All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[QuelleC]

I love my little princess more than life itself but my circumstances are such that if something happened to her there is no way I would be able to afford it.  It would kill me to have to do that, but I already have an unsafe car that I can't fix in order to find a job in something, anything. Today.  The cat in question probably needed a special diet and ongoing medical care and I hope they were able to find someone who could keep up with that.

 

I don't understand JJ's obsession with "why did you wait" in this case 7 months.  So what.  The statute of limitations for bringing a law suit is 1-3 years (2 here, I believe) so I don't know why she gets her granny panties in a twist about it all the time.  Yes, I understand memories fade and you can lose track of witnesses but that wasn't an issue here.

 

I let my last cat die at home about 5 years ago without going through the stress of medical tests.  Since she was almost 17 she had a long happy life and a peaceful ending and is in a pine box I built in the back yard.

 

I'll be leaving now.

[AngelaHunter]

I thought a "beard" was a woman that goes out with a gay guy to help hide his homosexuality?

 

To me, a "beard" is a third person who accompanies two people who are having an extramarital affair. That way, if the spouse of the cheating partner happens upon them in a bar or wherever,  it just looks like 3 friends out for a drink or like the beard is dating the cheater.

[Milz]

This is why I love this forum. I get caught up with the current slang. :-)

 

Repeat last night of the Dinkwinker (or whatever his name is), 40 something man with girlfriend in Arizona and pregnant girlfriend in NY state. Arizona girlfriend takes out a loan to bail him out of jail. Dinkwinker's ex-wife is Arizona girlfriend's witness. Best part, Dinkwinker gets mad at JJ and storms off the set.

[Bazinga]

 

I don't understand JJ's obsession with "why did you wait" in this case 7 months.  So what.  The statute of limitations for bringing a law suit is 1-3 years (2 here, I believe) so I don't know why she gets her granny panties in a twist about it all the time.  Yes, I understand memories fade and you can lose track of witnesses but that wasn't an issue here.

 

It is about motivation for the suit.  Something changed over time, like a fight or breakup, and now what was most likely a gift, suddenly becomes a "loan" due to the intervening change in circumstance.  The plaintiff wasn't suing over it and time has passed, so what has changed to motivate the suit that they weren't bringing previously?  That is what she is trying to find out by asking that question; did some event change the "gift" to a "loan" as you weren't pursuing the matter previously?  She then works her way back to determine the original deal.  The waiting and the intervening event that motivated the suit, reflect back to the original arrangement.

 

In my opinion, sometimes you wait and wait, as you were a nice person, and then finally give up on the person "doing the right thing" on their own, with court being the last, drastic option. Some people are reluctant to sue a family member, friend or former friend.  I don't think Judy thinks that way though.

 

In the cat case, the intervening event appeared to be the fight over the affair but the plaintiff still didn't request the payment until she saw the defendant living it up financially.  JJ was trying to  correlate the suit to the fight/affair and the timeline actually didn't work, as there was still a gap.  If right after the affair/falling out, the plaintiff suddenly remembers that this was a "loan" and pursues what she hadn't pursued previously, then the plaintiff would have lost based on "waiting too long" even though she had the right to wait under the Statute of Limitations. 

 

Other intervening events Judge Judy looks at are giving the person more money without having been paid back the original amount and continued "relations" as a couple.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Bazinga

[QuelleC]

The plaintiff lost because it was a gift and the motivation for the suit was revealing the affair.  I guess I missed the part where the defendants were living it up but JJ established their incomes were similar.  The defendants have at least one dependent son at home, and seem like people who have lots of people and pets around and probably aren't financially astute.  The father is older and his income isn't reliable per his testimony.  I think they loved that cat and if someone offered to help I would accept it too.  Who knew it would take $1,700 to save it?  In fact, she agreed twice when they had to pay more when the kitty was taken home and the owner paid as much as she could, $200. Of course I agree they should have paid back a token amount monthly but I've seen cases where JJ hammers on the plaintiff for filing a law suit for vindictive reasons (revealing the affair). 

 

Revealing the affair should have had nothing to do with this and normally JJ would have blasted someone over it but she was very sympathetic to the plaintiff in that regard but still ruled against her.  But that's the stuff that comes out in small claims court situations and never would in a normal civil court.

Edited September 4, 2014 by QuelleC

[teebax]

I agree they should have paid back a token amount monthly

 

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.

[iwasish]

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.

Even if a family member or friend offered me the money, no strings attached to save my pet, I would feel an obligation to pay it back. If I were just squeaking along financially, I might pay very small amounts or do some kind of labor or something special to show appreciation. I could never just blithely go along and forget about it. I'd feel guilty if I bought any kind of nonessential thing that I could have given them the money instead.

[AngelaHunter]

Repeat last night of the Dinkwinker (or whatever his name is), 40 something man

 

Oh, one of my all time favorite litigants! Roger...Roger Dillenbeck. I believe he was even one of the recipients of  Sarcastico's "Esquire Magazine's Man of the Year" award once. His last words as he fumbled his way out (unable to figure out the mechanisms of the door), "At least I don't gotta look at choo no more!" will echo through eternity.

 

I really enjoyed today's "Mariah the Schmoo" and her mom. Grifters, both of them (although poor Mariah claims she was just looking for a Daddy) but very unskilled grifters since their target was a man who can't even afford his own lawn mower.

 

At least we got another great JJ-ism: "Don't show me pictures of your mother being choked!" Bwahahhaa!!

 

 

Even if a family member or friend offered me the money, no strings attached to save my pet, I would feel an obligation to pay it back.

 

Of course you would, as would I, but that's because we're not greedy, ungrateful swine who stuff our faces at restaurants and smirk about the fool who paid our vet bills.

[Florinaldo]

If people would do this simple thing, we'd lose most of the court cases in America!

Like this couple on a repeat show today who were suing because they did not get the expected returns on an investment they made; never mind that it was a Ponzi or pyramid scheme (a legal one according to JJ), that is like asking for a guarantee from the stock exchange and suing them if you shares go down. During the hallterview, the woman said that none of the previous similar schemes they invested in paid out either; so they know pyramids do not work and yet they keep coming back to them! They might have had a better case if they had highlighted the fact that services had been promised that apparently were not delivered, but they were so disorganised about it that JJ was just exasperated.

 

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.

Same thing happens in workplace cases; people keep waiting, hoping that the situation will correct itself and that corrective measures will be taken or objectionable behaviours stop. Humans can be very patient, or reluctant, before they finally decide to bring something before a tribunal.

 

I really enjoyed today's "Mariah the Schmoo" and her mom. Grifters, both of them

Not only do they lie badly, they are also inept at grifting.

 

So the show is taped in L.A. I got the impression it was in NYC from the street montage they show to book-end the commercials; it does not have a West Coast feel and they even show the Lincoln Centre and other recognisable locations.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Florinaldo

[One Tough Cookie]

She had no resistance to the charms of a skinny, pierced, 100 lb soaking wet,Jesse Tyler Ferguson look a like. Things were blissful for the ten months they lived out of their car. But real life in a house/apt tore them apart. Even the jackrabbit sex technique of a nineteen year old couldn't keep them together

 

OMG--I'M DYIN' here!!!!

Edited September 5, 2014 by One More Time

[Sarcastico]

 

Oh, one of my all time favorite litigants! Roger...Roger Dillenbeck. I believe he was even one of the recipients of  Sarcastico's "Esquire Magazine's Man of the Year" award once. His last words as he fumbled his way out (unable to figure out the mechanisms of the door), "At least I don't gotta look at choo no more!" will echo through eternity.

Oh AngelaHunter, you're a doll to remember.  It's been kind of a hectic, disappointing summer (a failed-to-launch romance that I won't bother describing, among other non-joys), but I'm limbering up for the new season. 

Edited September 5, 2014 by Sarcastico

[AZChristian]

Saw an old episode today that I don't think I saw before.  Young woman offers truck for sale on craigslist that is in her mother's name ("but I've driven the truck since I was 16").  Guy gives her a $1,500 deposit, and they're supposed to meet up with mama to do the paperwork.  In the meantime, mama sells the truck to someone else.  Guy asks for refund.  Young woman says, "I told you the deposit was non-refundable."

 

So she's trying to sell a truck that she doesn't own, and when the rightful owner sells it, she wants to keep the $1,500.

 

Guess who won that case?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Oh AngelaHunter, you're a doll to remember.

 

Sarcastico, how could I not remember your eagerly anticipated annual JJ awards list? One of my greatest regrets is that I didn't save them all before TwoP went offline. The thought that you may do it again makes my little heart go pitty-pat.

 

Quote

So the show is taped in L.A. I got the impression it was in NYC from the street montage they show to book-end the commercials;

 

This is a homage to JJ's hometown and where she practiced during most of her career.

 

Quote

never mind that it was a Ponzi or pyramid scheme

 

I bet they click on every "I make 10,000$ a week and so can you" pop-up and believe it all. Idiots deserved to lose a lot more than 135$.

Edited September 5, 2014 by AngelaHunter

[Rick Kitchen]

Weird case today, a guy was suing his daughter and her husband for damages done to his mobile home while they were living in it.  He showed JJ a photo of the bedroom, and the bed is just shredded, and daughter has no idea how that happened.  She denied it was her dog, because her dog has gone to obedience school, but it might have been one of the other dogs that wandered around the neighborhood.  She had stray dogs coming in and out of her home?  How can anybody with a straight face claim that she had no idea how her bed was ripped apart?

[Guest]

Here in NC on the WNCN channel there will only be two episodes daily starting on Monday instead of four. The new Meredith Vierra Show is taking the 3-3:30 JJ slots.

"Ah-move!" :)

[QuelleC]

People were getting four episodes??

[Guest]

My market gets four episodes every day; the two new ones and two reruns.

[AngelaHunter]

My market gets four episodes every day; the two new ones and two reruns

 

Same here, for one hour total.

[QuelleC]

Oh, I thought you were saying you got four half hour episodes.  They do that here with Big Bang Theory on Saturday. 

[WaitForMe]

Oh, I thought you were saying you got four half hour episodes. They do that here with Big Bang Theory on Saturday.

We get 4 episodes a day for a total of 2 hours. I love it!!! 3 and 3:30 and then again at 7 and 7:30! That's Monday through Friday. We get 2 more on Saturday, 1:30 and 2 am. Edited September 6, 2014 by WaitForMe

[One Tough Cookie]

My LEAST FAVORITE episode was on last night--the farmer with a room temperature IQ who shot cats. JJ's disdain was palpable. The guy just couldn't get WHY it was wrong to kill a cat who was nursing four kittens. I also got the vibe that his  son was a victim of child abuse.

 

JJ used the term "defective", which I thought was a perfect description.

[zillabreeze]

I remember the cat killer. According to my DVR it will record overnight tonight.

That bunch had a real "Deliverance" vibe about them.

[augmentedfourth]

Ugh, I saw that one again too. I don't consider myself any great animal lover, nor do I particularly care for cats, but I was just heartbroken at the image of the poor cat being shot once (in the leg, since Mr. Defective missed the first time) and trying to scramble back up to the porch of the people who had been taking care of her for months, only to be hauled off again. UGH. If anything, I think JJ could have torn into that whole crew even more, but she would have been wasting her breath. They were never going to "get it".

 

I can't decide whether or not I feel bad for the son. To be honest, though she was correct, I think JJ did put him in an unfair position on the spot, and I can't really blame him for acting defensive when it comes to his own father. But as I rewatched last night, I was trying to figure out whether he agreed or disagreed with his father's actions, and whether or not he's going to grow up the same exact way.

[teebax]

My LEAST FAVORITE episode was on last night--the farmer with a room temperature IQ who shot cats. JJ's disdain was palpable. The guy just couldn't get WHY it was wrong to kill a cat who was nursing four kittens. I also got the vibe that his  son was a victim of child abuse.

 

JJ used the term "defective", which I thought was a perfect description.

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.

[zillabreeze]

A long time ago, I lived in the sticks and had to shoot a couple of very sick, feral cats. It's extremely difficult to do, even when it's the most humane thing to do. This asshole kept smirking like he got his jollies doing it. And....... To do it in front of a child??? Just a sadistic monster IMHO.

I did giggle when JJ gave the plaintiff 2K & cat killer says "What?!?!"

Other than that, it feels like Christmas Eve! Two new JJs this afternoon and a new MM!

[Milz]

Other than that, it feels like Christmas Eve! Two new JJs this afternoon and a new MM!

 

I'm looking forward to the new season: Parking space thief -car keyer case and a borrowed money bail jumper case.

[teebax]

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

[Patrizio]

Saw the one about the speeder getting sued by the cop. The speeder just seemed like a sneaky self satisfied asshole with his Kardashian fan girlfriend.

[juneboy44]

So glad my show is back. Loved the parking case. The plaintiff was a liar! I didn't understand why after being threatened by the defendant that her car would be damaged that she ignored that threat and went in to the fair! Wouldn't a normal person move their car or at least call the police? So glad Judy dismissed her case! Very satisfying!

[Talented Tenth]

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.

 

The loon was either defective or just sadistic.  There was absolutely no reason for him to concern himself with that cat if all he was going to do is kill it.  It was out of his hands.

 

So glad my show is back. Loved the parking case. The plaintiff was a liar! I didn't understand why after being threatened by the defendant that her car would be damaged that she ignored that threat and went in to the fair! Wouldn't a normal person move their car or at least call the police? So glad Judy dismissed her case! Very satisfying!

 

The defendant most likely did it, but I'm glad the plaintiff didn't win due to being such a liar.  

[Quof]

Today's criminal who won't pay his lawyer Jason Strycharz, has an interesting history with the justice system.  Apparently SWAT teams come to his house often, and he, a raving lunatic, likes to blog about it.

[Florinaldo]

That lawyer certainly does not look the brightest legal light ever called to the bar, but his client is quite the piece of work; he would probably have antagonised any judge or jury with that attitude of his, so it looks like it was a good idea to agree to a plea.

 

As for the parking place stealing lady, imagine having to spend en extended amount of time with her and her repeated "No I didn't", "Not true" or "It wasn't that way", all mumbled in her plaintive voice. She also did a perfect job of making herself appear not credible.

[Bazinga]

 

As for the parking place stealing lady, imagine having to spend en extended amount of time with her and her repeated "No I didn't", "Not true" or "It wasn't that way", all mumbled in her plaintive voice. She also did a perfect job of making herself appear not credible.

 

I respectfully disagree.  But what if she was telling the truth and to be told immediately that you are wrong and then when she tries to argue the fact, that you are lying and not being allowed to speak?

 

I think her point, which Judge Judy never let her get out and never understood, is that she was the closer car to the parking spot and the defendant was further away with the motor off and who knows what she is intending?  I do not agree with JJ that anyone waiting at the top of the row, with their car off, is automatically first in line for ANY spot that opens up in that row.  But, my main issue is that JJ went out of her way to point out that the plaintiff is in the wrong and then conceded that that still doesn't give the defendant the right to vandalize her car.  So, why is JJ arguing the point?  That the plaintiff was in the wrong and the defendant got screwed actually bolsters the plaintiff's case that the defendant would have reason to vandalize the car.

 

But Judge Judy obviously didn't like the plaintiff based on her being 71 years old and having had many spots stolen from her (a bias which should have nothing to do with this case) and found a discrepancy in the police report that differed from the plaintiff's testimony and pinned dismissing the case on that.  I believe the end result was that the defendant was allowed to vandalize the plaintiff's car, because the plaintiff screwed her out of the parking spot; that was the net of JJ's decision. The plaintiff deserved the damage and JJ wasn't going to reward such improper etiquette.

 

So, the plaintiff got the spot, then happens to have damage to her car and then finds the plaintiff's car to get a license plate number and then bothers to make a police report, all based on what?  She got the spot, she has no ax to grind.  If it doesn't make sense, then it's not true, right?   That doesn't make sense.  The one with a motive to cause trouble to the other party is the person who lost the spot JJ thinks was deservedly hers.  All the defendant had to do is shake her head no and whisper innocently, I didn't damage her car and she won.  I disagree.   I believe that they fought over the spot, it doesn't matter who is in the right, and the defendant (the person with motive, due to losing the spot, in her mind, wrongly) did damage to the plaintiff's car and the plaintiff's husband did see it and they reported it to the police, who put no effort into the whole matter.

 

Would have preferred Judge Judy to bother to listen to people before attacking to find her reason to pin their loss on them: a decision that was already formed in her mind before she came out.  I would have been fine with the plaintiff losing because it is their word against the defendant, with no outside corroboration, but Judge Judy wanted the plaintiff to lose and didn't even hear arguments on both sides before pinning the whole thing on the police report not saying what the plaintiff was testifying. 

 

Just find Judge Judy very intolerant and having already decided the facts in her mind, unwilling to even listen and just looking for something to back up what's already in JJ's mind (her aha, ain't I smarter then you? moment), her already rendered decision.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Bazinga

[Florinaldo]

I agree that JJ immediately went on the attack, based on her preternatural ability to perceive the truth of any case just from reading the complaints, so she does not have to bother with annoying and trivial details like testimonies. However, I was not commenting on her actions but solely on the performance of the plaintiff.

 

Her constant mumblings, thus speaking out of turns (unacceptable behaviour in ay court, not just JJ's), her obsessive need to immediately correct anything that contradicted her version of events, plus her inability to simply understand (not necessarily agree with) JJ's argument that the other driver had priority because she arrived first, did not make a good impression and made her look obsessive. Put all of that together and it undermines her credibility (similar to the guy who was suing his lawyer). Court cases are not always decided solely on facts or rational arguments (I still am not sure what the facts of the case were and if the defendant really damaged the car).

Edited September 9, 2014 by Florinaldo

[teebax]

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.

[Milz]

one of the repeats last night was lawyer v. carpet dealer. Lawyer's wife collects a specific type of rug. Carpet dealer sold them a rug. Lawyer and wife later learn it's a fake. Lawyer sues carpet man for fraud. BUT JJ is really hard on lawyerman because he didn't have a written contract, didn't have documentation of demands for return of the money, etc. In the end, she dismissed the case eventhough JJ says something during the course of the case that she thought carpetman sold them a fake. BUT I think JJ dismissed the case because lawyerman was shady too.

 

So in that regard, you can say that carpetman was "rewarded" for selling lawyerman a fake.

 

But then JJ quotes the "clean hands" thing and I think she also believes if you come to court you have to have good intentions. Good intentions meaning you have to have behaved well.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Milz

[Sarcastico]

The gal-pals bail/DUI case was fun because of the appearance of the defendant's boyfriend, Russia's answer to Brad Pitt. 

[NYCFree]

Today's criminal who won't pay his lawyer Jason Strycharz, has an interesting history with the justice system.  Apparently SWAT teams come to his house often, and he, a raving lunatic, likes to blog about it.

So I googled his name and the first listing is an urban dictionary entry from him that is both anti-Semitic and homophobic. The guy is a super prize!

[augmentedfourth]

Yeah, I had mixed feelings about the parking lot vandalism case, but ultimately, I do think JJ was more right than wrong (only by a slim margin, though). My interpretation was that it was a small-ish lot, and there wasn't a lot of room for Defendant to wait for a space. But my own opinion is that she was there first and no matter how quickly she sprung into action, Plaintiff wasn't going to let her have that spot.

 

Do I think it's more than likely Defendant vandalized the car? Yeah. But I had a feeling from the beginning that aside from all the arguing and nonsense about the parking space, the plaintiffs weren't going to have enough proof. I'm not sure that I buy that Mrs. Plaintiff took her kids into the fair and Mr. Plaintiff hung around to keep an eye on the car (and Defendant vandalized it anyway with him nearby). And though it was garbled with everyone talking over each other, I kind of agreed with the point JJ (I think) was trying to make, which is that if Mr. Plaintiff actually did see Defendant vandalize the car with his own two eyes, he would have said so directly to the police and not shrugged it off with a "well, my wife was taking care of all of that". Again, I think it's probable that Defendant vandalized the car, but something about the plaintiffs' story wasn't quite adding up.

 

It reminded me of a case a few years ago (which has been rerun) where a woman was patiently waiting to back into/parallel park in a street parking space she'd waited for for a while, when some douchey guy sped into it at the last minute and was nasty to her when she called him on it. To everyone's delight (JJ included), she then let the air out of one of his tires as a crowd of onlookers cheered her on. In that case, there were a ton of witnesses and she did even confess to it, but if she'd denied it and no one else saw her, I'm sure JJ would have dismissed the case.

[Bazinga]

 

I agree that JJ immediately went on the attack, based on her preternatural ability to perceive the truth of any case just from reading the complaints, so she does not have to bother with annoying and trivial details like testimonies. However, I was not commenting on her actions but solely on the performance of the plaintiff.

 

Her constant mumblings, thus speaking out of turns (unacceptable behaviour in ay court, not just JJ's), her obsessive need to immediately correct anything that contradicted her version of events, plus her inability to simply understand (not necessarily agree with) JJ's argument that the other driver had priority because she arrived first, did not make a good impression and made her look obsessive. Put all of that together and it undermines her credibility (similar to the guy who was suing his lawyer). Court cases are not always decided solely on facts or rational arguments (I still am not sure what the facts of the case were and if the defendant really damaged the car).

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 think JJ "caused" the plaintiff's mumblings by attacking her story and didn't allow the story to develop on both sides naturally, so that we, the audience, could understand.  The defendant never even had to testify as to what she did or didn't do.  Did she make the claimed threats, which I believe she did (the language made "sense" to me)?  Never asked the defendant.  Judge Judy told the plaintiff what really happened and when she denied, told her she was lying.  Thus her need to correct and speak out of turn.  Not saying she was right in that behavior or even right in the case, just don't like the way it was handled.  She never got a fair opportunity to be heard; she already lost.  Let's assume she was totally honest and telling the truth, how would it feel to be immediately told your version, which, again, in my scenario is true, is false and immediately told you are lying?

 

In my mind's eye this is what happened: Defendant is waiting and plaintiff is waiting.  Not as sure as JJ who arrived first.  I don't think the defendant is as close to the spot as Judy thinks.  I think the defendant is waiting, but not particularly waiting for this spot, so she has no greater "right" to this particular spot then the perhaps later arriving, but closer to this spot, plaintiff (I think she has a lesser right as she is not as close to the spot in question).  The driver of the car in the spot, waves the plaintiff to follow him, thus indicating the plaintiff is in fact waiting and close.  Could have been the direction he was walking, but he doesn't "give" the spot to the supposedly deserving defendant.  Defendant pulls up from where she was waiting with her motor off (this seems odd to me, I have never seen that).  The plaintiff is correct, a car just sitting and not running, how is she to know that person is waiting for a spot and not picking someone up etc.?  Defendant blocks the car from exiting the spot, thus being the total aggressor here (isn't this odd behavior, if she was in the right and simply waiting for a spot?).  As there is now a stalemate between the exiting car and the defendant, defendant has to move in reverse to allow the car to exit for her to get the spot.  Blocking the exiting car seems to indicate that the defendant is not exactly clearly in the right here.  Then the plaintiff pulls in to the spot as the defendant went back to allow the car to exit.  Plaintiff thinks she was waiting and given the spot by the exiting driver.  The exiting driver sure didn't see the defendant waiting, so she would not have been close to that particular spot.  I don't think she is "waiting" for every spot in the row, that isn't fair or the custom.  That is if we believe the plaintiff was waved to the spot and I do because it is an unnecessary detail, all she has to say is I was waiting and didn't see the defendant and pulled in; the occupier of the spot doesn't own it to in fact give it to her, so that detail is unnecessary but I think illuminating.  I would have liked the defendant's actual story but she was never required to give it; that is my problem here.   

 

Like in the classic Seinfeld episode, "The Restaurant" where George is waiting to use a public telephone and someone picks up the phone after the first user and George says I was waiting and the lady responds if you were waiting, you would have the phone.

 

The plaintiff "stealing" the defendant's spot is the motive for the vandalism.  How else to explain the vandalism, the plaintiff making a report and suing?  Ms. Defendant, do you think the plaintiff stole the spot you had been waiting for? Yes.  And how did that make you feel?  Angry.  Angry enough to vandalize their car?  Alternatively, plaintiff parks in defendant's spot and thinks to herself, I just got her spot, that scratch on my car from before, I can blame it on the defendant and get her to pay for it.  What a patsy she will be.  Let's report this to the police.  That makes no sense.  The whole who is right about the parking spot is the red herring here.  The whole thing is they had a disagreement about the spot, doesn't matter who is right.  The case should start there and then the car was damaged, now prove she did it.  If it is a question of proof that the plaintiff loses on, I am fine with that but she lost because Judge Judy was annoyed she stole the defendant's spot and I don't think that is right nor do I think it is so clear cut the defendant was right about the spot; they both had arguments the way I see it but again that shouldn't matter.  JJ paid lip service that it doesn't mean she is allowed to vandalize the car, but she didn't follow through, IMO.

 

There have been cases of car vandalism where there is no eye witness where Judy says I can't help you.  In others, it is obvious the defendant had motive and did it so the plaintiff wins and the defendant gets lectured about having a temper.  No consistency.  I think this was the case of the defendant getting angry, making the threat claimed and causing the damage which JJ never even analyzed.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Bazinga

[One Tough Cookie]

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 was the victim of a stalker and the cops told me "just don't answer your phone".

 

I believe the defendant keyed the car, but there was absolutely no proof.

[Rick Kitchen]

There was a rerun this morning where a woman was suing her son's ex-fiancee for the return of the mother's engagement ring, which she had given to her son to give to his fiancee.  And then the engagement broke up (though they have two children).  The son was a real piece of work.  First, he showed up wearing torn jeans, which JJ just reamed him out about.  And then the guy had a really bad memory (supposedly). He didn't even remember when he proposed.  But it turned out that the son had taken the ring from his fiancee and had pawned it.  And he never bothered to tell his mother that, through all of this, through her bringing the ex-fiancee to court?  What a swell guy.  Then the mother was also suing the ex-fiancee for a shotgun which she had given to her son, and the son had given to the ex.  JJ told her that she had given the shotgun to her son, and if she wanted it back, she should sue the son.

[iwasish]

I believed the defendant when she said she didn't key the car. I believe that as much as I believed it when the plaintiff said she didn't know that the defendant,  sitting in her car with the engine "off", was waiting for someone to vacate a spot so she (the defendant) could park there.  The defendant was smart enough to keep her mouth shut in court, the plaintiff not so much.  In the rough and tumble world of parking, "winning" a race for parking spot can pretty much guarantee some petty retribution by the loser. It's not right, but it happens. 

[zillabreeze]

 

The gal-pals bail/DUI case was fun because of the appearance of the defendant's boyfriend, Russia's answer to Brad Pitt.

Sarcastico-  That wildly hot guy was killing me!  I knew there would be an Eastern Europen accent the minute he was id'ed as "The Boyfriend".  I was so disappointed in JJ for not exploring that relationship a little further.

 

If I had been on the bench, my question would have been "How is it you can afford a REALLY hot Mail Order Bride and not pay your own bail?"

[Ouisch]

The gal-pals bail/DUI case was fun because of the appearance of the defendant's boyfriend, Russia's answer to Brad Pitt.

 

 

When the 50-something defendant first gestured toward her boyfriend and mentioned his name (Jorji or some sort of Russian/Slavic name) and the camera panned to this 20-something tanned, golden-haired muscular hunk, I immediately thought of a defecting Soviet ballet star looking for a green card. When boyfriend stood up and spoke his halting English, I was convinced. Defendant's proclamations that "I'm old-fashioned, I don't live with someone I'm not married to" made me laugh out loud. I'm still trying to figure out how she benefits from the relationship - is he strictly handsome arm candy when she needs an escort? Does he give her money from his various day labor jobs, or is the occasional tumble enough for her to continue to be his "girlfriend"?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ouisch

[iwasish]

Sarcastico-  That wildly hot guy was killing me!  I knew there would be an Eastern Europen accent the minute he was id'ed as "The Boyfriend".  I was so disappointed in JJ for not exploring that relationship a little further.

 

If I had been on the bench, my question would have been "How is it you can afford a REALLY hot Mail Order Bride and not pay your own bail?"

I thought it was Larry Berkhart (Anna NIcole's baby daddy) crossed with Kato Kaelin and  Brad Pitt. But the defendant is a traditional woman.. she doesn't live with a man before marriage.

 

She can't afford the really hot Male (hehe) Order Bride and pay her bail. She obviously made a choice there. Priorities people, priorities!!

Edited September 9, 2014 by iwasish

[AngelaHunter]

Jessica? Please, dear, stop drinking. It appears you have only a few brain cells left so you can't afford to lose them.

 

The Fire Starter, Mr. Benuvutto (whatever) makes me so glad I'm not young and looking for a man. What a ridiculous troll he was, but the tragic part is that he truly seems to think he's cute or witty or...something.

 

Dog bite case: Like JJ, I at first thought, "Oh, your kid got a nip with no blood. Why is this a lawsuit?" But after listening to, and looking at, the moronic, stupid looking defendant and his gross, big-mouthed asshole of a  wife I changed my mind. Off with their heads!

 

Edited because "Plantiff" and "Defendant" are not the same thing.

Edited September 9, 2014 by AngelaHunter

[Toaster Strudel]

I loved the hallterview with the guy that melted the plaintiff's motor dirt bike: "Don't trust anyone."  Yeah don't trust anyone like YOU, thanks for the warning, you windswept carved wooded haired pyromaniac!

 

I also loved the "defense" in the dog bite case being that the plaintiff didn't count the punctures correctly. And since that didn't pan out... maybe it wasn't a dog bite!  Even more offensive, their dog looked like a lump of clay with glued-on pubes.

 

If I'm ever taking a walk in a ditch I'll look out for Jessica so that I don't accidentally trip on her.  You know that's where she'll end up.

[zillabreeze]

 

Jessica? Please, dear, stop drinking. It appears you have only a few brain cells left so you can't afford to lose them.

I instantly named her Elvira in my head.  But can someone dumb it down for me- what was she supposedly jealous of?  Was she mad that the big, blond gay dude scored for the night?  Were the fuzzed out blanks in the police reports racist?  Not that any of it matters, but I like stuff to make sense when I get all judgey.

[Toaster Strudel]

Nah judging by context they might be homosexual slurs.