounds could it be okay for someone to "borrow" all that stuff? Did she get a full refund? Was there a time return policy on the receipt?

Did JJ explain herself?

Was the defendant the "wrong" race?

[Brattinella]

Zillabreeze, the reason JJ gave for the ruling was "False Advertising"!  Even though I KNOW this is an accepted practice everywhere (just look at the fine print in a newspaper ad) she considered it DECEPTIVE and summarily ruled for the plaintiff.  Even though she USED IT for six months, only returned it because hubby demanded it, she seemed like a spoiled rotten brat.  Full amount, $3000!  I don't remember what she looked like, though (CRS syndrome).  I've been searching for this episode online, can't find it yet, but will post it when I do!

[zillabreeze]

Brat, I know how the 1/2 off thing works. Macy's is the Worst! Even then, that doesn't excuse using the items for free. If she got home & realized she didn't get a good deal, take them back immediately with tags on. Sounds like JJ was overstepping by ruling on something that wasn't relevant.

I've noticed that JJ often has "less patience" with folks that appear to be of middle eastern descent, even when they are right. Old episodes are a bitch to find online. I try all the time when I miss an epi for weather issues.

[Brattinella]

Seems like JJ previews each case in chambers, peeps out at litigants, and makes her decision before she steps a foot into the courtroom.  And all for the bargain price of 47 million dollars a year!

[teebax]

Ooh, yesterday's episode was so wrong!  Lady shops at a boutique sale, buys $3000 worth of luggage, shoes, clothes.  Wears them on her vacation cruise, then her hubby complains about the money she spent on the stuff.  So, six months later, she takes ALL the stuff back to the store for a refund.  The store offered I think a 60 day return policy.  The kicker was, the store had advertised a "half-off" sale.  This sale (like LOTS of other stores do) was a half-off sale off FULL RETAIL price, not half-off their regular price.  This is not an illegal practice, lots of places do this.  So, JJ ruled for the store-abusing plaintiff who used the clothes for six months and gave her all her money back!  GAH!

I get four freaking episodes of JJ a night, and I've never seen this one, either. Dangit.

[Brattinella]

Oh dear.  I may have made a mistake here.  That episode could have been on Judge Cristina Perez, not JJ.  Sorry. :(

[DoctorK]

 

That episode could have been on Judge Cristina Perez, not JJ.

I saw it and I never watch Perez. However, I thought it was on Judge Milian instead if Judge Judy. I could be completely having a senior moment on this. I hate to admit it but these shows tend to run together in my memory.

Edited August 22, 2014 by DoctorK

[zillabreeze]

Oh hell No. Not the Judge Perez? No matter how twisted I get with JJ. That idiot Perez is The Worst . LOL - I still don't turn her off when she comes on!  What a fool.  She does make me 'preciate JJ & MM! Perez is stoopid beyond words!!!!  Then there is her cousin, Judge Ross, equally moronic.  But they don`'t mess with my head because in the fine print, both shows are using actors.

Edited August 22, 2014 by zillabreeze

[Brattinella]

I do love MM!  JJ is a close second (except when she is biased in the way I don't wish her to be).  I suspected Judges Cristina and Ross to be phonies, thanks for the enlightenment!

[QuelleC]

The shows run together for me too but a couple of weeks ago I caught some Perez and I swear one of the litigants told her the same detail three times and I actually yelled at the TV, but it still wouldn't sink in until she repeated it back to herself twice.  MM?  I could definitely see her being on board with buying yourself $3K worth of bling then feeling entitled to get your money back. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Back to Judge Judy - it's really bad when the defendant is speaking English as his native tongue (relatively speaking) and they have to use subtitles (regarding the random trailer acquisition case)

[teebax]

I caught a JJ case this morning (no idea when it originally ran; it was on my DVR) in which a woman had her travel trailer stolen while she was in jail. The defendant, who had stolen it, was so marble-mouthed they had to use close-captions! Seriously, without the CC, I would have had no idea what he was saying.

 

Anyway, I was confused about JJ's ruling. The thief sold the plaintiff's travel trailer for $1,500, so that's what JJ awarded the plaintiff. Shouldn't JJ have awarded the plaintiff the value of the travel trailer instead of the amount the thief got for it? Isn't it possible that he sold it for more and lied about the price? Or that he sold it for less than it was worth so he could get rid of it faster? Her ruling had me scratching my head.

[Oinky Boinky]

Great minds don’t think alike.

 

I thought the ruling would be for 1400. 

 

If the only reason the trailer (with two broken axles that hadn’t been moved for years) was worth 1900 was because marble mouth spent 500 fixing it, than the plaintiff rightfully would have only been entitled to 1400.

[califred]

My husband and I were trying to figure out what landed her in prison twice.

[AngelaHunter]

it's really bad when the defendant is speaking English as his native tongue (relatively speaking) and they have to use subtitles

 

Mr. Stankewitz! I think the extertion from trying to hold up that 50lb medicine ball under his shirt left him breathless. His buddy was pretty incoherent as well.

Plantiff was no prize either. The way she giggled about being arrested TWICE made me think this is just a ho-hum occurance for her.

 

Thank you, Stankewitz and Jailbird. My life seems so very perfect now.

[teebax]

Great minds don’t think alike.

 

I thought the ruling would be for 1400. 

 

If the only reason the trailer (with two broken axles that hadn’t been moved for years) was worth 1900 was because marble mouth spent 500 fixing it, than the plaintiff rightfully would have only been entitled to 1400

But isn't that based on the defendant's assertions? Who knows how much he really sold it for? I don't know how much she was suing for because I missed the beginning. But if it's a travel trailer that one can ostensibly live in, does it having broken axles mean it has no value? It doesn't really matter, but I'm not used to seeing JJ rely so much on a defendant's testimony, especially one she caught in a lie anyway. It was just weird to me.

[Talented Tenth]

I hate when a defendant sells someone's property and Judy awards the plaintiff what the defendant sold it for or claims they sold it for.  Under what logic is that fair?

[Rosemadder]

So tell me this--if the defendants are totally broke, how do the plaintiffs ever get back the monies JJ awards them?   

[QuelleC]

They used to tell us something like they get paid for appearing.  I  always thought the judgment went to the winner and they split whatever was left.  That's why people don't always seem that upset about losing.

 

JJ and courts award actual cash value - what someone would pay for something taking depreciation into account.  That's the logic where she awards the amount the property sold for.  Once she gave someone $20 or $40 bucks for a 5 yr old stroller, which would be more than you'd get at a rummage sale, so actual cash value.

Edited August 23, 2014 by QuelleC

[Brattinella]

By that logic, the scumbucket could steal your car, worth $10,000 and sell it for $50 (because he is a junkie) and that is all JJ would award you? That doesn't seem right at all.

 

ETA I was responding to Talented Tenth, not QuelleC, sorry for not being clear.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Brattinella

[Rosemadder]

Good to know, QuelleC.  Now I wonder why someone with a claim worth more than $5K would go to Judge Judy instead of their local small claims court (discounting the free travel & TV time:)

[BellaLugosi]

People are paid a stipend for appearing. Their airfare, hotel and some money for food.  If they win, the show pays their judgement up to $5000. They can't sue for more than that. If it's less, that's what they get. If you lose you get nothing.  They don't award $5000 in each case no matter what.  If both get awarded nothing, they go home with nothing.

 

Also, as for why people go on the show.  If you are suing for $10,000 or more  in small claims and you go on the show to sue for $5000 and win, you at least know you are getting your $5,000.  I'd say they know that any judgement in small claims court isn't worth the paper it's written on for some people - they will never see their money anyway. And if they need it badly enough now, it's a gamble that's worth taking. 

[Rick Kitchen]

Do they pay a flat $5000?  JJ is always talking about how the payment is based on the amount allowed under law in the state the litigants live in.

[QuelleC]

I may have gotten my assumption about appearance fees and how judgments are paid from the old Judge Wapner days, but I did find this on Wiki for The People's Court, FWIW, because I remembered the disclaimer at the end of the show.

 

 

The losing party does not actually need to pay the judgment, as such. Instead (as is stated in the disclaimer at the end of each show), both parties are paid from a fund (set up by Ralph Edwards-Stu Billett Productions). This fund was based on the amount of the lawsuit claim, but an exact formula was not stated. The fund was to be first divided equally, then any monetary judgment ordered was subtracted from the loser's half (and presumably both halves in the case of cross judgments). Each litigant received at least what remained of their half in shows concluding with that disclaimer.

The disclaimer did not call this fund an "appearance fee", a term which appeared later in connection with The People's Court and other court shows. There may have been a later period when The People's Court paid the judgment, plus expenses and only a modest appearance fee to each litigant.[10]

I have no idea if this is how JJ does it. 

[BellaLugosi]

$5000 is the amount the show has set up as the maximum a person can sue for on there.  I think when she's talking about how much they were suing for, it's about the lawsuit they originally filed. I've heard someone say to her that they are suing for $5,000 which is substantially less than they could have gotten in small claims because they know they will get nothing otherwise, 

 

The show itself is actually arbitration, not court.  So they can set any limits they want and if the people agree to it, they have to live with the outcome. 

 

People's Court seems to still have that disclaimer, however an actual amount isn't mentioned. 

 

 

Judge Judy's is slightly different:

 

I'd be interested in seeing real numbers on what happens on The People's Court. It seems like it's just a fancy or confusing way of saying the fund is the judgement, plus enough money for a stipend. It's not determined before the judgement is handed down. Maybe they think "appearance fee" makes it seem like they are paying actors? 

[AZChristian]

Back to the trailer case . . . I think I heard that the trailer was something like a 1982 model . . . and in the shape it was in, allowing for depreciation, $1900 was not a bad outcome for the plaintiff. 

[teebax]

Back to the trailer case . . . I think I heard that the trailer was something like a 1982 model . . . and in the shape it was in, allowing for depreciation, $1900 was not a bad outcome for the plaintiff. 

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.

[QuelleC]

JJ prides herself on telling whether people tell the truth and relies on her own experience as a consumer (weddings for example).  She also says if it doesn't make sense it's not true.  Like paying $50 for a newer car.  As far as value, she asks a lot of questions about receipts and the age of an item and does come up with something reasonable, though we may not all agree.

 

I really didn't want to get into this, but another consideration is that if someone sells something for $1400, even illegally, and the owner asserts it was worth $1900...the seller only profited the amount they profited.   It makes sense most of the time that a person would sell something for the most money available. To grant a judgment for more than that would amount to a penalty or "punitive damages".  Courts avoid getting into those relatively minor arguments or they'd be backed up even more than they are and would have to have laws on the book for someone selling something for less than what someone else thinks it's worth.   I don't think that exists other than the concept of "unconscionable" which is a pretty high bar.  I've seen her do that with car repairs that deserved it.  Awards depend on an experienced judge.  "Rough justice" as MM says.  Vote.

 

And thank you very much BellaLugosi for pointing out that the litigants are agreeing to a binding arbitration: "they have agreed to dismiss their claims in court" etc.  JJ sometimes asks if they want her to make a ruling or refile their small claims suit.

Edited August 25, 2014 by QuelleC

[AngelaHunter]

Robert "Price" Ricketts - how I love thee for being a picture-perfect, quintessential hillbilly.  You could have made me happier only if you entered the courtroom with a houn' dawg and a shotgun that had a string for a trigger.

 

Shrill plaintiff: "He's a loser. He's a slug." Uh, yeah. Not only that, but you and your boyfriend "Price" couldn't even afford a place of your own, so is that why you had "the kid" (for which he ain't payin' no chile support) with that sluggy loser, you stupid, stupid bitch?

As JJ says, "YOU picked him!"

[AZChristian]

. . . the litigants are agreeing to a binding arbitration: "they have agreed to dismiss their claims in court" etc.  JJ sometimes asks if they want her to make a ruling or refile their small claims suit.

 

I've seen her do this several times.  I wonder if she does that because she knows they'll split the amount set aside for their case by the producers, and she doesn't want to "pay" them by ruling on the case.  In other words, "You got a free trip and hotel out of this.  I'm not going to pay you above that."  Just a thought.

[SoapDoc]

 

I wonder if she does that because she knows they'll split the amount set aside for their case by the producers, and she doesn't want to "pay" them by ruling on the case.

Most of the time I have seen her do this, it has been because (1) the plaintiff had some additional information that might prove their case but did not bring it, (2) when she may agree with the plaintiff but feels that the plaintiff does not have the appropriate evidence and another judge might be less strict, or (3) a frivolous case too close to lunch time.

 

If she was concerned about ridiculous people splitting the money, she would never rule on the majority of cases:-)

[AZChristian]

Just re-read my post and realized I hadn't expressed it the way I wanted.  In some of the cases where she sends it back to small claims court, it seems that she recognizes that the plaintiff and defendant are in cahoots, and the suit is likely fake . . . they just filed it in hopes of getting onto a tv show and making money.  JJ seems to have a sixth sense for when one party or the other is trying to remember their "lines" in response to her questions. 

 

And then there is, of course, the whole "today is Wednesday, we're having sushi" issue.  LOL.

[QuelleC]

Sometimes I give her credit for knowing some things are better settled in a real courtroom where a judge might have more than 7 TV minutes to make a decision.  If I recall correctly, most of the time she is telling the plaintiff they are about to lose or will not be happy, and if they want to go off on tangents and introduce evidence she has no time for they may be better off refiling the complaint. 

 

But getting back to the show, the recent episode that made me sad was the guy who left his pitbull at his mother's house with her pit and they had puppies.  None of the dogs were allowed inside.   It got cold and 2-3 of them died then the asshole sued the neighbor who went out of her way to help, because he found a couple of stupid people who would pay $300 for them.  He wasn't feeding them properly, etc.  JJ gave him hell but I wish she could have done more. 

[teebax]

Robert "Price" Ricketts - how I love thee for being a picture-perfect, quintessential hillbilly.  You could have made me happier only if you entered the courtroom with a houn' dawg and a shotgun that had a string for a trigger.

 

Shrill plaintiff: "He's a loser. He's a slug." Uh, yeah. Not only that, but you and your boyfriend "Price" couldn't even afford a place of your own, so is that why you had "the kid" (for which he ain't payin' no chile support) with that sluggy loser, you stupid, stupid bitch?

As JJ says, "YOU picked him!"

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!

[AngelaHunter]

The plaintiff you describe sounds like one of those litigants who makes me see red.

 

Yep yep. She's 22, works 3 jobs (so she says) and needs to ask Momma for a credit card which she passes on to her paramour and now wants back every single cent she spent on him, right down to gas for his beater. It's not as though she had "the kid" (which is the only way she referred to their love child) right after she met the slug. She had the baby 16 weeks before the court case!

 

Actually, Mr. Ricketts didn't seem like a really bad guy - just an ignorant hillbilly -  and plaintiff and her mother were harridans of the first order.

[SoapDoc]

 

Actually, Mr. Ricketts didn't seem like a really bad guy - just an ignorant hillbilly -

I agree with this. The woman seems pretty passive-aggressive and Mr Ricketts just does not seem quite clever enough to deal with her drama.

 

Another thing: She was only 22? Really? Wow...

[AngelaHunter]

She was only 22? Really?

 

I know. I thought she was over 30 and was wondering why she was still living with Momma. OTOH, that's hardly unusual on this show where we see men in their 30s living with and sponging off of Grandma, never mind Momma.

[Guest]

… harridans ...

 

Thanks Angela.  I've learned a new word.  :)

[AngelaHunter]

I had to dredge up all these old-timey words for some litigants as nothing else really says it all. Maybe "harridan" is  a bit harsh. I'll amend it to "harpy".

[QuelleC]

We say harridan a lot on some of the soap threads LOL.  I actually learned the word here.  Thanks PTV.

[teebax]

I agree with this. The woman seems pretty passive-aggressive and Mr Ricketts just does not seem quite clever enough to deal with her drama.

 

Another thing: She was only 22? Really? Wow...

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!

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

"A man says his daughter was being choked by the father of her children when he intervened and was assaulted; he sues for damages".

 

I am of the opinion, as I was the first time this one aired, that the guy who was being sued by the girlfriend's father probably smacked her good after they got home from their JJ experience. She looked nervous and a bit fearful and wasn't really a strong witness for him. The hussy dared to contradict his testimony! He's the MAN, he wants his house clean to HIS standards, and dinner on the table, dammit.  

 

What a douchebag creep. "she was slow picking things up, the house was a mess"....yeah, with two kids, guess what...that's what happens. I have no doubt that he is an abusive controlling creep. 

 

This is one where I want to know where they are now. Did she get her kids out of there? I hope so. But I don't really think so. 

Edited August 27, 2014 by 6 MeowMeowBeenz

[AngelaHunter]

He's the MAN, he wants his house clean to HIS standards, and dinner on the table, dammit.

 

 

That slab-headed, dull-eyed and pea-brained waste of oxygen (who caused JJ to become physically nauseated I think) is lucky he found a pathetically desperate, mousy dimwit who would tolerate him.

 

The fact that this type is allowed to breed unfettered is frustrating. What chance do the kids have?

[Milz]

Yesterday we got the repeat of Donald Reed, nominee for Scumbag Father of the Year. His children crash their ATV into a neighbor's garage door. ScumDad tells them to run, other neighbors watch. Later, a truck rolls in front of his house and some people take the ATV away.

[Brattinella]

Truly, scumbag father of the year "Let's get the fuck OUTTA here!"  Despicable.

[teebax]

Yesterday we got the repeat of Donald Reed, nominee for Scumbag Father of the Year. His children crash their ATV into a neighbor's garage door. ScumDad tells them to run, other neighbors watch. Later, a truck rolls in front of his house and some people take the ATV away.

I couldn't even re-watch that one. I remember how disgusted I was watching the first time around.

 

 

"A man says his daughter was being choked by the father of her children when he intervened and was assaulted; he sues for damages".

 

I am of the opinion, as I was the first time this one aired, that the guy who was being sued by the girlfriend's father probably smacked her good after they got home from their JJ experience. She looked nervous and a bit fearful and wasn't really a strong witness for him. The hussy dared to contradict his testimony! He's the MAN, he wants his house clean to HIS standards, and dinner on the table, dammit.  

 

What a douchebag creep. "she was slow picking things up, the house was a mess"....yeah, with two kids, guess what...that's what happens. I have no doubt that he is an abusive controlling creep. 

 

This is one where I want to know where they are now. Did she get her kids out of there? I hope so. But I don't really think so. 

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.

[AZChristian]

Truly, scumbag father of the year "Let's get the fuck OUTTA here!"  Despicable.

 

And in the "hallterview" he had the nerve to accuse his neighbor of being racist.  You know, I'm pretty sure that if the scumbag dad were white, the homeowner would STILL want his garage fixed.