All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Bloody Assault at the Comedy Show-Plaintiff suing former friend for a false restraining order, and .     Plaintiff claims that defendant was sending her nasty texts (apparently another friend or relative was boinking someone they shouldn't have been), and threats.   Months later they ran into each other at the Orpheum Theatre (for a comedy show, to make the episode title make sense), and defendant walked up behind plaintiff, and assaulted her, and it's on video.   Plaintiff claims defendant bit her too.  Some bystander pulled defendant off of plaintiff, who was laying on the ground, and plaintiff called the police.    

Defendant swears the plaintiff started it at the Orpheum, and defendant claims she fell on plaintiff.    Both filed for protective orders, and both were granted TROs until the hearing, and only plaintiff was granted a longer term protective order.    Defendant brought no witnesses.   In the video, defendant is clearly on top of plaintiff, shaking and grabbing her.   Plaintiff has scars from the assault, a dent in her forehead, and because of another issue (Chiari Malformation) had two brain surgeries after this   (The poor person who bleeps things from the air certainly earned their pay with the voice mail from defendant).

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and defendant already was tried in criminal court, and was convicted.  (Defendant says in hallterview the plaintiff received what she deserved).

Wedding Chapel Catastrophe-Plaintiffs claims defendant owes for payments made by plaintiffs for daughter's wedding.    Plaintiff daughter was driving by, saw the venue, and reserved it. 

Defendant says he was in negotiations to purchase he building from the contractor who was remodeling the building.   There was never a contract with the remodeler/seller, and a sale to defendant never happened.     The defendant never owned the venue, but the flyers he printed say that he is the owner.    The flyer for the rental of the venue has defendant's cell phone written in by him.   The defendant accepted the reservation for the venue, and took a deposit for the first half of the rental fee ($3400).     In face-to-face meetings with defendant, the plaintiff bride says that defendant claimed he owned the venue.    It was in Kansas, and by the time of the wedding, there would have been no heat (defendant says that's wrong, but I don't believe anything he says).   Plaintiff mother of bride submits a flyer saying under new ownership, defendant's phone number.      Plaintiff bride and fiance saw a sign on the door of the venue about the boiler being off, and the place was closed.   

Plaintiffs receive $3400 from the lying, stealing defendant.  Why didn't the police take a complaint, and file fraud charges on this loser? 

Second-

Ex-Girlfriend Caught on Tape-Plaintiff suing former girlfriend (from when they were 17) for breaking into his apartment, and assault.   Defendant says roommate invited her in, and was going to give her $20.   Plaintiff said he was walking his dog, when his witness called him and said girlfriend was in his place, and wouldn't leave.   Plaintiff tried to get a restraining order a few months before , but was turned down.   Plaintiff is caregiver to his double amputee father, and paid by the state for this, about $1400 a month.    

 Plaintiff has a video of when woman broke in, he called police, and made a video of the girlfriend running away while he was calling 911.     The video starts with the 911 operator, and with defendant in the apartment, and defendant is singing (sounds high to me) while she's breaking out apartment windows, damaging other items, and the video shows defendant assaulting plaintiff.     

Defendant got a restraining order against plaintiff two years before this, and she claims the court applied for the order, but she didn't. (plaintiff admits this happened almost three years ago, and he did push her).   Plaintiff claims she crawled out of the bedroom window, and claims plaintiff and witness were in the apartment.       Defendant is such a liar.    $456 for window to plaintiff, and $500 for the assault, total $956.      

Show Me the Money Trail-Plaintiff claims contractor didn't do the work, and wants her $2500 deposit back.  Defendant claims when plaintiff received a check for $6500, she fired him, and got a cheaper contractor.  The estimate of $6500 was agreed to by the insurance company, with the input of the defendant/contractor.   Plaintiff went with a cheaper contractor, and paid $2500 deposit to defendant, and plaintiff wants the $2500 back.  JJ tells plaintiff since the job isn't finished, she has filed prematurely. because there is no price yet on how much the job will cost.   Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, so she can file locally when the job is done.  

[Cynna]

On 1/29/2020 at 9:32 AM, BexKeps said:

I think Judge Judy was emphasizing that no one would park near a stray cart on a WINDY day

I think people may have missed one key thing - there were no carts loose in the parking lot. The Plaintiff explained that you need to go into PetSmart to take/sign out a cart. By the sounds of it, the Defendant had already gone in (which is why she was already so agitated), had an issue with the paperwork for the dogs, and then came out to get the dogs. She would have taken the cart out at the same time as they needed one for the Chihuahua (I can't imagine why it can't walk on a leash??). So Defendant was lying about having just pulled in to the parking space, and about the cart just randomly being there.
 

[bref]

Hey, I missed the hallterview with the Akita owner. Did she acknowledge JJ's lecture about risky dogs or not? She seemed...unrepentant, shall we say. 😞 

[Mondrianyone]

5 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

As was she. What an entitled awful person, and again society says thanks for whelping out more of your subpar DNA

I agree with Florinaldo, JJ was way off. 

At least we now know that Elvira Mistress of the Dark is capable of spawning.

JJ sure is inconsistent about the kinds of behavior she countenances in the courtroom.  I agree that for me the obnoxious clapping would've triggered an instant reversal of the judgment.  But then again I still have my hearing, so there's that.  Maybe JJ missed it entirely.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both New!-

First (New)-

Burglar Caught in the Act-Plaintiff suing defendant for scratching his car, while defendant was in the process of stealing the chrome off of his car.  Defendant hasn't been arrested since he was 17, for smoking weed and he's now 56.      Sorry, no one really thinks the defendant was stealing Plaintiff Mr. Clean's rims.   Defendant told the police (called by plaintiff) that he had locked himself out of the car, and needed his hide-a-key to get into the car, and slipped while replacing the hide-a-key.     JJ wants Byrd to loan the plaintiff a pen to circle the damage on the car, but Byrd has to borrow JJ's pen.   Byrd and JJ can't see a scratch on the car.  Police report says car wasn't pristine the way plaintiff claims, and says the marks seemed to have rust on them.  

Akita Dog Owners Beware-Plaintiff suing neighbor Akita owner for a dog attack, and lost wages..     Akitas are huge, fluffy guard dogs, why do people keep getting guard animals, and acting like they're stuff animals?  Defendant used to have two Akitas, and now only has one Akita.    Defendant claims there is no proof her dog attacked plaintiff's dog.   Plaintiff was walking her dog in her yard, on leash, when Akita attacked her.     (Another dog owner that makes me want to punch them out).       After living next door to each other for three years, plaintiff certainly knows what the Akitas look like.    Defendant is trying to claim that it was probably a coyote, not her dog.    Landlord told her the dog had to go, so she found another home.    Homeowner's insurance doesn't cover Akitas.     

(JJ should save her breath about the danger of this dog to her children, the defendant will never back down.   Tell me I'm not going to hear another idiot defendant say their dog loves their kids, and would never hurt them).

Vet bills were $10,000!    Plaintiff dog is tiny.    $5,000 to plaintiff for vet bills.        (Hallterview shows defendant heard nothing JJ said, and thinks her dog is just fine, and didn't attack the plaintiff's dog).

Second (New)-

Shocking Jail Time-Plaintiff suing his ex-boyfriend for calling the police on him on Christmas Eve, after setting him up.    The plaintiff didn't have $30,000 for bail, and spent nine months in jail.   Defendant called plaintiff and asked him to pick up his clothes and shoes.    Plaintiff was driving a vehicle belonging to the defendant.     Plaintiff and cousin went to pick up the clothes, and shoes at defendant's invitation.     

Defendant and family members demanded the car keys back, and plaintiff left in the car, defendant reported the car stolen, and gun was found, along with drugs.    The plaintiff got pulled over by police, they found the gun, and plaintiff was jailed for nine months.   Gun belonged to defendant, but ownership of the drugs are plaintiff's.    Plaintiff was only charged with the car, possession of weed, auto theft, robbery, and gun possession.   Entire case was dismissed eventually.     Defendant is counter claiming for car being impounded, and his gun being confiscated.   

Defendant never told plaintiff to return the car.   It was an obvious set up by defendant.   Counter claim by defendant for car expenses, and gun is dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

(Ratings sweeps month is February, so both episodes are New! This should continue all month).

Edited January 31, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Angeltoes]

Quote

If you have to start paying his bills on the 2nd date, MOVE ON!!! 

This should be on bumper stickers or t-shirts.

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Burglar Caught in the Act

The plaintiff is really much too emotionally invested in his automobile. I would tell him that it's only a car after all but that would probably launch him on a rant about how often he has it washed, detailed, coiffed and permed.

14 hours ago, bref said:

Hey, I missed the hallterview with the Akita owner. Did she acknowledge JJ's lecture about risky dogs or not? She seemed...unrepentant, shall we say.

Of course she showed no remorse and was still arguing that her dog did not do it. Another irresponsible idiot owning dogs and endangering others.

[Carolina Girl]

39 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The plaintiff is really much too emotionally invested in his automobile. I would tell him that it's only a car after all but that would probably launch him on a rant about how often he has it washed, detailed, coiffed and permed.

Maddox was a nutjob.  Right, dude, he was stealing your chrome rims.  Or the chrome OFF your rims.  You have a huge dent but the invisible scratch over "1,000 coats of wax" was the problem.  

And I'm confused.  Were the POLICE called or was security called?  Because I'm pretty sure a police department wouldn't fire someone based on the say-so of this lunatic.  I'm also pretty sure that even if it was a "security cop" that he wasn't fired either.  If I were the manager that this kumquat complained to, I would have said ANYTHING to get him out of my office.  

[KittyMom4]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sorry, no one really thinks the defendant was stealing Plaintiff Mr. Clean's rims.   Defendant told the police (called by plaintiff) that he had locked himself out of the car, and needed his hide-a-key to get into the ca

I was rolling on the floor with his "I'm a member of Jim Bob's car wash club!" as if that somehow makes him royalty. And his halterview "Look how I dress and look at how he dresses!" Yes that totally negates the fact that you drive an old rust bucket and want to sue for dings, dents and scratches put on from years of use. Omg, priceless.

 

On 1/29/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry).   

$5,000 to plaintiff, who applauds loudly.   (Sorry, the contract was fulfilled.   Why would anyone want the first midwife there after she'd been on her feet for an entire day?)

I'm with you, I don't want an exhausted midwife half awake while I'm trying to deliver a baby! Wth? Hopefully she changes her contract to specify that not only if she's with another patient, but if she hasn't had 8 hours rest prior to said birth. Yikes. 

Just my opinion, I gave birth twice, first time in a Naval Hospital in CA in 1990, the second time in a state of the art hospital in upstate NY in 1994. For the second birth they offered up the 'birthing room' complete with birthing tub. My first delivery was excruciating (back labor) and I knew the second time I'd be opting for the epidural so I let them know that, which made the birthing tub unavailable for me. For your first birth you really don't know what to expect, I would want every medical option on hand just in case. The ultimate goal is for mom and baby to be healthy and safe, and there is no extra points for enduring what can be ridiculously painful and exhausting. 

14 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

At least we now know that Elvira Mistress of the Dark is capable of spawning.

 

LOL, Someone should tell that wannabe Elvira it ain't workin', the over done cat eye and the choker that made her double chin even more pronounced was not flattering at all. Love how mom and dad were there but no mention of baby daddy, who probably looks like the Crypt Keeper. 

 

[seacliffsal]

I am so, so, so grateful for everyone's comments as my local channel continues to pre-empt JJ for the trial.  Is it possible to go through withdrawal from a t.v. show?  Even when I really disagree with her, and believe that at times she's maybe ruder than I would choose to be, I still watch everyday.  I even reference her at times when talking about civil law with my students.  Of course, I always reference her as "my friend Judge Judy..."  Yes, maybe it is a sickness...

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

s it possible to go through withdrawal from a t.v. show? 

Yes, but soon you'll be back for one of the three most important months of the viewing year, sweeps month.    Every show, on every channel for all of the time periods 24/7 is measured.   This means JJ has two new episodes a day.    

One thing about JJ being crankier is that she sees the evidence before the case, and the sworn statements of both sides.    I think her tolerance for lying, delusional twits is getting smaller.    However, that doesn't mean I agree with all of her decisions, such as in the midwife case.   I would have given the entitled fool nothing.  

[PopTart16]

Buckle up everyone cause I have a pit-bull story for you. A friend of mine had a five year old pit, he was a family pet and they have had him since he was a puppy. The pit lost his mind a few weeks ago and managed to get out of the house, he promptly tried to bite a neighbor who was able to get away. The next day, this family dog mauled and killed my friends 10+ year old dog, he had lived with this other dog his whole life and without provocation he went at the other dog and killed it in what was a horrific attack- this "family pet" was around small children every day and although I feel terrible for the older dog at least he did not kill a baby.

[DoctorK]

Today's new cases, boy was JJ cranky today. I really did not like the way she handled the repo case for a bunch of reasons. As always she may have seen a lot more of the evidence before the case but she seemed to have decided at the beginning that she didn't like the defendant car dealer. She completely ignored his assertion that the receipts showed signs of doctoring (maybe yes, maybe no, we didn't get a chance to see them). She dismissed his counter claim without any discussion, even the damage the plaintiff did to the defendant's car (which the plaintiff admitted to in the hallterview). She refused to listen when he tried to explain that even if the disputed receipts were accepted, the plaintiff was still short (again maybe yes, maybe no but it wasn't addressed). Finally, in spite of years of hearing both JJ and JM explain that written contracts cannot be altered by subsequent oral agreements; JJ ignored that fact that the plaintiff did not make complete payments on time as explicitly called for in the contract. Regarding the missing "business associate" who may have pocketed the disputed money, if the business connection between the defendant and the missing guy had been severed (as the defendant tried futilely to explain, JJ wasn't listening) that would make the plaintiff the victim of the missing guy's fraud, not of the defendant.

Overall, I think the case was handled very sloppily by a cranky judge who didn't really want to spend any time and energy on it.

I skipped the second case, it looked boring.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Unbelievable Lawsuit-Plaintiff /uninsured driver is suing the driver she crashed into.    Defendant was insured, and in a brand new car.    After the accident the plaintiff was supposed to meet defendant at the police station, but didn't.     Defendant's car insurance paid for her car, but defendant wants her $1,000 deductible from the plaintiff.   Plaintiff gave defendant a phony phone number too.    Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized her car, and has a police report from plaintiff.    Report says plaintiff's car tires were slashed (bet there are a ton of suspects for that crime), and claims there was vandalism on three occasions, over the span of months.    Plaintiff brought two 'witnesses' who claim to have seen the vandalism.     

Funny!   Plaintiff claims she missed the police the day after the vandalism, because she was driving her kid to school.   On flat tires.   Also, plaintiff's license was suspended too (don't they ever arrest anyone anymore for driving suspended?)    The accident happened in May, and plaintiff didn't get insurance until July.      Plaintiff's license was never reinstated.   Defendant receives $1,000, and plaintiff gets nothing.

Cheating, Guns and a Stolen Laptop-Plaintiff is suing his ex-girlfriend for a stolen laptop ($3,000), defendant claims he was cheating.    Plaintiff claims he paid the defendant for the laptop.  Defendant claims she wasn't living with plaintiff, and she was.    She also claims she didn't have a laptop while completing her two year program at Virginia College.  Defendant can't keep any of her dates or times right.     $400 to plaintiff for the laptop.  

Second-

Shh...Don't Tell My Husband-Plaintiff wants a loan repaid $1850), but he made the loan to the defendant only if his husband didn't find out, he wants money for the loan, and an assault.  Defendant needed money for security, and first months rent, and expenses to move out of a bad situation at home (it was a bad neighborhood, and dangerous).      Defendant claims he didn't ask for money, so it was a gift, not a loan.  Defendant said he needed assistance to move, and $1850 was needed.  Defendant is toast, he paid $200 to plaintiff, so still owes $1650.    THe husband found out about the loan when defendant came to the house, and assaulted the plaintiff.   Defendant claims the plaintiff was hitting on him. 

Plaintiff gets $1850. 

Cash Up Front Friend-Plaintiff is suing  Clinton Duncan for unpaid car payments, and lost wages.    Plaintiff sold her SUV to defendant for $1,800 with $1,000 down payment.    However, plaintiff let defendant have the vehicle before he paid in full.    Defendant did pay $200 more to plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims the online KBB is higher than Byrd's price of $960, and she's right it's over $2,000.  Defendant says he withheld the other $800 to pay sales tax, and registration fees.    Defendant started having mechanical issues for the car, so he stopped paying for the car.    Defendant wants the signed title.   Plaintiff will receive $600 for the loan, and defendant gets the title when car is registered.    

[One Tough Cookie]

On 1/29/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says Nigerian scammer was in Texas, and would be her friend,  and give her a lot of money.    Defendant claims the $3,000+ went to a closed bank account. 

Obviously she never sent him a picture or skyped...

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both New-

First (New)-

Slick Business Partner-Plaintiff suing car dealership owner for return of car payments, and wrongful repo.     Plaintiff bought a used car for $4,732, and a $1000 down payment paid, and $1800 more on the down payment.   Plaintiff was supposed to pay a $1,000 payment, but only paid $500.   Plaintiff only gave $2300 on the $2800 down payment.    And claims she paid $500 more in July.    Payments were supposed to be $500 a month for four months to pay the remainder (no, I have no idea if that adds up, this is confusing).   

Defendant claims he only received $1800 of the $2800 down payment, and never received the remaining $3,000.    Defendant is suing for the rest of the down payment, vandalizing the car, and non-payment.. Defendant claims the receipts of payments are forged.   Car was repo. in September.    Business associate that plaintiff claims received her cash was terminated by the defendant.    Defendant claims that business associate did not have control of the financial systems, and never dealt with the plaintiff.   

There are pictures of the bad shape of the car when the repo occurred, by the repo company.   Car was full of broken glass, and trash.   Of course, plaintiff says defendant trashed the car.     The purchase contract says that repo will happen if payments aren't made, or if full insurance isn't in effect at all times.    Defendant says that text messages about payments are after other man was fired.     

Plaintiff gets $4300 from JJ for the car.  (JJ says to sue the former business partner).   I think plaintiff is a big liar.  (Note to plaintiff, you don't get the title until you pay the vehicle off). 

Short Vacation Bust-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit return ($2500).     Defendant is suing for removal of trash, and other damages.   Water heater burst in the home, and home owner's insurance should have paid for that.   JJ won't accept the combined bill for everything that was done.    Plaintiff gets $2500.   (Why do landlords come on this show, or The People's Court?) 

Second (New)-

Food Truck Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant over not completing her food trailer, supplies, and labor costs.   Plaintiff bought a used trailer, and wanted to open a food truck (hot dogs, etc), and her previous experience was running an ice cream truck.    Plaintiff claims the estimate was $1200, plus materials, $1400, totals $2600.      Defendant says he was not going to do the work himself, but his partner would do the work.    Defendant is a caregiver in a group home, and doesn't do remodeling.    

Trailer was never finished, and in unusable.     Trailer is sitting on defendant's property, in pieces.    Plaintiff will receive $4,000 for the trailer, and if defendant wants to repair the trailer and sell it, he can.     

Maltipoo on the Property-Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant /tenant for unpaid rent, and damages to his property, caused by her dog.   Plaintiff rents rooms in the main house, and his family lives in the back.    $635 was rent, including utilities, and only paid the first month, and no receipts, as usual.    Amount withdrawn by defendant on month two is way short of the cost for rent, or utilities.     On month two, after no rent, plaintiff gave her the eviction notice (she lived there August to October).     Defendant baby sat a dog (Maltipoo), and there is a huge hole in the wall, bad carpet damage.   Plaintiff gets two months rent and utilities.   Pl

Plaintiff Defendant is counter claiming for constructive eviction (what she didn't learn to say unlawful detainer yet?).       Defendant claims she paid two months rent, without proof of bank withdrawals or receipts.      Defendant claims she was given a 30 day notice, and was thrown out illegally. 

 Plaintiff claims some of the damages were done by defendant's dog siting dog.    Plaintiff will receive two months rent and utilities.       $1300 to plaintiff.    (I think plaintiff should have received more, for damages). 

Edited February 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[parrotfeathers]

On 1/30/2020 at 5:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant and family members demanded the car keys back, and plaintiff left in the car, defendant reported the car stolen, and gun was found, along with drugs.    The plaintiff got pulled over by police, they found the gun, and plaintiff was jailed for nine months.   Gun belonged to defendant, but ownership of the drugs are plaintiff's.    Plaintiff was only charged with the car, possession of weed, auto theft, robbery, and gun possession.   Entire case was dismissed eventually.     Defendant is counter claiming for car being impounded, and his gun being confiscated.   

Defendant never told plaintiff to return the car.   It was an obvious set up by defendant.   Counter claim by defendant for car expenses, and gun is dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

By the time it was ready for JJ to rule, I really couldn't help but like the plaintiff.  I'm glad he got his money and hope he did something wise with it.

[Tosia]

On 1/29/2020 at 2:47 PM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I have a non-drinking game that I play when watching JJ. At some point I watch the defendants and try and figure out if they are going to act like a 3 year old with a bad "you-can't-make-me" attitude, crossing of the arms, snotty nosed vocal affliction, etc. The Lipstick Lady would have made me more tipsy that Mondrianyone in a parking lot doing her dance routine (and I stand in solidarity with you as I have danced many MANY times in parking lots, mostly without the aid of liquid courage, and yes, a few times involving a shopping cart). Lipstick Lady got all snarky and I'm sure that didn't help her case at all. 

BTW, the majority of our cart returns where I live are far far away from the handicapped spots. (source: I have a handicapped placard and try to scope out a cart before I get out of my car - yes, I am one of those cranky old bats that uses the cart for a walking aid on many occasions). 

Shopping cart runaway clown case: 

I kept wanting to reach through the TV and adjust defendant's bottom lip into a smiling, or at least, slightly upwards position. 

I also was coiffing her hair into a softer shape and color.

But her mom scared me off.

Those two are probably a barrel of laughs at home.  Sure. 

That's said,  I fucking love shooting my cart into the cart holding storage as fast as I can when I'm done shopping. I missed once though, with no damage,  but I get closer now so my aim is better. 

BTW Mondrianyone, I used to do my song and dance INSIDE the grocery store. Those long,  empty aisles were begging for a Broadway-style tap and swing dance, loud singalong to the music selected by the Employee of the Month Stocker/Shelver Extraordinaire. 

Yes, it was later at night when my boyfriend-at- the-time and I shopped for absolutely necessary snacks and yes,  I was high.  

Good times ( at the Kroger Market.)

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Tosia

[Zahdii]

I'm the person who makes sure that my shopping cart ends up in the shopping cart corral.  I even gather the other carts and place them so they're all fitted together in a nice snugly line.  It's my thing.  I've seen too many shopping carts standing in the middle of the lane when I'm trying to find a parking space.  I've seen people just aim the cart at the cart return and push off, not caring that the cart hit a car parked nearby.

I also usually grab a cart from the lot and take it inside, both to reduce the number of carts sitting in the lot, and to make sure that I have one once I get inside.

[One Tough Cookie]

On 1/29/2020 at 1:23 AM, Mondrianyone said:

People watching me think I'm writing down my name and insurance info, but they're wrong.

Raises hand in shame.

[Florinaldo]

21 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's new cases, boy was JJ cranky today. I really did not like the way she handled the repo case for a bunch of reasons.

I pegged it at another day of "missed scheduled bowel movement syndrome"; she seems to suffer these more and more frequently.

She refused to listen to evidence and ruled in favour of the plaintiff who was a big liar and was utterly annoying, behaving as if she were at a Reival meeting with her repeated chanted "Tell the truth!". She missed payments, left the car in awful condition, and JJ rewarded her for it...

JJ was equally unfair to both landlords in the other new cases. Atlhough the bearded one made the common mistake on the shows of litigants bringing pictures that are taken in extreme close-up; it robs the evidence of context and of an idea of scale, and eventually of meaning. People who have seen the damage in situ can reconstruct the missing info, but not an outside adjudicator. One should always take a combination of wide shots, medium shots and close-ups of the alleged damage, as well as extreme close-ups if really necessary.

As for the food truck case, I could not understand JJ's shrill moral indignation at the guy being the middle man and not the person actually doing the work. He did his estimate sloppily because he is not knowledgeable enough, but there is nothing inherently wrong with having the work done by an employee or associate, unless the contract mentions specifically who will do it or what their qualitications and diplomas need to be. JJ just wanted another excuse to scream at a litigant; she always manages to find one.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

I don't remember seeing any shopping cart corrals next to the accessible permit-only parking. 

  However, where I live often people will wait, and take the cart to a corral for someone that has no where to put it safely, or for the ones who are loading kids, and groceries, and would have problems getting the cart back.   

I doubt everything the cart woman said, since she kept getting her story mixed up, and refused to take responsibility for her actions.   It's good the plaintiff was in her car, because if defendant could have grabbed the cart, and returned to the store, or where ever she was going when the cart hit happened, then both car owners would have been out of luck.  

[DoctorK]

19 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, where I live often people will wait, and take the cart to a corral for someone that has no where to put it safely, or for the ones who are loading kids, and groceries, and would have problems getting the cart back.   

Me too. However I always make sure that I approach slowly and not from behind, and calmly but clearly offer to take care of their cart to save them some steps. I do it this way because some people might consider me a bit scary looking (not that I think so). It is amazing how much everyone seems to appreciate this, and if I can provide a brief moment of friendliness, it brightens my life a bit.

Edited February 1, 2020 by DoctorK
clarification

[parrotfeathers]

On 1/31/2020 at 5:51 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

Defendant says Nigerian scammer was in Texas, and would be her friend,  and give her a lot of money.    Defendant claims the $3,000+ went to a closed bank account. 

Can money be deposited in a closed account?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Can money be deposited in a closed account?

As per this:

https://cash.app/help/us/en-us/3075-closed-bank-accounts-or-expired-cards

yes, but the funds are usually held by the bank until you contact them personally.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 2/1/2020 at 9:33 AM, Tosia said:

BTW Mondrianyone, I used to do my song and dance INSIDE the grocery store. Those long,  empty aisles were begging for a Broadway-style tap and swing dance, loud singalong to the music selected by the Employee of the Month Stocker/Shelver Extraordinaire. 

 

Y'all are my spirit animals. I am one of those random people that sings ALL THE TIME. I swear I should have been born in the 50s when all the musicals came out. I gave birth to two children, one who is very rigid and easily embarrassed  but my second is just like me and we used to grocery shop and toss things into the cart while we were dancing randomly to "Wake Me Up Before you Go-Go". No pharmaceutical help involved. 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 4:23 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Sorry, no one really thinks the defendant was stealing Plaintiff Mr. Clean's rims.   Defendant told the police (called by plaintiff) that he had locked himself out of the car, and needed his hide-a-key to get into the car, and slipped while replacing the hide-a-key. 

I refuse to use my cane at work so when I come in from the employee parking lot I have to step up on a very high curb and I use my co-worker's car to boost me up EVERY DAY. I always have my hand on her hood. That's what she gets for parking right by the door. 

The midwife case confused me - how could a midwife GUARANTEE to be at the birth of the Dracula-inspired Mother? It's common practice for midwives to have back-up for this exact reason. 

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

The midwife case confused me - how could a midwife GUARANTEE to be at the birth of the Dracula-inspired Mother? It's common practice for midwives to have back-up for this exact reason. 

Absolutely - my take was that D was promising that her service would have a midwife there - not that she, personally, would be there. One of JJ's mystery rulings where I have no idea WTH she was thinking. Even after the testimony and JJ determining that the service provided a licensed midwife, I don't think it ever penetrated P's thick skull - her mind was made up that the provided midwife was an inexperienced trainee and no amount to of testimony changed her mind

[patty1h]

Lisa Palma was one scary tenant.  She was drunk on power from just sub-leasing a room to a young woman - kicking in doors, grabbing cellphones and tussling with Tiffany Colon over $100 in rent.  To make matters worse, her own son gets up and won't make up stories to help his mothers case, and she basically calls her kid a scared liar.

She did not want to hear that her 30-day notice clause was not enforceable and it was great to see JJ drum it into her brain that that "rule" was garbage.  Let's hope Mr. Schlesinger gets smarter too and sees that letting this woman have free reign in his property may lead to some legal problems in his future.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Boiling Water Poured on High Roommate-Plaintiff suing former roommate (plaintiff, defendant and defendant's sister were sharing an apartment)  for medical bills, for pouring boiling water on her when plaintiff was sleeping.   However, the police report says plaintiff (and both other roommates) was high on PCP.      Plaintiff says the cop was fugazi (apparently means fake), and lied on the police report.   Plaintiff was found outside the apartment building, wearing a hospital gown.    Doctor's report says plaintiff did have second degree burns, was wearing a hospital gown, and was altered by PCP use.   

Plaintiff claims defendant poured boiling water on her.   Defendant says plaintiff pulled a pan off of the stove, and spilled the water on herself (JJ's rendition of the plaintiff's position is hysterical!).    As JJ points out, the doctor and police officer couldn't get a cogent story out of plaintiff.     Plaintiff gets $5k (I bet she poured the water on herself), and her hall-terview is bizarre.    The other sister says they all used PCP, and need to stop.  (I think someone on PCP could do all kinds of bizarre and dangerous things, and I don't think JJ had any evidence that plaintiff didn't do it, or that defendant and sister did.   I've heard of people doing bizarre things to themselves and others on PCP, and I bet that plaintiff used her $5k award up quickly, and not for medical bills). 

Tell the Truth-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for return of belongings she stole from him.    Defendant rented a room from the plaintiff in his apartment, with her two children.    Rent was $500.    Plaintiff claims she moved because of pot, and alcohol use by the plaintiff in the apartment.   When defendant moved out on 12 July,

Plaintiff says she moved in on 13 May, and out on 12 July.    Defendant claims she moved in during July, and lived in Seattle during May and June, and now says she lived at her Mother's place in June.     JJ calls defendant a fibber.   Defendant claims she lived in Seattle, then Tampa (where the apartment is) with plaintiff, and then moved to Naples with her mother.    Plaintiff says lying defendant stole his Xbox, TV, his mattress, other electronics, and claims defendant's witness was the accomplice.      

Defendant claims she was fired from her job (in Tampa) after plaintiff harassed her there.  However, she claims she was living with her mother in Naples then, not commuting distance at all. 

$3600 to plaintiff

Second-

Pregnancy False Alarm Vandal-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for vandalizing his car, and stalking (after they broke up).     Litigants met on the internet, and had a very short relationship.       Defendant told plaintiff she was pregnant on 4 June (in less than 10 days!) .    Defendant claims they were still hooking up until mid-August.     Car vandalism was over Labor Day, 2016.  Police report on 15 June by plaintiff claims she was harassing him.   Plaintiff recognized defendant's car, and claims she was visiting his friend across the street.   In June plaintiff's tires were slashed.    Defendant claims they were boinking each other through August.    September 6 (Labor Day weekend) plaintiff claims his car was keyed, after defendant was told to leave a friend's party to avoid the plaintiff, who was invited to the party.     Defendant went home (across the street), and went back across the street to the party, claiming plaintiff's witness  texted her to come back to the party.  Plaintiff has a text message of the defendant admitting she keyed his car, 

 They only started dating on 26 May, and defendant claimed to be pregnant on 4 June, and she claimed it was plaintiff's baby.   As JJ points out, who was the father?   It certainly wasn't the plaintiff.  They met on 26 May 2016, and broke up on 12 June.

   Plaintiff receives money for car keying damages. 

Mustang Mishap-Plaintiff sold a Mustang for $700 to defendant, in May 2015.    Defendant had the signed title, car was never registered in defendant's name, and car was impounded in August 2016.   Defendant claims the car was going to be taken for parts, and it didn't need registration.    Defendant didn't have funds to register the car.   Defendant said plaintiff needed to go to the DMV to sign a release of liability, and he would have registered the car (with no money, and no smog test?)    Plaintiff had to pay impound fees, $1665

Since plaintiff's name was still on title and registration, she was on the hook for the car.  

Edited February 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Landlord's Rage Caught on Tape-Plaintiff landlord and the woman who sublets the rooms out, and lives in the home, are suing former tenant for utilities, and property damages.   Defendant says woman plaintiff broke into tenant's room, and severely beat her (there is a video of this).  Defendant signed a six month lease, and paid $600 security deposit.   Lease was to expire in September, and in August plaintiff woman claims defendant was gathering her property to move out.    Plaintiff woman claims she thought she was going to be homeless with her adult son, if defendant/tenant moved without 30 days notice, leaving her on the hook for the rent.    Plaintiff woman claims if the lease wasn't officially ended by the defendant, that the lease would automatically renew for six more months.    The 30 day notice isn't in the lease.  

I can't believe the owner/landlord let the loony plaintiff woman run the house rentals for so many years.    There is no clause in the lease about automatically renewing.    Plaintiff woman claims the defendant jumped out her room window and left without notice.   SInce the lease was to expire on the end of September, then there was no requirement for 30 days notice.     The tenant / defendant was going to use her security deposit for the last month.   27 August, plaintiff woman claims defendant and boyfriend were jumping in and out of the room window, and moving items to her U-Haul truck parked in a neighbor's driveway.   Plaintiff woman would have lost nothing by defendant moving out on the end of August, and would have had a month covered by the security deposit, so had until 1 October to get another roommate.     Plaintiff son throws Mom under the bus, and I bet he caught hell for this.  Plaintiff landlord says his tenant's son saw defendant damaging the wall with a crowbar, but the son wasn't home when she moved. 

Now for the best part, the video of plaintiff woman kicking the door in, grabbing the camera or phone, and attacking the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff woman punched her several times, tackled her, and rammed her into the wall, causing the damages.    There are bad photos of the defendant's bruised face, and knee.     Defendant is counter suing for security deposit, and alternative housing she had to get when she left the house in fear of the landlady/sublet.     Police did not arrest the plaintiff woman.    Landlord owner still doesn't get a clue.   

Plaintiff gets nothing.     Defendant gets $1500.         

Second (New)-

Poisoned by Tattoo Artist-Plaintiff claims defendant tattoo artists injured her skin with the leg tattoo, and it later became infected.   Defendant said woman never complains until he saw bad reviews on Yelp, Google, etc, and when defendant contacted her she only sent him a blurry photo    Defendant claims he has never had another skin infection from a tattoo in the 10 years his business has been open.    Plaintiff didn't go to Urgent Care until a week after the tattoo.   The defendant claims his shop is regularly inspected by the county.    (My guess is that plaintiff didn't follow instructions about care. I wonder if she's allergic to the ink? Just because you had successful tattoos before, doesn't mean you won't develop an allergy).       Plaintiff also had previous tattoos, successfully.    Tattoo cost $215, and she had $1,400 in outstanding medical bills.    Counter claim is for negative reviews, and slander, and says the contract says posting bad reviews is a no-no.   The contract waives risk for allergies, or other bad outcomes.  

Plaintiff is going to win, but I don't think she should.   Just because she followed the care rules the other times, doesn't mean she did this time.   Plaintiff receives for tattoo, and medical bills, equaling $1615.    (I suspect defendant is right, the woman didn't care for it correctly, or her cat was rubbing on her leg, and she got the infection because she didn't clean often enough). 

Surprise! A Pit Mix Attacks-   Plaintiff suing dog sitter for punitive damages, vet bills, and out of pocket expenses.    Defendant works for Rover Inc., and was dog sitting the plaintiff's two dogs, who were staying for nine days.  Rover paid over $3,000 to the plaintiff for dog's injuries.   Plaintiff wants the $250 deductible that Rover didn't cover, and wants driving costs to and from the vet.   Defendant took dog to vet.     The plaintiff's Chihuahua was attacked by a pit mix (there were two more dogs besides the plaintiff's two dogs).  Defendant left dog unsupervised, a kerfuffle started, and defendant witness told dog to let the Chi. go, and the dog did.   Then the defendant and witness took the dog to the vet, and stayed there until vet said the dog would have to stay.    

Plaintiff gets nothing.     (I'm not clear if the pits were actually defendant's dogs or pet sitting dogs).    

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"Tiffany and her son were jumping in and out of the window, moving her stuff out."

Er. The window? Really?

[AuntiePam]

27 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"Tiffany and her son were jumping in and out of the window, moving her stuff out."

Er. The window? Really?

That does sound weird but if it's a big window and it's close to where the U-Haul was parked, I can see it.  Especially if they wanted to avoid walking through the house and encountering the plaintiff.

My DVR recorded the same case twice.  There was a description of the tattoo case, but it wasn't shown.  Sounds like I didn't miss much. 

[JD5166]

I got crazy landlord twice today! Anyone else?? 😢 my day is kind of ruined....lol

[augmentedfourth]

After the way that crazy-ass landlord kicked that door down, hell, I'd be jumping out the window if I saw her coming after me. She was definitely one of the more repulsive litigants we've had in a while, and that's saying a lot. Bonus points for her being the plaintiff, losing, AND having to pay on the counter-claim. I love those cases, truly. And while JJ often doesn't award money for assault cases if there were no medical bills, she did today to prove a point, and I am 100% okay with that.

 

On the flip side, yeah, I think she was off base in the tattoo case. I get that there's a lower bar re: evidence in small claims, but I still think it should have been more "prove your leg got infected from his shop" vs. "prove her leg DIDN'T get infected from your shop," because how can you really prove a negative?

 

I do not have many nice things to say about the dumbass dogsitter who left pitbulls she didn't own alone with two little dogs she didn't own (okay, the slow-moving witness was there, but does she really count?), so I'll just stop here.

[howiveaddict]

10 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

 

The midwife case confused me - how could a midwife GUARANTEE to be at the birth of the Dracula-inspired Mother? It's common practice for midwives to have back-up for this exact reason. 

JJ was totally wrong here. You don't get guaranteed your OBGYN will be on call either.  I'm kind of on the fence about these for profit birthing centers, but the defendant should have won.  I can see the Midwife comforting another mother who lost her child. That is part of the after care.  But then, I wondered what happened to cause the baby to die?  See, I'm on the fence about birthing centers.  Was it a preventable death?   I guess since I'm a nurse, I would want all technology available and not a nearby hospital. Of course, I always wanted an epidural as soon as possible.  

The fool plaintiff was not looking at the bigger picture, when wanting a tired midwife to take care of her and not another one.   She looked like someone who is probably demanding about all kinds of services.

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Landlord's Rage Caught on Tape

When the case started I wondered how come some people do not understand it is a bad idea to antagonize a judge or arbitrator, especially one as cranky as JJ; don't the show staff give some advice to litigants? And then as the case progressed I realised this was her everyday nature and no amount of advice could get her to behave diffferently. JJ hated the plaintiff so much that she let slide the frequent interruptions or comments from the defendant.

Plaintiff did make one true statement: her son is probably scared. Of her.

Perhaps so is the landlord, which is why he is still standing by her.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Florinaldo

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

13 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

The fool plaintiff was not looking at the bigger picture, when wanting a tired midwife to take care of her and not another one.   She looked like someone who is probably demanding about all kinds of services.

Perhaps the Fool Plaintiff was wanting a specific kind of birthing experience rather than focusing on the big picture - a healthy mom and baby. Besides all those specially birthed babies grow up and are eating boogers at the park with the Epidurally-birthed kids anyway. 

 

2 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

Kicks in the door sublet case. Ugh, she was scary. What irritated me more though was that the defendant was indulged in just calling out continuously during the case.

I hate those caller-outers, even if they are justified. It's like going to the movies and people are yelling at the screen throughout the movie. Oh and get off my lawn. 

[KittyMom4]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is going to win, but I don't think she should.   Just because she followed the care rules the other times, doesn't mean she did this time.   Plaintiff receives for tattoo, and medical bills, equaling $1615. 

 

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tattoo Goes Wrong-Plaintiff claims defendant tattoo artists injured her skin with the leg tattoo, and it later became infected.   Defendant said woman never complains until he saw bad reviews on Yelp, Google, etc, and when defendant contacted her she only sent him a blurry photo   

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the plaintiff, an Ariel the Mermaid wannabe, probably did not care for her tattoo as she was supposed to. I wanted JJ to ask to see the tattoo today too! Both my daughters have tattoos and the healing process is long and you have to be very diligent about cleaning and covering it until it's healed. 

Hopefully the defendant's shop has not had any repercussions, although I'd think twice about using the nickname "Skat".

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I can't believe the owner/landlord let the loony plaintiff woman run the house rentals for so many years.

I think the elderly landlord was getting something besides rent from the angry tenant. The way she was so adamant that he would never rethink renting to her. Yikes.  

19 hours ago, patty1h said:

Lisa Palma was one scary tenant.  She was drunk on power from just sub-leasing a room to a young woman - kicking in doors, grabbing cellphones and tussling with Tiffany Colon over $100 in rent.  To make matters worse, her own son gets up and won't make up stories to help his mothers case, and she basically calls her kid a scared liar.

She was psycho, the defendant dodged a bullet by getting out of there. I can't imagine living with that crazy pitbull of a landlord. 

[augmentedfourth]

3 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

I think in the midwife case it came down to how the contract was worded. It said that the defendant was the one guaranteed to be at the birth unless she was at another birth. So I think the defendant needs to consider updating her contract. That said, the plaintiff was an idiot drama queen.

Yeah, the wording in the contract was very precise, and that's what ultimately did her in. If memory serves, it said she would be there unless she was with another laboring client. I think even JJ felt bad for ruling the way she did, but with all the noise she makes about contracts and what's in writing, she was kind of forced to. I'm sure the midwife changed the language in the contract the moment she got home, though.

 

(And I have to admit, as a "I am absolutely giving birth in a hospital where they have all the good drugs and life-saving measures" kind of mother, I am a little morbidly curious about whether the first client might have had a happier ending had she not been laboring at home all day with the midwife.)

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Repo Man Chased Down-Plaintiff suing repo man for repoing his car that he was behind on payments, and wants damages for assault, and vandalizing his property.    Plaintiff claims he thought his behind on payments car was being stolen by defendant.   Defendant was towing the car with his tow truck, clearly labelled as vehicle recovery.  Defendant was hired by the repo company, that was told to repo the car by the finance company.   

Defendant says as he was securing the  car on the tow device, plaintiff threatened him, stood on the running board, claims plaintiff punched him in the ribs several time, and grabbed the steering wheel, causing defendant to crash.      Police were not impressed by plaintiff's claims of 'theft' of his vehicle.     Defendant had the right paperwork to repo the vehicle.   Plaintiff is lucky no one was hurt by the accident, caused by him.   Defendant's tow truck says the company name, Northwest Recovery in big letters on it, it was obviously a repo.

Litigants case dismissed. 

What's a Pyredoodle Puppy?-Plaintiff suing for return of deposit for a Pyredoodle puppy (Pyrennes/Poodle cross).   Plaintiff picked a specific mother dog, Song.   Defendant took deposit on unborn puppy in February, and puppy was never given to plaintiff.    As usual, defendant says deposits are non-refundable, and she's not getting away with that.  Deposit was $500.   Defendant says the designated dog is currently due with a litter in a month.   Defendant b-word tells JJ that she's not giving a refund, or a puppy, and JJ takes that rather badly (Please, just this once, let Byrd use the Fly Swatter of Death on the defendant).    Defendant claims that Song is currently expecting, but has no proof of pregnancy from the vet.   Plaintiff receives $500.  (Plaintiff wants a Pyrennes cross for a service dog!)

Second-

Wild Pigs Bite-Plaintiff claims neighbor's pigs destroyed her garden, and wants to be paid for the destruction.    Police report says defendant admitted they were her pigs.   They live in a rural community.    Defendant has four pigs, that are all over 100 lbs.    Defendant says two weigh 30 lbs, and two weigh 50 lbs.   Plaintiff has pictures of the pigs, and they aren't 30 to 50 lbs.    Plaintiff has a video of the pigs destroying her garden, on her property, from July to October.    Defendant claims her pigs are always penned.    The pigs are destroying the plaintiff's playground area, and rooting up the back yard.   Plaintiff has called police four times, and seven times asked the plaintiff to keep her pigs confined.    Plaintiff says the pigs bite, and her children, and others in the neighborhood can't play outside because of the danger.       

Defendant brought baby pig pictures, and only one showing the big spotted pig in a kiddy pool, and it's the same pig as in the video.    Plaintiff says there have been 24 citations for animals at large from sheriff, and one from the health department for biting a neighbor.  Defendant keeps claiming that's not her pig, but are wild pigs, then JJ suggests shooting the destructive, and biting pigs is an option.  $5,000 to plaintiff. 

Sinking Boat-Plaintiff is suing for the return of a boat trailer from defendant.   Boat was stored, and plaintiff was authorized to sell it.    $2800 was the price (only the boat top was for sale, but defendant wanted the boat).    Defendant borrowed the trailer to transport the boat.   Defendant says she's not returning the boat trailer, because plaintiff sold her a bad boat.   I guess she can't read two words, "As is".   The first time the boat was launched it sank.     Defendant bought boat in July, husband and son-in-law worked on boat, launched it and it sank.    She didn't take it to a mechanic until November, and didn't return the boat trailer then either.   In November woman finally got an estimate to fix the boat, then put it in storage, where it still remains.   

Defendant is counter suing for fraud on the boat.    Defendant bought a 30 year old boat, and should have had an expert examine it.    Defendant claims plaintiff lied to her, said boat was wonderful, and perfect.     Plaintiff receives his trailer back, with the help of a marshal.

[Bobby88]

4 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I hate those caller-outers, even if they are justified. It's like going to the movies and people are yelling at the screen throughout the movie. Oh and get off my lawn. 

This drives me nuts! She certainly deserved every penny, but even her tone when she was showing JJ the pictures of her injuries was irritating. Her demeanor reeked of that one kid we all went to grade school with that was only too happy to let the teacher know that you rolled your eyes while she had her back turned. Remember Judy from Leave it to Beaver? “Miss Landers, Theodore doesn’t have his homework. Isn’t he irresponsible? I’m so glad I always come to class prepared.” That kinda shit.

This show manages to prove something over and over that I don’t think most people would ever admit because it would be very un-PC nowadays. Just because someone is a legit victim who deserves compensation, doesn’t mean they are likable as an individual. You can be 150% correct in your position and people can agree with you, but they are under no obligation to like you.

I can’t be the only person who could see the defendant as someone who could get very passive aggressive very quickly if they feel wronged.

 

[pagooey]

4 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I think the elderly landlord was getting something besides rent from the angry tenant. The way she was so adamant that he would never rethink renting to her. Yikes.  

Yeah, like the threat of a beatdown.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Motivational Speaker Sued-Plaintiff photographer is suing former Tinder date for unpaid photography, defamation, and loss of work.    Litigants met on a dating app (Tinder), and plaintiff was to take photographs of defendant, for his web page, or other written materials.   Plaintiff would be paid for each viewing.   Plaintiff was going to take many pictures, consult with defendant on editing, and use some photos.    Plaintiff keeps interjecting her opinions, and defendant is a jerk.   Defendant is a motivational speaker.    Plaintiff took pictures in two locations, for a total of three hours.    They only dated two times.   She claims she told him she was a professional photographer, and had a free lance business.    Defendant sent her $26.00, and plaintiff claims he tried to get the money back from Pay Pal.  

Defendant claims the pictures were just for his personal facebook page, not for business,, and gave plaintiff a photography credit.   However, defendant didn't do a photography credit on Spotify, etc.  Defendant claims having the pictures, meant ownership/copyright.   Defendant claims to have an email from plaintiff saying he had the rights to the photos.  Defendant is counter claiming for damages, and legal fees. 

As JJ says, they don't have a contract, and didn't set a price, so defendant could own the rights.   The email says that for the high-resolution photos would require payment from defendant.   JJ again says she dislikes the defendant, and I think she's so right.   Defendant gives JJ a load of ca-ca in response to that.    I hate to think how he goes off on his Suicide Hotline volunteer job if callers don't agree with him.       

Case dismissed, for plaintiff.   Defendant filed an infringement case against plaintiff already, and he wants legal fees for that.  Defendant won the infringement case, and could post the album.    Both litigants are irritating, they don't shut up, and are both idiots.  

Off-Leash Attack of Accident-Plaintiff / video photographer was supposed to take videos of defendant's dog, and ended up being run over by the dogs, plaintiff is suing for medical bills, and lost wages.   (Plaintiff's shirt, hair, and lipstick are all the same shade of orange-red, not a good look).    Plaintiff says the dogs were off leash, and defendant called them back, and that's when she was run over by the dog.     The video is played.    Case dismissed.   

Second (New)-

World's Worst Boyfriend-Plaintiffs say their daughter's boyfriend lost their dog, and stole their belongings.  Daughter of plaintiff is defendant's girlfriend, and witness, and says she has an email stating that defendant stole the property.    Daughter, and defendant has a fight, and boyfriend was kicked out.   So plaintiffs had an emergency, and had defendant house, and dog sit for them.   Then there was a call that all of the dogs were loose, and one dog disappeared.    Plaintiff husband came home, found house messed up, and when wife came home a month later she noticed a lot of property missing.     

Defendant and witness have a two kids, and have broken up since this.    Defendant is being supported by his family.   Defendant has a lame excuse for all of the dogs getting out, when girlfriend was staying at the parents' home with him.   The dog that was lost was a Chihuahua, and escaped from the laundry room where the dogs stay, used the doggy door, and got out of the gate.  Bet idiot boyfriend left the gate open too.     Dog was never seen again.    Defendant witness/SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) throws idiot defendant under the bus.   

Missing property was noticed by the wife, and she found her jewelry was gone, and other items, from the locked master bedroom.   When defendant was house sitting someone hit the mailbox, and paid defendant $150.  He claims he gave the money to the girlfriend, and she says it's a lie. 

I had to laugh at the girlfriend of defendant throwing him under the bus.  My guess is defendant called his ex, that he's never paid any kind of support for their two kids, and asked her to be a witness against her parents.    I think she thought it would be a good way to pay him back, and embarrass him on national TV too.    

Plaintiffs received $2500 (It is claimed that defendant pawned the jewelry and other property). 

Motorcycle Scam-Plaintiff suing mechanic and wife for a fraudulent lien, fixing the motorcycle, and damages to the motorcycle.     Defendants submit a work order with extra items added after the argument about the motorcycle, including storage fees.    Plaintiff paid all of the charges, except the storage charges that were added after the argument.    JJ wants to know where motorcycle was stored, and the answer is next to the shop.  Defendant claims it's a covered area, and a tarp was on the motorcycles in storage (50 x 20).    Plaintiff supplied the transmission, and paid $1,000.  Original invoice was only $850, but defendant claim that plaintiff owes $11,000 for storage fees (Did I understand that the bike was there for two years?)     JJ is going to generate an order for plaintiff to get bike back, and void the lien (they don't do mechanics lien, just lien of possession of the bike).     Defendant says bike was left in 2017, but work wasn't done until 2019.    Plaintiff still wants more, he claims his bike is not fixed.    Order is placed to get bike back, and lien dismissed.   

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

On 2/3/2020 at 4:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Boiling Water Poured on High Roommate-

Plaintiff claims defendant poured boiling water on her.   Defendant says plaintiff pulled a pan off of the stove, and spilled the water on herself (JJ's rendition of the plaintiff's position is hysterical!).    As JJ points out, the doctor and police officer couldn't get a cogent story out of plaintiff.     Plaintiff gets $5k (I bet she poured the water on herself), and her hall-terview is bizarre.    The other sister says they all used PCP, and need to stop.  (I think someone on PCP could do all kinds of bizarre and dangerous things, and I don't think JJ had any evidence that plaintiff didn't do it, or that defendant and sister did). 

 

I remember that case. I think JJ read on the medical report that the burns were on her "lady parts" as well and the defendant's scenario of the plaintiff dragging a pan from the stove and splashing herself with boiling water was not consistent with the medical records. JJ was definitely hilarious in this episode. The plaintiff was a total loon. 

9 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

I think in the midwife case it came down to how the contract was worded. It said that the defendant was the one guaranteed to be at the birth unless she was at another birth.

I agree with you. Midwife definitely needs to reword her contract. 

The landlord who kicked down the door was just a vile human being. Did anyone else notice the huge crack in the door and hole where she put her foot through? The wacko plaintiff then grabbed the knob and pulled the door back so that damage would not be captured on camera. Too late you fool. I just don't understand grown women who think that physically attacking someone is appropriate behavior. What kind of life is that? The landlord seems normal but it shocked me that he had zero reaction to what was taking place right in front of him and on the video. Seriously? Who would want to rent to that person. Someone upthread say that LL is probably getting more than rent from the plaintiff and I would not be surprised at that since she was so sure he'd continue to rent the place to her. 

One final thought is a huge shout out and thank you to you folks for posting warning messages when episodes with hurt/injured animals are part of the program. I can't watch those. Just thinkin about them is upsetting.

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by configdotsys

[patty1h]

47 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Off-Leash Attack of Accident-Plaintiff / video photographer was supposed to take videos of defendant's dog, and ended up being run over by the dogs, plaintiff is suing for medical bills, and lost wages. 

What a snowflake this girl was.  Her friends dog knocked her over and she wants money.  This show needs to start fining the people who bring in ridiculous, frivolous lawsuits.

[Florinaldo]

15 hours ago, Bobby88 said:

Just because someone is a legit victim who deserves compensation, doesn’t mean they are likable as an individual. You can be 150% correct in your position and people can agree with you, but they are under no obligation to like you.

Quite agree. Every time JJ said to the defendant "I don't like you" my reaction was: "I-don't-care!".  Her job is not to like litigants; she is there to decide on cases, ideally based upon the law (which does not always happen).

12 hours ago, patty1h said:

This show needs to start fining the people who bring in ridiculous, frivolous lawsuits.

Then they would be penalizing most of their litigants, the very types who mke up their bread and butter fare.

[augmentedfourth]

How did the girlfriend/daughter witness wind up on the wrong side? Did she get lost?

[KittyMom4]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff photographer is suing former Tinder date for unpaid photography, defamation, and loss of work.    Litigants met on a dating app (Tinder), and plaintiff was to take photographs of defendant, for his web page, or other written materials.

 

5 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

Photographer case: Both of the litigants had that odd thing of looking mid twenties to mid forties. I couldn't get a handle on how old they were. He was a player and she seemed to be a little whacko. 

Thank you @LucindaWalsh, I agree with JJ that the defendant was a giant douchebag who used the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was a few crayons short of a full box. Her shout outs, the awkward giggling when JJ would reprimand her, all made me thinks she's a tad on the desperate-for-a-man-any-man side. I hope for the next good looking* guy she swipes right on that she has a solid contract for any work he charms her into.

*I did not find the defendant attractive!

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The dog that was lost was a Chihuahua, and escaped from the laundry room where the dogs stay, used the doggy door, and got out of the gate.  Bet idiot boyfriend left the gate open too.     Dog was never seen again. 

This really bothered me, I hated the defendant but the plaintiffs were idiots for allowing their daughter's ex to watch their house and property! "We don't get involved in the drama." WTF???  One look at that slimy prick told me all I needed to know. The only living breathing thing I felt bad for in this case was the poor dog who was never found. I hope he ended up in a home with someone who has more sense than those two did!

19 hours ago, patty1h said:

What a snowflake this girl was.  Her friends dog knocked her over and she wants money.

Color me incredulous! Either this was staged or that tomato haired girl is really that stupid! Did she really not understand that no one was at fault here??? Yikes, if this was a true case that guy should be happy to rid of her as a friend, I have a feeling she is always a victim.

Edited February 5, 2020 by BexKeps

[Ilovecomputers]

Did anyone see the episode where the dog was attacked while under the care of the Rover dogsitter?  Rover apparently paid the plaintiff's vet bills (about $2,800) but she was suing for the deductible (about $250).  The attitude of the dogsitter was disturbing.  "I was entitled to a break! I was taking a break!"  So while she was taking a break she let a dog play unsupervised with two pit-mixes.  I wouldn't let my two dogs play with any unknown dog, unsupervised.  Rover's been getting a bad name lately; just saw a story of a Rover dog walker accused of abuse.  Scary world.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

My JJ episodes are all goofed up from being preempted and rescheduled,. RE: the case of the Tinder date photographer with the "motivational speaker? How obnoxious was that guy? Did he motivate any of you to want to kick in your TV screen? He certainly motivates JJ to declare that she didn't like him. And the plaintiff reminded me of a poor man's Zooey Deschanel with her big eyes and long bangs.  Do people really admit they meet people on Tinder? Isn't that kinda . . . desperate?