All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Bonfire Blowout-Plaintiff suing neighbor/defendant for bonfire during a party  that burned his fence.  Plaintiff swears bonfire kept getting bigger and bigger, and then the fire suddenly flared up, and claims someone threw gas on the bonfire.   The fence was vinyl, and one panel (probably a 6' x 6') warped very badly.   There's also a dust up over using the dock on both properties.    Defendant claims plaintiff's wife leans on, and shakes the fence.   Counterclaim is that common access docks are across road, and there are no designated place for each person's, and plaintiff's dock has been in the same spot for 30 years.  Defendant claims the plaintiff moved his dock over, and blocked his dock access.    Counterclaim dismissed.       

I suspect the defendant and his friends did exactly what the plaintiff says.   The smirk on the defendant's face is very irritating, and I think he knows exactly who damaged the fence.     Plaintiff gets $1100 for fence. 

Move-Out Money-Plaintiff, a month-to-month tenant wants moving costs, and renovation costs on a house he was renting, that defendant gave him a 30 day notice to quit.   Plaintiff claims his improvements made the property more valuable.   He claims defendant evicted him to make more money, because of the rise in rents in Colorado because of legalized pot.   Defendant bought/transferred property from her father, the previous owner.     Defendant is suing for repair costs, to fix the 'improvements' the former tenant did.   Plaintiff case dismissed.     Defendant case dismissed.    No proof of anything.

Second-

Evidence Showdown-Plaintiff suing defendant for repossessing a car defendant sold for $600.   However, defendant's witness says he paid $400 to defendant, and owes $400 more, and he still has the car, and owes $400 more.       Defendant's SO and roommate saw defendant's witness give defendant the money order, and claim none of them know the plaintiff.   Defendant says she never sold anything to the plaintiff, that she thinks she's the defense witness's ex-girlfriend.      Defendant also had a title loan on the car for $800.  Very confusing case, and I wonder what the truth is?    $400 to plaintiff.   

Independence Day Attack-Plaintiff suing defendant for their dogs running wild and attacking her dog on the Fourth of July, plaintiff's dog is a cute fluffy mutt, maybe 20 pounds maximum.   (This should be quick, it's eight minutes left of the episode).  Plaintiff was walking her two leashed dogs, passing the defendant's house on her walk.    Plaintiff was crossing street, and the defendant's two dogs grabbed one of the dogs (American Bulldog/Boxer mix, and an American Bulldog), one dog was pulled off of her dog, but came back again.    Defendant and wife weren't even at the dog attack site, but keep whining about what they claim happened.    The defendant's adult son saw the attack, but isn't here in court.  In the Hall-terview defendant says it's negligent to walk your dog on the fourth of July, because of the fireworks!       $2452 to plaintiff.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First (2018)-

Marijuana House Rules-Plaintiff suing former roommate for moving out early, deposit, and stolen property.    Defendant says plaintiff smoked weed whenever she wanted, and refused to limit her smoking of weed even when defendant's father was visiting.   Defendant also says plaintiff gave her seedy boyfriend a key, and he came into the apartment any time he wanted to.   Plaintiff gets very little money.    The poor defendant certainly picked the wrong roommate, and she needs another hair dresser.     I want a video of the fight over the missing items.     How does someone who has a 9 year old, can't get their own apartment, and apparently buys tons of weed, and still buys super expensive face cream?     Her ex definitely had his own key, and stayed there a lot, and sounds like a lovely person for a jerk.   The woman over the defendant's left shoulder certainly had the world's biggest pout today.   

Obnoxious Witness Thrown Out of Court-Plaintiff suing defendant for car accident damage.   Plaintiff ran a stop sign, had no insurance, and is totally at fault.     Defendant claims plaintiff was driving 30 mph over the speed limit, witness keeps chiming in, and gets the Byrd boot.   Plaintiff gets his money.  

Second (2019)-

Don't You Ever Watch This Show?-Plaintiff suing her daughter's former friend for car damages ($4600),and punitive damages for ruining her daughter's birthday.   (Is the defendant's hair green?  Or is it my TV?).    Defendant and friends were in Walmart's parking lot, and one or all of the three vandalized the defendant's car.  Plaintiff daughter says defendant broke auto glass, and another girl ruined other parts of the car.   Plaintiff didn't give the defendant's name to the police.  (Who dyed the defendant's, plaintiff, and plaintiff's witness hair? ) (I think plaintiff should have received zero, for not telling the police who did the damage.  However, she was fine at taking her on national TV instead?).   $3500 to plaintiff for car damages, nothing for the birthday party ruining. 

Ill-Prepared Baby Daddy-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan to reinstate his driver's license.  Defendant had a suspended license, and was caught driving suspended (suspended since 2015-2016).   Defendant had to take classes, and pay for the license, and pay the back tickets, and it cost over $741, and he repaid $216. Defendant claims he picked her child up from school for seven months, but plaintiff says she takes her kids to school.  Plaintiff really reacts to defendant's lie about driving her kids anywhere, especially considering his lousy driving record.      $525 to plaintiff.   

 

 

[SjVC]

On 9/4/2019 at 4:10 PM, Brattinella said:

I was falling off my chair watching Judge Judy clean these two hooligan's clocks!  The 23-yr old in particular.  Why is she getting in on pummeling a 15-yr old?  That's a felony on a minor, kiddo.  I wish I had caught hometown name or defendants' names, darn it.  I'd love to follow up on this one.

I wrote all of the information down because I 100% want to find out if these idiot sisters get what they deserve. It's Rubi and Bertha Ramirez, 16 and 23 years old respectively (in 2019) they live in Adelanto, California. The plaintiff (victim) is Michelle Flores, 15 y.o. This episode really made me sick. The attitude of those two sisters is part of the reason why our society is screwed. I don't need to go into detail here, simply watch the JJ episode and you'll understand what I'm talking about. The Judge Judy episode was called "Mean Girls' Vicious Beat Down". Damn it they really made me sick. Way too many teenagers and young adults have the same way of thinking. It's disturbing, it's disgusting, and it's the downfall of the next generation of American adults. I'm generalizing, don't get me wrong, there are millions of good, decent teenagers and young adults out there. However, I'm seeing more and more that have the attitude of the Ramirez sisters. They are both disgusting humans. And to know that the 23-year-old has kids and will probably raise them to think the same way that she does really devastates me.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 4:10 PM, Brattinella said:

I was falling off my chair watching Judge Judy clean these two hooligan's clocks!  The 23-yr old in particular.  Why is she getting in on pummeling a 15-yr old?  That's a felony on a minor, kiddo.  I wish I had caught hometown name or defendants' names, darn it.  I'd love to follow up on this one.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. rerun episodes, probably 2016-

First-

Bike Buyer's Remorse-Plaintiffs suing defendant motorcycle shop owner and mechanic over repairs on an old bike.   Plaintiffs want all of their payments back, even though defendant claims he fixed the bike as requested.     Nothing for the litigants, and they deserve nothing.

Cash Cow House?-Plaintiff landlord suing defendant /former tenant that was rented by woman, husband, and three kids.   Plaintiff alleges damages, but the place was owned by someone else for many years, a student rental for a year, and property was never improved except for an outside paint job.    This case illustrates why you take pictures before move in, and on move out for a rental property.   Before pictures from craigslist look good, but former renter denies the house looked that good when she moved in.  Plaintiff gets nothing, and defendant gets her security deposit back. 

Second-

Rescue Chihuahua Chase-After a neighbor's dog attacks her Chihuahua, a woman demand compensation for the new fence she put up.  Plaintiff claims doctor bills, but has no human doctor bills to show.  Plaintiff took the dog to the vet, but she didn't go to the doctor, even though she didn't know about the rabies vaccine status of the defendant's dog. 

Plaintiff also threatened to report defendant to licensing board for realtors.   Plaintiff wanted $1300 for fence, and threatened a CPS report against the tenant (he has two family foster kids, so they already have CPS oversight).    There is nothing in the vet report about a dog bite.   Case dismissed.       JJ also reassures the realtor/broker that the small town they live in will all watch the case, and know who the nut case is. 

Roommate Misfits-A former roommate is accused of skipping out on eight months of rent, property damage.  Plaintiff never tried to get a replacement roommate after defendant left.  Defendant is saying all kinds of nasty things about plaintiff, and plaintiff returns the favor.   There was a $75 cost to break the lease for defendant.       Case dismissed. 

 

[One Tough Cookie]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 (Is the defendant's hair green?  Or is it my TV?).   

I thought it was a turquoise bath mat.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both reruns, recent season-

First-

Silk Purse From a Sow's Ear-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for 2 months rent, ambulance bill,  two tickets for setting of false alarms, and stalking.   Litigants were shacked up, had a kid, he lost his job, and didn't pay the rent.   Plaintiff wants back rent (and he was unemployed?).  Plaintiff claims defendant set the alarm off twice using the app, but defendant says he set the alarm off twice getting his stuff back.  Defendant punched a hole in the door, and he was arrested for damage to property, and something else.   Plaintiff tries to charge JJ's bench, and I really hoped Byrd would tackle her.   Plaintiff was charged $85 each for the alarms, and the door repair, and defendant claims he paid restitution.   Plaintiff also claims her son got sick, day care called, and defendant was supposed to pick son up, six days after the big blow up.   (On a shallow note, is the plaintiff's hair supposed to be cute?) Plaintiff then told defendant the child was sick, and defendant picked up kid(she already had a protective order against defendant too).   Defendant took him to urgent care, and then an ambulance was called, and she objects to paying for the ambulance.    Defendant has seven children, plaintiff found this loser, got knocked up, and now wants to be paid for this?    Urgent care does not call an ambulance for a kid with a cold, so plaintiff is a fool too.    When defendant moved out, plaintiff says she put all of his property out on the curb.   $500 to defendant for his dumped property.  

Byrd looks like he would like to help the plaintiff leave via a foot up her fanny.   I do love the plaintiff's stomping out of court, and the hall-terviews. 

Defendant gets $500, plaintiff gets nothing.    

Teen Cheating Ruins Aruba Vacay-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for a non-refundable flight to Aruba ($770 for ticket), in July, and they broke up in March.    (Is the defendant's hair stylish or something?   It looks hideous).   The ticket is non-refundable, and only in defendant's name, but he can change destinations.   Defendant says no payment was ever mentioned.  Case dismissed.    (in the hall, defendant says he's using his ticket to go to Hawaii). 

Second-

Crazy Reminder From Landlord-Is there a time tunnel from Haight-Ashbury (spelling?) to Judge Judy's courtroom?    What a couple of losers the plaintiffs are.   I bet his family is so sick of that loser, and now his girlfriend, showing up at their door every time they get evicted.  I love how he was supposed to buy a relative's trailer, squatted there for 17 months, and then got the boot when he never paid a cent.   Then the plaintiffs moved into the defendant's house (rented a room).      They didn't pay for two months, before they were evicted.   

What was on that woman's head, a poodle?    Shampoo is cheap, she should get some.    I love Judge Judy saying to get rid of their left behind junk.   Not paying for two months makes them professional squatters right?   

So the woman plaintiff claims homeowner stole her Pink Floyd album, pushed her, then the landlord called the police, and  had her evicted by the police, chewed on by a police puppy.  Then the landlord got a restraining order, or the loon got the restraining order, and they had to stay five feet apart,  then the police showed up because she violated the order?   I don't know which way it was, but that woman scares me.    Rent was overdue, so plaintiff tried leaving $50 cash on the man's car ($1,000 was due).    Plaintiff's claim the defendant stole their window air conditioner.

Stolen Frozen Meat, Future Slim Jims-(My mother could be locked in a room, have only Slim Jim sticks to eat, and she would starve ( however, she'll eat pork roll, don't google it, that stuff is too disgusting to know what it is).    Some people never eat beef sticks, because they're worried about the interesting ingredients I guess.    I once saw beef lips as an ingredient on a package of a beef stick, so I'm not fond of them either. )

Plaintiff suing former butcher shop owner for $700 he claims he paid for beef sticks, and other meat, but you can't resell any of it commercially.    What on this earth would someone do with 700 lbs of summer sausage, and beef sticks if they can't resell them?  And if they had no where to store it?   What a lovely Christmas present the plaintiff gives, inedible meat. I wonder if the relatives he gave the meat to survived?   

Plaintiff wasn't even dealing with the original owner after August, and what a loon the plaintiff is.   Plaintiff wasn't even dealing with the same owner.  

I think that someone needs to go to Slim Jim rehab.     I love the halterview by plaintiff (who had nowhere to store the meat), "If I knew they were getting rid of it I would have picked it up", and stored it where?  I have a vision of him picking it up, throwing it in the back of his pickup truck, and having flocks of vultures following him.   Plaintiff picked up some of the meat, has no proof of how much, and still wants the entire $700 back?   Case dismissed. 

 

[configdotsys]

 

On 1/1/2020 at 4:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First-

Bonfire Blowout-Plaintiff suing neighbor/defendant for bonfire during a party  that burned his fence.  Plaintiff swears bonfire kept getting bigger and bigger, and then the fire suddenly flared up, and claims someone threw gas on the bonfire.   The fence was vinyl, and one panel (probably a 6' x 6') warped very badly.   There's also a dust up over using the dock on both properties.    Defendant claims plaintiff's wife leans on, and shakes the fence.   Counterclaim is that common access docks are across road, and there are no designated place for each person's, and plaintiff's dock has been in the same spot for 30 years.  Defendant claims the plaintiff moved his dock over, and blocked his dock access.    Counterclaim dismissed.       

When I read this recap, I was reminded of a long ago case that I lost after a DVR failure and wish I could get back. A very high pitched defendant (who made JJ's eye twitch) went to a bbq at the home of some loser who works in fast food and has another kid on the way with his girlfriend, and this bright bulb decided to use kerosene to light the bbq because he'd done it before. Someone ran in and told the plaintiff that she needed to move her car stat and when she did, she got serious burns on her legs. Loser defendant blamed her and said she backed up purposely towards the can and it went "kaboom! There goes the can, here comes the fire..." anyway.....

22 hours ago, SjVC said:

I wrote all of the information down because I 100% want to find out if these idiot sisters get what they deserve. It's Rubi and Bertha Ramirez, 16 and 23 years old respectively (in 2019) they live in Adelanto, California. The plaintiff (victim) is Michelle Flores, 15 y.o. This episode really made me sick. The attitude of those two sisters is part of the reason why our society is screwed. I don't need to go into detail here, simply watch the JJ episode and you'll understand what I'm talking about. The Judge Judy episode was called "Mean Girls' Vicious Beat Down". Damn it they really made me sick. Way too many teenagers and young adults have the same way of thinking. It's disturbing, it's disgusting, and it's the downfall of the next generation of American adults. I'm generalizing, don't get me wrong, there are millions of good, decent teenagers and young adults out there. However, I'm seeing more and more that have the attitude of the Ramirez sisters. They are both disgusting humans. And to know that the 23-year-old has kids and will probably raise them to think the same way that she does really devastates me.

 

 

Edited to add: This case aired new last September 4th so I'm sure it is over with now. I hope they threw the book at those two.  Why does a 16 year old think it's wonderful to pummel someone and beat them so that they hurt their own hand and then brag about it on social media? I don't understand. The mother seemed non-shocked at any of the things that were said in court. She was WITH them when they beat the girl? Okay, show of hands: how many of you have moms that just would have kind of hung out watching you pulverize a 15 year old with your sister and rob her of her phone?

Edited January 3, 2020 by configdotsys
fixed.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Doggie Daycare Disaster-Plaintiff / former landlord suing former tenant who claimed she was starting a dog walking business, suing for damages from pet boarding business.    Plaintiff claims defendant was actually advertising dog boarding.    Defendant moved into the rental house with her 7 month old child, and her father was a co-signer..    Plaintiff did research after tenant moved out, and he saw the damages.   Defendant admits to having foster dogs, and I suggest she was doing Doggie Daycare, which is not dog walking.    Lease limits defendant to one dog, and with a substantial fee for any additional dogs.    Plaintiff has a FB ad for dog boarding, and with pictures of several dogs in the back yard of the home.   Broken cabinets, trash left behind, nasty carpets.    Defendant claims she paid someone to deep clean the rugs, but they look nasty.   It took a month to clean, paint, and recarpet the home.   And defendant left property behind into the next month, so she owes for the month's rent.    Photos show the home was in pristine condition, and newly painted before defendant moved in.   Defendant's witness is a realtor who has known the defendant forever, and is totally lying.    $1313 to plaintiff for damages. 

Mouth of Pain-Plaintiff suing brother Larry Westerfield II for a loan for massive amount of dental work (last time it was speculated that the Xrays should be used for ads for "this is your mouth on meth" commercials).     Plaintiff wants her Care Credit bill paid, and defendant claims it was a gift.    The dentist was smart, because the first person people refuse to pay are dentists, doctors, veterinarians, and other providers.     

Larry II is 43, and an electrician, who lives with mommy.    Defendant claims his mother told the sister about his teeth, and then sister took defendant to the dentist, where the dentist said it was the worst mouth he'd ever seen.    The dentist office is smart not to take payments, and sister was a fool to get the Care Credit account.    Defendant went back to work two months later, and claims he gave the sister cash.    A licensed electrician doesn't make $10 an hour, and man still owes about $10,000 child support.    Balance is $3386 left, because sister has been making payments.    $3547 to plaintiff.    (If they're so estranged, then why the big hug, and "I Still Love You Too" in the hall-terview. 

Second-

Daters or Debtors?-(They met at a fast food drive through, she worked there). Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for a series of unpaid loans, $1465 total.   They met at the drive thru, and then she came to his house, and then a week or so later she wanted a loan.   Now the story changes, first loan was for her moving expenses, second was for car expenses, and another was for a shortage at work she had to make up.   Defendant claims everything was a gift, including a check that she signed, and now denies was hers. 

 Woman never paid any money back, so he had no expectation of repayment.   Defendant was later arrested for a misdemeanor, $300 bond.  Then he paid for a class so she could get a job, and she was expecting an income tax refund.    Why do people keep falling for the income tax refund scam?   $600 to plaintiff and that's it.   What a fool he is, and someday that woman's going to scam the wrong person.   

Slashed Tires & Jealousy-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for slashing his tires.  They broke up, and one day he walks out to see his tires slashed.   Defendant really seems to think that was the right thing to do.  There is a witness, who saw the tire slashing, and saw the kind of car she drives (a Silver Jaguar).  The woman drives a silver Jaguar, that defendant drives, but plaintiff paid for, and it's still in his name.   Plaintiff $1200, and he needs to get his car back.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (Rerun)-

$137,000 Fire Insurance Windfall-Plaintiff suing niece for unpaid loan, attorneys fees, and tools that weren't returned.  Niece's home with mother burned enough to be uninhabitable, they relocated to motels, and later a rental property.   Plaintiff is a beginning contractor, and worked on his sister and niece's home.    Niece says uncle started working on home, received $137,000 to general contractor the job,   Before rebuilding house had to be rescued from foreclosure.   Plaintiff loaned money ($3100) to niece to catch up on bills, and rental car for sister's medical appointment transportation.  No proof of the loan.         Mother/sister didn't move back into the house, but niece moved into the house in 2018 (I think, it's very confusing). 

House has been in foreclosure since 2014!  There was a modification, because of mother's illness.     I'm actually shocked that a house that was that far behind on mortgage payments wasn't actually foreclosed on.    And I believe the uncle's guess that the niece is going to try to keep the house after her mother's gone is true.      With the modifications, the $3,000 could very well be the new amount owed on the home, for a refinance / modification closing cost.   

I am sick of the defendant's muttering, nodding, giggling, and interrupting.    I'm hoping niece gets the Byrd boot soon. 

Litigants had an argument, and she alleges uncle pushed her, and irritated an old injury, no medical or police report.      "It is what it is" comes out of niece's mouth at the end,  so I don't believe her either.   Case dismissed.  (I believe JJ's guess, that it's all to get money from the show).   The uncle/plaintiff claims that the original plan was to fix the home, and sell it, not for the niece to move in.  Apparently, the mother/sister isn't living in the home, but the niece/daughter is.     I wonder if the mortgage company realizes the original owner doesn't live in the home?  

Second (New)-

Dog Held Hostage for Gold Chain?-Plaintiff suing defendant for $1,053 an unpaid loan, and for holding his dog hostage.    Defendant claims the money was to pay for a pawned gold chain ($300), and to pay off high interest loans.   Plaintiff says he was going to board his dog during a trip to Guam (commercial were $300 to $500 a month), so he had defendant watch the dog, and it was supposed to be free because of the loan.   The pawned chain was ransom to get the dog back.   Defense witness is  out of control.   $1350 to plaintiff.   

Flash Mob Memorializes Gay Engagement-Plaintiff suing his ex-fiance for an unpaid loan to pay for a trip to Fiji, and for car repairs, and for half of an unpaid loan to pay for their engagement video/flash mob.    (Apparently we don't have to send the pair wedding gifts, because apparently this relationship is extremely over).    Defendant paid some money to the plaintiff, covering his non-diver (it was a scuba diving trip) trip costs.    Counterclaim is for an engagement ring from Tiffany's $2100.    They exchanged rings, and plaintiff broke the engagement.    Defendant thinks he should get to keep his ring, and get the one he gave to plaintiff back (not happening, they each keep their ring).   $1545 to plaintiff.  

(Monday's rerun is the 18 year old who rented the vacation place for her, and her boyfriend.   Then the landlord received a call from the Sheriff who lives next door about a big party, lots of naughty events.   And the place was trashed.)

Edited January 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$137,000 Fire Insurance Windfall

When JJ says "I know exactly what is going on here", it usually means she is full of crap. This was no exception.

As often happens when a case is too complicated for the simplistic story she has built up in her head, she cut through many relevant details and made the facts fit her preconceptions. In this instance by combining two issues that should have been kept separate, i.e on the one hand the insurance reimbursement and on the other the loans.

She also displayed her frequent reluctance to have anyone make money or a profit in a venture – except for her, of course. Her statement to the plaintiff "you already made enough money" was absurd. What does that have to do with the defendant's obligation to reimburse the loans he made her and how does it justify commingling the two funds? Whatever might have been shady about his business dealings should have been the object of a distinct analysis instead of impacting the case at hand.

In the process, JJ let the annoying ninny of a niece off the hook.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Flash Mob Memorializes Gay Engagement

I suppose I should consider it an achievement of sorts that a fellow gay male like the defendant can be as bitter and cheap-minded with his ex as so many straight litigants (so often women) on these court shows. We’ve made it guys!

The plaintiff was also a tad bitchy, but with more poise and restraint.

I was surprised JJ did not ask to view the video so that she could critique the choreography and arrangements.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is in the $137K insurance case, that the niece will lose the home in no time.   The next time, she won't get a modification, and no one will be loaning her anything.     I'm sure the mother will never see the place again either.    The uncle's mistake was he was dealing with relatives, he should have started contracting with another job, not involving the niece.    I really wonder if he did a good job on the house, and if he's still going to try contracting?     

I hope the mortgage holder heard about this case, and looks into who is on the mortgage, and who actually lives there.    I bet they refinanced the mortgage under the modification, and the money the uncle loaned was for the closing costs.    However, I bet the niece didn't qualify for a mortgage, and everything was under the aunt's name, and she has dementia.    

I bet the uncle was supposed to get a cut when they sold the house, and now that the niece has her fanny parked in it, the home's not going anywhere. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 1/3/2020 at 8:54 PM, Florinaldo said:

I was surprised JJ did not ask to view the video so that she could critique the choreography and arrangemen

 Don't you know?  She has seen {and had} many flash mobs.

Edited January 6, 2020 by One Tough Cookie

[patty1h]

During a case today, JJ called one of the plaintiffs "Rip Van Winkle" because he said he was asleep during a drunken party.  When there was no reaction from the courtroom at that nickname, JJ polled the audience to see who didn't know Rip Van Winkle is.   There were hardly any response, and JJ says "it's time to die" after realizing that much of the court room didn't know this storybook character. 

I'm not sure if it's sad or funny that JJ feels that way.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

The Danger of Dog Parks-Plaintiff suing defendant over a dog injury at a dog park.  Plaintiff says defendant's dog bit her dog.   Defendant says he thinks injury was from his dog's sharp collar or some other foreign object, and wasn't his fault.  Vet report doesn't have a statement, just what procedures they're going to do.   Defendant also says Greyhounds have thin skin, and Dr. Google agrees.    JJ agrees that dog parks are a free for all, unless you're taking a vicious animal there, and dogs will be dogs.  Case dismissed

Study Abroad Misfire-Plaintiff suing defendant for not paying for a car lease that defendant took over for plaintiff, when plaintiff moved overseas.    Defendant was supposed to pay $290 for nine months, but stopped paying half way through the period.  Plaintiff raised the contract amount after a few months, because of excess mileage, changing the contract.   A month or so later, plaintiff notified the leasing company to repossess the car.   Defendant is counter claiming for her clothes, her kid's clothes, and other items, and says for a period they were living in the car.  Plaintiff bought the car, because it was cheaper than paying the overages, and for damages.  Car was repossessed by plaintiff from in front of a homeless shelter (that's a first for me).  Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant case dismissed. 

Friends Don't Let Friends Borrow Money-Plaintiff suing defendant for an unpaid loan $.   Defendant needed money for a utility deposit, is unemployed, with three children (lives off of her child support, and son's disability checks).   As usual, defendant claims it was a gift.   Plaintiff took out a cash advance for $500, plus fees.    Plaintiff receives $561.  (Defendant's witnesses should have been booted, for their commentary trying to coach the defendant). (Hall-terview with defendant states that she paid the utility deposit with the loan, and her friend's court fees).  

Second-

Escape With the Children-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend (Sainted Single Mother of Three, aged 4, 3, 7 months) SSMOT for stealing his money, and identity theft.     Plaintiff claims defendant is an abusive mother.   Defendant says she never married because her parents never married (40 years together, and very happy), and were fine without marriage.    Custody case is on-going, plaintiff claims he took the oldest two kids and left, so defendant empties the bank account, and sold his tools.     Plaintiff has no proof of the abuse of the kids.   Plaintiff claims he gave the defendant $8,000, but she claims she had a settlement, and loaned him the $8,000.   Plaintiff case dismissed.    Defendant claims the children were kidnapped, but they don't have a custody agreement, so that's dismissed.  Defendant also has an older child, not plaintiff's kid.     

Jail Time Between Best Friends-Plaintiff suing his former friend and roommate for selling his possessions while he was in jail for a few months, emptied his bank accounts, etc.   Plaintiff and boyfriend had a fight, which resulted in all three getting arrested.   Defendant claims they were all friends, and that's why he knew the plaintiff's banking information to drain them.   (Defendant certainly dressed from the Darth Vader Bling collection today.   The gold spike epaulets are spectacularly awful).   Plaintiff was in jail for months, and claims the defendant is a thief.    Amazing that the plaintiff spent months in jail, bet there's a history there.   Plaintiff's clothes were either sold or donated, iPhone was sold to the electronics store.     JJ entertains with her instructions in how to spackle wall dents.    Defendant keeps making comments to the audience when they laugh at his outrageous comments.   $3,000 to plaintiff. 

[One Tough Cookie]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

During a case today, JJ called one of the plaintiffs "Rip Van Winkle" because he said he was asleep during a drunken party.  When there was no reaction from the courtroom at that nickname, JJ polled the audience to see who didn't know Rip Van Winkle is.   There were hardly any response, and JJ says "it's time to die" after realizing that much of the court room didn't know this storybook character. 

I'm not sure if it's sad or funny that JJ feels that way.

I just told that to my husband and said the same thing.  I'll be 68 {OMG} at the end of the month and still have a flip phone! 

Edited January 6, 2020 by One Tough Cookie

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Landlord Beaten With Lead Pipe-Plaintiffs (brother and sister) / former tenants are suing their former landlord for return of rent, security deposit, and a missing laptop.    Female plaintiff was evicted from her previous apartment, and moved into a room in the defendant's place.   One night the plaintiffs had a party with five friends, and invited a bunch of strangers from the bar home.   They came home after 3 a.m. in the morning noisy. heir drunk friends.   Landlord asked them to be quiet, and a couple of hours later he heard a lot of noise from upstairs, and went to tell them to leave.    

When defendant objected to the noise,  and some of the visitors beat him up, and he was beaten with a lead pipe.   (JJ mentions Rip Van Winkle, and over half of the audience don't know who Rip is).   JJ then says it's time to die.     Byrd is grinning when JJ says she's not mean.   

Plaintiffs lived there without paying rent for two months.   Plaintiffs were served with eviction papers on 1 June, and they moved out on August 6.     Plaintiff also claims she doesn't know the names of the drunks at the party who assaulted the landlord, and are totally lying.    The landlord was badly injured by the drunken partiers, and the police haven't found the criminals yet.   Plaintiff claims she left her lap top behind, and she's totally lying. Plaintiff case dismissed.

Landlord did see a doctor, and didn't feel better for over eight weeks.   Plaintiffs both claims they don't know who the attackers were.    Plaintiff woman also says that she doesn't feel sorry that landlord was attacked, and that he 'overstepped' when he told the drunks to leave, and later evicted them.      Woman plaintiff really expected JJ to give them everything they asked for, and is totally pissed off.       

Landlord is told that since tenant invited people back who assaulted him, the they are responsible for the landlord's injuries, and landlord receives $5,000.   (Landlord was struck in the back, and as he said, if he had been hit in the head with the same force, he would be dead.     As JJ rightly says, the landlord may be mobile now, but who knows what his long term effects will be.)

Second (Rerun)-

Teens Trash Ski Chalet-Plaintiff went into his rental ski chalet, and he found lots of young people, including one hiding in the rafters, some hopping the back fence, some passed out in the house.     The Airbnb is one bedroom, one bath, in Kellogg, Idaho (defendant lives in the same town, so I bet her parents won't let her have parties in their place).   What idiot rents a ski chalet to an 18 year old, and is surprised when it gets trashed, and is full of drunken partiers?      This was his second AIrbnb rental, and claimed it was only for her and her boyfriend, for their one year anniversary, and skiing.     There are texts confirming defendant lied about the rental purpose.     There was a social media invitation by the defendant's sister with the party invitation.    It ended up with over 6 people, but landlord came over at 6:30 a.m. Sunday, and there were four cars outside, and landlord saw multiple people.    The defendant, the boyfriend, one in the rafters, two on the bed, and numerous people running out the back, and over the back fence.    The are entertaining pictures of a kid in the rafters, junk everywhere, beer cans all over, and general trash.    

The place is 1 bedroom, 1 bath, and rents for $95 a night and up, and was a gut rehab.    As JJ points out, the landlord made a mistake renting to an 18 year old.  

Defendant booked it for herself, and boyfriend, and invited a bunch of friends.   They came in on Friday, and neighbors called plaintiff and told him about the party, so he went to the house.   He found four cars, beer cans all over, renter, her boyfriend, two people sleeping on floor, two more in the bed, numerous people going over the back fence, and a kid up in the rafters.   The local sheriff texted the property owner about the party at the ski chalet, (sheriff lives next door or on the same street).   Defendant still doesn't get it, and it's too bad the sheriff didn't bust them.   

The big police report was made on Saturday night when a party guest threw a brick through a neighbor's window.   Defendant seems to think that sounding pathetic, and teary will get her out of this, and she's very wrong.    Defendant still thinks she did nothing wrong.   (I wish the Sheriff had come to the chalet, and busted all of the underage boozers.   I love the plaintiff managed to tell who called him about the party in the hall-terview, it was the county sheriff who lives next door).    Plaintiff gave her 15 minutes to clean and leave.      Defendant broke the dishwasher too.   Furniture and bedding was destroyed, appliances are damaged.  

I hope you can ban renters on Airbnb, and other sites, because the defendant, her boyfriend, and her sister need to never rent anyone's property, ever. 

Does the idiot defendant really think that anyone is buying the quivering chin, everyone's picking on me attitude she has?   Her hall-terview is hysterical.     $799 to the plaintiff.    

Car Flipping Fail-Plaintiff suing former friend for car he bought at auction, car parts, etc.   Plaintiff claims they were flipping the car, and defendant got drunk and vandalized the car.  Plaintiff wants $4k, for a car he paid less than $1000 for with repair work.   JJ points out plaintiff paid less than $500 for the car, has about a $1,000 worth of parts, so he can sell both and actually break even.     $0 to plaintiff.

Edited January 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"You're a twenty-two year old idiot, who invited a bunch of drunks home with you from a bar."

[chenoa333]

17 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"You're a twenty-two year old idiot, who invited a bunch of drunks home with you from a bar."

THIS is the JJ I miss so much. I stopped watching this show due to boredom and too many dog bite/tooken items/borrowed him some money b.s.

But today's episode just might have reeled me back in. And Rest In Peace Rip Van Winkle! And ...God bless Minnesotans! These two plaintiffs were NOT good at "representin" Minnesota. Idiots indeed.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by chenoa333

[BusyOctober]

JJ has all my sympathies re. the loss of what used to be common knowledge/shared cultural references.  I recently went to a holiday party with people of different ages- some millennials, mostly 40-50 year olds, and a couple of 60 &70+.  The topic of “lost knowledge” came up, and things like telling time on analog clocks, counting back change, and cursive writing were the most mentioned.  There were all the usual millennials’ arguments for it being ok these things aren’t taught anymore since they are “irrelevant “ today.  I brought up Roman numerals...they may not be taught in school these days, but watches and clocks still have them.  A 20-something woman said, “Well, why does anyone except Romans need to know what those are? We use American numerals mostly, don’t we?”  I (and several others just stared at her for a second, and she got all nervous....”OMG!  Is that racist of me?!?”

[Cobalt Stargazer]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Landlord Beaten With Lead Pipe-Plaintiffs (brother and sister) / former tenants are suing their former landlord for return of rent, security deposit, and a missing laptop.

There was another brother in this case, who was apparently at the apartment when the beating happened but was not in court today. The brother who was there didn't seem to have any clue of where he was, if he was at work or in jail or in rehab (JJ's exact words). My guess is he decided not to show up with these other morons even though he's related to them, which would make him the smart one in the family.

[khyber]

14 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

JJ has all my sympathies re. the loss of what used to be common knowledge/shared cultural references.  I recently went to a holiday party with people of different ages- some millennials, mostly 40-50 year olds, and a couple of 60 &70+.  The topic of “lost knowledge” came up, and things like telling time on analog clocks, counting back change, and cursive writing were the most mentioned.  There were all the usual millennials’ arguments for it being ok these things aren’t taught anymore since they are “irrelevant “ today.  I brought up Roman numerals...they may not be taught in school these days, but watches and clocks still have them.  A 20-something woman said, “Well, why does anyone except Romans need to know what those are? We use American numerals mostly, don’t we?”  I (and several others just stared at her for a second, and she got all nervous....”OMG!  Is that racist of me?!?”

So I guess she never heard the phrase "Arabic numerals"?

Am I the only one who saw the woman with the defendant in the pipe beating case and thought Stevie Nicks?

[KittyMom4]

Stevie Nicks, no, but Taylor Momsen, yes.  And I also don't believe the Plaintiff was off looking for another friend, more likely they were gettin' high in the back. Those two were idiots, I would say I feel bad for their parents but since it sounds like they were couch surfing through relatives homes, makes me wonder if the parents had had enough of their crap. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017 -

First-

Time Share Fiasco-Woman suing her daughter's ex-boyfriend for failing to repay her for a failed time-share vacation.   Daughter wanted to take boyfriend, and use the plaintiff's/parent's time share in Las Vegas, and then the couple broke up.   Plaintiff Mom wants the airline ticket for ex paid back.     Defendant said he wanted to go to Florida, and didn't know about the time share in Vegas.  (Daughter was adopted at 19, so she never went on vacations to the time shares, or any where before this).    Then couple broke up, and plaintiff wants time share change fee, and airline ticket.    The payments, airline, points, and everything is very confusing.   Plaintiff claims defendant would be repaid for airline, and booking fees.   Defendant took out a loan right before this, but didn't say exactly what he was paying for.    Plaintiff $220.   

Bad Luck Car Sale-Plaintiff suing unlicensed car buyer for towing fees, (both litigants are not related but have the same last name), ticket, and other stuff.       DOwn payment was $800, and pay $250 a month.   Defendant had car, and three weeks later was pulled over, defendant had no license, and car was impounded.     Car was still titled to plaintiff, so only he could get it out of impound.    Defendant wanted plaintiff to sign pink slip, so he could get the car registered/titled, and get his license, so he could get the car out of impound.  Another issue is there was a 30-day hold on the impound. 

Plaintiff tried to get the car out of impound, but he couldn't with the 30 day hold, and the $3,000+ storage fees for an $1,800 car.   The impound lot said they would only release the car earlier than 30 days, if the plaintiff/owner said it was stolen.     I missed the end.  

Second-

Grandparents' Rights Now-Plaintiff's are suing their former attorney for fees paid to him to fight for visitation with their grandchildren.    Defendant claims that couple never had a marriage, and therefore, the payments from plaintiffs to get the son a divorce was bogus.   Plaintiff's son was convicted and sentenced to prison, and they hired the attorney to get visitation with the son's children.    Plaintiff's witness is mother of the children, but was never married to father of children (except common law apparently).   Attorney claims the son claimed to be common law married to plaintiff witness/mother of children, and needed a divorce to get visitation.   

Plaintiff witness claims she didn't appear in divorce court, but attorney claims it there was a divorce hearing with plaintiff's witness testifying.  There was a hearing in divorce court, but the son and girlfriend reconciled, so divorce was dismissed.    Agreement with attorney says he was hired for divorce of son, not custody hearing.    The grandparents had son living with them, before prison, and if they did the divorce, then the son would get visitation, and the grandparents could see the children.     Attorney did substantial work for the divorce and custody case.    Attorney is counter suing for unpaid fees.   Texas has common law marriage, so grandmother is stupid claiming it doesn't exist.      There were videos of two robberies by the son, and he received two concurrent sentences for robbery, and had a drug problem   Dad or stepdad is offended that the son/stepson was called a druggie.  Case dismissed.  In the Hall-terview, grandparents still don't get that there are no grandparents' rights.  

The Dating List-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for various unpaid loans she made him.   He repaid a $500 loan, but not the smaller 'loans' for things such as, dinner out. Case dismissed. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

On 1/6/2020 at 3:19 PM, patty1h said:

During a case today, JJ called one of the plaintiffs "Rip Van Winkle" because he said he was asleep during a drunken party.  When there was no reaction from the courtroom at that nickname, JJ polled the audience to see who didn't know Rip Van Winkle is.   There were hardly any response, and JJ says "it's time to die" after realizing that much of the court room didn't know this storybook character. 

I'm not sure if it's sad or funny that JJ feels that way.

Sad because it's probably a sign that kids aren't reading enough of anything these days. 

I didn't like JJ's ruling.  It's fine that she gives the defendant his counter-claim -- he was seriously injured.  But her reasoning could have been better.  She made it sound like plaintiff forfeited the deposit because of the kerfuffle, not because there was damage to the property or unpaid rent.  That's the usual reason landlords are allowed to keep deposits.

The case was painful to watch. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Unsupervised Teens Gang up on Younger Kid-Plaintiff mother is suing her son's friend's mother for her son punching a hole in a pool liner, during a pool party at her child.    Plaintiff was having a pool party at her home for her son's birthday.    However, defendant son was pushed into the pool, and his arm hit the pool liner.    Defendant mother says her son was bullied at the pool party by the other boys.   Plaintiff says the bullying didn't happen, but she wasn't outside supervising.   

Defendant son/victim says the water was very cold, and he didn't want to go in the pool.   Defendant son says the bullying started when he arrived at the party.    Defendant son was pulled into the pool, and the older kids were pushing him inside the pool, and in the shoving match the pool was damaged.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.  She wasn't supervising at the pool, and was instead doing other things.    Plaintiff still sees nothing wrong with her lack of action.   She's lucky there wasn't a worse injury, or accident.   Plaintiff doesn't care at all.    She gets to fix her own pool. 

Don't Defraud he Government and Then Come to Me-Plaintiff suing her daughter for the return or value of a Nissan Altima, unpaid tolls, and unpaid tickets.   Defendant says she started driving the car in 2016 when car was purchased (summer of 2016, until January of 2019).   Car had mechanical issues, and was damaged in a shoot out on defendant's block (car is pretty much totaled now).    Defendant purchased car, and car was in plaintiff's name because,  daughter had too many violations.   Daughter was still paying on a 2011 Altima that she was still paying on, it's engine went,  and she bought the 2016 Altima.      Car was in mother's name because daughter had too many tickets, and violations, and daughter couldn't register the car in her name.     Litigants violated the Clean Hands Doctrine, so case is dismissed.   The best part is the daughter needed the car to get to and from her job as a Police Officer!    (In the Hall-terview defendant says mother is responsible for the loss of her sister, and a user).       

Second (Rerun)-

Your Mother Would Roll Over in Her Grave-Plaintiff sues late mother's boyfriend over a $250 used car.   Defendant took care of mother when she was ill (through surgery, and three chemo rounds), not plaintiff.   Woman went to visit only when her children had therapy in the same town.   Plaintiff's wife also didn't take care of the mother.   

Defendant had an 18 year old Honda, and eventually junked it for $250.   They didn't have a celebration of life for mother for three months, and didn't even invite the defendant.  There wasn't a funeral either.   Defendant claims plaintiff was mean to mother, and a day after the mother died, she came to the home with the police to get property.   He gave clothes to plaintiff, and that's all.  Daughter wanted mother's phone, TV, and furniture.    They sound very poor financially.       Case dismissed.

The Cat That Could Have Killed Me-Plaintiff had defendant pet sitting his dog, for free for over a month.    When plaintiff came to visit dog, took dog upstairs where the cats live, dog chased cat, and he went to rescue cat, and cat bit him.   Plaintiff wants $481 for medical bills from infection from cat bite.  Case dismissed.  

Imprisoned Mom Sues Daughter-Plaintiff mother suing her daughter for stealing her belongings (in a storage unit) during her unfortunate incarceration.    Defendant alleges plaintiff used defendant's two children as a deduction on her taxes(this happened several years ago).    Plaintiff claims that defendant forged her name on a letter to storage unit to get access.    IRS letter says that they are auditing plaintiff's taxes.   Defendant's case dismissed.   

Plaintiff was in jail for 15 days for not finishing her community work project, not her first incarceration.      Plaintiff has no receipts for her storage unit items, including 10 comforters, brand new twelve man tent, laptop, 2 leather jackets, 11 fishing poles, etc.   

(On a tacky note, the mother's hairstyle makes her look like an Ostrich). 

 Defendant claims she cleaned out storage unit, and it was stolen property, and she returned it to the rightful owners.   Case dismissed.   

[basiltherat]

Not so much ostrich as LImu Emu!

[CrazyInAlabama]

LiMu Emu might not be happy with that comparison.    

[patty1h]

Today's case of Joseph Boche v Jenifer Needham made me want to deck that grifter Needham.  She looked like a baby emu (there's a lotta nose in her profile shots), was full of BS, and came in with no proof of the "weird videos" she received after the plaintiff dared to asked for his money back.   Gotta say, I loved when JJ made the "blah blah" fingers during Jenifer's 'I lost my phone' excuse.

After she leaves the courtroom, her real stank facade came out when she she admits that she took his money and it appears that she was hoping to get over on Boche using "the pretty girl excuse".  I really saw red when that bitch got all shady after the case and and stated that " money is money. green is green, and I needed my rent". 

Boche (he's only 20?) showed he needs to develop some more common sense from his hallterview statement that he realized that Needham was spending all of her money on 'kittens and marijuana".  No one seems to grasp that no good comes of lending money after 3 weeks you meet someone on a dating app.

Edited January 8, 2020 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns-

First (2017)-

Savage Dog Attack-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills ($), after an attack by defendant's German Shepherd on plaintiff's Chihuahua at a dog park.    Defendants claim their German Shepherd didn't attack the Chi, but it was another GSD.   Chi was off-leash, (legal at the dog park area), when the GSD attack happened, and plaintiff's boyfriend separated the dogs, and GSD slipped the collar and attacked two more times.   Defendant wife came up to get her GSD, but now claims her dog didn't do it.    Def. wife did give her phone number to plaintiff. but refused to pay the bills, and Def. husband got very nasty with plaintiff, and her boyfriend.   Defendant wife said that her husband, and the boyfriend should settle things.  

Defendant husband claims his wife has massive panic attacks, so they shouldn't have to deal with this.   He also claims his dog ran away, but another GSD did the attack.    The reason these people lost is because of their ridiculous attitudes, and bizarre defense.   Plaintiffs receive $5,000.    

Medical Treatment Disaster- (I remember this one, the poor woman with the treatment has a horrific disease.  Money was borrowed to pay the medical bills.)    Plaintiff suing her brother-in-law for the repayment of a loan for defendant's wife chemo therapy bills.     Plaintiff denies she knew about the wife's condition, but claims the loan was just to pay bills.   The plaintiff's husband has worked for the defendant for 15 years, so he had to know about the poor woman's condition.  Plaintiff's check was for $9,999.00 to avoid the IRS $10k report amount, part of the money was a settlement for an accident.    Plaintiff and defendant's wife are sisters, so I call bull on the plaintiff's ignorance of the disease.    The bills faced by defendants are horrific, and for plaintiff to deny she knew anything about the treatments for the defendant's wife is appalling.     Plaintiffs claim it was a loan, and defendant says he is totally broke.     Plaintiffs get $5,000.    

Second (2016)-

In and Out of Jail!-Plaintiff and defendant met in drug rehab.   Plaintiff was constantly violating her probation for DUI, and going back to jail.   Plaintiff's house was in foreclosure for non-payment, needed a house sitter, is still squatting in the house, and moved defendant into her house.   Plaintiff suing for utilities, rent, credit card charges, and lots of thefts.    Plaintiff is still in the home, and still not paying the mortgage or bills. 

Defendant was going to pay rent, watch plaintiff's cats, signed a lease for $1k a month, and moved in with her 4 kids.   Plaintiff's kids all have iPhone 6, Xbox (the plaintiff's kids live with their father).   There is no proof that defendant stole anything, and a lot of people had access to the house.     Credit card charges are $60.   Squatter plaintiff gets $60.   (Plaintiff looks totally wasted). 

Rescued Mastiff Mischief-Plaintiff suing defendant after their Mastiff attacked their Boxer.  Defendant's "Smug boyfriend" claims it never happened, because the Mastiff was chained outside.   This is the one where "Smug boyfriend" says he was inside watching "a stupid TV show called Judge Judy".     Sorry, that statement was not followed by Officer Byrd beating the snot out of the Smug boyfriend with the Fly Swatter of Death.   

Plaintiff's were walking their Boxer on leash, when their dog was attacked by a Mastiff that plaintiff had for only a month.    Plaintiffs saw the other dog was loose, and turned the other way, and the Mastiff charged, hit the Boxer, and her husband went down too.   Plaintiff woman started screaming for help, people responded, told her where the dog lived.  Plaintiff claims the dog never left their yard, since the dog was back on the chain again (another neighbor took the dog back and chained it up).   Defendant claims dog is dead, but plaintiff says it was the second attack, so dog is at animal control, and up for adoption again.    I guess animal control where this happened doesn't care about bite history, or someone being injured by the dog.       Plaintiffs get $261 for vet bills. 

[JD5166]

43 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Today's case of Joseph Boche v Jenifer Needham made me want to deck that grifter Needham.  She looked like a baby emu (there's a lotta nose in her profile shots), was full of BS, and came in with no proof of the "weird videos" she received after the plaintiff dared to asked for his money back.   Gotta say, I loved when JJ made the "blah blah" fingers during Jenifer's 'I lost my phone' excuse.

After she leaves the courtroom, her real stank facade came out when she she admits that she took his money and it appears that she was hoping to get over on Boche using "the pretty girl excuse".  I really saw red when that bitch got all shady after the case and and stated that " money is money. green is green, and I needed my rent". 

Boche (he's only 20?) showed he needs to develop some more common sense from his hallterview statement that he realized that Needham was spending all of her money on 'kittens and marijuana".  No one seems to grasp that no good comes of lending money after 3 weeks you meet someone on a dating app.

Kittens and marijuana had me rolling. But really, poor kittens. What a bitch in that halterview, some day, some guy isn’t going to play as nice as ponytail guy did! 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

Today's case of Joseph Boche v Jenifer Needham made me want to deck that grifter Needham.  .

Awwww, Jennifer was great! Best laugh in a long time, as she goes to sprint out court and isn't sure where to run. That way, plastic girly, JJ hints, and she's halfway to the door before Byrd can get there to open the gate..... wonder what that girl looks like under all that makeup.

Edited January 8, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Feminist Dating App Meets the Me Too Movement-Plaintiff and defendant met online, then defendant needed money, amounting to $1,030.    Plaintiff suing for the unpaid loans, threats, and defaming him to his boss, and co-workers.    Defendant claims it wasn't romantic, but they only kissed a few times.    The first loan request was a couple of weeks after they first met, and they had only met in person once.   First loan was $650 for her rent, second was for $25, $10 more, $20 more, and $300, and lastly $25, totaling $1030.   (Defendant wasn't worth $1.30, let alone $1030.    They only met one other time in person.   Plaintiff actually wasn't totally stupid, and has a text from defendant stating she will pay him back.   

After the pay you back text from defendant, she called his boss and said plaintiff was crazy, and stalking her.    As JJ says, crying sexual harassment is abusive when it's false.    Defendant claims plaintiff sent her weird videos, but she deleted them.   What a leach. $1030 to plaintiff.   JJ gives the defendant a piece of her mind about scamming people for money.      JJ has to point the correct way out.   

Hall-terview defendant says he realizes the woman was spending her money on marijuana and kittens.   Defendant still calls the man a weird stalker, and she should be ashamed.

Broken-Jaw Sucker Punch-Plaintiff suing defendant for punching him, and breaking his jaw.  However, plaintiff already sued in Arizona, and won a default judgement because defendant didn't show up, and Arizona has a maximum of $3500 in small claims.   JJ advises she would have hired a lawyer, and sued the man, and had his wages garnished.   Plaintiff claims he's only suing for pain and suffering, and punitive damages, and JJ doesn't like that.    JJ says he should go to a marshal, and register a garnishment.     Defendant is ordered to give his place of employment, and social security number.      

Plaintiff's mother says her son didn't want to file criminal charges, and seems to think JJ should pay the money, so defendant doesn't have to.  Plaintiff mother goes bye-bye.     Defendant doesn't want to give his social, employer, etc. and JJ has to mention that it's a long walk home to Arizona if he doesn't shut up.    When defendant says he won't give his information, JJ points out that the show staff have the information, and will give it to the plaintiff so he can file for the money.   

Second (Rerun)-

Intimate and Incarcerated-Plaintiff gave defendant $1400 on his release from prison, and now wants it back.    Sorry, he was 'incarcerated', previous time in slammer was two years or so before.  Formerly incarcerated person says it was a gift, not a loan.   Defendant starts whining about what plaintiff expected in return for her money.       (JJ tells defendant that if he was the prize at the end of a race, then she would walk backwards).  It's so sad that someone is that desperate to pay someone for a relationship.   Defendant says they were intimate for a while, but no longer. Defendant doesn't think it was a loan, because he thinks women should gift him for his presence, (He's very wrong). 

Defendant claims he was working despite his MS diagnosis, but plaintiff got him fired.     Plaintiff got out of his unfortunate incarceration in April, but didn't work until New Year's Eve, and now is a server at Buffalo Wild Wings.       $1400 to plaintiff.  (Back story is Wendy Shabazz is a stand up comedian-have we had another comedian on the show before?)

Daughter Sideswipe? Mother Money Gripe-Plaintiff suing mechanic for damage to car, her daughter was driving when it was damaged, by her sideswiping another car.     Plaintiff had a $250 deductible, and mechanic said he would try to work with her so the deducible would be less, more damage was found, and adjuster paid a total of $4,000+.      Car has yellow spots in the paint, and plaintiff wants money to repaint the car.   Yellow spots looked like either pollen, or paint wasn't mixed correctly.    It's entirely possible it's pollen, that stuff is nasty.    $1544 to plaintiff.   

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

The "human" Bratz Doll is a despicable creature.

[chenoa333]

44 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims he was working despite his MS diagnosis, but plaintiff got him fired.     Plaintiff got out of his unfortunate incarceration in April, but didn't work until New Year's Eve, and now is a server at Buffalo Wild Wings.       $1400 to plaintiff.  (Back story is Wendy Shabazz is a stand up comedian-have we had another comedian on the show before?)

JJ says to defendant:

If you were the prize waiting at the finish line, I'd walk backwards. 

😄

 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Back story is Wendy Shabazz is a stand up comedian-have we had another comedian on the show before?)

Amy Schumer comes to mind - as member of audience, not litigant, though there was staged video of Byrd breaking get up fight xcene

[parrotfeathers]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Warning, one of tomorrow evening's new episode involves a man's teenage son committing suicide with a shotgun, and he's now suing another family member for a gun collection including the weapon used.    If I got that right).

That is so creepy to me.  Ten years ago my big brother killed himself due to depression.  It is very sad.  Nothing we could have done would have stopped him.  

[flyingdi]

On 1/8/2020 at 4:24 PM, patty1h said:

Today's case of Joseph Boche v Jenifer Needham made me want to deck that grifter Needham.  She looked like a baby emu (there's a lotta nose in her profile shots), was full of BS, and came in with no proof of the "weird videos" she received after the plaintiff dared to asked for his money back.   Gotta say, I loved when JJ made the "blah blah" fingers during Jenifer's 'I lost my phone' excuse.

After she leaves the courtroom, her real stank facade came out when she she admits that she took his money and it appears that she was hoping to get over on Boche using "the pretty girl excuse".  I really saw red when that bitch got all shady after the case and and stated that " money is money. green is green, and I needed my rent". 

Boche (he's only 20?) showed he needs to develop some more common sense from his hallterview statement that he realized that Needham was spending all of her money on 'kittens and marijuana".  No one seems to grasp that no good comes of lending money after 3 weeks you meet someone on a dating app.

Alita, Battle Angel went through a out 30 different moods in the hall interview alone.  Mr Boche dodged a bullet there!

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Immigrant Battle-Plaintiff/Australian suing defendant/ South African over a physical fight.   Plaintiff is suing for harassment, and defendant disposing of his boat cover.   Boat cover was custom made, but used, and hard to replace.   Defendant says landlord hired (landlord is plaintiff's witness) him to clean up the rented lot, and he threw out a moldy tarp.  Defendant rented one lot from plaintiff landlord.   Landlord says defendant does clean up property for him occasionally, but hadn't hired man to clean this time.   Defendant's witness gets booted.    Plaintiff gets $150 to buy a boat cover (it won't be custom, but the other one was used)   

Defendant was mowing both properties, on the landlord's lawnmower, and claims plaintiff attacked him.  Police report says the same thing, defendant was mowing and was pushed off of the lawn mower by plaintiff.   Plaintiff says defendant yelled at him, never hit the man.

Plaintiff gets $150 for tarp, or boat cover.

I Smell Pot-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages, and storage fees.     Plaintiff wanted screen printing machine moved to a storage unit.    Plaintiff agreed to pay $75, but it was in $35 cash, and a bag of weed.    Defendant says he is owed $40 by plaintiff.  

Then the two made an agreement that plaintiff would work on an old Audi for the defendant, and would get the Audi.   Defendant instead offered a Ford.      There was no written contract, and nothing to prove the agreement, and no proof plaintiff worked on any car, so case dismissed.  Plaintiff claims he did the work, and was given a forged receipt.   Defendant says work wasn't done, and plaintiff forged the document for the DMV that was rejected.    

Second-

Addiction, Conviction...Recovery?-Plaintiff, and mommy are suing for emotional distress, stolen property, refund of rent,  and wrongful eviction, emotional success.   He was evicted from his sober living house for refusing to take a drug test.  Plaintiff has been imprisoned for prescription fraud, identity theft, and possession of oxy, and was on probation after a prison sentence (17 months). Plaintiff was also briefly jailed twice for probation violations.   Plaintiff son was required to complete rehab, and live at the Sober Living house.    He lived in a sober living house for 18 months.   Defendants claim man destroyed his room at their sober living house after the drug test dust up.   

Plaintiff claimed when he had to do a drug test, that he had an appointment (not medical).  Plaintiff also said after his probation that he couldn't be forced to do a drug test (wrong, it's in the house rules).   Then he told them he wasn't taking a drug test, so he was told he is being evicted, and then trashed his room.  He is accused of pouring concrete down the sink, removing the light fixtures, breaking the toilet, and other damage.   The mother just can't stop whining about her 45 year old man-baby, and how he's not responsible for anything.   The mother actually is blaming the son's melt down on the sober living personnel, and saying evicting him made his conditions worse.    

Damages to the apartment are severe.  Broken toilet, broken light fixtures, sink has been filled with concrete, linoleum ripped up, and room is a disgusting pig sty.   

 The most interesting moment for me is when Mommy says he's not moving in with her, except temporarily, even though he was living in a tent in the woods, and was evicted by police.     Case dismissed.     

Edited January 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Teen Suicide Sadness-Plaintiff is father of 16 year old who committed suicide with a shotgun, seven years ago.       Son bought a shotgun at 14, from the father's job at a sports store, after the suicide the father gave the guns to the plaintiff/brother.    Father is suing his other son for the guns that he has, including the one his brother used, so the tragedy won't be repeated.   The brother/defendant received four guns, and plaintiff/father wants the four guns back.   Father says he's worried about an accident or another suicide with the guns in the son's home.    Defendant says father never said anything to him about the accident risk.

Defendant says he thinks it's father's way of getting back at him because of his parent's current, apparently bitter divorce.   (JJ slips and says something about divorce being because the father moved on to another woman, apparently a yoga instructor).    JJ is overstepping, it's not her place to butt into someone else's relationship, and how the parents relate to their children.  Also, if mother was dumped  by husband after 37 years, then I imagine she was blindsided by having to make her own way after the divorce.  

 JJ says guns were a gift of many years ago, and that can't be undone.     Case dismissed.  

(There must have been a lot of smutty remarks in the sworn statements by both litigants.     So apparently daddy dumped mommy of 37 years of marriage, for some yoga instructor?   I'd pick mom's side too in that case, unless mom was a total jerk).

Van Halen Tribute Band Fail-Plaintiff is suing former bandmate over theft of speakers for their Van Halen Tribute band.   Band is a side gig for musicians.   Defendant ran into financial issues, and sold cables, mics, speakers, etc.  Other members were unhappy about this, so defendant quit the band.    The guitar player trademarked the band name, and when the defendant heard there was a gig, he called the club and said it was a trademark violation to use the name, so gig was cancelled.      

Plaintiff keeps asking "what was the question again, and again".  Plaintiff is a total smart ass.  Plaintiff gets $300 for speakers, and thank heavens he's gone.  (I couldn't stand the plaintiff, and don't understand why anyone wants to be in a band with him)

 Guaranteed fee was $500.   Plaintiff has proof he bought speakers from Amazon for $1, 

Second (Rerun)-

Supermodel Reality Check-(This is the dog attack one, where JJ responds to the defendant's obvious lies by saying she's Christie Brinkley, if his ludicrous story is true).    Plaintiff is suing idiot defendant for his dog attacking her dog.    Defendant has a ridiculous story about the attack.   Defendant and wife swore to different stories.   Defendant's miniature Rottweiler (40 lbs or so) (No such thing as a Mini Rottweiler, just because it has the coloring) attacked the Yorkie cross.  Plaintiff witness/neighbor and dog walker was walking the dog for owner, and dog was on leash. 

Defendant man claims (wife wasn't there) he came in from the garage with Mini Rott., and holding dog's leash (I don't believe this at all), and when he went on the porch he took his dog off leash.    When Bozo got outside, little dog was on ground, on leash, being attacked by the defendant's dog (off leash).   JJ doesn't believe the attacking dog was on a flexi leash (I don't believe it either). 

Defendant suing because her vicious dog was quarantined, and this was emotionally damaging to her. I don't believe the defendant when she says the dog was quarantined at home for 90 days, that's either a repeat attack, or no rabies shot , and for her dog's emotional distress from the quarantine,     Defendant case dismissed, plaintiff gets $750 for vet bills.   

Paid in Cigs and Soda-Plaintiff suing niece's father (her former tenant) for unpaid rent and a damaged couch.  Defendant swears he never signed a lease, plaintiff puts a 'signed' lease into evidence, JJ says the sworn statement and defendant's signature on 'lease' are similar.   Defendant claims plaintiff has long criminal background, and stole identities.    Defendant's young daughter lived in the room, slept on the couch, and he was going to move when he got his own place.  Lease runs through June, but defendant moved out on 1 April.   Defendant is counter suing for damaged property, and vet bills.  (Plaintiff is out to lunch).  Plaintiff is a tenant, who subleased, and doesn't even have a lease.   Plaintiff claims she's the leasor, but she's not even on the lease for the home.   Plaintiff claims defendant damaged her couch by lying on it all of the time.   

Defendant claims plaintiff threw bleach on his clothes, and plaintiff has a lot of bizarre reasons she couldn't have done this.    She seems like a bunny boiler to me.   

Case dismissed because plaintiff has no proof, and has no sense.   

Edited January 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Suicide Sadness

Despite the sadness of the circumstances, I had a chuckle when JJ mentioned the possibility of the sister's husband not liking how she washes his socks. Not just because of the stereotypical and dated view of gender roles, but mainly because I highly doubt JJ herself washes her husband's socks or even her own. That's why maids were created for in her America (I am sure it's an inalienable right in her version of the Constitution).

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Van Halen Tribute Band Fail

It seems that heterosexual males experiencing a mid-life crisis see only two life options: buy a much too big noisy motorcycle or form a crappy tribute rock band. I have desire to experience what these two morons sounded like in their glory days.

 

[bad things are bad]

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

It seems that heterosexual males experiencing a mid-life crisis see only two life options:

Option the third: have an affair with the yoga instructor

[KittyMom4]

On 1/8/2020 at 4:24 PM, patty1h said:

After she leaves the courtroom, her real stank facade came out when she she admits that she took his money and it appears that she was hoping to get over on Boche using "the pretty girl excuse".  I really saw red when that bitch got all shady after the case and and stated that " money is money. green is green, and I needed my rent".

 

On 1/8/2020 at 5:10 PM, JD5166 said:

Kittens and marijuana had me rolling. But really, poor kittens. What a bitch in that halterview, some day, some guy isn’t going to play as nice as ponytail guy did! 

 

On 1/8/2020 at 7:14 PM, basiltherat said:

The "human" Bratz Doll is a despicable creature.

 

20 hours ago, flyingdi said:

Alita, Battle Angel went through a out 30 different moods in the hall interview alone.  Mr Boche dodged a bullet there!

All 4 of you verbalized my thoughts exactly! First, she was NOT pretty, one swipe with a moist towlette and I'm positive she'll look like Gollum's, older, uglier sister. And she gave off the crazy vibe big time! I hope the plaintiff has learned his lesson on weeding out the phonies on dating apps, anyone who asks you for money within a week of meeting should make you run as fast as you can. I'm a believer in karma, and some day Gollum Girl is going to get what she deserves....

14 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

It seems that heterosexual males experiencing a mid-life crisis see only two life options: buy a much too big noisy motorcycle or form a crappy tribute rock band. I have desire to experience what these two morons sounded like in their glory days.

Hahahaha! My husband and I both did the "what in the holiest of holy fuck's??" expression when the plaintiff walked into court. My god. 

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says he thinks it's father's way of getting back at him because of his parent's current, apparently bitter divorce. 

I believe the defendant and his sister, I think dad is pissed that his kids are taking mom's side. And if it's true he left his wife of 37 years for a yoga instructor then they have every right to. I sort of agree with JJ's advice to stay out of it, but I can certainly see why the kids would be upset with dad. The petty side of me is assuming Daddy-O has a lot of money, because it ain't like he's a looker, and the fact that he would sue his son for some guns makes me think he's a huge asshole. I hope Miss Yoga Instructor takes him to the cleaners and dumps his lumpy ass. 

[Bobby88]

3 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I believe the defendant and his sister, I think dad is pissed that his kids are taking mom's side. And if it's true he left his wife of 37 years for a yoga instructor then they have every right to. I sort of agree with JJ's advice to stay out of it, but I can certainly see why the kids would be upset with dad. The petty side of me is assuming Daddy-O has a lot of money, because it ain't like he's a looker, and the fact that he would sue his son for some guns makes me think he's a huge asshole. I hope Miss Yoga Instructor takes him to the cleaners and dumps his lumpy ass. 

I agree. The main part that convinced me was the fact that this suicide happened seven years ago and the dad gave the other son the guns immediately afterwards. The father's contention is that he's afraid his grandchildren could play with the guns and get hurt. The defendant's oldest child is now nine and would have been two when this whole thing started and both sides admit that the defendant was gun owner long before her ever had children. SO THERE WERE ALREADY GUNS IN THE SAME HOUSE AS A YOUNG CHILD WHEN HE TURNED THE SUICIDE WEAPONS OVER TO THE SON! Seven years later, NOW Grandpa is concerned about the kids getting a hold of them?!? Bullshit.

I think the defendants sided with mom in the divorce (if dad cheated after such a long marriage, can you really blame them?) and dad wants to get back at them for it. I think the smirk (although I didn't appreciate it, I kinda couldn't blame him) on the defendant son's face was because he knew the father's case was garbage and had no legal merit. Something tells me there was severe dysfunction in this family for years even before the suicide or divorce.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Bobby88

[KittyMom4]

46 minutes ago, Bobby88 said:

Something tells me there was severe dysfunction in this family for years even before the suicide or divorce.

My thought as well.

[Bobby88]

4 hours ago, BexKeps said:

My thought as well.

I also meant to add that I thought JJ was way off about the adult children keeping their nose out of their parents' divorce. I didn't get the impression that these defendants were needlessly butting into their parents' relationship problems just to stir up trouble. Their father, after nearly 40 years of marriage to their mother, leaves her for another woman (do we know if that's really what happened or if JJ was simply using the yoga instructor thing as an example to make a point?). They're rightfully angry with him and are probably just trying to help their mother cope with the betrayal. Just because they're adults with their own families doesn't mean their parents' apparently sudden divorce doesn't leave them confused, hurt, and frustrated. Your parents are still your parents. Totally different that JJ's analogy of having a buttinsky friend who purposely meddles and tries to critique your relationship. In all honesty, I would be more disturbed if the defendants took JJ's approach of just saying "meh" instead of supporting their mother.

If anything, much of their involvement in the divorce is probably due to dad suddenly deciding he wants the guns back as a form of passive-agression.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Where's the Ring?-Plaintiff suing former fiance for the return of tools, a basketball hoop (or goal?), and an engagement rings.   The two lived together, with her children, for over two years.   Defendant owns a deli/grocery, and plaintiff worked there and they lived above it.   Mostly we're talking about the ring, and defendant says she has no idea where the ring is, and claims man took the ring with him.    Defendant said they never got around to getting married.   Plaintiff says he did not take the ring, and says def. is a liar.   Plaintiff says the defendant claimed to be divorced, but is still married.    JJ dismisses plaintiff case, because she can't even get the man to answer simple questions about payments for rent, etc.   

Case dismissed, counter claim dismissed. (Hallterview is hysterical, plaintiff claims defendant is still married to someone else.   )

The Case of the Missing Car-Plaintiff suing defendant/mechanic for losing her car, that she bought from him.   Plaintiff had defendant fix car body damages.  Plaintiff paid $5,000 (book value is $3525) for car, because of rims.   Plaintiff has no proof of paying mechanic for car

Mechanic says car disappeared from outside his shop, and thinks plaintiff had something to do with it.   JJ also asks defendant if he's on drugs, and he admits he had a drug problem, but was getting help during the summer all of his happened.     Police report says value of car was $3,000 per plaintiff/owner.    Keeping car safe was defendant's responsibility.   JJ thinks defendant sold car for drugs.   $3540 for plaintiff

Totaled Friendship-Plaintiff suing former friend for wrecking her car.   Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car in rainy weather, slid off of the road, and claims nothing was her fault.  She's blaming the car, and car was defective.  Plaintiff bought car for $1,000, and gets that for her car.  

Second-

Confidential Prison Marriage!-(As we found out last time, confidential marriage in California is legal, and  exists)-Plaintiff daughter suing defendant (step father, husband of late mother) over a truck, and personal items.   Mother and step dad were incarcerated 15 years ago for meth manufacturing, and married in prison (confidential license).     The couple lived together for 15 years, married for 10 years, then woman had a stroke, and died a month later.    Daughter says the mother's previous divorce wasn't legal (in 1978), and therefore, the marriage wasn't legal, so she wants the truck.    Too late to claim that.  The couple lived together off and on for many years, so the truck should be his anyway.     Title is in defendant's name, and he keeps the truck.  The personal stuff left in the truck looked like trash.   Plaintiff had truck for a while, and defendant claims plaintiff stole his tools.   Daughter gets nothing, and deserves less. 

Online Dating Bust!- Plaintiff man met woman defendant online, they moved in together, the relationship went bust, and now they're fighting over security deposit.    $2900 was the security deposit ($1450 is half, that he is owed).  Defendant wants car fees (he borrowed her car), moving expenses, and unpaid loan for eye surgery, $1090.15.       Plaintiff gets $360 (security deposit, minus eye surgery amount).   

(Hall-terview with man claims woman is a habitual, violent drunk, and assaulted him, and I believe him).    

Edited January 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Hey! Let's Hire My Best Friend and Then Rip Him Off-Plaintiff was in hospital (for a full month), and boyfriend took over her condo remodel, and they're suing the contractor(a former friend).   Defendant says he was paid $2600 to remove a sink,  light fixtures, install a sink, tile, and a lot of other items.   Defendant was totally ripped off.     Plaintiffs claim that defendant did very little work, and the little he did was badly done.   Plaintiff wanted painting inside of home, do downstairs tile flooring installation, install upstairs bamboo flooring, and other items, install light fixtures, remove a sink, and a lot of other items all for $2600.   Defendant had to remove old flooring, on two floors, remove tile floor in two rooms, take off the floor molding, carpet tack strips, take stair carpeting off Defendant has an invoice for his services.  Vanity had to be removed to put in bathroom tile, and reinstall it.   Plaintiff's father was given $2600 check, cashed it, and withdrew $2600 cash, and paid the defendant.     

As JJ points out, $2600 would be a good deal for painting the home, and defendant should be paid a lot more for everything else he did.   Defendant says they owed him $7800 for the job, not just $2600 (leaving 5,200).     Someone else hired by plaintiffs did the bad carpeting job.    Defendant quit before finishing, because $2600 was simply a rip off by the couple (JJ agrees, and so do I).    Plaintiff gets nothing, defendant gets $1400 (he should have asked for more). 

Second (Rerun)-

Insulin Emergency-Plaintiff suing former roommate for breaking a lease (moved out 4 months early), and damaging their apartment.   Plaintiff rented a two bedroom apartment, and he sublet a bedroom to the defendant.   Plaintiff says defendant had various relationships, that were virtual live-ins at  the apartment, including one that started forwarding his mail to their apartment (never let anyone get mail at your place, it's part of establishing tenancy), and then there was the last boyfriend that not only was violent, but caused damages.     Defendant's witness is the combative boyfriend.     Photos of damages to wall, and other damages.   Plaintiff will not get unpaid rent (he shouldn't have extended the lease with defendant living there.    Defendant counter suing for $2500 for security deposit, and lost insulin.     

 If not having insulin is so critical, then why didn't she take it with her when she moved out?  With a prescription, you can get insulin replaced very easily, and I find it hard to believe defendant could do without insulin for the amount of time in question?      Plaintiff claims defendant owes $700 for unpaid rent.   $278 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.   

(hall-terview is defendant is still out to lunch, and claims she was never in the apartment, but in the hospital all of the time.    Plaintiff should have moved.

 

Traded Then Stolen-Plaintiff suing defendant for car she traded with him, and titles were signed over.    Plaintiff signed vehicle over to defendant and signed lien release.    Defendant says the was later stolen, but he can't remember when it went missing.    Plaintiff traded the car to defendant, but it was never registered in his name, so she was stuck with the impound and towing fees.   Plaintiff's insurance on car expired the same day she traded the car to defendant, and no insurance was on the car.   Defendant couldn't report car stolen to police, because he wasn't the registered owner. Plaintiff reported the car stolen, and it was recovered the same night.  Plaintiff should have gone down and picked up car, and paid the impound fees.       Nothing to plaintiff, she let defendant take her uninsured car, and never did the paperwork to register it to him.  

(This plaintiff's picture is on this thread , a platinum blonde who looks totally out to lunch, on page 436).

Edited January 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 1/7/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

he best part is the daughter needed the car to get to and from her job as a Police Officer! 

 

JJ was right IT IS time to die...

[Florinaldo]

10 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

Option the third: have an affair with the yoga instructor

I doubt these guys would go even near a yoga class (too much time spent on the tanning bed).

[nora1992]

If Thursday’s plaintiff had physically harmed his wife, then the kids would have an opinion.  Throwing a homemaker out on her ear after nearly 40 years of not working is physically harmful. How will she support herself?  Even if she can claim plaintiff’s SS income in retirement, does that mean SS pays out twice as much as was put in, since he’ll claim his own SS too?  I’ve always wondered how that works.  If 2x as much gets paid out, then his divorce is harming all of us.

As for Friday’s case, didn’t the defendant give an estimate for the cost before starting?  And what happened to his acknowledged, frequent 7-Eleven gas purchases?  If he underbid the costs, and there was a contract, tough.  He’s the expert.  It’s like the plaintiffs ordered a steak from the defendant, and then, after cooking the steak, the defendant raised the cost.