All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[SRTouch]

First case pretty silly. P suing sis & bro in laws for loans. We find out P made loans after he moved out and left he wife and 4 kids to live with new gf - and WTH did he bring the new gf to court except to show ex and her siblings his new woman. Anyway, he loans the ex's money (which they say was spent on home where his wife & kids were living - and ex bro-in-law needed a new motorcycle cuz he's too fat to ride P's 2nd bike). They make a couple or 3 payments, then seems there was a kerfuffle where they all stop talking, so Ds quit paying - say they unilaterally rewrote the loan agreement since P kicked wife and kids out of house and moved in with new gf. Nope, can't rewrite loan agreement unless both parties agree to new terms - Ds still own the money (even though sounds like he's a real deadbeat. P didn't need to say anything, defendants made his case

2nd case about a little pooch and who should foot her vet bills. I think JJ was playing fast and loose with the law again based on how things should be in HER USA. JJ sort of skipped over it, but sounds like D was either homeless, or about to become homeless, and was unable to care for her little dog. At first I thought D voluntarily gave P dog to be fostered. Then I think I heard P went with police escort when she went to pick it up - not sure what the story was. Anyway, poor little dog was tweaking when picked up. JJ asks D where dog got into the drugs and D has no idea (I rewind and read vet report - talking cocaine, meth, and THC). Sounds like dog taken straight to doggy ER. JJ decides dog was still defendant's since she says P was just fostering and D wanted to get dog back - so P on hook for the vet bill. OK, that sounds right and legal, but then as JJ is leaving the bench she asks if P wants the dog - oh yes, say P - then dog is yours 💕. Not too sure that would be legal. Think this was another case where JJ came out with mind made up, and asked questions geared to make it possible to rule as she wanted based on what she already decided was best for dog 👍👍almost as good as time she had Byrd collect puppy, and Byrd is getting licked and he tells her to hurry up as he doesn't like it

Oh dear, I forgot all about oaf who fell on/smashed the P's fancy fiddle. Well, that one was really silly, even sillier than the defendants making case about loans for plaintiff in second case. P agrees to come on JJ seeking replacement cost of her very expensive violin. Her problem is she has already been paid the maximum value by the insurance company and has nothing except a typed letter purporting to be from an appraiser. Lady, didn't you know JJ don't read no stinking letters - she wants to question your expert to establish their cred. Even after being repeatedly told she needs an expert witness to establish the value, JJ has to practically beg her to let the case be dismissed without prejudice so it can be refiled back home. Silly case, which may be why I forgot it. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sorry JJ, you don't put your fence on my property, not even an inch, or on the joint property line.

Indeed. Encroachment is encroachment. JJ called it minimal, probably code for her frequent "my parents did not pay for my 7 years in university for me to deal with such piffling matters". But if you let a neighbour treat part of your property as their own, they can eventually claim it as their own under the legal doctrine of adverse possession. Plus, if the encroachment is over a long distance, it adds up considering it is a function based on a squared formula and a small deviation may amount to a substantial surface area.  But of course geometry is far below  what JJ's considers worthy of her consideration.

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

but he says he had a medical emergency

He called it an "accidental" medical condition, whatever that is supposed to be.

If the violin maker is now dead, his instruments have in all probability gone up in value if he was a reputable craftsman. I thought JJ should have at least taken a look at the letter before deciding it had no value. That being said, it would indeed have been prudent for the plaintiff to increase the insurance coverage.

[AZChristian]

22 hours ago, khyber said:

Its pretty common to have to front the money for death expenses since you can't apply for the insurance payout until you have the death certificate, which can take a couple of weeks.

Not necessarily.  My brother died in mid-September.  As executrix of his will, I notified his ex-wife that he had left a life insurance policy for her and their (adult kids).  With just his name, policy numbers and the name of the crematorium, she called the insurance company.  The insurance company contacted the crematorium, which had not yet received and filed the death certificate because the doctor was slow in signing it.  He signed it four days after the death was discovered.  Even without the death certificate, the insurance company began the payout process.  She actually received the payout on the day he was cremated - 9 days after his body was discovered.

[funky-rat]

21 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

I believe the two recent legally blind plaintiffs do have severe eye issues. There is a look about them when they are reading that fits with blindness issues. Hearing loss and blindness are two things that are easy to prove/disprove for disability purposes. 

The 2nd one we saw - the man - I believed 100% had vision impairment.  I believed the anger management lady had some degree of vision impairment, but was more the "legally blind" thing, like a friend of mine - that she could probably see somewhat reasonably with strong contacts, or it was only in one eye.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Irreplaceable Violin Victim-Plaintiff/professional violin teacher, and performer, was in band with defendant, and claims he destroyed her violin.     She has already been paid over $9,000+ by the insurance company, hasn't actually replaced the violin, and still wants $3500.    She has a letter claiming a replacement by the same maker would be $15k plus.   JJ dismisses case without prejudice to go back to Pennsylvania where she can have the appraiser in court.    Plaintiff claims defendant was drunk, but he says he had a medical emergency, confirmed by physicians.   

His "medical emergency" was that he passed out - that's what Vasovagal Syncope is.  Fainting.  And alcohol can easily cause that (hence the term "passed out drunk").  So the doctors were right - he fainted.  But that doesn't absolve him from being tipsy or drunk, unless he has some BAC blood test results, which he did not offer.  Also, it was hot here in PA on Memorial Day Weekend.  If they were outside in the heat, AND he had some drinks, that makes it even worse.

Edited October 18, 2019 by funky-rat

[KittyMom4]

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

That being said, it would indeed have been prudent for the plaintiff to increase the insurance coverage

JJ was not getting through to the Plaintiff with this point though. I know nothing about the value of instruments and had no idea they increased in value and apparently neither did the Plaintiff but I felt JJ was right. 

The Defendant was a hoot with his "HOLD UP, HOLD UP!" to JJ! And I believe he was drunker than a skunk when he 'fainted' and should be held liable for the extra cost of a new violin. I wonder what kind of band they are in since they seemed very opposite in personality....

[KittyMom4]

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I think JJ was playing fast and loose with the law again

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

JJ decides dog was still defendant's since she says P was just fostering and D wanted to get dog back - so P on hook for the vet bill. OK, that sounds right and legal, but then as JJ is leaving the bench she asks if P wants the dog - oh yes, say P - then dog is yours 💕. Not too sure that would be legal. Think this was another case where JJ came out with mind made up, and asked questions geared to make it possible to rule as she wanted based on what she already decided was best for dog 👍👍almost as good as time she had Byrd collect puppy, and Byrd is getting licked and he tells her to hurry up as he doesn't like it

I was fine with this decision, even if it wasn't legal. The Defendant didn't look or sound like she was in any shape to take care of a pet rock, let alone a dog. 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

The 2nd one we saw - the man - I believed 100% had vision impairment.  I believed the anger management lady had some degree of vision impairment, but was more the "legally blind" thing, like a friend of mine - that she could probably see somewhat reasonably with strong contacts, or it was only in one eye.

His "medical emergency" was that he passed out - that's what Vasovagal Syncope is.  Fainting.  And alcohol can easily cause that (hence the term "passed out drunk").  So the doctors were right - he fainted.  But that doesn't absolve him from being tipsy or drunk, unless he has some BAC blood test results, which he did not offer.  Also, it was hot here in PA on Memorial Day Weekend.  If they were outside in the heat, AND he had some drinks, that makes it even worse.

If he was on certain blood pressure meds and spent too much time in the sun, this can also happen.  Yes, it is made worse if you drink.  But even if he wasn't drunk, he would appear impaired.  Been there. Done that.  Scared the hell out of a friend.  Regardless,, you break it, you buy it, and you should buy it at the right value. 

[funky-rat]

2 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

If he was on certain blood pressure meds and spent too much time in the sun, this can also happen.  Yes, it is made worse if you drink.  But even if he wasn't drunk, he would appear impaired.  Been there. Done that.  Scared the hell out of a friend.  Regardless,, you break it, you buy it, and you should buy it at the right value. 

True, but he made no explanation other than the doctors said it was vasovagal syncope and that proves it wasn't his fault.  So going strictly by what he said, that doesn't disprove what the plaintiff said.  🙂

[bad things are bad]

Quote

 should be held liable for the extra cost of a new violin.

Absolutely agree, except the plaintiff had no idea of the cost of her new violin. Buy one, then sue for the difference. JJ kept trying to tell her that and I think she would have been amenable but the plaintiff was wilfully uncomprehending. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm episodes, both reruns, probably 2015 or 2016-

First-

Wedding Carriage Ride Failure-Angry mother of the bride (Momzilla) arranged for defendant to ride bride and groom around for an hour, with a stop for pictures.   Carriage arrived at 4:30 p.m., arrived at the reception at 5:05 p.m.    The ride was only 35 minutes, but there were supposed to be some stops for photos, but the photographers were no where in sight.   The best man took cell phone pictures, instead of the photographers that were missing.   I believe the mix up in communication was between the photographers, and Momzilla, and the daughter was being surprised, so she got out of the carriage and went into the reception hall early.   (In my personal opinion, another Momzilla who planned he wedding she always wanted, and not what the daughter wanted, and it ruined the mother's day).   Case dismissed.        

Terrible Landlord or Miserable Tenant- Plaintiff suing former landlady for moving costs (not happening), and a false restraining order..    Landlady says tenant paid her rent, but was often late.   Former landlady/defendant filed for a restraining order, and gave her a Section 8 connected 60 day notice to quit.    Plaintiff moved into a new place, also in Palmdale, the same day she moved out of plaintiff's place.    The eviction was because of continued complaints to housing authorities, threats, etc.   There was a mediation on the restraining order, so that's dismissed.    Everything is dismissed. 

Second-

Property Dump and Dash-   Plaintiff made her a loan ($1,500) to get her belongings out of storage, she repaid a little, but stopped.   Defendant dumped his co-worker's belongings in the parking lot after she refused to pick them up, or arrange to move them, almost a year after he picked up her belongings from the storage unit, and stored them at his house.     (I remember this one, and I would only would be happy with a video of the drop off, and if he had put rollers under plaintiff's junk, and drove away leaving them all over the parking lot).  She repaid $695 in total, but stopped.      He dumped her stuff after 11 months, but she only started paying him after that.      $705 to plaintiff, and counter claim $100 is deducted from the loan repayment.    I love plaintiff's wife's hall-terview.

Good Deed Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing defendant for damages, and deductible to her spare car defendant was using.     Defendant is her former trainer, and she loaned the car for almost a year, free.   She wasn't charging him any fees, but she was paying the insurance, and car payments.      JJ dismisses plaintiff case, she should have had better insurance.   Strange case, with conflicting stories.  

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, funky-rat said:

True, but he made no explanation other than the doctors said it was vasovagal syncope and that proves it wasn't his fault.  So going strictly by what he said, that doesn't disprove what the plaintiff said.  🙂

Yeah, but remember at the end, after JJ finally gets P to agree to a dismissal without prejudice, D is complaining that he didn't get a chance to make his case for why he shouldn't be held liable. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first new, second rerun-

First-

Oil Doesn't Go There-Plaintiff let defendant move in with her for six months, and in month five defendant wrecked, and totaled out her own car.   Then she stole plaintiff's car, put oil in the hydraulic fluid port.    Defendant moved back with a relative after the car incident.   Plaintiff's witness is an employee of the mechanic's shop, but has no training.   Car is at Aamco transmission.   There is no proof that the defendant caused the damages.   Case dismissed without prejudice, to go back to Omaha so witnesses can come to court.

Lesbian Love Gone Wrong-Plaintiff is suing ex-girlfriend for damages, and stolen property.  They lived together for about two months, then broke up.   Defendant had a court order, and brought a locksmith to get her property from the house.    Plaintiff claims when defendant received her property, she took defendant's property also.  Plaintiff gets some stuff back.   Cases dismissed.  

Incarcerated Son's Loan Loss-Plaintiff is suing grandmother of her son's kids, for the value of a car, or the return of the car.  Plaintiff's son is in jail, and pre-incarceration a title loan was placed on the car to raise bail for loser son.    Plaintiff was taking care of defendant's two grandkids for CPS, family foster (baby was born addicted).     Defendant claims the kids went back to CPS because plaintiff refused to keep watching kids, and defendant's house was unsuitable.     Plaintiff says daughter came to pick up kids, but defendant grandmother doesn't pass rules to keep the kids in her house.  Car is titled in plaintiff's name, order will give possession of car back to plaintiff, and she can sell it to pay off the title loan.   End of case. 

Second (Rerun)-

When Exotic Cats Attack-Plaintiff (cat owner of Abyssinian) suing defendant (dog owner) for injuries to her cat when it attacked leashed dog, and dog nailed cat.   Dog owner was walking on the public street, when cat attacked, and dog grabbed the cat in it's mouth.    Plaintiff's witness is neighbor's son, heard the attack, and rescued the cat from the dog.    Defendant says cat was under the owner's car, and attacked the dog (there is a witness to this), dog owner was pulled down, and injured by the dog pulling, and says cat scratched her leg.   Plaintiff witness thinks cat belong wandering freely (I think he's a loon).    Cat was euthanized, cat owner can pay for that.   

Defendant wants medical bills.   Plaintiff alleges in a nasty letter to defendant claiming defendant's dogs were vicious, and had been banned from several places for aggressive behavior, and biting.   Defendant denies this.  $287 is the co-pay for defendant, and she gets that.   Defendant had multiple cat scratches on quite a few places on her body, and since they didn't know the cat's rabies status, so she was going to get rabies shots pending discovery of cat.    Defendant gets her medical bills paid, and pain and suffering. 

Off to the Races-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan, sexual harassment, and other stuff.   Defendant claims the $5000 was an investment in his race team, in return for 25% of the winnings.  However, defendant admits he has written contract with the race car drivers, race tracks, etc. that he had no written contract with plaintiff.  $5,000 to plaintiff. 

[Byrd is the Word]

45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Incarcerated Son's Loan Loss-Plaintiff is suing grandmother of her son's kids, for the value of a car, or the return of the car.  Plaintiff's son is in jail, and pre-incarceration a title loan was placed on the car to raise bail for loser son.    Plaintiff was taking care of defendant's two grandkids for CPS, family foster (baby was born addicted).     Defendant claims the kids went back to CPS because plaintiff refused to keep watching kids, and defendant's house was unsuitable.     Plaintiff says daughter came to pick up kids, but defendant grandmother doesn't pass rules to keep the kids in her house.  Car is titled in plaintiff's name, order will give possession of car back to plaintiff, and she can sell it to pay off the title loan.   End of case. 

This case is testament to the stupidity of some that with the real life horror going on in this family two grandmothers fly to California to adjudicate a case of some piece of shit car while drug addicted babies are struggling in foster care.  F you both.  Go back home, put your heads together and work on your family.

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff witness thinks cat belong wandering freely (I think he's a loon).

Why JJ let this well intended but goofy, annoying dufus prattle on and on is a mystery. Perhaps it was sushi day and the epp was taped after lunch, which might explain her good humor. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

My suspicion in the kids in foster care case is there was a ton unsaid by the plaintiff.  Mostly about why no one else in the family, including the other grandmother/defendant couldn't pass the foster care requirements to have the two kids.     I don't think it was something small either.  

[configdotsys]

On 10/16/2019 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Fight Over Funeral-Plaintiff suing brother's widow (his wife of two years or five years, and his only marriage).  Defendant is counter suing for a family heirloom's return.   Funeral costs $4131, and defendant borrowed it from plaintiff.   Defendant received a $7700 final expense insurance proceeds, but didn't pay plaintiff/brother in law back.   Apparently, plaintiff bought the giant, butt ugly broach, and he paid the late husband $500 for it.   I don't like the defendant, and think she's trying to stick the plaintiff with the funeral costs, and thought he would never take her to court for them.   She also is not getting the ugly broach back, because plaintiff bought it fair and square, and her story about giving it to plaintiff for safekeeping is garbage.     Defendant's daughter is a loon.    $4131 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.  

This case was a little confusing to me. I thought the defendant and her daughter looked very shady but at one point I am sure I heard the defendant say that she gave the plaintiff a boat and a car when he gave her the money. She didn't seem the type to give those things away so the brother could have something to remember his sibling by so that made me raise and eyebrow and think that it was a trade for the cash so she could pay for the funeral and that was a done deal. I still get a shady vibe there though.

I agree that the whole safekeeping of that brooch was totally bogus. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, 2015 or so-

First-

Charity Golf Drama-Plaintiff suing charity golf match organizer for more money.    Others who won donated cash prizes back to the charity, but not the plaintiff.   Plaintiff gets nothing. 

Who Let the Cat Out-Plaintiff floor installer, suing defendant for non payment, after her cat was allowed to damage the floors by her adult son.     Defendant told to stuff it, it was her son's fault.  I'm not sure if the man ever received his full payment for the floors either.  

Second-

Another Reason Not to Live Together-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend.     Defendant broke his lease to go live with plaintiff, and owed money for that,  but plaintiff says he was evicted for non-payment of rent.  Plaintiff tried to get him booted by the police for garbage, and she gets nothing.    Defendant also told to go pick up his stuff in the next five days with a marshal.    I don't like either person in this case, or defendant's mommy.    

Birthday Punch to the Face-Plaintiff suing nephew for punching holes in his garage door. and when he showed up drunk at the birthday party, he was told to leave.    Defendant claims uncle attacked him for no reason at all, and uncle punched him.    Plaintiff's sister is witness against him.    Witness says defendant had to be stopped coming into the house, got even angrier, and punched the garage or door twice.   $500 to plaintiff for garage door replacement.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first new, second rerun-

First (New)-

Morning After Pill Train Wreck-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend for damages resulting for him causing her to crash her car.    Defendant was going to take plaintiff back to his apartment, after an abortion pill, and defendant didn't believe her story.   Defendant left her apartment, and he saw plaintiff getting in her car, and they talked.   They argued again, with plaintiff in her car.    Plaintiff starts her car, and when defendant grabbed her phone, she drove off, and had an accident.    Defendant claims if plaintiff was pregnant, it was probably her other boyfriend's baby, not his.  Sadly, plaintiff looks rather pregnant, poor kid.   Her insurance covered the damage her car did to the neighbor's property, but she only had liability so they paid nothing for her car.     Police report is less than helpful.     JJ blames defendant for the accident, so plaintiff gets $1,530.    (If plaintiff claims paternity, then a DNA test is certainly a great idea).

Transgender Jitters-Plaintiff wants moving costs, and rent, is suing former property manager.  It was an 8 bedroom house, with two sets of bunk beds in each bedroom.     Rent was $450 a month, sometimes with 4 people in each bedroom.    Plaintiff gave 1 week notice of move out, and claims he harassed her, and wanted her to be a stripper.       Plaintiff also didn't want to associate with a transgender person in the house.    Case dismissed.  (I wonder if it was a sober living, or some other transitional housing situation?)

Second (Rerun)-

Coin Throwing Road Rage Stunt-Plaintiff is suing defendant for a road rage incident where he harassed her, and her child, and damaged her car.    Then defendant man gets out of his car, starts throwing coins at plaintiff's car.       Plaintiff also told defendant teen girlfriend to get in her car for safety, and she did.     Defendant teen witness was going to be late for a therapy appointment, and I suspect it was mandated therapy, and not physical.    Defendant were at his place, and having fun, and in a hurry for witness to get home (girl is 16, and mother had to take her to therapy), when the road rage happened.      Plaintiff said this happened at 12:42 p.m, and 45 minutes from defendant girlfriend's house, and appointment was at 1 p.m.       When they stopped at a light, defendant male started throwing handfuls of coins, she tried to take a picture of his license plate, and he tried to knock the phone out of plaintiff's hand.      She asked girlfriend if she wanted a ride home, and she did.  

As JJ says, why would someone who didn't feel threatened take a ride home with a stranger?   Defendant girlfriend claims the aggressor was the plaintiff.  Police dropped in to talk about the incident with Jacob Couch.    Plaintiff receives $1500.

(I'm laughing at the hall-terview, where Jacob Couch is crying like a two year old.  With the added amusement of his girlfriend telling him to stop it, and someone handing him a lot of tissues.).    The girlfriend is 16, and he's 18.   

Edited October 22, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I'm laughing at the hall-terview, where Jacob Couch is crying like a two year old). 

I’m not proud to share this but I just about hate this kid. Aside from the blatant lies he told, it’s probably due to what I fear is a very, very dangerous temperament (there honey, that’s the correct use of that word). His rage coupled with the crying jag tells he that this is one very unstable dude capable of scary violence. Sooner or later Jacob is going to seriously hurt somebody. If that little woman/child was half as smart as she pretended to be she’d run like hell from Jacob and never, ever look back.

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Morning After Pill Train Wreck

“No one go on Tinder! Ever!” Probably excellent advice. Thank you Miss.

[Byrd is the Word]

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Transgender Jitters-Plaintiff wants moving costs, and rent, is suing former property manager.  It was an 8 bedroom house, with two sets of bunk beds in each bedroom.     Rent was $450 a month, sometimes with 4 people in each bedroom.    Plaintiff gave 1 week notice of move out, and claims he harassed her, and wanted her to be a stripper.       Plaintiff also didn't want to associate with a transgender person in the house. 

Not that I was leaning in her direction, but the “I’m a victim” remark sealed the deal for this curmudgeon. 

[patty1h]

Transgender Jitters-Plaintiff wants moving costs, and rent, is suing former property manager.  It was an 8 bedroom house, with two sets of bunk beds in each bedroom.     Rent was $450 a month, sometimes with 4 people in each bedroom.   

This made me kind of sad - people having little options but to live with strangers and sleep in bunk beds, with no privacy or feeling secure.

[JD5166]

57 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I’m not proud to share this but I just about hate this kid. Aside from the blatant lies he told, it’s probably due to what I fear is a very, very dangerous temperament (there honey, that’s the correct use of that word). His rage coupled with the crying jag tells he that this is one very unstable dude capable of scary violence. Sooner or later Jacob is going to seriously hurt somebody. If that little woman/child was half as smart as she pretended to be she’d run like hell from Jacob and never, ever look back.

“No one go on Tinder! Ever!” Probably excellent advice. Thank you Miss.

Definitely got a Bonnie & Clyde vibe off of these two. I can’t believe 16 year old girl didn’t get a lecture from JJ on her choice of outfit to wear to court. I wish we had gotten his age, did  anyone hear he said he thought his MAID was home when they were at his house hanging out? I hope that maid gets paid A LOT to deal with this little shitstain. Troubling indeed. 

[DoctorK]

20 minutes ago, patty1h said:

live with strangers and sleep in bunk beds, with

Sounds like being in the Army, but they contribute to this country,not so sure about flop house residents.

[Byrd is the Word]

10 hours ago, JD5166 said:

I can’t believe 16 year old girl didn’t get a lecture from JJ on her choice of outfit to wear to court

She pretended to be incredulous when the very believable plaintiff described the daisy dukes and halter top she was wearing on the day of the incident. As if anyone seeing all the skin she displayed in court thought the plaintiff was lying.

[funky-rat]

15 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I’m not proud to share this but I just about hate this kid. Aside from the blatant lies he told, it’s probably due to what I fear is a very, very dangerous temperament (there honey, that’s the correct use of that word). His rage coupled with the crying jag tells he that this is one very unstable dude capable of scary violence. Sooner or later Jacob is going to seriously hurt somebody. If that little woman/child was half as smart as she pretended to be she’d run like hell from Jacob and never, ever look back.

I remember this one the first time around, and thought "There's a show on the ID Channel in the making...."

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I'm laughing at the hall-terview, where Jacob Couch is crying like a two year old.  With the added amusement of his girlfriend telling him to stop it, and someone handing him a lot of tissues.).    The girlfriend is 16, and he's 18.   

Sometimes when I watch the reruns, I think "ehhh, not worth paying attention to" as they aren't that amusing the second time around. Jacob Couch LIVES on my DVR and is password-protected so he isn't deleted accidentally (plus his Winona Ryder-ish GF with the Heathers attitude). Such an entitled little fellow. Did anybody else hear that when they were at the home, he supposed "the maid" was there. (Ooops, I saw you posted that as well JD5166)  Oh la-dee-dahhh. And it was soooo much better watching because I knew the hallterview was coming with his boo-hooing. I actually watched his face start to dissolve during the case and I was waiting for the inevitable "IT'S NOT FAAAAAIIIRRRR" to pop out of his mouth. I imagine Winona Part Two slapped him around in the car on the way back to the hotel. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by ItsHelloPattiagain
edited post cos I wasn't paying attention

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2015 or so-

First-

Teen Savings Stolen by Mom-Plaintiff daughter wants her money back from her CD back, that the mother stole.   Since the daughter was a minor, the mother's name was on the account.  When daughter married last year, she went to the bank to cash the CD in. no one could find her account, then it was discovered that the mother cashed the CD in right after it was opened, almost 12 years ago.  Mother denies cashing the CD in, and claims if she cashed it in, the daughter wanted her to do it, but she doesn't remember anyway.    Daughter moved out at 18, and never moved back, put herself through college.   Sadly, there is not enough evidence to prove mother stole the money.      (I think the mother is full of it, her daughter never goes back to the home town, moved out the second she could, and the mother says they have a good relationship?  I don't believe it).    Case dismissed.  

Double Surgery Beat Down-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for loans for car down payment, and medical and living expenses.  Girlfriend wasn't working for a while because of repeated surgeries.    Case dismissed.  

Second-

Family Emergency Upset-Plaintiff suing car seller.   Plaintiff purchased car online ($4500), defendant ran into family issues, ghosted plaintiff, and then resold the car to someone else, also sold through Ebay.      Ebay paid back $4500, but not an additional $850 plaintiff paid for car repairs to the defendant.  Defendant paid back $3200 to Ebay.    Defendant's emergency was a family member was stabbed.    $850 to plaintiff, defendant's counter claim is dismissed, because it's flim flam.   

Cancer or No Cancer-Plaintiff allowed defendant to rent car using her credit card, for transportation to and from doctor's appointments for a cancer diagnosis.   A year later he's still not sure of his diagnosis.    Rental was $898, for three weeks.   Car was damaged by tree falling on it, and defendant kept car for an extra week also.   Defendant also had a fund raising and kept that money also.    Defendant has never been treated for cancer in the year since the car rental, he received $1200 from a GoFundMe, and kept the money.    The plaintiff is certainly enjoying JJ ripping the defendant to shreds, and I am also.   Defendant claims he offered to return money to GoFundMe donors, but plaintiff says several of the people were her relatives, and they were never offered their money back.   $898 for plaintiff. 

Prison Visit Crash-Plaintiff suing defendant for crashing her car.   They were visiting their respective partners, during the partners' unfortunate incarceration.    They shared driving, and when defendant was driving, she crashed the car.  Case dismissed. 

[Byrd is the Word]

31 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I imagine Winona Part Two slapped him around in the car on the way back to the hotel.

When she told him (he off camera) “stop it!” I’m saying to anyone listening “wait for it, wait for it!” 💥 😥😥😥

[ButYourHonor]

Soooo... obese guy beat about the head with a bat wielded by tweaked-looking blonde...

And she says in the halterview that he didn’t press charges because he knew he deserved it.

And she heard him yelling and saying he was bleeding and she said, “Good!”

AND SHE HAS CHILDREN.

Someone please call CPS.  Good grief.

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, ButYourHonor said:

Soooo... obese guy beat about the head with a bat wielded by tweaked-looking blonde...

And she says in the halterview that he didn’t press charges because he knew he deserved it.

And she heard him yelling and saying he was bleeding and she said, “Good!”

AND SHE HAS CHILDREN.

Someone please call CPS.  Good grief.

This is one of those infamous cases everyone remembers, and ALL have the same reaction to.  Yikes and more yikes.

Edited October 22, 2019 by SandyToes

[WhoaWhoKnew]

1 hour ago, ButYourHonor said:

Soooo... obese guy beat about the head with a bat wielded by tweaked-looking blonde...

And she says in the halterview that he didn’t press charges because he knew he deserved it.

And she heard him yelling and saying he was bleeding and she said, “Good!”

AND SHE HAS CHILDREN.

Someone please call CPS.  Good grief.

Our friend Crystal from Wyoming is currently in the joint for meth dealing!

https://k2radio.com/casper-woman-sentenced-to-prison-in-methamphetamine-conspiracy/

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first new, second rerun-

First-(New)-

Old Fence = New Dog Attack-Plaintiff suing neighbor for vet bills, and fence damages for his small dogs.    Neighbors share a fence line.    Plaintiff came home and found his dogs injured, with the fence broken down, and tufts of hair all over his back lawn.    As usual, defendant claims her big dogs are just fence fighting, and never hurt anyone's dogs.   Plaintiff believes the fence was repaired before he got home, by the defendant.   Animal control report says one of her dogs was tearing at the fence, broke a slat, and tried to get through the fence at the plaintiff's smaller dog.   JJ is upset plaintiff didn't block his doggy door after previous attack by neighbor's dog.  

Defendant still denies her dog attacked, even after the animal control report, and previous attack witnessed by another neighbor.   Defendant's big mouthed husband is booted.     Defendant's dogs had expired licenses, and rabies vaccinations were out of date.    Plaintiff $2,000 for vet bills, but not for the fence damages.   

Gas Tank Full of Sugar-Plaintiff claims brother damaged his car, by putting sugar in the gas tank.    Defendant denies the sugar in the gas tank, but claims plaintiff kicked his car.    There is a video of brother kicking the glass out in defendant's car, of course since it's in a snow storm, and everyone is bundled up, no identification is possible.  $1,000 for plaintiff, and $700 to defendant, so plaintiff actually receives $300. 

Second-(Rerun)-

Endangered Children, and Rescue Dogs-Plaintiff hired handyman to replace patio roof, and change it to an enclosed room.    Plaintiff claims damages from nails, and left over junk in her yard that injured the rescue dogs, and her children.    A previous addition was a carport converted to a guest house.     Defendant was hired off of craigslist.  The backyard photos look like a junk yard, and she claims yard doesn't look that bad, compared to when plaintiff moved in four years ago.   Her rescue dogs and kids play in that junky back yard?    The patio roof is rolled roofing, it was quoted just over $1k for labor, and $967 for materials.   Defendant also replaced some roof plywood, but didn't charge for it.    Roof leaked after two days, and defendant blames leaks on the add on roof of the old addition.   JJ is right, he should have turned down the job.  $1,000 to plaintiff, and that's all.   

Apprentice Plumber Bailout-Plaintiff suing former friend for two unpaid loans.  Defendant lived in plaintiff's house for about a year, and claims his work around the house replaced rent, and the loans, $2842.  $2900 to plaintiff. 

[bad things are bad]

17 hours ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

Our friend Crystal from Wyoming is currently in the joint for meth dealing!

Gee, maybe if her parents had named her Mary Jane she wouldn't be doing such a long sentence

[Byrd is the Word]

20 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

Gee, maybe if her parents had named her Mary Jane she wouldn't be doing such a long sentence

Ha! I see what you did there! Well played sister. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm episodes, both repeats about 2016 or so-

First-

Pool Man in Hot Water-Plaintiff pool man (independent contractor) suing defendant (pool company owner) for money owed.   Plaintiff says his ex-wife told defendant (former employer) that he was stealing clients.    Defendant wrote a check to plaintiff for $1570, and plaintiff went to the bank and there was a stop payment on the check, and a previous $900 check had a stop payment also.  However, defendant claims plaintiff stole pool supplies, and sold them online.  Plaintiff claims all of the things he sold online, but bought it from someone who was going out of business, he didn't steal it. Plaintiff receives $2470 for the two bad checks.   

Upside Down Truck Deal-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for payments for truck she co-signed on, then she refinanced the truck on in plaintiff's name, but defendant made all of the truck payments.  Plaintiff took truck back after this,  sold it, and kept the money.    Plaintiff wants JJ to ignore the $5k she made on truck, and pay her for repairs, and maintenance on truck too.  Case dismissed

Second-

Dog Park Playdate Gone Wrong-Plaintiff invited people to come to a dog play date at a dog park, and after her dog snapped at defendant's Great Dane, the Great Dane defended itself.  It's called a dog park for a reason.     Plaintiff also claims Great Dane has attacked defendant's infant daughter, which is a total lie.       Both litigants say their dogs are not aggressive, or have bite histories.    Defendant was outside the dog park, left the area, came back later to the dog park.   Plaintiff claims defendant's dog went after witnesses two smaller dogs, and claims defendant's dog then attacked plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff's dog was off leash, but defendant's dog was leashed.    As JJ and defendant point out, if the Great Dane had made an aggressive move on her infant daughter, the dog would be dead.   

Defendant says plaintiff's dog went after her dog, and her dog snapped at the plaintiff's dog, defendant pulled her dog away, took her dogs home, and came back to the dog park alone to see how the other dog was doing.      Defendant says plaintiff never checked on her dog, or got off her phone, while defendant carried the dog to plaintiff's car so she could take dog to the vet.      Defendant had to get a cease-and-desist letter to plaintiff.     

Case dismissed. 

No Pity for Playing House-Plaintiff and her mother are suing plaintiff's ex-boyfriend for totaling her car while her three children were in the car (litigants have one child together).  The car was purchased on payments, required to have insurance, but at the time of the accident the car wasn't insured.   Defendant wasn't on insurance when it existed, and he didn't have a license anyway.   Case dismissed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one rerun-

First (New)-

High School Reunion Fail- Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan to obtain an attorney.   The litigants went to the same high school, and defendant wanted money to pay for an attorney for a custody battle.    Loans were for $3500, and the next day $1,000.   After the loan was made, defendant claims plaintiff wanted her to date him.    Unfortunately, plaintiff received $60,000 worker's comp. settlement(he's spent all but $20,000).   The litigants agreed on $20 a month repayment, and paid nothing.  The defendant has a disabled 18 year old, and a one year old that is the subject of the custody battle.   Defendant lives off of state aid, and her mother's help.    Plaintiff had no expectation of repayment.       Defendant is trying to paint herself as a victim, in my opinion, she's more like a predator.    The second he wanted repayment, she dumped him.   Text messages say that if the father of the kid in the custody battle has to pay her attorney fees, then she'll pay him back in a lump sum, so it is a loan.  

Nancie just called JJ rude, I call it JJ being totally honest in this case.   Plaintiff receives $4500.  

Second (Rerun)-

Dance Business Fail-Plaintiff (rents a commercial space, and sublets to other businesses) is suing defendant/dance instructor for failure to pay rent for dance studio ($1430), lock changing fee, and cleaning fee.    As usual, defendant claims she paid cash, and never had receipts from plaintiff.   Defendant claims she paid all of the rent, and her co-signer on the lease didn't.  Plaintiff claims defendant paid partial rent.    The contract says that the security deposit was actually added to lease, so it's more than the cost of the unpaid rent, and cleaning.     Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant left a dance floor behind, and she can forget getting paid for that too.   I didn't like either litigant in this case.  

Judge Judy Vents About Child Abuse-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for the cost of laptop computer, and lost wages.   They have one child together, and plaintiff has an older child too.   Defendant has the one with plaintiff, and four other children, but no job.    Plaintiff had two paid off cars, let defendant drive car, and in exchange he was going to give her the laptop.    One child is $300 a month child support, the other three are not supported, and he puts the dead in deadbeat dad.    Of course, defendant's paying nothing on the fifth child with the plaintiff.    Too bad, the plaintiff seems like a reasonably intelligent person, except with the defendant's bad prior record of non-support of four other kids.    $2,000 to plaintiff. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

JJ failed to see the charms of Deadbeat x5, and I second that emotion.  Both this woman and the man in the Nancie case are being ruled by their gonads, and they are both losing horribly!

[Cobalt Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, basiltherat said:

JJ failed to see the charms of Deadbeat x5, and I second that emotion.  Both this woman and the man in the Nancie case are being ruled by their gonads, and they are both losing horribly!

He seemed a bit challenged, which might have been a product of whatever he got a settlement for. I'm glad he got his money back, I just hope he learned something here.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant is trying to paint herself as a victim, in my opinion, she's more like a predator.    The second he wanted repayment, she dumped him.   Text messages say that if the father of the kid in the custody battle has to pay her attorney fees, then she'll pay him back in a lump sum, so it is a loan.   

Oh Nancie, just when the plaintiff’s case was about to be dismissed you sabotage your victory with your own text message evidence. We’ve seen this case 100 times. Dud guy loans much more attractive woman money and expects a romantic bond as a result. She plays the damsel in distress well, with full knowledge of what’s going to happen next and is willing to trade a bunch of unwanted advances for four grand cash. It doesn’t change whether or not it was a loan, but probably not a loan he’d make to an ugly woman. Agreed, she’s a predator. However, I award her 5 style points for calling out JJ for the unnecessary rude remark.

[7EasyPayments]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one rerun-

First (New)-

High School Reunion Fail- Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan to obtain an attorney.   The litigants went to the same high school, and defendant wanted money to pay for an attorney for a custody battle.    Loans were for $3500, and the next day $1,000.   After the loan was made, defendant claims plaintiff wanted her to date him.    Unfortunately, plaintiff received $60,000 worker's comp. settlement(he's spent all but $20,000).   The litigants agreed on $20 a month repayment, and paid nothing.  The defendant has a disabled 18 year old, and a one year old that is the subject of the custody battle.   Defendant lives off of state aid, and her mother's help.    Plaintiff had no expectation of repayment.       Defendant is trying to paint herself as a victim, in my opinion, she's more like a predator.    The second he wanted repayment, she dumped him.   Text messages say that if the father of the kid in the custody battle has to pay her attorney fees, then she'll pay him back in a lump sum, so it is a loan.   

Nancie just called JJ rude, I call it totally honest in this case.   Plaintiff receives $4500.  

The defendant needed a bit of a reality check, not that it will sink into her delusional head.

Always the victim, always 'hot as hell' to not very bright heterosexual men.

"You're NOT a prize" was JJ being atypically diplomatic !!!!!!!!!!! 🤣

[augmentedfourth]

Oh man, JJ telling Nancie she wasn't a prize was amazing, because clearly no one had dared suggest that to her before. Yeah, it was rude, but it didn't make me cheer at my TV screen any less.

[LisainCali]

Oh, wow, Nancie has the most lovely of hair highlights and lowlights, plus a pretty great cut.  How does she do that On $600/month?  

she must not live in LA.....

[Raiku66]

Basically my dad said he remembers this episode which was really intimidating or something in a way. The case was about a missing / stolen treadmill and the defendant (I think he’s defendant) was acting like a real mafioso and the guy in a intimidating way asked: ”what happened to it” or something to the likes of that. and his girl said: ”i sold it” essentially making a fool out of him. My dad described it as after she said that he looked like her in a psychopatic way, like he was gonna kill her or something

i know my description is horrible but need help finding the episode, my dad wants to see it again

[KittyMom4]

13 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

She plays the damsel in distress well, with full knowledge of what’s going to happen next and is willing to trade a bunch of unwanted advances for four grand cash.

She definitely played the damsel in distress very well, methinks it is not the first time or will it be the last time. The whole "my child is disabled" defense was another attempt at gaining sympathy for her case. 

12 hours ago, 7EasyPayments said:

The defendant needed a bit of a reality check, not that it will sink into her delusional head.

Always the victim, always 'hot as hell' to not very bright heterosexual men.

"You're NOT a prize" was JJ being atypically diplomatic !!!!!!!!!!! 🤣

I did not find her attractive, especially watching her head slant, mouth sneer every time she talked. I'm sure she turns on the charm for the likes of the Plaintiff who don't get a shot at many women, let alone one who may be slightly good looking. Her demeanor was very "I can do way better than this guy." As if. Sounds like she may reel them in with some the cute little girl thing but they don't stay long once they get a look at what she's really like.

9 hours ago, LisainCali said:

Oh, wow, Nancie has the most lovely of hair highlights and lowlights, plus a pretty great cut.  How does she do that On $600/month?  

she must not live in LA.....

There's a sucker born every day, they just don't all go to court to get their money back.  

I'm glad JJ called her out with the "You are NOT a prize!" JJ was not referring to her physical appearance, but more of the fact that she had no job, no discernible income, had 2 children (18 years apart, wth????) with no baby daddy in the picture and she still has to ask mommy and Byrd for money to pay for her lovely hair. 

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

High School Reunion Fail-

I was dreading that JJ was inching towards dismissing the case on the basis of a strict interpretation of the "reasonable expectation of reimbursement¨ criterion. The twist of the hateful defendant providing the evidence that decided the case against her was very pleasant. I wonder if JJ knew that something like that existed because there may have been a hint of it in the file.

The plaintiff should have been the one to provide that evidence; he was lucky that the defendant fell victim to overconfidence. He was not very good at presenting his case, perhaps as a result of some cognitive deficiency. Which made him a prime mark for vultures like this greedy witch, who was prompt at taking advantage of it.

She is indeed not a prize, nor a victim.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

I was really afraid JJ was going to say high school reunion loan was not a loan, because of no expectation of repayment.     Another scammer who was tripped up by their own texts.     

[poeticlicensed]

So let me get this straight, Nancie trolls guy from HS guy on social media and in a hot minute gives the guy the poor me sob story and he, who is unemployed, but has 60K burning a hole in his pocket, gives her a loan. And he's not suspicious, at all? Duh. 

My fave part of JJ is when the defendant/plaintiff offers evidence that torpedoes thie case. This was classic. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by poeticlicensed

[WhoaWhoKnew]

Nancie is awful. I can't even begin to imagine what an asshole she had to have been in high school if this is her as an adult.

[funky-rat]

16 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

So let me get this striaght, Nancie trolls guy from HS guy on social media and in a hot minute gives the guy the poor me sob story and he, who is unemployed, but has 60K burning a hole in his pocket, gives her a loan. And he's not suspicious, at all? Duh. 

My fave part of JJ is when the defendant/plaintiff offers evidence that torpedoes thie case. This was classic. 

Like others, I'm somewhat confident he's a little "slow".  I'm sure she laid it on thick because he kept saying he feared she would lose her kids, and seemed to have genuine compassion for her.  Too bad it was abused.

[Byrd is the Word]

4 hours ago, Raiku66 said:

Basically my dad said he remembers this episode which was really intimidating or something in a way.

"I don't want to hear "basically"!

Edited October 24, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Carolina Girl]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I was really afraid JJ was going to say high school reunion loan was not a loan, because of no expectation of repayment.     Another scammer who was tripped up by their own texts.     

Am I the only one who is tired of the judges in these cases putting the onus on the lender?  I don't care if they had an expectation of the loan to be repaid or not, the idiot BORROWED money, and told the lender they'd pay it back by giving them some story that they'll have it in two months, their tax return, yada yada.  These are friends of the lender (usually) who come to them with a (usually) desperate need for money which the pigeon agrees to lend them.  They aren't going to ask for pay stubs or run an Equifax before forking over the bucks - heck they usually don't get an IOU.  I'm sure the borrowers don't give them a clear picture of their finances, and I'm sick of these judges with their "did you really think they'd repay it."  YES THEY DID, or they wouldn't have given it to them in the first place.   There's the occasional exception, but the lengths to which these deadbeat defendants go to justify not repaying them tells me they knew damn well it was a loan and that they were supposed to pay it back.