All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[funky-rat]

2 hours ago, nora1992 said:

Defendant admitted to paying $5500 for her puppy, so $3500 was a discounted price.  I believe the plaintiffs; the defendant didn't live up to the deal.

I do believe she agreed to pay something, and her text messages proved that, but I don't know that they decided on a price, or even cash, because there was mention of breeding, IIRC, and D also said that P said she didn't want her sister to get the dog back (so there was something going on there).  I think she decided to not pay when P started showing up at her house and creating problems, and decided she was better off giving the dog away to get P off her back.  Not the right way to handle it, but it was a cluster from the start.

Edited October 30, 2019 by funky-rat

[SRTouch]

On 10/29/2019 at 5:35 PM, AuntiePam said:

Who are these young people who can afford to pay thousands of dollars for a dog?  They're not breeders and the dogs aren't show dogs -- so what the heck?

'Nother example of living beyond their means.... woman even negotiates payment plan because she doesn't have the money..... but wasn't there mention of venturing into a future backyard breeding operation.

Then we heard how defendant quickly decided second dog was 'too much' for her to handle. I wonder if it was really the dog or did she just learn that French bulldogs are not the cheapest/easiest breed for beginner backyard breeders to breed. As you mention,  Frenchies are trendy. And a breed prone to multiple heath risks caused by inbreeding to get those all important papers. Like all big headed breeds natural births are problematic & a cesarean often needed - also, I read that it is not uncommon for artificial insemination to be needed.

All that said, I think this was another example of JJ ruling based on her world view rather than the evidence and litigants before her. She scoffs at idea that anyone would agree to pay more for an young intact adult than a puppy. Sure, breeders discount the asking price once the puppy gets older, but lots of people are still willing to pay up based on emotion or just not knowing puppies cost more (personally, I'd rather have the older dog - but then I'd never pay out thousands when I can go to a rescue - but the disadvantage of an older dog is fact it may not have been properly socialized). Then JJ dismisses idea that people would be willing to pay big bucks for future unregistered pups. Hey, one of these two dogs didn't have papers - but both these litigants paid big bucks for their dogs (didn't we hear the unregistered dog cost more than the one with papers - I've already deleted the recording so can't go back and check). Apparently JJ doesn't realize some people are willing to pay up for the latest trend/breed/brand. Just like those pretentious fools who brag about their BMW or Mercedes without mentioning fact that it's 20 years old and barely runs between trips to mechanic, there are far too many people willing and eager to pay up to buy the latest trendy dog without caring whether or not it is registered. Heck, if you just come up with some catchy name you sell your mutt puppies for big bucks.

ok, starting to rant, time to stop

Edited October 31, 2019 by SRTouch

[funky-rat]

12 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

 Hey, one of these two dogs didn't have papers - but both these litigants paid big bucks for their dogs (didn't we hear the unregistered dog cost more than the one with papers - I've already deleted the recording so can't go back and check). 

The unregistered dog cost D $5500.  The registered dog cost P $3500.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, probably 2015-2016-

First-

Crock of Baloney-Plaintiff suing defendant/former roommate.      Defendant hasn't paid rent in over five months, still lives in the apartment, and landlord has finally started eviction proceedings.    Plaintiff, his fiance, and defendant shared an apartment, all three signed the lease, and both sides want lease breaking fees.   Plaintiff and fiance moved out early, but paid the last two months rent as a lease breaking fee.     Plaintiff also claims defendant damaged his car.  (Defendant needs to cover up her ample hooters, hanging out in court.  One sneeze and we'll get to see all of her assets).    (Plaintiff's fiance is named Purple Herzig).      No one claims to be present when car was damaged.  Defendant Suarez is another reason I'll never be a landlord.    Defendant had plaintiff's car, and she sent a text and photo, and says the car was hit while she had it.   Plaintiff gets $3,000 rent from defendant (That pays for his rent shortfall, and the car, even though JJ said she wouldn't pay for the car damages). 

Pit Bull Chomps Chihuahua-Plaintiff suing defendant for pit bull chomping on her Chihuahua (6 year old dog, 13 pounds) while 8 year old owner watched in horror.    Defendant claims the tiny Chihuahua ran into her apartment, and her dog was being protective (Total Bull Pucky).    Cute plaintiff's kid was leashed Chihuahua, when Snickers the Pit Bull charged out of defendant's apartment, and attacked the tiny dog.      Little girl testifies the dog is off leash outside the defendant's apartment, and growls when the girl and her dog pass.     The apartment complex needs to boot the defendant, and her vicious dog, and I hope they did.   Lucky for the little girl and dog, the plaintiff was watching them out the window and saw the attack.   Little girl says defendant was sitting outside the complex, when the Pit Bull charged the girl and the dog.    Defendant now has muzzle on her vicious animal, and has this dog around her two year old child (she has four kids, 8,7, 6, and 2 years old). 

 Defendant got the dog only two weeks before, and bought for $20.     Defendant claims Chi charged inside her door, and Snickers the Pit Bull attacked the poor little dog.     Total garbage.      My guess, even though Snickers the Chi. chewer is supposed to wear a muzzle, I bet it doesn't happen.    Defendant gave dog to man who lives in Idaho (they live in Spokane).    $800 to plaintiff.    

Second-

Hothead Road Rage-Plaintiff driving little Hyundai claims defendant (driving huge Silverado) damaged his car by kicking it, after chasing him down to road in his car.   Defendant lies through his teeth, claims plaintiff went across several lanes of traffic, cutting him and another driver off, and pulled into a convenience store parking lot.    Defendant followed the plaintiff, stopped his truck, got out, and went up to Hyundai.   (Sorry, I don't believe the tiny, frail looking plaintiff, who can't stand at the plaintiff table, threatened anyone, especially Moby Dick the defendant).    

Plaintiff says defendant harassed him on the road, followed him to the gas station, and kicked the plaintiff's car.   JJ says she thinks plaintiff wanted to go to the gas station, and did turn abruptly, and that doesn't justify defendant cornering plaintiff, instead of calling the police.  Decision for plaintiff, and defendant is still a jerk.  

Joy Ride or Hell Ride?-Plaintiff suing former friend for destroying her car's engine during a drag race.   Plaintiff let defendant drive her car to some party, and on the way the defendant drag raced the plaintiff's car (a Saturn, not a muscle car).   Defendant went 80 mph, in a car with 198,000 miles on it, and a couple of miles later the engine started making noises, and now needs the engine replaced.      $1813 to plaintiff for new engine.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Teen Hospitalized After Cat Attack-Plaintiff teen was attacked by the neighbor's cat after it broke through the plaintiff's window screen.      Plaintiff had a lot of scratches, and was hospitalized.   Defendant's cat did not have rabies vaccine either, and defendant claims it wasn't her cat that attacked.   Defendant is suing for moving expenses, because she was harassed over the cat attack.    Defendant's boyfriend was home that day, and lies that the cat was with him all day.   Defendant witness says "Sorry Miss Judy", and I wish Byrd would kick his lying fanny out.       Plaintiff was home with her own infant son, and her mothers 1 year old, and her own boyfriend, and the window was open.     Defendant never took her cat to the vet for shots in the two plus years she had it.    Plaintiff went to shut the window, when the cat came through the screen, scratched her arms severely, and was later hospitalized for I.V. antibiotics for infection from the cat scratches.     Defendant claims cat was indoor only, but plaintiff said the cat was wandering often.  

Defendant's mother and boyfriend saw the teen's injuries, and later boyfriend told the girlfriend about the attack.    $4,000 to plaintiff.   Defendant was evicted.    

Daddy Down Payment Drama-Plaintiff father suing daughter and fiance, for unpaid loan for house down payment.    Defendants claim it was a gift, and she owns nothing.    Defendant and fiance wanted to get a place of their own, and they went to talk to plaintiff about financing them.  Defendant fiance says he had enough income to pay mortgage, but not enough for the down payment.   For a $90000 house, and needed $9200 down payment, and father loaned them $4100.  The defendants paid $100 to plaintiff.   Counter claim is defendants say father called CPS to get listed as an alternative resource for the child, after someone made a report to CPS that defendants were using drugs in the home.   Defendants one payment means it's a loan, not a gift.  $4100 to plaintiff, defendants' counter claim dismissed. 

Second (Rerun)-

Vigilante Boutique Thief Caught on Tape-Plaintiff boutique owner suing former employee for coming into boutique, and stealing a lot of merchandise.   The theft was all caught on tape.    Defendant payment was $10 an hour, and two outfits a month, but claims she was never paid anything.     After defendant left the plaintiff's employment, plaintiff claims defendant came in the store after hours, and stole a lot of merchandise.   Plaintiff pressed charges, and her vehicle was impounded as part of the criminal investigation.   No criminal charges were filed, and defendant wants attorney fees, etc.   Plaintiff said she tried to pay defendant $400, and defendant refused to accept it.    Plaintiff said she knew she owed the defendant, so plaintiff took a part time job to make money to pay defendant.  $608 to defendant for unpaid wages.     After plaintiff delayed payment another week (for her pay day), plaintiff claims defendant stole a lot of clothing, and it's all on video.    Plaintiff witness, landlord testifies she accidentally erased part of the tape.     

Counterclaim of defendant dismissed (there goes her $608).     

JJ's staff will printout receipts from plaintiff for items shown defendant stealing on the video.     Plaintiff receives money for her merchandise

(Warning; tomorrow's rerun episode is a graphic dog attack on another dog)

[Cobalt Stargazer]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

After plaintiff delayed payment another week (for her pay day), plaintiff claims defendant stole a lot of clothing, and it's all on video.    Plaintiff witness, landlord testifies she accidentally erased part of the tape.    

The defendant seemed like she had a good chance of winning her counterclaim before JJ saw the tape of her stealing things, though I do wonder how she didn't know there'd be surveillance cameras.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Car Scammer Held at Gunpoint-Plaintiff suing defendants over a car trade.  (Defendants claim they barely knew plaintiff, but plaintiff claims she knew them for years).  Litigants traded a Chrysler for a Mercedes, signed and exchanged titles.   There were outstanding loans on plaintiff's vehicle, defendants were ticked.      Lien on plaintiff Chrysler was $12,000 and a week later car was repossessed by lien holder from defendant's house.  Defendants reported Mercedes Benz  stolen, plaintiff was pulled over by police, and a meth pipe was found during the subsequent search.  Plaintiff also had an active felony warrant, lied about her name to the police.     Plaintiff claims she tried to register Mercedes, but couldn't.     Plaintiff claims defendants knew about the $12K lien, no they didn't.   Mercedes was retrieved by defendants, he fixed it up, and resold it.  

However, JJ claims since the title was signed over that they illegally reported Mercedes stolen, however, it was over 30 days since the sale and not reregistered in plaintiff's name.     Plaintiff is getting what she deserves, nothing.    Defendant wife gets the boot.   As JJ points out the plaintiff committed fraud.   Chrysler is only worth half of the lien value.   Defendant is suing for towing and impound fees.  Defendant claims plaintiff lied about everything in the police report.    (The audience is certainly enjoying the plaintiff's stupid statements to JJ).   Case dismissed, nothing to anybody in this case. 

Oops! I Hit It Again-Plaintiff suing defendant for backing into his car in a parking lot, and it's on video.   As usual, defendant denies he did it, claims he wasn't at the location when it was hit, and doesn't believe the accident happened, in spite of very clear video.   The video shows in wonderful detail defendant backing into the plaintiff's car, and the plaintiff's car being shoved back a few feet.    Plaintiff receives $1,038 for car damages.    (Defendant is awful in the hallterview).

Second-

Dalmatian Claims Victory Over Pit Bull-Plaintiff (Pit Bull/Beagle cross owner) suing defendants (Dalmatian) for vet bills for an attack by defendant dog.   Plaintiff has two dogs, and was walking them on leash, when defendant wife opened garage door, letting the defendant's dog out, and the attack happened.      All three dogs were injured by mace used by plaintiff to separate dogs.  Defendants claim plaintiff's dogs were actually on defendant's property when the attack happened.    It took four months for plaintiff to get the animal control report.    

Plaintiff said he was walking his dogs in the street, and defendant's garage opened, and their Dalmatian charged and attacked the plaintiff's Pit Bull.   Plaintiff maced the dogs to get the fight ended.  Defendant claims her mother opened the house door, and let the dog out.   Both defendants' statements contradict each other.   Plus defendant wife claims she was warming her car up, in June, in San Diego.  Defendant wife claims plaintiff was carrying a baseball bat, and attacked her dog while it was on their property.       Defendant's son claims to have seen other incidents involving plaintiff dogs, and defendant husband gets booted.   Defendant wife has video that she claims shows plaintiff walking on her property, but he's actually on the sidewalk and then the street.   $212.45 for vet bills.  I don't blame the plaintiff for carrying a baseball bat now when he walks his dogs.   

50K Bail and Seizures in Jail-Plaintiff suing defendant (her cousin) for an unpaid loan for bail.   Defendant was arrested for domestic violence, had been in jail for a few weeks before bail was posted.  Plaintiff says defendant called him collect from jail, and told her he needed $50k assured bail.   Defendant counter suing for plaintiff posting his arrest record, which is apparently pretty extensive.     Plaintiff put up $3,000 for bail, he repaid $195, and JJ awards plaintiff $2805, and nothing to defendant    

[AuntiePam]

JJ again shows ignorance of cars.  Yeah, nobody's gonna warm up their car in June, but JJ insisted that the defendant could not start the car as described, because you have to have a foot on the brake before the car will start.

Remote start, JJ? 

Today was sure a day for litigants who talked out of turn.  Sometimes I get annoyed with JJ for shutting people up, but now I understand why it's necessary.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My question in the dog attack case is why would anyone warm up their car in San Diego in June?     And I would have to question anything defendant wife, and the rest of her family said.    They all seemed to think that JJ would believe any of their outrageous statements.     

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Car Scammer Held at Gunpoint-Plaintiff suing defendants over a car trade.  (Defendants claim they barely knew plaintiff, but plaintiff claims she knew them for years)

I had some questions while watching this one - First) we know p was druggy, & she claims to be friends with Ds son - or at least knows Ds through the son..... wondered if she was prematurely aged from the drug use, or just hung out with much younger son..... course, maybe she was his kindergarten teacher back in the day

Quote

Litigants traded a Chrysler for a Mercedes, signed and exchanged titles.   There were outstanding loans on plaintiff's vehicle, defendants were ticked.      Lien on plaintiff Chrysler was $12,000 and a week later car was repossessed by lien holder from defendant's house.

Didn't I hear that she had two separate loans out on the Chrysler totalling 10 or 12 grand? If I heard correctly, I wonder how she took out the second loan when there was already a lien - and how did she get a loan seeing as she was homeless, had a drug history, all with an active felony warrant...... maybe she lost her kindergarten teacher job after her arrest..... (yes, I know teacher job just a figment of my imagination)

Quote

Defendants reported Mercedes Benz  stolen, plaintiff was pulled over by police, and a meth pipe was found during the subsequent search.  Plaintiff also had an active felony warrant, lied about her name to the police. Plaintiff claims she tried to register Mercedes, but couldn't.     Plaintiff claims defendants knew about the $12K lien, no they didn't.   Mercedes was retrieved by defendants, he fixed it up, and resold it.

Quote

However, JJ claims since the title was signed over that they illegally reported Mercedes stolen, however, it was over 30 days since the sale and not reregistered in plaintiff's name. 

D's claim that his jurisdiction allows him to report car stolen if new buyer doesn't transfer title almost sounds reasonable. However, I think it more likely that the State requires new owner to register car, and if that isn't done within a reasonable time period the original owner can go to DMV get name taken off title after showing proof of the sale - then State would revoke registration and go after buyer. I really don't know, I've never sold/bought a car in a private sale. What happened here doesn't seem kosher, though, as D would have had P's car & able to sell his car twice (except, of course, for the part where hers wasn't hers to trade & was repo'ed)

Quote

Plaintiff is getting what she deserves, nothing.    Defendant wife gets the boot.   

Well deserved, but really all three litigants needed to get booted

Quote

Oops! I Hit It Again-Plaintiff suing defendant for backing into his car in a parking lot, and it's on video.   As usual, defendant denies he did it, claims he wasn't at the location when it was hit, and doesn't believe the accident happened, in spite of very clear video.   The video shows in wonderful detail defendant backing into the plaintiff's car, and the plaintiff's car being shoved back a few feet.    Plaintiff receives $1,038 for car damages.    (Defendant is awful in the hallterview).

Another case where someone who should have learned to accept responsibility for his actions failed miserably. Made even worse by lame excuses he tried - no reason to check for damages, he knew what he hit - even after video he tries to deny hitting P car, he just hit the sign, JJ replays it and tells him to watch P's car as he smashes into it - and we're not talking a slight tap - old dude smashes back into P's car - then later, after finally admitting he hit car, tries to claim everything would have been settled through his insurance (although P testified D lied to cops about his insurance) without court, if if he knew about the video (sort of wonder if old dude even has insurance)

Quote

skipped this one - Dalmatian Claims Victory Over Pit Bull

Quote

50K Bail and Seizures in Jail-Plaintiff suing defendant (her cousin) for an unpaid loan for bail.   Defendant was arrested for domestic violence, had been in jail for a few weeks before bail was posted.  Plaintiff says defendant called him collect from jail, and told her he needed $50k assured bail.   Defendant counter suing for plaintiff posting his arrest record, which is apparently pretty extensive. 

Kind of dirty pool to post D's past bad deeds, but my guess is that his record is public record..... I see no defense and less basis for countersuit.... good luck next time he needs bail money.

Edited November 1, 2019 by SRTouch

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Didn't I hear that she had two separate loans out on the Chrysler totalling 10 or 12 grand? If I heard correctly, I wonder how she took out the second loan when there was already a lien - and how did she get a loan seeing as she was homeless, had a drug history, all with an active felony warrant...... maybe she lost her kindergarten teacher job after her arrest..... (yes, I know teacher job just a figment of my imagination)

JJ told her something like, if she had a six thousand dollar car but owed ten or more thousand dollars on it, whoever wanted to take it off her hands was actually doing her a favor. Our episodes got interrupted because of a hurricane warning, so I didn't get to see the resolution of the case, but I think she might have asked the woman why she was suing.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

JJ again shows ignorance of cars.  Yeah, nobody's gonna warm up their car in June, but JJ insisted that the defendant could not start the car as described, because you have to have a foot on the brake before the car will start.

Remote start, JJ? 

Today was sure a day for litigants who talked out of turn.  Sometimes I get annoyed with JJ for shutting people up, but now I understand why it's necessary.

Must have been  the dog case - which i skipped..... but wonder how long it's been since JJ hopped behind the wheel and started a car. Sounds like she may be thinking about stepping on a clutch - even then, on some 4x4's you can disable that safety switch (long time since I did any serious 4 wheeling, but there was once a technique in rock climbing where you used a heavy duty starter motor to pull a non-running vehicle up a ledge instead of burning up a clutch - hard on battery and like I said you needed a heavy duty starter motor, but lots easier and cheaper to replace the starter than the clutch). Anyway, I can certainly start my automatic Hyundai without stepping on the brake - can't shift it into gear, but can reach in and start it just fine - and as you say, I could start it from inside house with a remote if it was so equipment....

When JJ stops listening and gets so strident insisting a litigant is lieing - when most of the audience know she doesn't know what she's talking about - I'm always rooting for a litigant to walk out yelling over their shoulder to get a freekin' clue.... 

I'm sure, even without watching, we heard JJ tell us that anyone is a fool to own a pit bull - even though in hallterview it is obvious the pit mix was not the aggressor - in fact, during hallterview, defendant is calling for the pit mix to be put down even after JJ ruled against her and her dog - without watching I have to wonder how much evidence there was before JJ ruled for pit owner, knowing JJ's hatred of pits

Edited November 1, 2019 by SRTouch

[Brattinella]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

When JJ stops listening and gets so strident insisting a litigant is lieing - when most of the audience know she doesn't know what she's talking about - I'm always rooting for a litigant to walk out yelling over their shoulder to get a freekin' clue.... 

Seriously, I was yelling at the audience:  "Someone, tell her!"

[AuntiePam]

10 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Seriously, I was yelling at the audience:  "Someone, tell her!"

Bird almost did, but he must have decided it wasn't worth it.  She turned to him and said something like "Have you ever heard of anything so crazy?" and he said "Well . . . " and then JJ started talking again.

[PopTart16]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My question in the dog attack case is why would anyone warm up their car in San Diego in June?     And I would have to question anything defendant wife, and the rest of her family said.    They all seemed to think that JJ would believe any of their outrageous statements.     

Here's the thing, JJ misunderstood what the woman was saying, she was not warming up the car in the sense that she was running her heater, she was doing what my step dad does which is turn on the car and let it run for a few minutes before driving, he calls it "warming up the car" but he does not mean running the heater, does that make sense? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

It still seems ridiculous to start a car early in June, in San Diego.     Years ago, letting a car run for a little while before leaving made sense with the engines and fuel systems they had then, but my understanding is that it's not good for the car to start it early, and sit there burning gas with today's engines.  

 I bet the wife is the person that did let the dog out, and it came out of the garage.     The worst thing to me in the cases like this is that unless one party or the other moves, there is always going to be bad blood.    

Edited November 1, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns, probably 2015-2016-

First-

Single Mom Settlement-Plaintiff (used car salesman) suing defendant over non-payment for car, she gave him a bad check.   Defendant is Sainted Single Mother of ? (SSMO? ). $7,000 for a 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee, put $2500 down, and $600 a month for 9 months (costs $900 for interest, and taxes, etc).    Check was for $2,000, from Farmer's insurance for injuries.   (Defendant's chest tattoo of giant red lips, and Take Note is tacky).    Plaintiff put check into his account, because SSMO? didn't have a bank account.       

However, defendant refused the settlement from Farmer's insurance, so check was cancelled by company, but defendant kept the Jeep.    JJ will contact Farmer's insurance about the check status.     Farmer's Insurance says defendant didn't cash check knowing that accepting check would be accepting the settlement.  JJ's decision is 1. Order that plaintiff can get car with Marshall.  2.  Charges for grand larceny and fraud will be pressed because defendant committed fraud.   Car will be returned to company in two days or charges will be pressed.  Plaintiff works elsewhere, so he gets $2,000 judgment.   

Dog Bite, Huge Settlement-Plaintiff suing former neighbor for kicking his car, after plaintiff's dog bit her in the face.   Defendant has sold and moved since.    The same dog bit the defendant's daughter 13 months before, and received a settlement from the insurance company $150,000 for defendant, and $60,000 pending for the defendant's daughter.    What kind of idiot is still friendly with the defendant and her family after they get sued for huge amounts?     In the middle of the night, defendant was apparently drunk, and on plaintiff's property, plaintiff wife went and answered the door.   Defendant claims her dog ripped her lip off, the two women argued after drinking, and then defendant repeatedly kicked the plaintiff's car.    Defendant claims the plaintiff asked her to come over.   (Defendant thinks petting the neighbor's dog is 'politically correct').     I can't believe the insurance company covered two dog bites from the same dog, because my insurance always told me it's standard that they cover one bite, and then that dog is no longer covered.     

Plaintiff has $1,000 deductible on car insurance, which he didn't file claim for the car damage yet.  Plaintiff gets $1,000, and is still a spineless jelly fish.    I wonder what the real story is on this entire situation?   The damage happened two years ago, so I hope the insurance tells him it's too late. 

Second-

Teen Road Trip Lie-Plaintiff mother suing daughter's ex for kidnapping girl, stealing mother's car, and wrecking the car.    However, plaintiff daughter borrowed mother's car with mother's permission, drove boyfriend to Missouri, and then the wreck happened.  Plaintiff's husband had to drive to Missouri, and load car on a trailer and bring it home.    Plaintiff daughter drove the defendant to Missouri, and the boyfriend was driving and they wrecked the car.   Both airbags deployed, and front end damages, but no photo of the entire car damage.   Mommy dearest also contacted defendant's first sergeant, and had him ordered not to contact the entire family.    Plaintiff gets $4,000.   

Botched Bodywork- Plaintiff suing defendant/former school mate for substandard body work on ancient truck (1966 truck).    Defendant used a lot of Bondo on the truck.   Plaintiff has estimate for paint job that will cost $1500 more, plus more body work.  Plaintiff will get his father's rifle back that he traded for the body work.    Plaintiff gets no credit for an unregistered motorcycle he traded too with defendant.   No money for either side, just the rifle back to plaintiff. 

[Burning Rubber]

Does Judge Judy ever side with women who claim abuse or violence? It seems to me that women are always accused of starting it with men and the men are almost always almost blameless. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both New!   I love ratings sweeps month.  

First (New)-

Jersey Shore Assault and Arrest-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for false arrest, attorney fees, and vehicle damages.   Litigants were a couple at one time but were only friends, went out for the evening, plaintiff was driving.  Defendant wanted to leave, they finally left, and started to argue in the car while plaintiff was driving.    Defendant admits she pushed him away, plaintiff claims she punched him in the face while he was driving.  Defendant is sent outside to redo her testimony.   Plaintiff claims defendant filed false police charges against him for assault, and cause him to have an accident with his car.    Defendant claims plaintiff was driving, holding her phone in his left hand, and choking her at the same time (This isn't even possible, unless you have eight arms like an octopus).     As JJ says, it's obvious that plaintiff was hit, and slapped by the defendant while driving.   Defendant Breshay Wigglesworth is getting very agitated at JJ.   

Defendant did ask to be let out of the car, but plaintiff says it was far from anywhere that was safe to drop her off.  The day after the accident plaintiff was arrested for assaulting defendant, but it actually was the other way around, and his case was dropped.   Case dismissed.    

Parking Permit Blunder-   Defendant parked in a prohibited space (permit only), and her car was towed.   Plaintiff paid impound fees, and is suing for $300+, and defendant is suing plaintiff for damages to her car by the towing company.   The idiocy in this case is staggering.    $360 to plaintiff, nothing to idiot defendant.  

Second (New)-

Me Too Movement Nonsense-Plaintiff suing co-worker for loan ($719) to repair her car.   Defendant claims plaintiff hit on her, and would forgive the loan if she slept with him.    The litigants worked together for about 90 days, until she was fired.   She's also 'on leave' from Kohl's.   Car was towed to mechanic, plaintiff paid to fix the car.   After defendant got car back, she refused to pay plaintiff for the work.     As defendant is making allegations of sexual harassment against plaintiff, plaintiff's wife is sitting right there (she's a witness).  Plaintiff receives $700, defendant gets nothing.  

Money Pool Takes a Nose Dive-Plaintiff suing for an unpaid round of a money pool/savings plan known as a Candena (spelling?).      Plaintiff claims you draw the numbers at the beginning, each person puts their money in, and get paid the $9k each month by month when their number comes up.    So number nine still gets money, but at the end.   No, I don't understand how this works, or why anyone would do this.     I don't understand where the extra money comes from.   Text messages from defendant acknowledge that he stole the plaintiff's money.  $5,000 to plaintiff, however, he's still $4,000 short.  

[augmentedfourth]

3 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Does Judge Judy ever side with women who claim abuse or violence? It seems to me that women are always accused of starting it with men and the men are almost always almost blameless. 

My memory's a bit fuzzy here, but I seem to remember a case in the past year or two where the plaintiff was a woman who had been attacked in her apartment (or rental home), had the police reports and everything, and the defendant rental company was trying to screw her over when it came to the lease, and I don't think JJ looked upon that favorably. While she does sometimes seem a bit harsh and there have been times where I've disagreed with her tone, I think her biggest issue is the women who come in with such allegations, but hey! they took money from the guy in question anyway. (And didn't pay it back, of course.) I think JJ has even said a couple times, even if a guy does start acting inappropriately, the fastest way to get him to leave you alone is to pay. him. back. Again, while I do think she can be too dismissive, I also agree with her that those types of bullshit cases do a disservice to the actual victims.

My takeaways from today:

For some reason, the plaintiff in the towing case made me smile when she said she was suing for $360 when the bill was only $350 because she didn't have exact change and just handed over what she had. It was one of the more honest moments on this show lately. Even JJ was like, "Yeah, okay, sounds good."

I still have no idea how the contina (?) works. Or was supposed to work.

[AuntiePam]

4 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

I still have no idea how the contina (?) works. Or was supposed to work.

I think it was "condina".  A Google search brought up a news article where a condina is mentioned.  Here's the description:  "a kind of informal, no-interest savings plan in which members who make a weekly deposit of $25 take turns bringing home the windfall."

Makes sense.  Its like a bank, or George Bailey's Savings & Loan.  They just have to trust whomever holds the money, and everyone needs to keep paying in.  Not a bad idea, especially considering that interest rates are so freakin' low. 
ETA: Your money builds up more quickly than if you just put $25 into your own savings account.

Edited November 2, 2019 by AuntiePam

[Cobalt Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Does Judge Judy ever side with women who claim abuse or violence? It seems to me that women are always accused of starting it with men and the men are almost always almost blameless. 

To go along with what @augmentedfourth said, many women who appear before JJ use the excuse that whatever doofus is suing them developed an interest in furthering the relationship in a direction they didn't want it to go after they'd loaned them a few hundred dollars. I remember one woman a year or so ago who said that the male plaintiff tried to coerce her into sex to get her belongings back and that her father witnessed it, but her dad was in court with her and never confirmed such a thing. I don't disagree that Her Honor does tend to decide beforehand what she thinks of the litigants, but given the general life outlook of most of these people, it isn't always based on gender.

[configdotsys]

20 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Does Judge Judy ever side with women who claim abuse or violence? It seems to me that women are always accused of starting it with men and the men are almost always almost blameless. 

I remember one case several years ago of a guy suing his ex for a pittance for an electric bill. The plaintiff was probably in his late 40s I would guess and it was clear that the defendant was afraid of him. JJ caught on pretty quickly that he only sued her to see her. She gave him a very angry talking to complete with "You have your electric bill now so you have no reason to contact her for anything so LEAVE HER ALONE!" I'm not sure if the defendant had a restraining order or not. The plaintiff brought his daughter with him and JJ said something about his abusive behavior to her and said "Get it?" or something to that effect. The daughter knew her father was a violent asshole.

[funky-rat]

I think the Contina thing was a variation on the French "Tontine", which is used more like life insurance.  People form a "pool" and they all put in to the Tontine, which is held in trust for the members.  Once a year, they receive a dividend payement.  The members will eventualy die off, and the last person left alive receives the bulk of the money.  Popular in many countries, and some treat the money as a rotating savings thing, like the people on TV did.  Some countries actually have government oversight over arrangements like this.

Edited November 3, 2019 by funky-rat

[funky-rat]

Apparently the proper term is "Cundina" and this explains it really well.  The chart that accompanies the guy talking about funding a vacation made it very clear.  The Defendant was full of crap in his explanation of how it works:

https://www.emoneypool.com/blog/how-does-a-cundina-work/

[TresGatos]

This is exciting. A woman just came in to where I work and said she's off to Los Angeles on Wednesday to tape an episode of Judge Judy! Interesting tidbits are they found her through researchers looking through small claims cases. They get $100 spending money while there. They are flying out on Tuesday and are put up in a hotel but must leave immediately after taping to fly home. They will get an air date after the episode airs. Apparently is suing an ex for an assault. 

[patty1h]

Everyone who ended up hating Tayia Byes raise your hand.   I think she was never pregnant, just playing teenage mind games on that fool she got involved with, stringing him along with the "baby".   Dumbo Gonzales is sooo lucky that he can cut ties with her and will glove up next time - he dodged a bullet this time.

I hope her mother boots her in the ass on the way home and sets fire to that Dollar Store horse wig she was wearing.

Edited November 4, 2019 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2015-2016-

First-

Jealous Baby Mama Cat Fight-Defendant has two kids with man (defendant's witness).   and defendant and witness broke up.   Since he's the defendant's witness, I guess the witness and defendant are back together.  When plaintiff was parked at man's house, she alleges defendant ripped pieces off of her car.    Defendant claims plaintiff was the aggressor.   Police report says defendant witness said defendant did do the car damages.   $2,000 to plaintiff.

Free Wheeling and Dealing-Plaintiff suing defendant for rims plaintiff never received, purchased for $1,000 (used rims from defendant's own car).   Defendant claims he needed to re-chrome the rims, and over a year later were resold by shifty defendant.   $1,000 to plaintiff .    

Second-

Road Rage? Never Get Out of Your Car-Plaintiff stopped in the middle of a parking lot, blocking traffic to talk to someone for at least 5 minutes.  Defendant was cutting through the parking lot, finally squeezed past plaintiff, and defendant claims plaintiff cut him off three times in traffic.    Defendant finally gets out of his car, tried to grab her keys out of her car, and pounded on her window that broke.   Then plaintiff followed defendant to his home,   This situation could have end up much worse, good thing no one was a packing a gun.     Police did not arrest defendant.    Plaintiff gets money for window, and door dent, $2500.    

Impounded Car Custody Scramble-Plaintiff suing former friend, and friend's boyfriend, over car payments they didn't make.   Plaintiff bought a car, and resold it to defendants a week later.     Defendants never reregistered the car in their name, or paid for it.    Plaintiff paid $2500 for car, and sold car to defendants for $3,000.    Plaintiff did not register car in her name, before selling to defendants.   Defendants were pulled over for broken taillight, (actually for DUI), and car was impounded.    Since car can only be taken out of impound by registered owner, car was never retrieved.   Usually, I dislike people who don't pay for cars, but it wasn't plaintiff's car to sell anyway.  Neither defendant paid for the car, or signed a bill of sale, or contract.   Defendants call the car borrowed from plaintiff.  Case dismissed.  

Edited November 4, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[WhoaWhoKnew]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Everyone who ended up hating Tayia Byes raise your hand.   I think she was never pregnant, just playing teenage mind games on that fool she got involved with, stringing him along with the "baby".   Dumbo Gonzales is sooo lucky that he can cut ties with her and will glove up next time - he dodged a bullet this time.

I hope her mother boots her in the ass on the way home and sets fire to that Dollar Store horse wig she was wearing.

Seriously! She's going to go full blown munchausen's in a few years.

[basiltherat]

I never watched the series, but doesn't Faux Mama resemble the main female character from "Game of Thrones."?

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new, rating sweeps month hopefully will mean they're almost all new this month-

First (New)-

Teen Fakes Full-Term Pregnancy- (and while wearing a wig that is so cheap, or a really bad blonde dye job)-Plaintiffs (mother, father, and idiot son), suing son's ex over fraud, DNA costs, etc. over her allegedly fake pregnancy.    Defendant proudly announces when they had sexual relations.    Plaintiff parents paid for attorney fees, DNA tests, etc.    Defendant took a pregnancy test, and claims it was positive, in March.   Def. also claims positive in April at hospital.   Defendant claims she had a miscarriage in October (at 8 months?).   Defendant mother claims daughter was really pregnant.    I want to see the medical records on this, because I believe nothing defendant daughter says.   Plaintiff father says he and his wife offered to go to doctor's office, and go with defendant's parents, but defendant claims her parents are both deceased (so who is the mother of defendant standing next to defendant?).    Plaintiff parents have texts backing up what they said, claim she sent ultrasounds, and other information regularly.    

Defendant daughter claimed she was going to permanently move to the Dominican Republic, where they have no extradition, and she would sue for every penny she could get.  She also said she would never come back to the U.S.    Defendant mother denies her daughter is a liar.    Plaintiff claims defendant told them she had the baby, and sent a picture of a baby to plaintiff parents, and other birth information.     Defendant admits the baby picture is someone else's baby, but this is supposed to be after her own 'miscarriage' (is an 8 month still called a miscarriage?).     Plaintiffs get $5,000.           

Second (New)-

Officer Byrd is Not a Jerk-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (he brings scantily clad current girlfriend to court, and Byrd boots her) for non-payment on a co-signed lease on a car.   Officer Byrd keeps looking at defendant, and looks like punching out defendant would be fun (and I agree).   They leased car when they were together (leased in May 2016), and he took the car with him when they broke up he took the car with him.   Registration lapsed, and he didn't pay for it, so car was impounded.   Plaintiff wants lease out of her name, so it's no longer her responsibility.   Plus, plaintiff claims car had over $200 worth of tickets while he was in possession of it.   Plaintiff now lives in Georgia, and had to fly back to NJ to get the car out of impound.    Plaintiff returned car to dealership, and was charged over $4,000+ and she gets $5,000.  

You're a Bad Mother-Plaintiff suing former friend for illegal eviction, moving expenses, and other stuff.    Litigants moved in together, then they had a blow up, over their dogs.   Defendant mother has a bright lime green Mohawk sort of hair do.   Defendant took plaintiff's dog, and her dog, and went to her mother's place, and refused to give up dog to plaintiff and police.  Local judge said plaintiff gets dog back, but defendant is appealing, so plaintiff still doesn't have his dog.   Another defendant that claims dog is like her baby.   

JJ tells defendant she's being a bad dog mommy to the plaintiff's dog she's trying to take for her own.     Plaintiff receives $800 after she evicted him when after he paid the rent that month, illegal eviction is another $800.   JJ tells defendant to return the dog, because eventually a judge will give the dog back.   I wonder if defendant will give the dog to someone else, or it will simply disappear?   $1600 to plaintiff.   (In hall-terview, defendant says plaintiff will never see his dog again.   What a jerk she is.)

Edited November 5, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

I wonder why Tayia Byes did all of those shenanigans to string that beanpole Gonzales along - faking sonograms and getting pics from her friend of a child in NICU.  It's not like he had money or could do much to improve her lot in life - they were both working at Walmart, so it couldn't be for the paltry amount of child support she could con out of this genius.  That would hardly be enough to keep her supplied with wig glue.

He wasn't a looker, so it couldn't be that she'd get the envy of others by being squired around by the handsomest boy in town.  Could a 19 year old be so desperate for a man like some of those older litigants that show up on these shows that she fakes a dead baby?   I'm seriously confused why a pretend baby was necessary for this chick to play this game.  Any suggestions?  I do applaud moron Gonzales's parents for stepping up and wanting to be responsible grandparents - their being vigilant saved their dumb sons bacon.

[Florinaldo]

42 minutes ago, patty1h said:

He wasn't a looker, so it couldn't be that she'd get the envy of others by being squired around by the handsomest boy in town.  Could a 19 year old be so desperate for a man like some of those older litigants that show up on these shows that she fakes a dead baby? 

Considering she was no looker herself – from my "objective" perspective as a gay man – I think that yes she might have been that desperate, at least for any kind of attention judging from her poor taste in hair colouring (or was it a bad wig?). Good for the boy's parents to try and do right by the certainly imaginary baby while they still thought it might be real. The girl's mother was still in half-denial at her daughter's multiple deceptions and was reeling dazedly from one bad revelation to the next.

I hope that young man learned his lesson on the need to exercise better caution, both as far as his choice of sex partners and using contraception.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wonder if defendant will give the dog to someone else, or it will simply disappear? 

Couldn't the court she appealed the first judgment to apply penalties if she fails to comply with another decision confirming the previous one?

[howiveaddict]

Fake baby mama's mother also did not look trustworthy to me. Either that or she was totally in the dark about what her daughter was up to. Don't know why JJ seemed to think a lot about her.  I think the girl was totally just going to scam the guy for money while never being pregnant.  Who has a 8 month baby and doesn't have any of their family at the hospital?

Today seemed to be the day of those stupid ear spacers. And of bad hair.  Ugly wig on fake baby mama and stupid green mohawk on  dog stealer's mother.   

We also learned that JJ never took a home pregnancy test, but that a rabbit died whenever she was found pregnant.  Of course, due to her age, I already knew that.  I was surprised she didn't make Byrd explain to her how a home pregnancy is used.

[VartanFan]

5 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

Fake baby mama's mother also did not look trustworthy to me. Either that or she was totally in the dark about what her daughter was up to. Don't know why JJ seemed to think a lot about her.  I think the girl was totally just going to scam the guy for money while never being pregnant.  Who has a 8 month baby and doesn't have any of their family at the hospital?

I turned to my husband and said that I think she may be the biggest sleazeball we've ever seen on this show.  She so calmly told of her misdeeds, mixed in plenty of lies, proof of bribery, etc.  She was stone cold in her Frozen wig.  

I think the mom was probably at work all the time and the kid just did whatever she wanted growing up and she's believed all of her sociopathic lies.  

[Florinaldo]

7 minutes ago, howiveaddict said:

but that a rabbit died whenever she was found pregnant.

Initially doctors did have to kill the rabbit to examine the ovaries and find out the results; the animal died whether the test was positive or negative. But the tests were eventually perfected so that the animal (rabbit or another species) did not need to be sacrificed.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, basiltherat said:

I never watched the series, but doesn't Faux Mama resemble the main female character from "Game of Thrones."?

That might be who she was trying for, but I refuse to acknowledge any resemblance.  Round-faced and blonde, that's as far as it goes.

Does that girl even comprehend the hell she's putting these people through?  Like JJ said, they have no way of knowing if there was a pregnancy, if there was a miscarriage, if there was a baby, if the baby was given away (or worse).  That girl has no empathy at all.  I shouldn't be an armchair psychologist, but she bears watching.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the not-so-pregnant girl was having fun torturing the supposed father.    I think she found out how much money the parents have, and wanted as much as she could get.   I suspect she already knew how well the parents of teen were doing, since she kept dating the plaintiff son from time to time.     I bet about the time DNA tests came up, and she realized the plaintiff parents weren't fools, is when everything fell apart for her.     I think the end game was to keep up the story about a baby, until she realized the parents weren't going to just send her money endlessly, especially if she actually did go to the Dominican Republic to live.    If she had moved there, I bet she would borrow a friend's kid to baby sit, for more photos, and if plaintiffs ever came to visit.    I think her mother was the foolish person who doesn't want to be a parent, but just be a pal to the daughter, and daughter ruled the roost.  

My opinion is the little troll (she did resemble a troll doll they used to have) would never give a child up for adoption, she would sell to the highest bidder.    That young woman reminds me so much of a few of the ones who pulled adoption scams on multiple adoptive parents, and then claimed they adopted the kid to another couple, or else were never pregnant.    I hope the plaintiff's parents do take this case to civil court, as JJ suggested, and then get to subpoena her medical records.  

A personal note, when I was born (mid-1950's) most women didn't have pregnancy tests, with or without rabbits.    They just didn't see you at the doctor's office until you thought you were three month along or so.  

My guess is in the dog case, that if it comes close to plaintiff getting his dog back, that the dog will mysteriously run away, never to be seen again.   I was hoping that in the hall-terview the plaintiff's phone would go off, and a friend would say "Good news, puppy just ran up to the door".    

Edited November 6, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[augmentedfourth]

44 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

I turned to my husband and said that I think she may be the biggest sleazeball we've ever seen on this show.  She so calmly told of her misdeeds, mixed in plenty of lies, proof of bribery, etc.  She was stone cold in her Frozen wig.   

I was thinking the same thing, that regardless of what actually happened, she was one of the more chilling litigants. Total sociopath. Not that we'll ever know, but my hypothesis is she was pregnant, found one of the less reputable adoption agencies, and basically sold the baby to the highest bidder.

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My guess is in the dog case, that if it comes close to plaintiff getting his dog back, that the dog will mysteriously run away, never to be seen again.  

While it may not be the most legal of strategies, were I the plaintiff, I'd find a way to go steal the dog back. What's she going to do, call the cops? Chances are, if he pulls out the court order saying the dog is his, they won't do much beyond a half-assed "well, don't do it again."

[VartanFan]

14 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

My guess is in the dog case, that if it comes close to plaintiff getting his dog back, that the dog will mysteriously run away, never to be seen again.  

When I was getting divorce, I knew my ex would do this.  She was my dog but I had to basically steal her under cover of darkness.  I knew he would keep her from me otherwise.  He threatened me up and down and told him to take me to court (he would lose).  His mommy went and bought him a new puppy within the week.   That guy is going to have to get creative if he wants his dog back. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

I turned to my husband and said that I think she may be the biggest sleazeball we've ever seen on this show.  She so calmly told of her misdeeds, mixed in plenty of lies, proof of bribery, etc.  She was stone cold in her Frozen wig.   

I was thinking the same thing, that regardless of what actually happened, she was one of the more chilling litigants. Total sociopath.

Co-sign on this. I stopped watching the show for awhile and this was the first episode I've seen in a long time and my jaw was on the floor nearly the whole time. This girl is a straight-up PSYCHO. Right up there with the litigant from years ago who faked cancer to get money. 

And not for one second do I believe her mother didn't know what the deal was. The girl was only **19**. I don't care how "independent" she claimed she was, there's no way the mother was in the dark with any of this. The girl didn't learn how to be a psycho in a vacuum. I really loved when, after she was asked who the baby in the photo belonged to, she clammed up with, "I don't talk to her anymore." This was all an evasive maneuver to avoid JJ making one of her infamous in-chamber phone calls. 

And that WIG. I could see the lace front from 10 feet away from the TV. 

[howiveaddict]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Initially doctors did have to kill the rabbit to examine the ovaries and find out the results; the animal died whether the test was positive or negative. But the tests were eventually perfected so that the animal (rabbit or another species) did not need to be sacrificed.

There is a movie with Cary Grant, "people will talk', that talks of using a frog too.  

Still think the faux baby mama's mother was in on the whole thing.  Total wack  job sociopaths.

[SandyToes]

40 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

And not for one second do I believe her mother didn't know what the deal was. The girl was only **19**. I don't care how "independent" she claimed she was, there's no way the mother was in the dark with any of this.

And they had a gender reveal party, right? Did I hear that?  So there would had to have been some doctor info somewhere to obtain that information. The whole business of not having any medical info with her was most troubling.  Very scary girl.

From a few days ago:

Quote

Parking Permit Blunder-   Defendant parked in a prohibited space (permit only), and her car was towed.   Plaintiff paid impound fees, and is suing for $300+, and defendant is suing plaintiff for damages to her car by the towing company.   The idiocy in this case is staggering.    $360 to plaintiff, nothing to idiot defendant.  

 Beyond idiot. We need a new word.  All kinds of stupid.

[Burning Rubber]

When I paused to read the troll's threats to move to the Dominican Republic on the advice of her nonexistant lawyer wrapped up in butchered legalese, I became convinced there was never a pregnancy.

No wait... it was when the plaintiffs reported that she had said she couldn't take the morning after pill due to a heart condition.

[Mondrianyone]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

she did resemble a troll doll they used to have

I think if a troll doll and Cousin Itt from The Addams Family had an actual baby, she would be itt.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

I think if a troll doll and Cousin Itt from The Addams Family had an actual baby, she would be itt.

Cousin It had a more credible wig.

[TV Glotzer]

Re: sociopathic, on-the-lam-in-DR, missing-baby mama, that wig was actually moving on her forehead during the hallterview. 

[funky-rat]

17 hours ago, patty1h said:

Everyone who ended up hating Tayia Byes raise your hand.   I think she was never pregnant, just playing teenage mind games on that fool she got involved with, stringing him along with the "baby".   Dumbo Gonzales is sooo lucky that he can cut ties with her and will glove up next time - he dodged a bullet this time.

I hope her mother boots her in the ass on the way home and sets fire to that Dollar Store horse wig she was wearing.

I may have mentioned this prior, but at my last job (which I left 18 years ago), there was a woman who had been missing a lot of work. She was told if she continued, she would be terminated.  She started saying that her child was sick.  They asked for a doctor's note, and her boyfriend called and claimed she had to rush him to Philadelphia to the children's hospital.  A few days later, he called and claimed the baby died.  We were heartbroken for her.

The illness never came up (as to what he had).  We all pooled money and sent her flowers.  She came in to the office and we all cried with her.  We asked if she was having a  funeral because we'd like to attend.  She said yes.  She was given bereavement pay and time off.

I passed her one day on my way in to work (she was still off).  She still had a car seat in the car (a good 2 or so weeks past when the child passed away) but shrugged it off that she wasn't ready to remove it.  I mentioned it to my mom, and she knew this girl's father.  She had just seen him, and she said he never said anything about it.  Others were getting suspicous as well.  We mentioned our suspicions to our boss.  He called her in.  The boyfriend came with her and fought (verbally) with our boss.  When they asked for a copy of a death certificate, she couldn't provide one.  She was fired on the spot.  They were considering suing her because she took pay under false pretenses.  Still, she picked that "hill to die on".  She never backed down from her stance the baby died, even when people saw her with him.  I half expected her to blame it on the boyfriend, but she never owned up to it.

I saw her on social media once.  The "dead" kid is all grown up now.

So I have no doubt in my mind that Great Value Elsa last night faked the whole thing.  Maybe she just likes the attention?  I think a combo of the attention, saving her job (at least temporarily) and free money appealed to my former co-worker.  And her mom needs to learn that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.....

[funky-rat]

2 minutes ago, LucindaWalsh said:

I feel stupid in that I am going back and forth on if there was or wasn't a pregnancy. That's how good scams work. I believe the mother was in on it somehow or knew something. The plaintiffs parents seemed so straight up trustworthy that I feel most sorry for them that they have such a dork son. He really didn't give off a mature vibe during the hallterview. 

I am going to blame the green haired mother and the is there a baby mother for their daughters brattiness. They are/have done nothing to stop the behavior. 

It is scary the kind of people who are in the circle of providing services to the police. That fake hipster dude needs to be red flagged for life. Scary. 

Good scams are ones that put reasonable doubt in to the mind.  What sealed the deal for me that this whole thing was fake was her constantly messing up the dates, her extremely late miscarriage (which would have involved full labor and a still birth), the ultrasounds with no name on them, and her flat-out admission that she sent them photos of a friend's baby.  If she lies about her mom being dead, that's not much of a stretch.  At best,  I think her mom is just stupid and/or wilfully ignorant.  At worst, she was in on it.  She looked a little too shell-shocked about some of the stuff to me to be too deeply involved, but YMMV.

I'd bet Fake Hipster works for a company CONTRACTED to do some work with police/fire/ems, and as he has to be on their property, he has to be drug tested.  He's a loser, either way, and should be punched...hard.

[funky-rat]

6 minutes ago, LucindaWalsh said:

@funky-rat You have eased my mind that there isn't a baby out there somewhere. I do think the mother was shell shocked in that she could believe that the daughter would do this to someone but not to her (saying she was dead, actually faking the whole thing and not telling her). 

Didn't the plaintiff say in the hallterview that the cops found bottles of urine in the backseat of hipster dude? That's why he was so cocky about JJ asking about drug testing.  Miss Midriff needs a reality check stat. Or she might be the next plaintiff against him on a future episode.

I wish they would increase the limit to $7,500 for these cases. 

She said that the car reeked like an ashtray, had bottles of urine in the back seat, and I think old food (not 100% sure - I was slightly distracted when the hallterview was on).