All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[augmentedfourth]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

And is "Gue-linda" a character only found in in the deleted scenes from The Wizard of Oz?

Maybe JJ just saw Wicked, where Glinda is originally Galinda. "With a Ga!"

If I were a client of the counselor plaintiff in the dating/rent for marketing work/whatever case, I would be finding someone new, despite his claims that he SAVES LIVES!!!! That was a man who is unaccustomed to not getting his way, the point where it was almost getting scary. Don't get me wrong, the defendant was no saint for accepting the rent money after knowing him for, like, ten minutes, but overall, she came across much better than he did. (Though I'm sure in his mind, it's the opposite.)

[Florinaldo]

22 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

Maybe JJ just saw Wicked, where Glinda is originally Galinda. "With a Ga!"

I forgot about that. But the musical is from the 2000s and the novel it's based on is from the 1990s. Much too recent to be used as cultural references by JJ (who is still stuck on Carnac and The Honeymooners).

[littlebennysmom]

3 hours ago, JD5166 said:

THIS! I fear for those little dogs, she can clearly afford (botched) lip fillers, but not pet care. She’s almost too dumb to hate, standing there with her mouth hanging open in confusion, like she’s catching flies. I disliked this plaintiff more than most because she’s such a negligent dog owner. 

That woman's lower lip looked like a lipstick covered Vienna sausage.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Faulty Family Business-Plaintiff hired defendant to do handyman work at her house, and claims they were incompetent.   Defendants say she held their tools hostage, and tried to extort $2000 from them.    JJ has no sympathy for the defendants, and they sound like terrible contractors.     Defendant business owner is a blow hard, and I bet a lot of people never complain about him, because he's a bully.   

I love that one invoice for materials is dated the day after he was fired by the homeowner, and the police were called to get him off of the property.    He claims it was a boo-boo.    Plaintiff $300, defendant zip. 

Second-

Horse Tragedy in Unsafe Stables-Plaintiff suing defendant over injury to a horse at her boarding stable, plus boarding fees, ransom for the horse.   Defendant runs a boarding stable, and plaintiff now claims defendant didn't have a license to run a boarding stable.  Defendant told plaintiff about the injury, called a vet, but plaintiff owed the vet money for over six months past due, and vet would only come out to see horse if plaintiff payed the money.     Plaintiff says she owed vet $248, and for over six months past due, and defendant says it was owed for over a year, and was almost $1,000.     Defendant says plaintiff was supposed to move her horse, but didn't move horse on time, and didn't pay the last month ($325) before the injury (horse had been at the barn since 2013).    (The barn owner said that the horse owner barely paid for board, sometimes didn't pay, never visited the horse, and stiffed the vet on a $1000, so she was a bad horse owner. I bet whoever boards the horse now watched this and cried, knowing they're going to get ripped off too)

Defendant couldn't get a hold of plaintiff, and per contract she called the vet of record, who refused to come out without the past due payment being paid.  When she picked up horse plaintiff had to pay $1584 for past due bills.    Plaintiff has a nasty smirk every time JJ knocks something off the bill, but sorry it says in the contract what the defendant will charge for.  $1141 to plaintiff (wrong JJ).   

Barter Fail-Plaintiffs suing defendant for money owed for a truck ($3400).   $8450 is the value of a 1982 Chevy Silverado (some other models with special packages were almost twice that.     Plaintiffs sold truck to man, and gave him the title, and cash payment was supposed to be $1200. with defendant doing work for them, for $4700 more.       Defendant performed some work, but didn't finish.     Plaintiffs get $3400.

Edited November 22, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Life-Saving Counselor Defends Against Attack-.   

20K Salt Lake City Latin Dance Festival!  What Could Go Wrong-

I actually googled both of the plaintiffs in these cases. If you still have it on your DVR, you will enjoy doing the same. There are actual videos of the dance instructor on his FB page. 

The dance guy reminded me of some of our local male Zumba instructors - these guys were all huge flirts and part of their deal was the whole "Latin Lover" routine. I remember when I was having knee surgery (I tore my meniscus during a Zumba class) and my preop nurse was all giggly when she was talking about one of the instructors. She actually turned red. I hated to tell her that he was actually not interested in her or any other females. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

780K Rusty Wallace NASCAR Bus Breakdown-Plaintiff suing defendant for towing fees, travel expenses, and unpaid wages.  Plaintiff was supposed to drive a bus cross country from Milwaukee to Huntington Beach, for wages, plus expenses.    Plaintiff left bus in Phoenix, after it's fourth breakdown.  Plaintiff offered to go back to Phoenix to pick up bus, but was told not to by the defendant, on the last breakdown in Phoenix it took over a month to fix it.   Defendant also says towing insurance would be covered by his towing policy, but plaintiff says it wasn't for a vehicle as big as the bus.   However, towing insurance was AAA and only applied if defendant was driving the bus, and doesn't cover tour buses, RVs, etc. that are big.     I disagree with JJ, when she says the $1500 payment for the trip to the plaintiff isn't required because the bus broke down for the fourth time in Phoenix.  What was the driver supposed to do, wait in Phoenix for a month for the bus to be fixed?     Defendant has to pay for the tow bill, almost $2,000 (No, AAA doesn't tow large vehicles, RVs, bus, trailers, horse trailers, etc.   Other companies do towing and road service for those vehicles).     (In the winter, I wouldn't have gone Milwaukee to LA by way of Denver).   

The original mechanic, who rebuilt the engine, went to Phoenix to repair the bus for the fourth time.   $2033 for towing bill to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.  

Second-

Walk Through Fraud-Plaintiffs (woman, her adult daughter, and daughter's husband, they moved out in 2016) want security deposit ($ from defendants / former landlords.   Landlord did a walk through via the management company.   The defendants rented house 2012 to 2016, and sold it since at a profit.  Management company gave landlords statement of security deposit, saying they should only get $312, and claims plaintiff signed the statement.   Management company did a walk through with tenants, and landlord fired management company, and did his own walk through, then shortly after sold the house.  

Why do landlords go on this show?    JJ hates anyone making a profit, and seems to coddle bad renters.     $2745 to plaintiffs, in spite of their $1200 damage to the fireplace.  

Credit Card Share Fail-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid charges on a credit card.  Defendant ran into a bad financial stretch, and plaintiff let her charge $2025, but she stopped paying in May.     Defendant claims she cleaned the plaintiff's house to make up for the payment.  Plaintiff says she paid defendant $30 every time she cleaned plaintiff's house, but defendant says plaintiff is lying, and was supposed to take $30 for each cleaning off the credit card balance.   The defendant does look like she has a hard life.    $1600 is still owed on the credit card, and plaintiff gets that.

(Warning, second episode tomorrow is an Amazon driver, attacked by a Pit Bull.   Score PB 1, Driver 0.  ).   We may be hearing that distressed Grandpa Pit Bull letter again.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Mondrianyone]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I disagree with JJ, when she says the $1500 payment for the trip to the plaintiff isn't required because the bus broke down for the fourth time in Phoenix.  What was the driver supposed to do, wait in Phoenix for a month for the bus to be fixed? 

This was truly one of her most idiotic rulings.  So say she shows up to tape three or four days' worth of cases and the cameras break down and the big bosses tell her she doesn't get paid for those days because she didn't complete the job.  I wonder how that would go over.

Total nonsense.  The guy takes the job on the assumption that the bus is roadworthy and figures that at the normal trip length of four days, he's making $375 a day.  Bad weather, flat tire--something minor and expected happens and it takes him another day or two.  So now he's making $250 a day.  He wouldn't be happy, but it would still be an acceptable rate of pay and there's an end in sight.  In this case the repair was supposed to take up to a month!  He's a driver, not an unpaid bus monitor.  And now he's making $50 a day and having to reach into his own pocket for lodging and food, which is about three times what he's earning per day.  Or sleep in the bus.  Sorry, Charlie, you didn't complete the job.  Too bad for you.  Outrageous!

[SandyToes]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

780K Rusty Wallace NASCAR Bus Breakdown-Plaintiff suing defendant for towing fees, travel expenses, and unpaid wages.  Plaintiff was supposed to drive a bus cross country from Milwaukee to Huntington Beach, for wages, plus expenses.    Plaintiff left bus in Phoenix, after it's fourth breakdown. 

Thanks for summing this one up. (And I agree - he should have been paid for the days he DID drive, etc.)  But I gave up on it half way through - just couldn't keep up with the piddling back and forth.

I also agree about the landlords - she almost ALWAYS rules against them, even when they are the plaintiffs.

Credit card gal looks like she was doing more at the Plaintiff's house than "cleaning."

[SRTouch]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

780K Rusty Wallace NASCAR Bus Breakdown-Plaintiff suing defendant for towing fees, travel expenses, and unpaid wages. 

15 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Total nonsense.  The guy takes the job on the assumption that the bus is roadworthy and figures that at the normal trip length of four days,. 

totally agree, JJ's analogy of a surgeon performing an appendectomy was ludicrous. Her surgeon would have been in deep doodoo if he left patient on table as she described. Bus driver, OTOH, was hired to do a job which he was unable to complete through no fault of his own, but because of the employer's faulty equipment.

[Carolina Girl]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

totally agree, JJ's analogy of a surgeon performing an appendectomy was ludicrous. Her surgeon would have been in deep doodoo if he left patient on table as she described. Bus driver, OTOH, was hired to do a job which he was unable to complete through no fault of his own, but because of the employer's faulty equipment.

I was pretty taken aback by that one, too.  

And I'm afraid I'm going to go against the grain and side with the tenants on this one, unless there's some details I missed.  First walkthrough with his agents - no damages, they get deposit back.  Then landlord goes back through with a different agent - without tenants - days later and suddenly no deposit back - oodles of damage!  I wondered if they spent the deposit money (instead of holding it in a separate account) and needed a second walkthrough in order to keep them from having to return it.  I had that happen with a landlord in S.F.  We walked through with him.  He said it was fine, I could expect return of deposit in 15 days.  Other tenants told me he was a snake, so before he arrived I took pictures with a disposable camera with a witness in tow.   

Sure enough 45 days later, after I inquired about the status of the deposit check, he advised that upon a SECOND walkthrough, he noticed lots of damage that he hadn't noticed before.  No deposit returned.  Took him to S.F. Rent Court.  Got treble damages.  $4500.00.  Vacationed for a week in Mexico on his dime.  Dude, never fuck with someone who works for lawyers.  

[DoctorK]

9 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I wondered if they spent the deposit money (instead of holding it in a separate account) and needed a second walkthrough in order to keep them from having to return it.

Quite possible, but it occurred to me that maybe the agent (who was very chummy with the tenants) worked with the tenants for a bogus walk through, then planned to split up the returned security deposit. However, if this is the case, the landlord would still be bound by the allegedly faked walk through to pay the tenants, but would have recourse by suing the manager (who they immediately fired) for fraud. I didn't like how sloppy the landlords were, also didn't like the apparently close relationship between the tenants and the allegedly crooked manager.

[patty1h]

Ms. Shonse Hawkins was suing her giant ex-boyfriend for a loan -- the case was pretty tedious but Shonse is my new favorite plaintiff for November.   Her makeup was a little extreme, but she looked like a little doll with her long hair, eyelashes, silk blouse and pearly lipstick.  She looks like maybe she was in pageants in her younger years or a ex church bishops wife.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

And I'm afraid I'm going to go against the grain and side with the tenants on this one, unless there's some details I missed.  First walkthrough with his agents - no damages, they get deposit back.  Then landlord goes back through with a different agent - without tenants - days later and suddenly no deposit back - oodles of damage! 

The problem is, JJ did not really base her ruling on this argument, which is indeed very valid. She seemed to rely on her often trotted-out absurd doctrine that "you made a profit selling the house, so forget anything else you might perhaps be legally entitled to".

The landlords were sloppy in how they proceeded. The close relationhsip between tenants and manager was also suspect. That last aspect was not really explored during the hearing. Perhaps the landlords could have a recourse against her.

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bus driver, OTOH, was hired to do a job which he was unable to complete through no fault of his own, but because of the employer's faulty equipment.

It did seem pretty clear to me but apparently not to her highness.

I must confess that in the last few months, I have often given up listening to a case JJ is hearing because of how irritable she behaves, how clearly her arbitrary likes and dislikes of various litigants are displayed from the start, how she ignores part of a claim or refuses to look at some evidence for no good reason, and how ridiculous her "reasonings" often are. Her decisions are often so predictable that I can switch to another channel, and then come back a few minutes later to confirm I was correct. Sometimes I do not even get back to her show and I never feel I really missed anything.

But sometimes she can still be smack on target, like with the two idiot brothers who did not check with the cemetary and assumed that their mother's headstone could be installed as planned. They should minimally have made sure that the size and material were acceptable, because regulations can vary from place to place and also change over time. If they had written in the contract that the stone maker was responsible for getting in touch with the cemetary before doing the job, they would have had a case. But that would have been asking much too much of them.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Get Out of Government Debt the Easy Way-Plaintiff loaned money to new boyfriend to pay a fine, and defendant says it was a gift, and he shouldn't have to pay it. Defendant says he didn't take the money, he only accepted it.  Defendant says fixing the woman's car bumper (pushing it back into the clips, and pushing dents out) equals the $4k he borrowed.  Defendant says plaintiff is just asking for the money back, because he didn't move forward with the relationship.  Defendant claims plaintiff took $5800 from his wallet, and drawer at his house.  Both litigants seem to keep having an intimate relationship, even after the unpaid loan, and the claims of thefts from the defendant.  JJ says it's clear that the plaintiff expected to be paid back, in her texts.  $4000 to plaintiff.  

Beloved Mother Denied Headstone-Plaintiffs suing headstone maker for a refund for mother's headstone.   Mother died 27 years ago, and the plaintiffs finally saved up enough for the headstone.   Plaintiff claims they visited the cemetery at least three times a year, but didn't check with the cemetery about headstones, or what their rules are.  They selected an $850 headstone, ordered from defendant, and it was completed.    There is actually a signed contract.    Unfortunately, cemetery does not allow headstones, and plaintiff expected headstone maker would have known that.     I feel sorry for the plaintiffs, but it's not the fault of the defendant that plaintiff didn't check with the cemetery first.  (Apparently mother is buried in a state cemetery in a pauper's grave, and no headstones are allowed.    I feel sorry for the two men, but the defendant did nothing wrong).    Apparently there have been rule changes over the years.   Case dismissed.   

Second-

Amazon Delivery Driver Outrun by Pit Bull-Plaintiff is an Amazon delivery driver, making a delivery when he was attacked by a Pit Bull, and tried to out run it.  Defendant orders a $1,000 phone from Amazon, to defendant, and the property has a gate, and driveway gate.   Plaintiff went through the unlocked gate, to put phone on the porch, and then the loose dog ran around the house, coming towards plaintiff, driver backed out, ran into the side of the owner's truck, and man was bitten on the leg once.    Defendant says plaintiff was trespassing (No, he wasn't, it was an ordered delivery to the specific address).     JJ says, and she's right, unless delivery instructions said toss over gate, stay off property, then it's the defendant's fault this happened.     Plaintiff had a puncture wound.    Defendant claims his dog had shots, but city animal control said it wasn't legally done.    Defendant did his own rabies shots for dog, and bought the serum at the feed store, and gave the shots himself.    All the defendant had to do was pick up his own iPhone (why is it always an iPhone?).    Or put up a sign saying reach packages through gate and drop on bin, or something.   Defendant's witness gets booted.    Defendant counter claims because he had to neuter his dog, and dog was quarantined, dismissed.    Plaintiff gets $2400. (cases like this one are why you see the videos of delivery people booting packages like footballs, or tossing them over a fence).  

Swindled in a Horse Deal-Plaintiff suing defendant in a horse deal gone bad.    Defendant sold horse, and was agreed to split profit with plaintiff, for training and selling the plaintiff's horse.    There is a written contract, but plaintiff paid $4k for another horse, and $500 was for Lucky.    Defendant sold horse to a dude ranch for $3000, and gave plaintiff another $498, and contract doesn't say defendant gets paid for training fees or boarding.    Badly written contract is going to ruin the defendant's case.   $500 to plaintiff. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[sealit]

There is a spot on Amazon for special delivery instructions. I checked the box for packages to be left at my front door instead of in my driveway when they started to get lazy. That dog owner would have been the first person to sue if his package was lost or stolen. 

[Florinaldo]

20 hours ago, sealit said:

There is a spot on Amazon for special delivery instructions. I checked the box for packages to be left at my front door instead of in my driveway when they started to get lazy. That dog owner would have been the first person to sue if his package was lost or stolen. 

Yes, you can click on the special instructions link when ordering, but I prefer to be extra-safe and leave a note on my door if I can't be there to receive a parcel, from Amazon or any other seller. It can be simply where to leave it so it won't be too visible from the street. Even if I am there I may  post a note to remind them to ring the doorbell and not just, as some do, knock so timidly I can't hear it.

If I had a dog, aggressive or not, on my property, I would make sure to display the information prominently.

I do not know where that guy took his information that there is a standard "protocol" that delivery people have to follow, whether the parcel comes from Amazon or another seller. He probably convinced himself in his mind that the method which would shield him most from liability was the one everybody else would consider the norm.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Florinaldo

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Ms. Shonse Hawkins was suing her giant ex-boyfriend for a loan -- the case was pretty tedious but Shonse is my new favorite plaintiff for November.

I liked her because she kept her mouth shut. No interrupting, no crazy gesticulating. She was smart enough to know she wasn't losing 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm so ticked at the local channel that usually shows JJ.   They're having technical difficulties again, and no JJ new episodes for me.  

[basiltherat]

I don't know what Judge Judy programs y'all have been watching, but she sides with the landlords about 80% of the time.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"You're just a couple of miserable people taking advantage of an elderly lady."

Yes. Yes, they are.

[VartanFan]

The virtual reality gaming.  I think the D should have had to pay for the TV.  Even if he was covering for the friend as he says, he agreed to pay her.  Not only that but what happened to ....he pays her and if he wants the friend to pay him back, sue HIM.  I'm really disagreeing with her a lot these days.  

[parrotfeathers]

On 11/22/2019 at 4:40 PM, Florinaldo said:

On 11/22/2019 at 10:22 AM, SRTouch said:

Bus driver, OTOH, was hired to do a job which he was unable to complete through no fault of his own, but because of the employer's faulty equipment.

It did seem pretty clear to me but apparently not to her highness.

I must confess that in the last few months, I have often given up listening to a case JJ is hearing because of how irritable she behaves, how clearly her arbitrary likes and dislikes of various litigants are displayed from the start, how she ignores part of a claim or refuses to look at some evidence for no good reason, and how ridiculous her "reasonings" often are. Her decisions are often so predictable that I can switch to another channel, and then come back a few minutes later to confirm I was correct. Sometimes I do not even get back to her show and I never feel I really missed anything.

I think the man should have been paid even at least partially.  I do believe JJ acted too hastily on this verdict.  Guy was driving a piece of junk.

[ButYourHonor]

12 hours ago, VartanFan said:

The virtual reality gaming.  I think the D should have had to pay for the TV.  Even if he was covering for the friend as he says, he agreed to pay her.  Not only that but what happened to ....he pays her and if he wants the friend to pay him back, sue HIM.  I'm really disagreeing with her a lot these days.  

I disagree with this, but I also thought the slack-jawed idiotic a boyfriend broke the tv.  Plaintiff needs to wise up and dump his ass before she ends up pregnant and he moves on to his next baby mama.

[khyber]

15 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"You're just a couple of miserable people taking advantage of an elderly lady."

Yes. Yes, they are.

God, I really hated those two people.

[Brattinella]

16 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"You're just a couple of miserable people taking advantage of an elderly lady."

Yes. Yes, they are.

The despicable male defendant looked to me like he was bowing up, angry as hell and trying to control it.  He isn't used to being told "no" especially by a woman.  And the woman was no better, she kept trying to get the last word in, even after a warning by JJ  Just terrible people.

[Lady Iris]

I love when JJ bellows out a defendant's last name and PETERMEIER!!! was no exception. He had it coming. I loooved how JJ made it clear that they whined about money troubles to the plaintiff only after they knew she came into a bit of money. $20000 is not a lot for an insurance policy and won't last long today.

[Carolina Girl]

Those two despicable assholes yesterday couldn't keep their damned stories straight.  "We didn't want to go over there with the TV because of a restraining order."  I have a feeling they didn't want to go over there because IF there are relatives living there, they probably also owe them money and the relatives also probably know what they were doing to the plaintiff and wanted to beat the shit out of them.  So instead they take the new TV to THEIR house, knowing the plaintiff was probably not in an shape or condition to get it back.  

When I heard the Blonde C**t defendant say at the end "so why is my name on her bank account, then?"  I'll tell you why.  You and that walking turd you're married to probably went to the poor woman and told her how adding you to her bank account would make it easy for them to get money for you (while helping themselves).  Methinks someone heard about it and had her cancel the grifting couple off the account,.  

And I'm sure they told their tale of their heroic efforts to the case worker assigned to the elder abuse case and were quite convincing to the overworked, underpaid civil servant.  

And as info, Mr. and Mrs. Crappe - I know many people who help out their infirm/elderly friends on a daily basis.  And they wouldn't DREAM of allowing them to give 20% of an insurance payout as "reimbursement."  But the many people I know are cloaked in decency.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016 or so-

First-

New Boat Owner Fail-Boat repairman suing client for interest, late fees, and unpaid bills for a boat repair, on a 1997 SeaDoo.   Defendant bought boat for $8,000 (As is) with accessories, buyer didn't have it checked by a mechanic, or ever put it in the water.   Defendant says boat  had a leaky crankcase, and it needed an engine rebuild, and defendant called seller for help.   Boat has two engines, one worked, and one didn't.    Plaintiff worked on boat, and defendant claims someone else fixed the boat so he could use it, but defendant has no receipt of repair from another mechanic.     Defendant took boat to plaintiff, but refused to pay the bill.   When defendant went to pick up repaired boat, there was a kerfuffle over the bill, and police were called.     Defendant told police he only brought boat in for oil change, and is absolutely lying in court, and to the police.    Plaintiff gets $879 for fixing the boat.  

Sister Fighting DUI-Plaintiff sister is suing her sister for an unpaid loan to pay her DUI legal fees ($2105).    Defendant sister works part time registering patients at the ER.     Defendant doesn't even comprehend anything in court, and seems to have her own script she's following.   Before the time of the DUI the mother, and defendant were living with the plaintiff, and defendant hit something at the gas station with plaintiff's car.    $2105 legal fees, and other fees for a title loan on defendant's loan,  Lawyer cleared DUI record.    Defendant no longer drives, after her insurance was cancelled, but plaintiff says.  Plaintiff says sister was caught driving under suspension, car was impounded, and plaintiff refused to bail car out, so it's gone.    $2105 to plaintiff (smart woman, she doesn't live with mother and sister any longer, and cut them both off). 

Second-

Malicious Call to Child Protective Services-(PLaintiff was going to grow pot for his own use, so he didn't have to buy it.   He obviously used way too much of everything.   Plaintiff hasn't blinked yet, very odd).    Plaintiff rented trailer ($1500 total, $1000 deposit was paid), and was going to grow marijuana.  Plaintiff is suing for $1,000 deposit on trailer, and fix up costs.     Defendant says plaintiff he was going to live in trailer.    Defendants are neighbors of plaintiff, and his mother.     Defendants said plaintiff claimed he was going to live in the trailer.   Plaintiff says he told male defendant it was for a grow op., and it was going to be on a friend's property (in Paris, California), friend told plaintiff to get off his property.   Plaintiff says trailer didn't have valid registration.   Defendant says plaintiff called CPS on them, said male defendant was meth user, and around the kids.    Plaintiff wanted his $1,000 deposit back, and then called CPS the same day.    PLaintiff is not getting his $1,000 back.   Defendants receive $3,000 for plaintiff's malicious call to CPS.    

Horrible Tenant-Plaintiff landlady suing former tenant for unpaid rent, and damages, after she evicted him.    There is a signed lease.   Defendant paid some months in full, but some months less, and claims.    Defendant keeps swaying, and he's making me sick, but worse, JJ is getting sea sick too.      Defendant breached lease by not paying in full for August, and  eviction was started.   Landlady claims $500 wasn't paid for July either.   Plaintiff gave a three day order on 1 September, and man owed $700, plus September, $500 more, equals $1200.   

Defendant moved on 15 September, but was on the premises on 24 September, when plaintiff's property manager (she lives across the hall from his former apartment), and defendant and his witness were heard trashing the place, and property manager photographed the damages (ripped out cabinets, etc.)    Defendant's witness doesn't lie very well.   I love it when the landlady has photos on move in, and move out.  Plaintiff receives the full $5,000.   Defendant told to hit the road.    

Intersection Collision-Plaintiff suing defendant for a car accident.  Defendant did not have insurance on the day of the accident.  Plaintiff was at stop sign, saw defendant in the left hand lane, but when he turned right onto the road, defendant switched lanes in the middle of the intersection,  and nailed his car.     JJ isn't getting the point, the woman didn't signal, and changed lanes in an intersection, and then swooped right hitting plaintiff's car.    JJ says plaintiff should have waited for defendant to go past.   Case dismissed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Family Heirlooms on the Hot Seat-Plaintiff suing ex-sister-in-law over belongings in a family storage unit.   Defendant is counter claiming for loss of family heirlooms.   Storage unit fees weren't paid by plaintiff, but he claims he didn't know how much to pay.    Defendant says she paid over $850 total, until she was informed that the unit was in arrears, and contents were auctioned off.   Defendant says the plaintiff has been separated from her sister for over two years, and he's not paying support for his four children.   Plaintiff case dismissed by JJ.  Defendant case dismissed too.   

Foster Cat Dubbed Too Aggressive-Plaintiff suing former friend for return of her cat, and travel expenses.    Plaintiff adopted cat as 6 year old, and had cat for two years.    Plaintiff gave defendant her cat to foster cat, because plaintiff was homeless (November 2017)at the time.   Eight weeks later defendant sent texts saying cat was aggressive, and couldn't stay in her home any longer (January 2018).    Plaintiff said she would pick up cat in March 2018   However, defendant says cat was taken to shelter at the end of February 2018, and plaintiff wants money for cat she hasn't seen since 2017.    Plaintiff never sent a penny to the defendant for cat.    Cases dismissed.     (The cat isn't at a shelter after 18 months).   

Buyer Beware of Damaged Home-Plaintiff suing his former tenant for unpaid rent, and for contributing to diminished value of his house he was trying to sell.    Defendant suing for moving costs, and other stuff.    (JJ forgot her glasses, can't use Byrd's glasses, and has to get hers).    Plaintiff gave notice to defendant for 30 days (in lease).   He wanted tenant out because prospective buyer didn't want to pay that price with the damaged condition.    Defendant says plaintiff wanted her to lie to prospective buyers that she was staying as a tenant, even after she was moving, and he terminated her lease.  Landlord isn't out rent, because he used her security deposit.  There is no proof why buyer backed out, or the former buyer as witness, so no money for plaintiff

Second (Rerun)-

Reign of the Homeless Terror-Teenage homeowner was renting to woman, and her two sons.   Plaintiff claims her 53 year-old tenant jumped her over a Wifi dispute.    Defendant claims plaintiff cut off Wifi and it interfered with son's homework.  However, it is testified that the Wifi outage interfered with son's Grand Theft Auto play.  Rent was $400 a month, plus utilities, equaling $2800 rent, and only paid $1782.   But for the last two months, there was no outside support, so rent owing is $1600 additional funds, so total is $3382.    Another professional tenant victim in defendant, who knows all of the buzz words about housing court.    JJ gives the' if you ate the steak story', and defendant says "there was no steak".    But tenant lived there, sometimes with two sons, and didn't move.     

The fight was defendant woman attacking young landlord (great for her to own a home at that young age), over wifi outage.     Police were called about fight, and defendant and son were arrested.    Defendant says plaintiff slapped her, however, I can see defendant as a truly nasty person, so I don't believe it.    This is the case where the younger son (16) was playing GTA, and needs wifi, because of his PTSD.       

Defendant just knew the Wifi went down, not who did it, or that it wasn't an outage, or cable issue.  Plaintiff has audio of going into her home, and defendant getting ugly to her, and hitting her.  Plaintiff also has video of 911 call.    Defendant says she also has a video, of plaintiff's "Reign of Terror".     Amazing, defendant claims she didn't do the marks on the wall, but recites them without seeing the photos of the writing on the wall.   The rent the tenant was supposed to pay was very low, compared to the market price, and after her assistance ran out, she stopped paying the bills, and that's when the attack happened.  

Plaintiff gets her rent, and medical bills, and damages.  

Edited November 29, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[blondiek237]

6 hours ago, Lady Iris said:

I love when JJ bellows out a defendant's last name and PETERMEIER!!! was no exception. He had it coming. I loooved how JJ made it clear that they whined about money troubles to the plaintiff only after they knew she came into a bit of money. $20000 is not a lot for an insurance policy and won't last long today.

Not only that, the person DIED!  $20,000 is nothing

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

In the case of Ms. Vanessa Hill with the swoopy hair and the bucket headed pit bull that belonged to her boyfriend (supposedly), I recognized the city and did a little Googling. I found that there were three people registered to that residence including Ms. Hill, her boyfriend and another adult male. Imagine that. . . a defendant that lies!! Whoda thunk it? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016 or so-

First-

When Inebriated Lovers Fight-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend over a drunken fight they had.  Both claim the other started it, and threw the first piece of junk.    Plaintiff wants an unpaid loan for defendant's motorcycle loan refinance (original loan was 27% interest) repaid, an assault, and insurance costs.  Plaintiff took out loan, and paid off motorcycle for defendant, to refi to 4.9%, and to get $2,000 extra for plaintiff's custody battle.    Defendant was sent title by loan company, and so he sold motorcycle back to the dealership, for $4,000.   Motorcycle loan is up to $6300, for loan, insurance, and fees.    Plaintiff will get $3,000. 

  There was an initial fight, and police removed him, but did not arrest him.    After the altercation, man came back to her apartment, and she let him in, and they started throwing items at each other.    The two litigants apparently get drunk frequently, and then fight.   Plaintiff gets $3,000, everything else dismissed.       

Bad Grandmother-Plaintiffs grandson, and his mother are suing grandmother (maternal grandmother) over an unpaid loan to purchase a car for the grandmother's son.   Grandmother was supposed to sell her house, and repay the loan ($2100).     Grandmother never paid him, claims she doesn't owe grandson, and never asked for a loan for her other son.   Grandson gave the money to his uncle, not to grandmother.   $2100 for grandson for loan (I don't trust grandma at all).    Grandson claims grandmother took property from her home, that should have belonged to grandson, and daughter in law (rake, garbage cans, AC unit, BBQ grill-smoker.     Adult son (grandmother's witness) says smoker/grill was his, so that's dismissed.  

Grandmother lived with plaintiffs for a while, they had a kerfuffle, and grandmother wants moving expenses, first month's rent, etc. all dismissed.    Grandmother claims plaintiffs kept her Virgin Mother statue, and tools, dismissed too.    $2100 to grandson for the car loan.  

Second-

Four-Dog Pile-Up-Plaintiff suing defendant/neighbor for vet bills from a dog fight.   Plaintiff's two dogs (German Shepherd, and Chihuahua) were not on leash, and escaped the yard.   German Shepherd (GSD) was on defendant's property, and plaintiff's daughter leashed the GSD, still in defendant's front yard, with the Chihuahua(witness testimony says dogs were not leashed).    Defendant's witness saw roommate let dogs (both Pits) out, and a fight ensued between GSD and one Pit.   Fight started on defendant's lawn, and moved to the street.   Witness says GSD was not on leash.   Neighbors tried to get dogs separated.    Plaintiff still claims it was the Pit owner's fault.   Plaintiff will pay her own vet bills, but her dogs were off leash, and out of her control.   Plaintiff's daughter is giving her dramatic attack recreation, but it's total garbage.   The defendant's witness has no reason to lie, but plaintiff's witness/daughter does.   Case dismissed.  (plaintiff still blames everything on the defendant).   

Spray Gun Mist Mess-Plaintiff car collector suing fellow storage unit owner for damages to his vehicles from paint over spray.    The storage unit isn't sealed between units (big holes at the top of the common wall), and over the winter the plaintiff's vehicles were damaged by paint on them from a spray gun.   Plaintiff's witness is a 40 year auto paint pro.   Defendant sprayed primer, black paint, etc. over the winter in his storage unit.   Plaintiff claims defendant was told not to spray paint in his unit (they're more workshop areas, than actual storage units) a year before this by the fire department.    $2600 to plaintiff.  (Hallterview is hysterical, plaintiff says maybe defendant inhaled too much lacquer over the years, and defendant still claims the paint was his.   I guess the Spray Paint Fairy did it?).

Edited November 27, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new- (Most of the cases are dog attacks)-

First-

Pit Bull Attacks Passerby-Plaintiff suing neighbor for dog attack while she was walking on the public sidewalk.   When plaintiff was walking, she heard the dog, and moved to the street, and a pit bull scaled the six foot privacy fence.    The plaintiff had mace, but ran out of it, the dog got her down on the ground, and a person driving by tried to get the dog to let go.    Plaintiff says she saw the defendant walking back to her house, dragging the dog by the collar.  Police report says defendant was watching boyfriend's dog.    Defendant's landlord says (he's plaintiff's witness) defendant's lease prohibits dogs without approval.  The vet records/rabies say Vanessa Hill is the owner of the dog. Plus, her boyfriend travels a lot, so I doubt the dog lives anywhere but defendant's house.      Landlord told neighbors that if they ever see the dog there again to call him, and he will evict her.   Vanessa Hill claims she only watches the dog for an hour or two, but the boyfriend lives with her, and the dog is there often. 

$5,000 for plaintiff.    Landlord tells JJ how much he likes her hair.    Lying defendant says plaintiff was in her backyard picking flowers.    Sadly, plaintiff no longer walks through her own neighborhood after this.  

$4,000 Jackpot for Return of Missing Dog-Plaintiff was driving, saw a Yorkie by the road, took the dog to a vet to check for a chip.   The chip company contacted the owner, and defendant picked up dog, and she found out man posted reward for return of dog.  $4000 was the reward, but she only returned dog out of kindness, not for the reward.  If the defendant was honest, he would give plaintiff the award.    Defendant says he sent her $300 worth of restaurant gift cards, and plaintiff says the man runs a puppy mill, and his dogs die.   I hope he doesn't pay her a penny.  

Newlywed Lesbian's Bad Math-Plaintiff seamstress made a formal dress, and fitted tuxedo jacket for defendant's wedding.    Plaintiff was in the hospital, and a friend delivered both items to defendant.    Defendant gave a check for the balance owed, and stopped payment.   It cost defendant $200 to get the clothing finished (mostly altered).    Plaintiff was paid $650, and wants her extra money.    Plaintiff is still owed $150 out of the check, (minus the $200 she paid to the other seamstress).  For a similar dress, and jacket, I'm sure it would have cost a lot more than a total of $1300 that was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff.   Plaintiff gets $200, because defendant actually only paid $150 to alter the items. 

Second-

Six-Dog Pile-Up-Plaintiffs are suing neighbors for vet bills from a dog attack on the plaintiff's property (yards adjoin).   Plaintiffs have five dogs, but only one was attacked.   Defendants have five outside dogs (Rottie/Aussie mixes), and three inside Pit Bulls.   Plaintiff claims they told the defendants to fix their fence.   Fence was built by defendants after plaintiff moved in (plaintiffs have 3 to 5 acres), but defendant's kennel is abuts the plaintiff fence, and plaintiffs say the kennel is actually fully on their property. 

There is a plaintiff's witness neighbor that saw the attack.  The attack was after midnight. but neighbor has a spotlight that was on.    Witness says plaintiff's dog was cornered on their yard by three of the defendant's dogs, locked onto head and neck of the plaintiff's dog.   (Where are these people from?).       Vet report on plaintiff's dog says head and limb injuries.     

Plaintiff claims defendant kept cutting the wire fencing on plaintiff's property.   

Defendant's picture of his 'kennel' is as JJ says, looks like a garbage dump.   Have these people never heard of chain link with a bottom rail?   And if the plaintiff's think defendant's fence, and kennel are on their property, then get a survey, and sue to get it moved.   There is a video of the defendant agreeing to pay part of the bills, but says that's all of the money he has.    (What is the defendant on?  He seems totally out of it).   

Plaintiff gets vet bills, $4000 (that's his half).   Total bills are over $8k. 

Edited November 29, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[chenoa333]

I ocassionaly come back here, hoping it won't be pet "kerfuffles", car fender benders, or I borrowed him/her some money". Same old same old.

I'm sad that JJ is no longer entertaining me.

[SRTouch]

Oh my, so many dog cases  - then a silly bride vs seamstress case thrown in. Actually watched the found dog case - but it turned into a waste of time. JJ established the timeline and tosses the case in less than a minute. Only comment I have comes from the hallterview where good samaritan turned greedy shrew accuses owner defendant of running a puppy mill. Lady, from the little we saw of that pup, that little Yorkie has to be the happiest puppy mill dog alive.

[Jaded]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Second (Rerun)-

Reign of the Homeless Terror-Teenage homeowner was renting to woman, and her two sons.   Plaintiff claims her 53 year-old tenant jumped her over a Wifi dispute.    Defendant claims plaintiff cut off Wifi and it interfered with son's homework.  However, it is testified that the Wifi outage interfered with son's Grand Theft Auto play.  Rent was $400 a month, plus utilities, equaling $2800 rent, and only paid $1782.   But for the last two months, there was no outside support, so rent owing is $1600 additional funds, so total is $3382.    Another professional tenant victim in defendant, who knows all of the buzz words about housing court.    JJ gives the' if you ate the steak story', and defendant says "there was no steak".    But tenant lived there, sometimes with two sons, and didn't move.     

 I haven't watched JJ regularly in a couple years at least so I happened upon this episode yesterday due to not changing the channel before it came on. I get the fact that the mother and sons in that case were probably a huge PITA to live with while the homeowner seemed like she could  possibly be one at times too.  The mother and sons were probably worse though because the answers they were giving when questioned drove me crazy more times then not.

Having said all of that I hate the way JJ screams at people telling them to just move. Even when they tell her they were stuck due to finances she either doesn't believe them or tells them it's not an excuse. I almost turned the channel when she kept telling the mother in this case that but I was too far along not to see it through to the end.

[ButYourHonor]

Am I the only one shocked that JJ didn’t make that horrid pit bull owner take off her sunglasses?  Unless she just had glaucoma surgery (and those aren’t the right glasses for that) or is blind (again, no signs of that) she had no excuse wearing them except to hide her shifty, lying eyes.

[DoctorK]

On 11/28/2019 at 9:55 AM, ButYourHonor said:

Am I the only one shocked that JJ didn’t make that horrid pit bull owner take off her sunglasses?

I was surprised also. I believe I have seen JJ, Judge Milian and even Judge Mathis say at the beginning of the case that the litigant has shown a doctor's letter or something else to explain why they needed to wear dark glasses into the court room.

Edited November 30, 2019 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both episodes recent reruns-

First-(2017)

Child Suffers 50 Stitches-Plaintiff mother suing for dog attack on her 13 year-old son by defendant's dog that was required to be muzzled (attack was September 2016).    The child's injuries required 50 plus stitches to close, on his foot, leg. .    Defendant's vicious dog is a Cane Corso, that was required to be muzzled by the city of Cincinnati courts, after a previous attack on another animal.   Defendant was walking his vicious Cane Corso, and his other smaller dog.    He was also required to have (he's not a homeowner) insurance on the dog after April of 2016, and stopped paying for the insurance, so it was cancelled.  

Child was walking home with friends, it was after dark, when dog attacked him without warning.   Child says dog wasn't on a leash, and the smaller dog was off leash too.   Dog was euthanized after attack.   $5,000 to child.     

Mother/Daughter Savings Plan Fail-Plaintiff daughter suing mother for loss of property.   To save money, daughter and boyfriend moved in with mother.   The two women argued, and daughter left, and daughter wants TV, and microwave back.

Plaintiffs moved everything to mother's garage, and left them behind because she had no room for them.       Defendant mother says she put TV , and record player and vinyl, and put it outside, and it disappeared.    Defendant's friend claims daughter sold her the microwave so daughter could buy weed, however, witness looks like the stoner.      Defendant says boyfriend, and plaintiff came back to pick things up from her house, with a police escort.  Police reports says daughter put her items in garage for pick up, and TV and other things were tossed.  Plaintiff gets $125 for the TV, defendant's counter claim for rent is dismissed.    

Adult Male vs. Judge Judy's Grandchildren-Plaintiffs suing former roommate for unpaid rent, utilities, but defendant claims he lived there for the first year, and moved out six months ago.    Defendant doesn't know the address he lives at, with his girlfriend, for six months.   JJ suspects the three litigants are in this together.        JJ wants to call girlfriend to see if defendant moved in with her in May.  Since plaintiffs have texts from defendant saying he owes them the money, so JJ dismissed the case with prejudice to go back to their local small claims court. 

Second-

Neighbor Resorts to Stockade privacy Protection-Plaintiff suing defendant neighbors because they took down privacy fence between properties,      Defendants say fence had a bunch of plaintiff's junk piled against it, and fence was leaning over their property.   Picture shows the fence and a huge cactus leaning on their property.    Base of fence was also cemented in on defendant's property.         Defendants say plaintiff came on their roof, and painted their chimney, it was white, but plaintiff painted it into fake bricks.    However, after the chimney painting, defendant gave a few gifts to plaintiff (they were trying to keep things civil).    Plaintiff took down 50 feet of chain link fence on defendant's property. 

Encroaching fence was on the defendant's property, but for 28 years, so it was adverse possession.    Plaintiff just put up another fence, on both sides of her property.  Defendant wife says plaintiff hosed her down on her own property, and had to get a restraining order.  You know if the old bat fell off of that ladder, she would have sued the defendants for every penny.   (If anyone wonders why you use sun block, look at the plaintiff, she's a walking advertisement for what sun damage does to you). 

I hope defendants do make it a halfway house.    They will never be able to sell with the adverse possession of plaintiff, and her trespassing.    When you have to get a restraining order, it's not going to go well with potential buyers.    Both cases dismissed.  

Say Sorry to Your Grandmother-Plaintiff grandmother suing grandson for a car he purchased from her (it was late husband's car).        Plaintiff gave grandson a bill of sale that said $100 for the car (for tax and registration purposes), so grandson decided to stop paying the $300 a month car loan.      Defendant still owes $6600 on car, but has title to the car.  $5,000 to grandmother.  

Edited November 29, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Chalby]

On 11/18/2019 at 1:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing defendant (ex-wife) for child support 

For some reason, upon reading your post, I immediately recalled a court show from the '80s (can't remember its name, either). Some young gal was in court, trying to get child support from her 'baby daddy'. Her ex thought he'd be clever and bring three of his friends to declare they were sleeping with his ex girlfriend, so he was questioning paternity and child support. After the judge watched each man swear he was initimate with the gal, he made his judgement. Each of the men was responsible for paying $200 per month until child turned 18. (Even getting blood tests couldn't rescind the order because the men had already maligned the gal's character via their lies.)

[Zahdii]

2 hours ago, Chalby said:

For some reason, upon reading your post, I immediately recalled a court show from the '80s (can't remember its name, either). Some young gal was in court, trying to get child support from her 'baby daddy'. Her ex thought he'd be clever and bring three of his friends to declare they were sleeping with his ex girlfriend, so he was questioning paternity and child support. After the judge watched each man swear he was initimate with the gal, he made his judgement. Each of the men was responsible for paying $200 per month until child turned 18. (Even getting blood tests couldn't rescind the order because the men had already maligned the gal's character via their lies.)

Was that a 'real' court show or one of the ones that 'pretended' to be one?  I remember one that presented itself as real, in that they didn't admit outright that it was 'reenactments' with a lot of additions to the story, and sometimes pure fiction.  You had to read the quickly displayed disclaimer in the end once you started to suspect that it seemed too unrealistic to be true.

At first I thought, 'Wow, this is insane!'  Then I started to wonder why a guy who was being sued for not mowing someone's lawn as he'd been paid to do, suddenly escalated into him admitting that he'd killed his elderly former foster parents, living in their home, and driving their truck with their lawnmower in the back to get spending money for food.  The show ended with the judge going back into his chambers, obviously troubled, and calling his wife just to make sure she's OK.

Or the teenage girl who was suing a guy for raping her, and kept acting out in court, screaming that she couldn't take this stress and walking around the courtroom ranting until she could calm down enough to go back to the podium.  She had her therapist with her, and the therapist told the judge that the girl had been seeing her for the past six or so months and disengaging from a stressful situation to talk herself down was a technique to keep her from getting physical when she felt cornered.

The guy the girl was suing used her behavior against her, saying that she's obviously unhinged and lying, and suddenly the handsome young bailiff interrupted to tell the judge that the girl had handed him a note before court offering her sexual services for $20.  The judge told the bailiff that he's very disappointed in him for not speaking up sooner, and they're going to talk about this later.

The therapist explained that the girl was working on how to have normal relationships with people since going into therapy, but she went out on a date with the defendant without telling her therapist about it.  She wasn't supposed to actually go out on dates, she was supposed to learn how to talk to people in general and how to have normal interactions with them.  Dating was supposed to come much later, but because the girl had been doing such a great job at everyday interactions, she jumped into dating much earlier than advised.  So she's on this date, she tells the guy that she's been sexually abused and was a prostitute in the past, and he decided that he'd just jump to sex and no one would believe her if she complained.

No one believed the girl because of her past, except for her therapist, who was working with her to take her power back by suing her rapist.  The note to the bailiff was explained as the girl's way of showing that she believed that she was forever marked.  The judge mentioned that he'd had her in court before and she was behaving much better now.  Then he ruled in her favor with a grandfatherly speech to keep going to therapy.

[Bobby88]

On 11/28/2019 at 12:12 AM, Jaded said:

 I haven't watched JJ regularly in a couple years at least so I happened upon this episode yesterday due to not changing the channel before it came on. I get the fact that the mother and sons in that case were probably a huge PITA to live with while the homeowner seemed like she could  possibly be one at times too.  The mother and sons were probably worse though because the answers they were giving when questioned drove me crazy more times then not.

Having said all of that I hate the way JJ screams at people telling them to just move. Even when they tell her they were stuck due to finances she either doesn't believe them or tells them it's not an excuse. I almost turned the channel when she kept telling the mother in this case that but I was too far along not to see it through to the end.

Am I the only who was kind of rubbed the wrong way by the plaintiff? I just got a weird sneaky vibe from her. If you listen to the recording of the assault, the defendant says something like “What’s your problem?” and the plaintiff responds with something about being tired of the defendant’s ugly face before the shit starts to hit the fan. The assault was obviously uncalled for, but the plaintiff’s remark was childish and unnecessary even for a 19-year-old. Before she played the recording, JJ even asked somewhat incredulously “What made you decide to start recording from the minute you walked in the door that day?” and her response was a somewhat dismissive “Well, there’s always something going on.”  As annoying as the defendants seemed to be, I don’t know if I buy her explanation.  

She just struck me as very passive-aggressive and someone to push buttons. Sort of like that one girl we all went to high school with who initiated most of the fights but who was never actually seen fighting herself. While the defendants were totally wrong to get physical, I also kind of believe that the plaintiff probably deliberately cut off the WiFi knowing it would start something. 

I too am over JJ constantly telling to people to move if they’re not happy with their current living arrangement. It seems that the older she gets, the more she forgets that few people will ever have even a small percentage of the money she does. Even long before her show started in 1996, she was extremely wealthy and I seriously doubt that she ever had to worry how to pay her bills or where her next meal is coming from a day in her life. I certainly don’t think it helped that the plaintiff in this case was a homeowner at 19 (for two years; how is that even possible at 17?) and the defendant was in her early fifties, so this probably only added fuel to JJ’s assertion that ANYBODY can get a new home if they really want one. For all of the defendant’s evasive answers, I do believe that her tears were genuine when she said she had nowhere else to go.

[Jaded]

I had the same feelings about the plaintiff @Bobby88. I wasn't sure if I heard the recording the plaintiff played correctly so I didn't really mention it in my previous post. Now that I see you heard the same it makes it easier to agree with you. It was clear that going to live with the plaintiff wasn't the defendant's first choice and that she wasn't proud of the situation she found her family in.

I also agree about your assessment regarding JJ's life financial wise.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Jaded

[Chalby]

On 11/29/2019 at 7:05 AM, Zahdii said:

Was that a 'real' court show or one of the ones that 'pretended' to be one?  I remember one that presented itself as real, in that they didn't admit outright that it was 'reenactments' with a lot of additions to the story, and sometimes pure fiction.  You had to read the quickly displayed disclaimer in the end once you started to suspect that it seemed too unrealistic to be true.

Good question - I have no idea as it was the first time I had seen a court tv style show. I only remember it because I thought, what a great judgement. I had heard of men bringing in friends to question a pregnant gal's paternity claim, but never with this kind of result. For some reason I want to say it was British in origin, but bottom line, I only remember the outcome.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the "Reign of Terror" case, with the 19 year old homeowner/landlord, the tenant had greatly reduced rent, and only the last two months were full price (the support contract for rent expired).     The last two months were also when the eviction action was in progress, and I'm sure the landlord was at the end of her rope with the tenants.   The tenant had the one son living there, then for the last few months the older son moved in, and all while the tenant wasn't paying.   The tenant should have had a nice nest egg accumulated from all of the months of very low rent, and should have been looking all along for other places to move.   

[Chalby]

On 11/18/2019 at 1:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Baby Car Seat Slip-Up-Plaintiff suing defendant (they were roommates for a few months).  Defendant put her two year old in a high chair/booster seat, not a real car seat for the baby.  Plaintiff got a ticket for driving slowly in the high speed lane, and her fines were $484, and a ticket was for plaintiff as a driver, for having a baby unsecured in the car.   Plaintiff had to pay late fees for the tickets, so she wants $900+ total.  As JJ says, plaintiff got a ticket for driving improperly, and allowed the defendant to use an improper car seat.   Case dismissed. 

I am so glad nothing was checked re: car seats back in the late '80s. and early '90s. If my friends brought their child into my car, they belted the child into car seat, etc. I didn't even look because I had no clue what was required. If ticket had been divided into charge for slow driving and charge for wrong baby seat, I think JJ would have awarded her the child seat charge.

[Chalby]

On 11/4/2019 at 5:14 PM, 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?

And how does one 'miscarry' at 8 months. I have known friends who have had to birth their stillborn child (broke my heart) and even miscarriages are gut wrenching. But usually doctors can save an 8 months in utero baby who decides to come out. Something's not right. If she's going to lie about a pregnancy, at least research the stages (potential dangers) of pregnancy.

[Chalby]

On 10/2/2019 at 5:55 PM, AuntiePam said:

Nobody gives a stranger $5,000 cash.  JJ must have been suspicious from the start.  She didn't ask about the nature of the work, when the boat was purchased, none of the usual stuff. 

This is true, however your comment reminded me that I sometimes get annoyed with JJ when she calls people 'liars' the minute they say they used cash. (Especially when a renter says he paid rent with cash, something I always did.)  I think JJ forgets that people no longer accept cheques for purchases and cash is still king. I am very insistent on receipts or written agreements, but at the same time, I have no issue with giving a seller cash. Often a seller will offer a discount if the buyer brings cash. I just don't advertise I have cash on me, and I do realize that many of the people JJ is calling liars, are... indeed... liars, lol.

[Chalby]

On 10/8/2019 at 5:59 PM, Giant Misfit said:

I felt sorry for that poor woman he sued. And I sure wanted to know, even though JJ didn't, what kind of judgment that woman had won against him.

I felt bad for the defendant, mostly because she did not "maliciously" offer up her new info to former clients. She appears quite honest and forthcoming - to the point where I would take a breath and tell the TV that JJ is not  diary and she doesn't have to disclose any information not requested. (and being bondable for so many years helps her public image.) and I do NOT believe her employer Dr. in order to steal his filed bids or steal his workers or bids.. Nor did she offer up her contact information with an intent to lure or steal his employees (and he forgets that his company's employees CAN'T be 'stolen'.) She is clearly a good worker, and these people wanted to keep her on, even after she quit the Dr. business). So what is a person to do? Let's say you saved enough $$ to venture out on your own to start your own cleaning company. A client from 10 months ago contacts you and says I heard you started your own business, we can't wait for you to start! Are you supposed to say, Nope, can't help you because I knew you through someone else's business. (I think I would request the client write a letter stating they sought me out, independently, after quitting Dr.'s services. As well, I'd want them to write that I did not initiate contact after I left the Dr.'s company; just so JJ would see there was never an intent to 'steal' customers. I liked that the defendant was honest in stating that when the couple asked her what day she was returning, she informed them she was never coming back, as she wanted to start her own business. She went on to share her new contact information after they excitedly expressed interest.  I really believe that she had no clue that this was both unethical and doesn't look good for the company being 'left'.in our business world, but she's never owned a business before, either.Then again, most good references are via word of mouth, or casual conversations.

[funky-rat]

Will JJ peeps, the day I feared has come.  This site is now blocked where I work.  Partially thank a coworker who would rather watch Youtube than do his work.  The day after he was let go, I couldn't get on.  The filters keep getting tighter.  I miss my laugh break during the day.  I hate posting on my tablet, and my laptop is about to take a dump.  Getting a new one soon.  Not much to add on the most recent cases.