All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, howiveaddict said:

I doubt she will dump the bozo,  since continuing to have (unprotected) sex with his baby mama (and knocking her up again) wasn't a deal breaker.

Just thought I'd add a few highlights. Who wants to bet she'll end up popping out a baby also with Bozo and be shocked when he goes back to Momma again and won't pay for this child either? His garbled explanation about why he's never coughed up a dime for his two Blessed Events does not bode well for the future. Hey, he just passes on his stellar genes and his job is done.

7 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

but my husband was pre-med [and piano performance; he had dual majors] when we were dating.

I bet he never started a sentence with, "Me and her".

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is that just as everyone who is a home health aide, and claim to be nurses, and most 'teachers' on here were once a teacher's aide, that the medical school was one of those medical assistant schools, and many of the students don't even graduate, or ever get a job.  Besides, she'll be too busy popping out bundles of joy with him, and then trying to support herself and the kids when he moves on to the next one.  

[howiveaddict]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My guess is that just as everyone who is a home health aide, and claim to be nurses, and most 'teachers' on here were once a teacher's aide, that the medical school was one of those medical assistant schools, and many of the students don't even graduate, or ever get a job.  Besides, she'll be too busy popping out bundles of joy with him, and then trying to support herself and the kids when he moves on to the next one.  

Probably, but she was going to Purdue.

[AZChristian]

39 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

Probably, but she was going to Purdue.

Indiana University has one of its medical schools on the campus of Purdue in West Lafayette (which I seem to remember is where they were).  Given how our litigants tend to magnify their skills and/or accomplishments, it's possible that this young lady was taking courses to get an AA degree in being something less than an actual MD.  I don't mean to sound mean, but anyone dumb enough to hook up with the gentleman standing next to her does not demonstrate the decision-making skills required of a doctor.

[AngelaHunter]

You people weren't kidding about the tatted Bird Lady, dressed for a circa 1970 Vegas night out. Her appearance was shocking enough, but her low-talking, crazy, stream-of-consciousness babbling was alarming.

So bizarre was she that she took the focus away from plaintiff, who initially seemed sweet and wholesome, until we learn she and hubby are deadbeats have two kids, three cars, don't pay their insurance and hide one of the cars from a creditor because they can't pay their bills, yet plaintiff goes on a cruise and has deluded visions of opening a tattoo parlour. Her perma-smile was odd, and instead of tattoo parlour pipe dreams or taking a cruise with fruitcake def. what she really needs is a custom-made bra, because at her young age, her breasts were resting on her stomach. That Bird Lady was more credible than the plaintiff says a lot.

Winner of this year's JJ Freak Award:

 

[jilliannatalia]

4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Indiana University has one of its medical schools on the campus of Purdue in West Lafayette (which I seem to remember is where they were).  Given how our litigants tend to magnify their skills and/or accomplishments, it's possible that this young lady was taking courses to get an AA degree in being something less than an actual MD.  I don't mean to sound mean, but anyone dumb enough to hook up with the gentleman standing next to her does not demonstrate the decision-making skills required of a doctor.

I agree that the plaintiff  may be at least somewhat embellishing her academic credentials.  I don't have any reason to doubt that she's enrolled in a bacclaureate degree program. I didn't pay especially close attention to her words, but I didn't notice that she did a major hatchet job on the English language. (I wish I had dVRed the case; i would go back and listen more carefully had I done so.)  All "pre-med" really means is that a person is enrolled in a bachelor of science program and hopes to be admitted to medical school following the attaainment of a bachelor of science degree. It's an unprotected term; anyone can theoretically call himself or herself a "pre-med" student.  It's not even a specific major.  A person can be admitted to medical school with any undergraduate degree as long as he or she completes the prerequisites, which are mostly science courses, with a few math and general education courses being required as well.  Some degree programs align with a pre-medical curriculum more efficiently than do others. My husband was a microbiology (along with piano performance; he did that to make his mommy happy) major. His microbiology degree program covered all of his med school prereqs.  Most biology and chemistry dregree programs cover the prerequisites for most medical schools.  Some students whose degree programs aren't so closely aligned  with medical school prerequisites manage to take all the prereqs as electives. Others either complete the isolated courses after graduation (not usually quite as impressive to medical school admissions officers unless the degree was engineering or an equally rigorous program, or unless the applicant gave a stellar MCAT performance) or complete a master's program that satisfies the requirements.

It's a bit uncharitable of me to say this, but, for the most part, because "pre-med" is not an actual major, most students who announce their major (she didn't specifically state it as her major, but she clearly wanted JJ to understand that she was a cut above the defendant) as "pre-med," as opposed to stating what is their actual major, do so in attempt to impress others.  I suspect that such was the case with the plaintiff.  I don't know how family support works in Indiana or Michigan or in whatever state the jurisdiction is held for the child support of the defendant's children, but if they were in California, it would be in the defendant's best interests for the plaintiff to complete medical school, particularly if the plaintiff marries the defendant's baby daddy. Her income would then be used in calculating child support.  

Edited October 15, 2018 by jilliannatalia

[CrazyInAlabama]

Of course, on JJ it's entirely possible that she occasionally ate chicken processed by Purdue, and has a doctor's appointment.    I hope if the plaintiff does complete her education, and it is pre-med, that it includes dumping certain types of loser men, and not looking back.       

 

A word of warning, on my schedule there is a dog breeder case on the new episode Monday.     I may skip that part.    

Edited October 15, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[jilliannatalia]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Of course, on JJ it's entirely possible that she occasionally ate chicken processed by Purdue, and has a doctor's appointment.    I hope if the plaintiff does complete her education, and it is pre-med, that it includes dumping certain types of loser men, and not looking back.       

  

I hope so, too. Medical school is probably the most demanding civilian lifestyle a person could ever have. I haven't been to hell, but I suspect that Year #3 of medical school is as close to hell as life can get on Earth, unless it is one's intern year (first year of residency).   Year #4 eases up a bit (if it didn't, we would have interns literally dying on the job).  A medical school student can barely sustain a relationship with a saint who takes care of everything at home so that all a medical school student has to worry about is medical school.  There isn't any time or energy for the drama that this bozo comes up with, most likely on a daily basis. 

As much as I hope her "pre-med" claims are legit, I'm skeptical.  For every twenty students who claim pre-med, probably one is admitted into an actual medical school. It just seems unlikely that she's the one as opposed to one of the nineteen.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I hope if the plaintiff does complete her education, and it is pre-med, that it includes dumping certain types of loser men, and not looking back.       

And dumping him before she cranks up the baby-making machine, and "finds out" she's preggo in order to keep up with the ex-off 'n on Baby Mamma. Just because she's a med student doesn't mean she knows what birth control is all about, just as we had a 3rd year "law student" who couldn't finish the sentence, "Preponderance of  __________." I never thought the day would come when people in college could be semi-illiterate and need to have the most basic grammar publicly corrected, as one might do with a five-year old, and more than once. It's a brave new world!

Edited October 15, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[jilliannatalia]

37 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

And dumping him before she cranks up the baby-making machine, and "finds out" she's preggo in order to keep up with the ex-off 'n on Baby Mamma. Just because she's a med student doesn't mean she knows what birth control is all about, just as we had a 3rd year "law student" who couldn't finish the sentence, "Preponderance of  __________." I never thought the day would come when people in college could be semi-illiterate and need to have the most basic grammar publicly corrected, as one might do with a five-year old, and more than once. It's a brave new world!

 

I wish what we saw on JJ,  with thoroughly ignorant students such as Bozo who couldn't string a sentence together correctly if his life depended upon it, was the exception and not the rule, but sadly, illiteracy seems to be the new normal in too many universities.  And yes, there's no guarantee that even our esteemed "pre-med student" knows about birth control or cares enough to use it.  It's perfectly appropriate, you know, to leave one's offspring's financial needs unmet because one wishes to be a college kid at twenty-seven, as Bozo is, or even at thirty-seven if that's what floats a person's boat, 

Many universities now offer remedial courses in almost every subject.  I suppose they have to have them for their athletes, and the NCAA would probably be all over the universities if they restricted the remedial courses to just the athletes.*   Seriously, for any kid who isn't identified as special ed, there is no lower math course than Algebra I offered in most California high schools, and  students are required to complete four semesters of math to graduate.  The California State University system. on the other hand,  -- the lower tier in California's university system --  is full of  remedial courses. 

What is the point of adult schools, anyway, if remedial courses are available at the university level?

I can seriously see the current girlfriend, "pre-med" or not, deciding to compete in the baby-making Olympics with the existing baby momma, particularly if Byrd is going to have to foot the bill. Baby daddy can't be expected to contribute.  He's too busy bettering himsself while not learning how to speak standard English.

* I know that not all college athletes require remedial courses.  Some college athletes are brilliant, but some are more brawn than brain.

Edited October 15, 2018 by jilliannatalia

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'll post my comment on the remedial courses on the small talk thread.  

[khyber]

On 10/13/2018 at 7:48 PM, howiveaddict said:

Didn't plaintiff say she was a premed student?  I hope with that grammar  and taste in men, she never graduates to actually practice medicine.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves. There is no such degree as "premed".  You can get a degree in biochemistry, etc.  When someone says premed it tells me that they will probably never graduate college (with a bs or ba), much less get into medical school

[Zahdii]

20 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

It's a bit uncharitable of me to say this, but, for the most part, because "pre-med" is not an actual major, most students who announce their major (she didn't specifically state it as her major, but she clearly wanted JJ to understand that she was a cut above the defendant) as "pre-med," as opposed to stating what is their actual major, do so in attempt to impress others.

Hear! Hear!  I've got a niece who declared herself "pre-med" on her FB and kept that for several years.  She graduated high school with decent grades, but then only went one semester at the local community college before quitting.  But she was "pre-med", don't you know.

Apparently, for some people, merely expressing a passing interest in some sort of job in the medical field qualifies them to be pre-med.

[TresGatos]

20 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

Her income would then be used in calculating child support.  

A stepparents income is generally not used to calculate child support payments.

"A parent’s remarriage won’t directly affect child support in California. In almost every case, only the child’s biological parents have a legal duty to support the child, not the child’s stepparents. California judges aren’t allowed to look at the new spouse’s income, unless there are extraordinary circumstances causing extreme and severe hardship to the child.

For example, if a child’s biological parents don’t earn enough income to support the child’s basic needs, but the mother’s new husband has significant income, the court may consider the funds available to the mother through her husband when deciding child support. Judges may also consider a stepparent’s income when a parent voluntarily quits work, reduces income, or intentionally remains unemployed, and relies on a new spouse’s income. The court may require the parent’s new spouse to turn over W-2s and 1099 tax forms.

Since California is a community property state, each spouse has joint ownership of the married couple’s assets. If a parent doesn’t pay child support, the court can enforce the order against the couple’s community property, except for the new spouse’s current job earnings."

https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/remarriage-and-child-support-california.html

[ButYourHonor]

What was with “send in the clowns” with the dog breeding case.  Sheesh.  And BAD dye jobs at that - for plaintiff, defendant and witness with the plaintiff.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Not only did the dog breeding case disgust me, I suspect both d. and p. are total idiots.   The d. and p. also had ugly hair dye jobs in red and orange, and it looked like both were going to have major hair breakage soon, and I hope they do.        I hate that those two puppies went with the idiot p., who apparently thinks she'll make her fortune from endlessly breeding more pit bull crosses, and they're not crossed with English Bull Terriers the last time I heard either.    Another puppy mill breeding over 25 litters, and I'm sure not a single animal ever sees a vet.    I'm guessing the two puppies, and the female the p. already have are even now breeding, and increasing the high chances of genetic defects.   And if the idiot d. didn't get all of her dogs treated for coccidia (spelling?), then she should be arrested.   It's treated very easily, and usually isn't fatal if treated.   

The tenant case-who the hell is sitting behind the d.'s left shoulder?  And don't miss the pissed off little old lady in the turquoise suit far to the left of the defendant also.     I am so sick of people who rent a room, and then try to bounce the tenant almost immediately, and want to keep the rent, and the security deposit.   The p. is a jerk, or maybe the landlord just drove him out of his mind, but gets $1450 from the equally jerky defendant.   The landlord was a total loon, and I'm glad he lost, and hope to never meet either one of them.  I imagine the ex of the landlord is so happy to be rid of him, and I think we should buy him, and both women in the dog breeder case a one way ticket to Mars.  

Roommates, the only interesting thing is the two defendants are married (which the announcer keeps restating), and apparently have the same colorist/hair stylist because their hair matches, and their outfits are coordinated.    It reminds my of my late aunt and uncle who always wore matching shirts to every event.      

D.'s broke the lease, and one defendant had internal bruising after an alleged assault by the plaintiff, but as usual there is zero proof of the bruising. 

 The d.'s got evicted and p. paid for the buy out, which included late fees, back rent, and the buyout.   It all comes to $2404 for the p., plus a cleaning bill for the apartment, and p. gets over $4k.     Does the plaintiff have gold studs on both sides of her collarbone?  And does her hair match her dress?      Everyone sounds like a terrible roommate.    

Rerun-Nanny paid the employer so she could send her kid to cheerleader camp, got ripped off.  The nanny has some type of disability, lives with her parents, is 35, and took out a loan for the employer's kid to go to cheerleading camp.     What a horrible human being the defendant is, and I hope someday this catches up to her.     The poor nanny is obviously barely in control.     The nanny was paid $200 a week cash, never paid taxes or filed income tax returns, and worked for the d. for years.   The d. is despicable, and I hope the IRS is watching, and I hope that some authority goes after her big time.   Does anyone believe the d.'s witness is her 'godfather'?    I certainly don't.     I imagine that the only reason the d. wants the p. in her life is to rip her off again.    I wouldn't be surprised if the money raising site for the p.'s bulimia treatment went right to the d.'s pockets.   I wanted to throw up when the d. and p. hugged in the hallway.   

Rerun-Puppy ate elephant ear plant, but vet says it's not serious, but of course the p. says it is, and is using it as an excuse to refuse to pay the $350 remaining for the puppy.    Elephant ears aren't that serious, and only make a dog maybe have a poopy problem, but it's temporary.    She didn't even take the puppy to the vet for days after it was very sick, according to her.      The d.'s eyebrows look like Groucho Marx, and I think she used his hairdresser and makeup artist.    

Edited October 16, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[jilliannatalia]

2 hours ago, TresGatos said:

 

"A parent’s remarriage won’t directly affect child support in California. In almost every case, only the child’s biological parents have a legal duty to support the child, not the child’s stepparents. California judges aren’t allowed to look at the new spouse’s income, unless there are extraordinary circumstances causing extreme and severe hardship to the child.

 

https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/remarriage-and-child-support-california.html

One would be surprised just how frequently "extraordinary circumstances" come into play.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I know a lot of people with ex spouses who work under the table, or give up a high paying job for barely minimum wage just to avoid child support.    I could see someone like the deadbeat boyfriend not working, and living off the woman's earnings. 

[jilliannatalia]

33 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I know a lot of people with ex spouses who work under the table, or give up a high paying job for barely minimum wage just to avoid child support.    I could see someone like the deadbeat boyfriend not working, and living off the woman's earnings. 

I, too,  could see that being the case.  I could see the crown prince turning a four-year college career into more like twenty years.  I don't think the significant other (not the baby momma, but the other significant other) mentioned how far she had advanced through her "pre-med" curriculum, but we'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she had completed  135 quarter credits or ninety semester credits and was in her final year of undergrad studies.  If she is admitted to medical school, she'll have a minimum of four years of study there.  Some students spend five years in medical school, but for the sake of argument, let us assume she'll complete the program in four years.  The couple is looking at a good four-and-one-half years before seeing a paycheck, and the check she gets as an intern is not going to be anything to be too excited about, though it looks pretty good to someone who not only hasn't received a paycheck but has been paying for the privilege of working herself to the bone for the past four years.

Meanwhile, the grand prize significant other would probably have changed his major at least fourteen times,  would probably have dropped one required course per term because he wasn't feeling it, and otherwise would probably have drug  (and possibly drugged as well) his way through the university to the extent  that his catalogues would probably have  expired at least twice on him.  She would probably have come home to a sink and counter full of dirty dshed any time she made it home. What little work he might have done would likely have been per diem and cash only.  In some cases, assuming the two were legally married and, depending upon the state in which they resided,  his student loans as well as hers  might possibly have ben used to cover his child support obligations if she wanted to keep him out of jail, though not all jurisdictions police this sort of things terribly effectively.

[howiveaddict]

On 10/14/2018 at 4:16 PM, AngelaHunter said:

You people weren't kidding about the tatted Bird Lady, dressed for a circa 1970 Vegas night out. Her appearance was shocking enough, but her low-talking, crazy, stream-of-consciousness babbling was alarming.

So bizarre was she that she took the focus away from plaintiff, who initially seemed sweet and wholesome, until we learn she and hubby are deadbeats have two kids, three cars, don't pay their insurance and hide one of the cars from a creditor because they can't pay their bills, yet plaintiff goes on a cruise and has deluded visions of opening a tattoo parlour. Her perma-smile was odd, and instead of tattoo parlour pipe dreams or taking a cruise with fruitcake def. what she really needs is a custom-made bra, because at her young age, her breasts were resting on her stomach. That Bird Lady was more credible than the plaintiff says a lot.

Winner of this year's JJ Freak Award:

 

Today's lesbian married defendants in the room mate case could be viable competitors in the JJ freak of the year award. Lady on my far right , reminded me of a wanna be flower child from the 60s.

 

Rerun cheer camp loan case had a "Godfather" of the defendant that JJ threw out of the room. When he got up to leave, he had assorted color patches on the ass of his blue jeans.  He definitely was not dressed for a tea dance.  

Also plaintiff's witness looked like she had been in the psych hospital with her. It looked like her head was shaved.

Felt bad for plaintiff when the defendant was hugging her at the end. I imagine defendant was thinking of ways to rip plaintiff off again, since this debt would be paid off.

Edited October 16, 2018 by howiveaddict

[AngelaHunter]

21 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

Lady on my far right , reminded me of a wanna be flower child from the 60s.

To me she looked more like a character from the movie "Bridge to Terebithia". It did warm my heart that big def. was willing to do battle for the insult to her wife and I guess over her "internal bruising". How gallant.

Any one catch Byrd's stinkeye to Hector, who gave him pics to give to JJ "for now"? I think B. really wanted to dropkick that little snotty asshole. He needs money - and I think I have an idea why his wife left him -  so invites an unknown adult man to bunk in with him, but has a million rules which must be followed. I really wanted to know what those rules were. And Hector? A piece of furniture that is 85 years old is not an antique. It's just old.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, howiveaddict said:

Also plaintiff's witness looked like she had been in the psych hospital with her. It looked like her head was shaved.

It also looked like she had a good-sized tat on the side of her bald skull.

[howiveaddict]

7 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

It also looked like she had a good-sized tat on the side of her bald skull.

I didn't catch that. 

Still can't get over the patched ass jeans of the "godfather".

[jilliannatalia]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

To me she looked more like a character from the movie "Bridge to Terebithia". It did warm my heart that big def. was willing to do battle for the insult to her wife and I guess over her "internal bruising". How gallant.

Any one catch Byrd's stinkeye to Hector, who gave him pics to give to JJ "for now"? I think B. really wanted to dropkick that little snotty asshole. He needs money - and I think I have an idea why his wife left him -  so invites an unknown adult man to bunk in with him, but has a million rules which must be followed. I really wanted to know what those rules were. And Hector? A piece of furniture that is 85 years old is not an antique. It's just old.

 

26 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

I didn't catch that. 

Still can't get over the patched ass jeans of the "godfather".

 

I know the term "godfather" is sometimes used loosely, but, assuming the defendant used it more-or-less in the traditional sense, what a choice the defendant's parents made in designating him as their daughter's godfather. He's certainly someone who is likely to lead his godchild down the path of righteousness.

[AngelaHunter]

31 minutes ago, jilliannatalia said:

He's certainly someone who is likely to lead his godchild down the path of righteousness.

I'm sure he had a hand in helping his lovely goddaughter rip off someone who is not totally mentally competant and easy to take advantage of. He's amoral scum, pure and simple.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, jilliannatalia said:

Any one catch Byrd's stinkeye to Hector, who gave him pics to give to JJ "for now"? I think B. really wanted to dropkick that little snotty asshole

Yes, he did.  And I wouldn't have blamed him, the nerve!

 

42 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sure he had a hand in helping his lovely goddaughter rip off someone who is not totally mentally competant and easy to take advantage of. He's amoral scum, pure and simple.

Seriously.  I was hollering at the TV.  I scared the cat!

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Seriously.  I was hollering at the TV.  I scared the cat!

His raggedy ass should have been bounced the first time he opened his stupid, smirking mouth. And what adult brings her "Godfather" to court with her, anyway? I thought it was bad enough to see adults dragging Mommy and Daddy with them for "moral support" but this takes the cake. Something fishy going on there.

On 10/14/2018 at 8:31 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Of course, on JJ it's entirely possible that she occasionally ate chicken processed by Purdue, and has a doctor's appointment. 

I just read that more carefully. omfg! Hahaha!

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm very suspicious about the godfather and the despicable defendant, and wonder how long they've known each other, and what the hotel arrangements were the night before.    That whole case was awful, and I wonder if there is enough for adult protective services to go after the defendant, since the plaintiff is so obviously ill.    

[KittyMom4]

Just now, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm very suspicious about the godfather and the despicable defendant, and wonder how long they've known each other, and what the hotel arrangements were the night before.    That whole case was awful, and I wonder if there is enough for adult protective services to go after the defendant, since the plaintiff is so obviously ill.    

Me too! The "Godfather" looked to be not much older that that despicable rodent-faced defendant. I would not be surprised if godfather=boyfriend in her mind since she was able to rationalize a loan from a mentally ill, low paid nanny into a gift and have no qualms about that. 

[MagicCat]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

To me she looked more like a character from the movie "Bridge to Terebithia". It did warm my heart that big def. was willing to do battle for the insult to her wife and I guess over her "internal bruising". How gallant.

I'm not a doctor or anything, but isn't all bruising internal?  If it's external it's called "bleeding".

[DoctorK]

30 minutes ago, MagicCat said:

I'm not a doctor or anything, but isn't all bruising internal?

Not a medical doctor either but blunt trauma causes what is usually referred to as internal injuries. The only internal bruising I recall seeing referred to damages from sexual assaults.  My guess is that she just wanted to dress up and exaggerate her getting bruised in the tussle.

[funky-rat]

38 minutes ago, MagicCat said:

I'm not a doctor or anything, but isn't all bruising internal?  If it's external it's called "bleeding".

We should ask the pre-med student!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Not a medical doctor either but blunt trauma causes what is usually referred to as internal injuries.

I'm no doctor of any kind, but could one have internal injuries, like injuries to her internal organs(?) yet not even see a doctor? Maybe the big wife diagnosed and treated her.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Idiots flipping houses.    Plaintiff didn't sign the contract with the house flipper finder, has a missing partner, bought rights to buy house from shady plaintiff.    D. wanted p. to get another investor to put in $5k, and d. would let p. and invisible partner out of the deal.    I hate everyone involved, and there is no proof of anything, so I wish JJ would have Byrd boot both litigants.          The sale never happened, because it was a private listing.  I bet the house was never for sale, and never will be, it's in Spokane by the way.    The defendant is one of those I buy ugly houses people, and JJ gave the plaintiff his $5k back.     Defendant is a total crook.  

Old lady mauled by dogs belonging to the property owner's tenant.     The attacker is a pit/rottweiler mix, he also has another pit mix, and a chow mix.    Big surprise, tenant had no renter's insurance, and dogs were roaming loose on the four acre property.    They showed pictures, and the poor woman's entire upper arm is very bruised, and chewed up, and it was injured trying to shield her throat from the attacking dog, and she gets $5k.   Idiot d. thinks because he didn't teach them to attack, or tell them to, that it's not his fault.    What a cruel idiot the defendant is, and if the landlady is smart she'll give him and his dogs the boot.  

Sneaky d. wanted p. to pay for his back child support.   Another desperate fool.  Ex-jail bird, and p. wants to be reimbursed for the trip she financed, and of course, after she admits they were on a romantic get away, gets no money for that trip.    She paid his bail for his back child support warrant, and she wanted money she sent him in jail, and for the trip.    Idiot plaintiff gets her $700+ child support bail back.     The only bright moment is that she claims she broke up with him, so maybe there's hope for her yet.  

Rerun-Man claims ex bashed his car windows-There's video of the ex-gf d. bashing his car windows out, when she found out about his next relationship.   This is the one where he moved from Illinois to Texas, and they visited each other.      He found another woman in Texas, or more likely multiple women.      He visited and stayed with her in Illinois, and then dumped her when he got home to Texas.    At least he's employed, which makes him better than 90% of the litigants.     So he dumps the old gf, she hops a plane to Texas (she's customer service for an airline), and showed up at his place.    He was actually shacking up with the new gf in Texas.       D. shows up, finds out about new gf, and then goes after his car.   You can not only see her go after the car, but kick dents into it and bash the windows out.       He claims he called the police, but lost the police report.   

He actually moved back to Illinois after this too.     He's actually visiting the d. at her place again, not a surprise at all.      He's just coming by the d.'s house to "talk", I'm guessing that means booty calls?      They ended up in court in Illinois for an argument, when he threatened her over the phone, and there was damage at her apartment.    He proved he wasn't in town when it happened, but I bet one of his harem was in town, and was willing to do a favor for his favors.        She tried to get a temporary restraining order, she didn't get it, but she still sees him (she said no, but it's true love).      Another sadly desperate woman, in love with a loser with a harem on the side.  

$2,000 for the loser with the magic appendage.      I hope the defendant stays away from him, but she doesn't seem strong enough to do that.

Landscaper claims they didn't get paid.     Defendants have matching outfits, and man has one of those hipster beards that I want to set alight.    The d. woman claims she didn't get the check (but she deposited it), she claims the p. filled out the contract herself, but it has specific job descriptions for the landscaping and fence.  The defendants are total liars and crooks.     The fence is pathetic, and had to have cross braces to keep it up.  No deck built.      They were also supposed to put in three gravel driveway spaces, but they didn't do it.     The plaintiff gets every penny back, close to $4k.      

Edited October 17, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Idiots flipping houses. 

Flip houses! Get rich quick! Of course they couldn't do business. Probably couldn't understand each other: plaintiff is guillible and def is a crook. Next case.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sneaky d. wanted p. to pay for his back child support.

Same old, same old. "Natasha" - obviously desperate for any warm body - is "talking to" Kenney. Must have been some talks, since she agreed to pay his bail after he got thrown in the slammer because he doesn't support his one and only child and can't pay his own expenses. The man of her dreams! I don't know what Kenney's defense was since I couldn't understand one garbled word he spoke. Natasha needs to rethink her wardrobe choices and her selection of men. All the other money she wanted for willingly being a fool in exchange for all that "talking"? Get out of here with that!

I had to watch the repeat of Dumb and Dumber, who support themselves by trying to get a retail liquor license and give 5500$ (who knew a career of trying to get a license pays so well?) to some joker who represents himself online as a judge, complete with robe and gavel. How does anyone reach the ages of D&D and remain so clueless?

[chenoa333]

On 10/14/2018 at 2:16 PM, AngelaHunter said:

You people weren't kidding about the tatted Bird Lady, dressed for a circa 1970 Vegas night out. Her appearance was shocking enough, but her low-talking, crazy, stream-of-consciousness babbling was alarming.

So bizarre was she that she took the focus away from plaintiff, who initially seemed sweet and wholesome, until we learn she and hubby are deadbeats have two kids, three cars, don't pay their insurance and hide one of the cars from a creditor because they can't pay their bills, yet plaintiff goes on a cruise and has deluded visions of opening a tattoo parlour. Her perma-smile was odd, and instead of tattoo parlour pipe dreams or taking a cruise with fruitcake def. what she really needs is a custom-made bra, because at her young age, her breasts were resting on her stomach. That Bird Lady was more credible than the plaintiff says a lot.

Winner of this year's JJ Freak Award:

 

Thank you for posting that pic! How the hell did the audience keep a straight face? I'm still lmao and I cant seem to take my eyes off her! I'm mesmerized!

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendants have matching outfits, and man has one of those hipster beards that I want to set alight. 

Had to post again after watching this. Both defs seemed to be under the influence of some sort  of medication. Or maybe they were drunk. Mrs. Lindsay lies about getting the deposit then gives a glassy, fixed stare when asked why. Her wizened hubby-boo tried to speak without opening his mouth to try and hide the fact that he has a mouthful of rotted stumps. Couple of the Year, but they look as though they were just dragged out of some double-wide down to the holler, while cooking meth. Loved how plaintiff had all her evidence.

That beard - ugh! There's only one way it's not hideous and stupid and that's when it's where it belongs:

 

 

[jilliannatalia]

12 hours ago, MagicCat said:

I'm not a doctor or anything, but isn't all bruising internal?  If it's external it's called "bleeding".'

My husband woke up.  I asked him about it. His answer was too long and too complicated for me, but I believe the gist of it is that internal bruising can happen in the muscles of the legs and back., or  in internal organs, such as kidney, liver, or spleen (you really don't want a bruised spleen as it ruptures easily). When bruising of internal organs occurs, it's most frequently referred to as a contusion of whatever organ is involved. 

My husband said I must offer some sort of disclaimer because he doesn't wish to be accused of practicing medicine over the Internet. I told him it was for general information purposes and that none of us are attempting to diagnose each other or even the mentally challenged litigants on Judge Judy, but he's paranoid. So here's the disclaimer:  If a person thinks he or she may be suffering from any form of deep-tissue bruising or contusions of any internal organ(s), he or she should seek medical attention. No one can be diagnosed with such a condition without examination by a qualified healthcare professional. *

* Duh!

Edited October 17, 2018 by jilliannatalia
My husband woke up.

[jilliannatalia]

11 hours ago, funky-rat said:

We should ask the pre-med student!

Yeah! Where the f^(& is  halfwit's f^(&  doll when we actually need her expertise?

[MagicCat]

4 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

My husband woke up.  I asked him about it. His answer was too long and too complicated for me, but I believe the gist of it is that internal bruising can happen in the muscles of the legs and back., or  in internal organs, such as kidney, liver, or spleen (you really don't want a bruised spleen as it ruptures easily). When bruising of internal organs occurs, it's most frequently referred to as a contusion of whatever organ is involved. 

My husband said I must offer some sort of disclaimer because he doesn't wish to be accused of practicing medicine over the Internet. I told him it was for general information purposes and that none of us are attempting to diagnose each other or even the mentally challenged litigants on Judge Judy, but he's paranoid. So here's the disclaimer:  If a person thinks he or she may be suffering from any form of deep-tissue bruising or contusions of any internal organ(s), he or she should seek medical attention. No one can be diagnosed with such a condition without examination by a qualified healthcare professional. *

* Duh!

Thanks - I appreciate the info.  I am in what I call the quasi-medical field.  I am employed by a healthcare company, don't see patients but deal with medical records and don't much see the term "internal bruising".  I had always envisioned bruising as blood leaking underneath the skin giving it that blue/black color.  ie - internal.  I found the wording strange and I was of the opinion that she was trying to think of a fancy word for "owie".  I still think that by the way.  The word contusion I recognize. 

And tell your husband thanks - he saved me a trip to the hospital.  

[quarkuud]

Maybe Judge Judy didn't want to see the claimed $55K worth of damages that the tenant did, but I sure did!

[Zahdii]

I felt bad for the plaintiff who was suing her neighbor for property damage.  The neighbor was a piece of work, all take and no give, and had an attitude that would make a saint want to clock her.  JJ was all "Well, she's got issues, she's on Section 8, she's not going anywhere.  But you work and you're a good person, so you're going to have to move."  Like just having a job is all it takes to pick up and move.

And the jerk Tyler Stoneking for Springfield IL.  What a winner.  He actually sued the woman who dared to file a TRO on him after he made multiple threats to her, none of which he actually carried out.  But he's one of those intense guys who loves guns, talks a big game, goes nuts if he thinks he's being challenged, etc.  So a co-worker that complains that he routinely leaves his job before finishing all his work, and the co-worker was a female...well, he just had to make it a big deal. 

NO ONE is going to say something about him!  Especially a short, slightly overweight female that didn't have a big hulking relative or husband backing her up.  Nope!  He could go after the manager who chastised him, but that guy had a dick, so he went after the woman.  After making comments to her about "Have you checked the tires on your car yet?" and "I see you have a big dent in your car.", the manager told him to leave early.  I got the impression that Tyler normally liked to leave ASAP, but when he's told to do it so someone else could finish their shift and feel safe walking to their car, he suddenly got all offended.

When he showed up for his first court date for his TRO, he brought an attorney that he said he paid a thousand dollars for.  His reasoning was that he needed to get the TRO taken care of quickly so he could get his guns back, as they were confiscated when the TRO was first filed.  Tyler doesn't feel right without an arsenal at home to back him up.  For some reason, the case was continued instead of resolving it then and there.  Maybe the judge thought that only one party having an attorney was unfair to the other party?  Then the defendant showed up for the second hearing with her own attorney, but because the other employees at the restaurant were afraid to come to court, the case was continued again so her attorney could subpoena those people.  In the end, Tyler failed to show up at the last TRO hearing, and none of the defendants witnesses showed up either, so the TRO was cancelled, and he got his guns back.  He also said something about a deal getting struck.  I think I missed something there.  The TRO was cancelled, he got his guns back, and he was in court suing the woman for...something?  Attorney's fees?  Pain and suffering?  Fun and games?

BTW, I checked out his FB page.  It goes back to 2015, didn't see any mention of JJ, but I noticed that he loves his family, really loves guns, is a staunch Republican who likes Trump, Fox and Friends, and now works for Harley Davidson.  But what is really strange is that Tyler Stoneking is apparently still available ladies!  No mention of a wife, girlfriend, or kids.  Lots and lots of guns and tactical gear, but no lady friends or kids.  I just don't understand it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Little old ladies who are freaking nuts-Neighbors for years, and p. has a leftover wig from the Little Orphan Annie 1970's wig collection.     Apparently, the defendant chopped down the mobiles on the plaintiff's front porch, because she felt like it.      I agree that the plaintiff will have to move to get away from the defendant, because the defendant is mean, obsessed with the defendant, and working up to something major against the defendant.        I do think that chopping down the ten wind chimes my neighbors had was tempting, but I never did it.   But the p.'s were quiet, decorative pieces of metal.     All the plaintiff wanted was for looney toons defendant to leave her alone.    This is all going to escalate, and end up on I.D. Channel as a sad tale of murder.      JJ telling the d. to lay off did nothing.    I'm sure that Byrd is sorry he has to support the nutso defendant.      I wish the plaintiff would move, because her neighbor Tina is a fruitcake, and vindictive.

Townhouse profit-P. bought a townhouse for 115k, sold for $360k, and claims she didn't make a profit.      The defendant has a very complete timeline, documents, and plaintiff already took him to tenant court (whatever it's called).     Plaintiff is obviously a total jerk, and is another loon, and may be related to defendant in previous case, who was also a loon.

Tenant gets his security deposit back, and I also want to hear about the $55k in damages, which had already been thrown out in tenant/housing court. 

 

Rerun-A bizarre case.   Either plaintiff is a stalker and psycho, or my suspicion is the defendant is a loon who thinks everyone is out to get her, and sounds like a bunny boiler to me.   He was served with an order of protection.   He had to turn in his guns.   He was never disciplined at work for 'harassment', but was eventually fired, and I fail to understand why he thinks that wasn't discipline.    Defendant claims he brought an 'intimidating' lawyer to the protective order hearing, which is nuts.  Defendant sounds like a jerk.  Plaintiff got fired after defendant claimed he followed her home from work, and claims he threatened to slash her tires.     I bet a lot of former co-workers would like to slash her tires.   I bet almost everything happened in her strange mind, not in reality.   You notice Kyle the manager isn't sitting in the witness chair by her, and no one showed up to testify for her even with subpeoneas (spelling), and no one would do a witness statement either. The man didn't work at the restaurant for months before this happened, and works somewhere else now, so I don't see how an entire restaurant staff is afraid of him.  I would love to know the history of both litigants, and bet that one of them would have a history of bad behavior.         I don't see how she got any kind of protective order at all, for threats that she claimed everyone heard, but not one person was willing to testify about.   

The factors that made me believe the plaintiff was when he was fired he just left, nothing happened to the girl or her car, or anyone at the restaurant, and the only place they saw each other was in court.    I also noticed that not one person from the restaurant came to testify for her, but instead the summonses were quashed, so I wonder if anyone else ever witnessed any of the arguments?      D. seemed like someone who likes to try to supervise everyone else's work, and it's not her place.     If the p. works at a Harley shop now, they don't keep trouble makers, and they pay pretty well, so it's usually not that easy to get a job there, and keep it.  I suspect he wasn't the problem.   

Judgement was no money for either side.     

Edited October 18, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Apparently, the defendant chopped down the mobiles on the plaintiff's front porch, because she felt like it.

It's always the same. Those who parasitize the working public and live on the earnings of others always have that attitude: "Everyone owes me because I can't take care of myself, or I choose not to. Give me stuff! Give me money! Of course I'll take anything I can get." Plaintiff is a terrible person says def, who is a beast with no self-control and never gave plaintiff a thing but took everything she offered. Outrageous, but this is not the place to get a restraining order against that loon. I'd be afraid to live next to her.

54 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tenant gets his security deposit back, and I also want to hear about the $55k in damages, which had already been thrown out in tenant/housing court. 

Plaintiff was vile. I read the report from the property manager. Everything in that place was old, and some things needed replacing (ceiling fan was wobbly. Was that def's fault?)but in working condition when def left. 55K in damages? Woman is nuts and deserved more of a smackdown.

[Zahdii]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Rerun-A bizarre case.   Either plaintiff is a stalker and psycho, or my suspicion is the defendant is a loon who thinks everyone is out to get her, and sounds like a bunny boiler to me.   He was served with an order of protection.   He had to turn in his guns.   He was never disciplined at work for 'harassment', but was eventually fired, and I fail to understand why he thinks that wasn't discipline.    Defendant claims he brought an 'intimidating' lawyer to the protective order hearing, which is nuts. 

It's funny how people can watch the same thing and come away with completely different opinions.  C'est la vie and que será, será.  I've now shown off almost the entirety of my understanding of French.  At least it seems that the plaintiff and the defendant haven't had contact with each other since then, so that's a win.

[quarkuud]

36 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Plaintiff was vile. I read the report from the property manager. Everything in that place was old, and some things needed replacing (ceiling fan was wobbly. Was that def's fault?)but in working condition when def left. 55K in damages? Woman is nuts and deserved more of a smackdown.

I freeze framed the property manager's report to see what she could possibly have been talking about.  But no, it was 4-5 year old (minimum) carpet and the ceiling fan.  How she managed to get that in her head to $55K was something I really wanted to see.

Edited October 18, 2018 by quarkuud

[NYCFree]

I totally believed the defendant in the stalking case. The plaintiff seemed like one of those really tightly wound guys who are way too obsessed with their guns. Sometimes these guys come back to their place of employment and seek revenge. I would also be afraid of this guy getting his sights on me.

I felt really badly for the plaintiff in the crazy neighbor case.

[KittyMom4]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The factors that made me believe the plaintiff was when he was fired he just left, nothing happened to the girl or her car, or anyone at the restaurant, and the only place they saw each other was in court.    I also noticed that not one person from the restaurant came to testify for her, but instead the summonses were quashed, so I wonder if anyone else ever witnessed any of the arguments?      D. seemed like someone who likes to try to supervise everyone else's work, and it's not her place.     If the p. works at a Harley shop now, they don't keep trouble makers, and they pay pretty well, so it's usually not that easy to get a job there, and keep it.  I suspect he wasn't the problem.   

Judgement was no money for either side. 

My thought was Buffalo Wild Wings wanted to quash the coworker testimony so that there wouldn't be a "hostile environment" lawsuit headed their way.  And I'm positive the defendant and the plaintiff were those people who constantly bicker at work and I'm sure their coworkers were happy to be rid of them both!

[AZChristian]

45 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said:

My thought was Buffalo Wild Wings wanted to quash the coworker testimony so that there wouldn't be a "hostile environment" lawsuit headed their way.  And I'm positive the defendant and the plaintiff were those people who constantly bicker at work and I'm sure their coworkers were happy to be rid of them both!

"The Perfect Storm" of two people you wouldn't want to work with individually, and you SURE don't want to work with them both at the same time.  The whiny "Jimmy's not doing his job right, so I'm gonna t-e-l-l-l on him" and the "Don't mess with me; I have guns and friends who are cops" stereotypes.  

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

That tatted up lady with the red hair (I just can't make myself post that picture again, it scares me) reminds me of some kind of love bird or crazy Quaker Parrot-type bird. And I'm sensing a theme with the last few days of cases - the Halloween hair is in full swing on JJ. I wonder if the producers subconsciously clumped those hair-scare cases together.