All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Infant Breaks Leg in Day Care-Plaintiffs parents suing day care owners for medical bills after their four month old son broke his leg at the day care.  Plaintiff had several old children in the day care for a few years, and then put the baby at the day care from 7 weeks, to 4 months, when the injury happened.     Defendant was watching between 10 and 12 children, (4 to 6 child care children) without helpers.    Defendant was actually licensed, and still is. 

Plaintiff dropped the baby off, and a few hours later the day care provider called, and said the baby wouldn't stop crying.    The defendant is blaming the injury on the 9 year old sibling (plaintiff's kid), she says the baby cried, and told the 9 year old to pick up the baby, and claims the kid was swinging the baby by the legs, and that's how this happened.    Defendant claims she told the 9 year old to "play nicely".   

How on earth can the defendant still have a license to run a day care?   As JJ says the Idaho authorities are idiots for not yanking this woman's day care license.  

Then the defendant called the plaintiff mother to pick up the baby, and the baby was in surgery for a broken leg.    Plaintiff $5,000 ($4,000 medical bills, and $1,000 for pain and suffering). 

Hair Straightening Trauma-Plaintiff suing former hair dresser for causing her hair to fall out (Note to others, if the hair dresser that's going to do your hair has a hairdo that looks like the defendant's, don't do it!).      Defendant claims the plaintiff had her hair straightened, and then had someone else braid the hair, and that caused the breakage.    Plaintiff had her hair straightened for years at the salon, stopped and went natural for three years.   Then went back to defendant's salon for a straightening.   Defendant is suing for slander, and defamation of character.  

Hair was relaxed in October, and two months later was the first complaint to defendant about breakage.    This was after several wash, and roller sets on the hair, and plaintiff claims there were no other chemical, braiding or other procedures on her hair.      Plaintiff wanted her hair relaxed more often than the two month gap schedule the defendant recommended, but she demanded that her hair needed relaxing more often.     There is no way plaintiff didn't have a more immediate reaction from the relaxer.      (My personal guess is that plaintiff dyed her own hair, or did something to her own hair). 

Plaintiff will be getting nothing.     Defendant has no proof of plaintiff's slander (though JJ says plaintiff has been talking all over town about her hair loss)..   Cases dismissed.

Second-

Auto Accident with a Twist-Plaintiff suing defendant/ fellow motorist after defendant rear ended his car, and over failure of defendant to pay for car accident damage.     Defendant offered his car title to the plaintiff to pay for damages, because defendant had no insurance.  Plaintiff had the defendant's car title, and the agreement, and a month later the police were called when plaintiff came to get the car.    Car was taken to impound after the police arrived.    Defendant wants money to pay to get the car out of impound, and that's not happening.     Plaintiff gets $1,000.   

Mother Son Drama-Plaintiff/mother suing son, for the unpaid balance of furniture she sold him, and the unpaid balance of a car loan ($1,000).    Defendant says he's square with the mother on the furniture, and the car is totaled, and not his problem.   Plaintiff sold living room and bedroom set to her son.    Plaintiff also has full time custody, and supports two of defendant's children, without help from defendant.   Defendant hit a deer, and totaled the car, so he thinks he doesn't have to repay his mother, besides the defendant claims the car loan was a gift.      Plaintiff receives $1,000.     

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Honey, Can My Ex-Lover Move In?-Plaintiff's ex needed a place to stay so he let her move in, he's suing his ex-girlfriend for unpaid balance on a car, tow fees, and .     Plaintiff's ex-gf is the defendant, and they were living together.   His prior girlfriend/fiance (she's plaintiff witness today) was his former live-in, needed a place to stay, so they all moved in together.   Defendant bought plaintiff's car, was making payments, and plaintiff claims def. stopped making payments.   Defendant says she paid for the car in full.    Plaintiff claims def. agreed to pay $5K for car, but def. claims it was in poor condition, and worth $1250.    

Plaintiff lost the paperwork on the car sale, but has some video of the sales agreement, and defendant signing the $5,000 sales contract.    Lying idiot defendant is now toast.  

Car broke down, and tow truck driver has the car.   Defendant owes $5,000 minus $1225, she already paid.   Defendant owes $3775.    

Grandmother Charges for Day Care-Plaintiff /grandmother, suing her son's ex-girlfriend for loans made to her while son was incarcerated, and for babysitting for defendant's child.    Defendant was supposed to apply for state childcare subsidy, and didn't apply, so plaintiff doesn't get that.    Plaintiff rented a car for the defendant to drive, and to visit son in prison.   Defendant paid some on the car rental, but not all.    $500 loan to defendant.   Defendant is being obnoxious, and threatened with the Byrd boot.   

$785 to plaintiff (if defendant would have kept her mouth shut, it would have been less)

Second (Rerun)-

I Live to Pay Your Vet Bills-Plaintiff paid for defendant's dog's bills for tests, and expected to be repaid, sadly dog died.   Defendant suing for $5,000 for harassment.     Defendant claims plaintiff donated money for tests, because she has a history of donating to dogs in need.   

Defendant posted online about need for money for dog tests, and called plaintiff about a loan.    Plaintiff paid for dog's tests.   All texts are from defendant's phone, she promised to repay plaintiff,  and she denies all of them.  Defendant's lying witnesses, are so full of it.   $481 to plaintiff.    

Park City Park Problem-Plaintiff moved into a rented, furnished loft rented from defendant, defendant lived there too, and moved out 19 days later.   She alleges defendant was constantly partying, random visitors, front door left unlocked, etc.   Plaintiff paid $1200 first and last months rent to move in.   Defendant denies all payments.   Defendant seems rather vague, bet it's been a lot of years of partying in Park City for defendant.  

Plaintiff also wants her iPhone, passport, social security card, and other items back.   $600 to plaintiff.   

 

[augmentedfourth]

11 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Yes and I do believe JJ should have punished her monetarily.  Had they gotten to him it definitely would have been assault.

I thought she did! If memory serves, the defendant got $500 on the counterclaim to teach the bratty plaintiff (and her mother) a lesson.

 

JJ and Byrd were great together today in the "ex-fiancee needs a place to crash" case. And interesting move, filming the signing of the contract.

[AuntiePam]

4 hours ago, patty1h said:

Marla was a tragic mess with her many rings, bracelets, talon nails, eyelashes and wandering eye.  The icing on the cake was that her choice of wig was a joke - half of her head looked like she had massive alopecia but the other half had the luxurious waterfall of curls glued on tight.  Gurl, you gotta choose your wigs for better coverage.

I think the half-head wig was on purpose.  She thought that it looked good.  But defendant's wig/fall wasn't much better.  She kept stroking it like it was a kitten.  Or a furry snake. 

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Honey, Can My Ex-Lover Move In?

JJ obviously ended up appreciating the plaintiff's cleverness and foresight in recording the signing of the agreement. It is indeed a good precaution against documents being misplaced; of course, phones can be dropped and contents can be lost in so many ways as litigants often demonstrate, unless one makes a backup copy (which few ever do).

[ThePurpleArcher]

56 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

JJ and Byrd were great together today in the "ex-fiancee needs a place to crash" case. And interesting move, filming the signing of the contract.

I was appalled by what Judy was saying today. The man's ex-fiance (whom he still has a friendly relationship) must've been in a very dire situation if he invited her to come and live with them - and he acknowledged it was discussed with his (then) current girlfriend before he invited her to come live with them. There was no romance going on that anyone brought up, as it all seemed innocent.  I think it was rather nice that he opened his home, rather than leave her homeless or in a dangerous situation. It could be his religious belief or personal belief not leave someone out in the cold, and JJ laughs at him ???? Really???

Then she brings up her husband's ex wife "Suzanne" who is the mother of his children in Judge Judy's blended family. She acknowledged that they are cordial with each other - even friendly, but if her husband opened their "very large" home to her, she would think he's crazy? Why? Assuming their all in the same age range (JJ is 77, her husband is 86 - I'm assuming Suzanne must be an octogenarian) and JJ has been married to her husband for decades - what is she so insecure about to have an 80-something year old woman move in?  I was shocked to hear her response - is she that cold-hearted to leave someone stranded than opening her door to that person?  WOW. 

[basiltherat]

I believe Judy would show Suzanne to the Guest House or pay for a suite at the Waldorf.  Its not a matter of anyone "gettin' buzy" its simply a matter of decorum. 

Dude in the case was stacking up women like an air traffic controller and there was no one's grandma or elderly Uncle Edwin in the bunch.  

[KittyMom4]

4 hours ago, basiltherat said:

I believe Judy would show Suzanne to the Guest House or pay for a suite at the Waldorf.  Its not a matter of anyone "gettin' buzy" its simply a matter of decorum. 

I agree, I get along well with my husband's ex-wife and he gets along with my ex-husband, neither of us would be comfortable with either of those two living under the same roof as us. I would offer a couple months at an extended stay before I'd ever let them live with me. I don't know what the plaintiff's thinking was but it wasn't a good idea, regardless of the car loan.

 

16 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I think the half-head wig was on purpose.  She thought that it looked good.  But defendant's wig/fall wasn't much better.  She kept stroking it like it was a kitten.  Or a furry snake. 

LOL - it was bizarre watching her pet her wig!

21 hours ago, patty1h said:

Marla was a tragic mess with her many rings, bracelets, talon nails, eyelashes and wandering eye.  The icing on the cake was that her choice of wig was a joke - half of her head looked like she had massive alopecia but the other half had the luxurious waterfall of curls glued on tight.  Gurl, you gotta choose your wigs for better coverage.

This is the best description of poor Marla! My husband said she should have had her 'fall' on the other side, kind of covering that wandering eye, instead she had it on the bald side with 3 inch fake lashes making it even more distracting!! 

[pagooey]

On 2/18/2020 at 8:14 PM, littlebennysmom said:

These idiots are the kind of people that sue because their kid, Lil' Bitchface, breaks into a secured yard and injures themselves on someone else's property.

Belated thanks for providing me with my new rap name, Li'l Bitchface! 

[stephinmn]

How does someone rent a car at Hertz for only $70-100 a week? Last time I had a rental, my insurance paid $50 a DAY. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Creative Estate Planning Bust-Plaintiff is planning for her demise, suing daughter for unpaid loan, and a mobile home title.  Defendant / daughter (as JJ says a lousy daughter) told plaintiff that when the case is over, daughter will throw the mother out on the street.   Daughter says mobile home title was put in her name, to keep mother's assets hidden from government.   Plaintiff wanted daughter to take trailer title, and when mother dies daughter could sell trailer, and split the proceeds among the four children.   However, because the title is in daughter's name, plaintiff has no claim to the trailer now.    There is no reason to believe the daughter will split anything with anyone else, ever.   

Daughter/defendant claims she didn't say she will evict the mother  right after the show (I'm not believing what the daughter says).    JJ asks daughter if she'll sign a life estate for the trailer the mother lives in, daughter says no.     Mother pays lot fees, and owns trailer outright, and rents some of it out.   Daughter paid nothing on her own trailer, and nothing on the mother's either.    

When JJ says the daughter is a lousy daughter, the audience applauds, and Byrd doesn't say anything.    Daughter not only has the title to the mother's trailer, but the daughter sold the other trailer the mother bought for the daughter, and daughter apparently lives in another trailer in the same park.    Daughter now claims she'll sign for the life estate for the mother to live in the part of the trailer that mother signed over to the daughter.    (I'll believe that when I see it).

Watch Out for the Deer-Plaintiff suing defendant for damage to his property when defendant drove onto plaintiff's lawn during a traffic accident.   Part of defendant's truck was recovered from plaintiff's tree, and a police report.  Defendant claims he was avoiding a deer, had the accident, and left the truck in the ditch after meandering across the plaintiff's property.     Defendant's truck was towed by the police.    Defendant didn't have insurance, but was able to get his truck out of impound without insurance.  Defendant received two citations that day, one for driving without insurance, and one for leaving the scene of an accident.    Truck is still uninsured.     Plaintiff receives $4200.  (Hallterview with plaintiff is fun, he called it the "phantom deer", and says the defendant drove through several ditches, before and after driving through his yard)

Second-

Fear In a Cramped Rental-Plaintiff is suing ex-roommate for breaking their lease.    Plaintiff claims defendant moved out four months before lease terminated.    Defendant had financial reversals, and couldn't paid for utilities, and rent.    At some point, plaintiff found out defendant had moved his boyfriend in, and no one was paying the bills except the plaintiff.    Plaintiff 'lost it', and confronted the defendant about the extra tenant.   Plaintiff and defendant got into a 30 second pushing match, and physical altercation (punches), and plaintiff punched first.   Defendant moved out after the altercation.     Defendant still owes for November, December, and January.   Plaintiff's assault gives defendant reason to move out.   Plaintiff will not get the 3 months rent paid, because he assaulted the defendant.   

Clueless Landlord-Plaintiff suing former tenant (of 9 years) for damages.  Plaintiff claims they owed for October, and November.   Defendant had property in the home during October, and November ($2600).     Defendant claims all house damage was normal wear and tear.  House was newly built when defendant, and family moved in.     JJ calls damages normal wear and tear.      Plaintiff does not get to keep her security deposit, but defendant gets $1600 for the unpaid rent, minus the $1,000 security.    (Hope defendant's next landlord saw what their property will look like after defendant finishes with it.  Sorry, my opinion is the stair carpet is way beyond normal dirt).

Security Deposit Abuse-Plaintiff suing former tenant for leaving rental like a dump.   It took 54 contractor trash bags to clean out rental, and defendant claims that he didn't leave the place trashed, and wants his security deposit back.   Plaintiff says tenant lived there for 4 1/2 years, and she kept the security deposit for the last month's rent.   (Rent was $2200, security was $1800).    Bills and photos of damage are submitted.      (Door damage is from the police kicking down the door, when wife was the legal tenant).    The bathtub picture is disgusting, and fool defendant is trying to tell JJ the tenant laws in New Jersey. 

$1800 to plaintiff

Edited February 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (Rerun)-

Good Luck Molesting People-Plaintiff suing defendant for slamming her door into his parked vehicle.    This should be fun, defendant gets mouthy with JJ, and Byrd boots her (sadly, not literally boot).   When plaintiff was sitting in his parked car at Walmart, and defendant pulled in next to his car's passenger side.    Then plaintiff heard her door hit his car, and damage the mirror.   Defendant simply won't shut up.     Plaintiff says she apologized, and says defendant will get the car fixed cheaply.     However, defendant says she never hit the man's car, or damaged his mirror.   Plaintiff wrote down defendant's information, without success.  Plaintiff hired a process server (his witness, who defendant calls a molester in court).  

Defendant goes off in court, and JJ boots her husband, and then her, but only after Brittany the car bashing liar goes on and on.   Brittany finally gets the boot.   (So if you're in Reno, NV, at a Walmart you may run into her, because she apparently works there.   Run far away).

I feel so sorry for the process server the plaintiff hired, that woman certainly accused him of everything.   She keeps calling him a molester.   Process server finally got lucky, and lying Britany pulled up in front of her house, claimed her name wasn't Britany, but  her name was on her shirt.   Process server cost $49.00, plus car damage (they tried to serve it three times at her house, husband denied she lived there), and finally served her in the parking lot in front of her house.    

(My suspicion is the woman shoved the driver's door open, jammed it with her foot against the plaintiff's car.   Then went forward into the parking space, scraping and denting the entire side of the man's car.   I bet defendant has the metal edge guards on her car door edge, just so she can do maneuvers like this against other cars).  

Plaintiff gets $2691.   

Collateral Damage-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, put down $1,100 in cash, and drove off with car, and title.    Plaintiff was told about the issues with the car by the mechanic, plaintiff paid $1100 cash,    After going to the mechanic, plaintiff said there were $4k in repairs needed.      Plaintiff wanted to return the car, and defendant said no.  Plaintiff dumped the car in defendant's yard, and left it, but she took the title with her.    Plaintiff gets $1100, and defendant gets title back.  Bet defendant resells the piece of junk car by the next day.    JJ says the defendant is a scammer after reviewing text messages between litigants.    $1100 to plaintiff, and scammer defendant gets her title back. 

Second (New)-

Homeland Security Fraud-Plaintiff suing defendant's over their failure to get her a special visa approved (no, I don't understand why people fall for this scam).     Plaintiff (originally from Slovakia), paid the defendants to complete her visa application to stay in the U.S.    Defendants have a visa facilitating business.     Plaintiff received a special visa, and it was going to expire in a year, after a DUI by defendant, but DUI was before the paperwork was put in.    Visa renewal was not approved, because of an incomplete application.   Plaintiff paid $1,000 to defendants for their assistance in the renewal, but that was after the application was submitted.   Plaintiff had to get a sponsor, and job to submit with her application.    DHS returned the application because it was incomplete.     The first application through the defendants was approved, it was the renewal that was denied.   

Why is someone being given a  visa to be an entertainment manager in a bar?   As JJ says, it's a waitress job.     Plus, a DUI is a disqualifying reason for visas.   I hope someone from DHS was watching the visa episode.     I couldn't stand the plaintiff, and the way she was blaming her mistakes, on the defendants.      

Plaintiff's case dismissed.   

Where's My Rottweiler Puppy-Plaintiff suing dog breeder for his deposit for a Rottweiler puppy.   Plaintiff wanted a puppy, and a $495 deposit would hold the puppy.     Defendant lied about due date, and never gave the plaintiff a puppy.    $495 to plaintiff. 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Her Honor: "I already heard about you breast twice."

Defendant: "He deserves to hear about my breast three times."

Later, as defendant is leaving because JJ kicked her out: "Good luck molesting people."

No, good luck to your husband because he has to live with you. What a weird broad.

 

[Florinaldo]

38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Homeland Security Fraud-

Plaintiff must have been in dire strait if she trusted the defendants to do the job, especially the dour-faced long-haired one; I would have run away as soon as I spotted her, but perhaps she is not the public face of the company and does not have direct contact with customers.

It was difficult to reconstruct the facts and the chronology. but if the visa application was rejected because the consultant did not fill out he form properly, they might have some liability, unless the info provided by the plaintiff was at fault. 

42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

a DUI is a disqualifying reason for visas.   

Shouldn't the rejection have said so it that was the reason for the denial?

43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Good Luck Molesting People

Logorrheic defendant is so obsessed with her precious breasts being touched that she was the one who kept banging them during her rant. I feel all viewers should have been awarded a pain and suffering compensation for having to watch her and listen to her ramblings.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think they said that the first approval was through the defendants' service.   

 

I think the initial rejection of the visa renewal,  was from the lousy application.    The information listed seemed to be from the plaintiff's information she gave the defendants.

Then I think that the DUI, and who knows what else came up during the reapplication for the renewal.   If I had the timeline correct,  the DUI happened after the first application for renewal.    I can't believe that anyone is given a special visa to be a waitress in a bar, or probably a bottle server.     

Edited February 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Hellohappylife]

I almost fell out of my chair Laughing at the Dog breeder, Defendant’s comment  

“ He doesn’t understand the process judge, Breeding isn't exactly a science”

Sweetheart, YES IT IS . 

Someone should throw her a picture of The Periodic table chart that contain’s the elements needed to create anything Living on Earth.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Hellohappylife

[Mrs Shibbles]

I’m so relieved to learn that Byrd and I aren’t paying for Marla to babysit her grandson.

 

 

[bad things are bad]

Quote

No, good luck to your husband because he has to live with you. What a weird broad.

 

He wasn't much better.

Was there any mention of kids? One hopes not, this is DNA the world doesn't need propagated

Edited February 26, 2020 by bad things are bad

[laprin]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then I think that the DUI, and who knows what else came up during the reapplication for the renewal.   If I had the timeline correct,  the DUI happened after the first application for renewal.    I can't believe that anyone is given a special visa to be a waitress in a bar, or probably a bottle server.     

There is not a special visa given for those jobs, which is why the language used made it sound like she was in marketing and instead of saying she received salary/tips, hey indicated salary/bonus.  It definitely would have sent up a red flag if I was to approve the application. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Foster Care Horror Story-plaintiff is suing daughter for unpaid electric bill, in mother's name.   Plaintiff put her daughter into foster care when she was 10.    Then daughter reappears as an adult, with four kids, a couple of years ago she needed the electricity turned back on.   Defendant says she didn't ask the mother to pay for the electric bill, but it was a gift to the grandchildren.   Defendant says mother wasn't much of a mother, and owed her.   Vivian Hammond (the mother) has been on fixed income, disability for six years.   Mother is in a return to work program, under SS disability, and she can earn any amount for the nine months.    Then for three years, mother can't exceed her disability amount ($1300 a month) or SSD is cut off.   

Oldest son moved in with his grandfather, and daughter was dumped on the foster system at 10, because she misbehaved (daughter says she went into foster care at 8 years old).    Plaintiff claims daughter was expelled in second grade.   Daughter was sent to a hospital at 8 or 10, thne the county home, then foster homes (not relatives).  I'm not liking the mother at all, the daughter may have been a handful, but foster care at 8?   

Defendant claims her only income at the time of the electric bill was PTSD disability for a daughter, and she had no other income.   My view, so-called mother had no expectation of repayment.   Daughter apparently has a history of bad credit, and skipping on utility bills.    Plaintiff was actually babysitting the kids while daughter was in a previous apprentice program.   

Plaintiff had no expectation of getting repaid, and Byrd and JJ aren't paying that electric bill, so case dismissed.  

Lose the Ring If You Don't Like Him-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for his share of down payment ($2600), and fees for a boat the litigants purchased together, and the return of an engagement ring.   Plaintiff put down initial payment, and the litigants would finance the boat together.   Plaintiff's name isn't on the boat, and he's not getting boat money back.   Case dismissed.   

Second-

Online Dating Fail-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend (met through a dating website).   Plaintiff went from California to Arizona, defendant moved to Arizona, and then litigants moved in together a few months later, in plaintiff's rental house.  Plaintiff lived part time in her late mother's trust house in California, and in a rental house with defendant in Bullhead City, AZ.   Litigants only have a lease signed by them, not the landlord.    Plaintiff wants her items she bought for the house back, most of which are gone, so she's not getting money for those.    Case dismissed. 

Who's Telling the Truth?-Plaintiff rented room to defendant, he wants rent, a bike, and property defendant took with him when he moved out.     Defendant moved out because of on-going drug use in the house, and other issues.      Plaintiff claims defendant trashed the room, and had bed bugs.   Plaintiff claims the bed bugs got into the wall socket, and infested the light switch.    Defendant will return the bike, and plaintiff gets $500.  

Restraining Order Roommates-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for return of rent, legal fees, and a false restraining order, plus belongings back.   Litigants rented a multibedroom place together, rented  bedrooms to other tenants.   Defendant claims he paid the entire security deposit, and landlord gave the deposit to plaintiff.   Plaintiff also wanted to move her boyfriend in, and a large dog (no pets was in the lease).    Plaintiff looks like a bunny boiler to me. 

Plaintiff claims receipts for a previous house were the receipts from this house in question. Plaintiff didn't pay for the last 4 months rent.    Fortunately, plaintiff moved after being a squatter for the last four months.    All of plaintiff's property is not with the defendant.    $250 to the defendant for the security deposit.   Plaintiff receives what she deserves, nothing. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Father Pulls Knife on Friend-Plaintiff suing defendant over purposely damaging his motorcycle.    Plaintiff claims defendant came out of his house with two 10" butcher knives, defendant claims plaintiff came after him with a pipe.   Motorcycle was $4500, and was stored at plaintiff's friend's garage, at friend's house.    Plaintiff claims defendant deliberately knocked the motorcycle over, after plaintiff claimed defendant's dog chewed up the motorcycle cover, and scratched the motorcycle.   Then the fight started (why can't there be a video of this one).  Plaintiff called 911, and picked up a pipe from his car truck for self defense, and put pipe away after defendant walked away.  Motorcycle is 13 years old, and plaintiff claims the bike value went up.  

Defendant claims plaintiff was screaming all kinds of filth, threatened him with a pipe or crowbar.    Estimate to fix bike is over $3k, but only worth $1500, so plaintiff gets $1500. 

Deceased Woman's Feuding Friends-Plaintiff/caretaker suing defendant / deceased patient's daughter.   (Another person to avoid in Reno, NV, including the Walmart parking lot slammer from the other day).    Plaintiff was caretaker over 5 nights a week, and brought groceries too (but paid for nothing).    Plaintiff wants to be paid for doing extra duties, outside of the five duties she was hired for.   Extra duties that plaintiff wants payment for include helping the patient in and out of bed, and changing her bandages.  There was no salary, just room and board in return for the five nights of overnights.    Plaintiff wants wages for the other two nights she stayed in the house, for free.    Plaintiff claims to have a contract proposal, it's not signed by anyone, and will be dismissed by JJ.    Case dismissed for rotten plaintiff.   Counter claim by defendant is for rent and utilities for staying in the house, after mother died, for several months, dismissed because there was no contract.    Plaintiff is despicable.  (Defendant should have had the attorney working on an eviction order, and presented it to plaintiff at the funeral). 

Second (New)-

Caregiver Cries Extortion by Disabled Senior-Plaintiff caretaker accused by her former patient of running a pet-sitting business on the side, the plaintiff  says the defendant committed extortion.   Plaintiff wants money for car tires, etc. she used on defendant's car, and defendant says plaintiff drove the hell out of the car.   Defendant doesn't regularly drive, and plaintiff took defendant's car to her house, and kept it there to drive to school, etc.    When plaintiff went back to school, she took the defendant's car for school, which is a 90 mile round trip commute, starting in August.     Defendant says plaintiff took her car, used it all of the time.    Defendant didn't drive any longer, but then plaintiff became caregiver, and took defendant's car to drive.     Defendant paid all upkeep, and insurance on her car too.   Plaintiff wants to be paid for tires, that went on defendant's car.  

Defendant says plaintiff wanted to become a pet sitter, and use defendant's car for that also.  Defendant said she never drove her own car, and pet sitting business started in April, using defendant's car for that too.      

Plaintiff keeps interrupting, and whining, but one glare from the wonderful Officer Byrd shuts her up.   Plaintiff put 3500 miles on the car, in 18 months, but defendant says it was more like 30,000 miles.  Defendant claims plaintiff put in for hours she didn't work.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant counter-claim dismissed.   

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ilovecomputers]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 7:44 PM, AuntiePam said:

By the time the payment was denied, the man was in the ground.

This brings up another point about funeral homes:  In my experience, they want their money pronto; perhaps they view insurance claims as an iffy proposition. 

It always makes us laugh when JJ gets on the phone.  I wonder how long it actually takes to film the scene of her calling someone, because she ALWAYS is able to reach someone within minutes, and no one ever seems to ask her for an authorization from a plaintiff or defendant to speak with her about anything.

[Ilovecomputers]

Did anyone see the cases about the two caretakers?  One was a young woman accused of putting over 30K miles on her client's car and was suing for reimbursement for repairs she made to the car and tires.  Scammer.  It's a mystery to me why she had to drive her client's car, because according to her testimony, she and her husband owned 3 or 4 other cars. 

The other case was a "family friend" who was caring for an elderly woman in exchange for free rent.  She wanted to be paid for those nights off when she might have walked by and helped her client get out of a chair, or something.  The client's daughter was counter-suing for rent because the caregiver stayed in the house for a month or two after the patient died.  Judy would not even entertain the counter-claim.  Seems she has no patience to hear anyone's counter-claims.  Geez, I guess a billion dollars a year is not enough to hear counter-claims anymore.

Oh, and I saw 2 or 3 instances this week of JJ drawing the four corners of a contract in the air, so I was just giddy as always to see the illustration.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

World's Greatest Landlord-Plaintiff landlord suing defendant / former tenant for unpaid loan, bailing her out of jail.      Defendant arrested for DUI, and bail was $2,000.  Defendant claims landlord said he would buy her a car, and she says it would be included in the rent, it was always in his name, so he wants toll fees, impound fees, etc. .   Landlord swears he didn't have ulterior motives towards tenant.   As JJ says, he should have repossessed the car, or reported it stolen.    (He was shocked after the DUI that she came home drunk, kept drinking, and assaulted him).   He gets $2,000 for bail back.

Online Attorney Fraud-Plaintiff /former client suing former "attorney" for lying about being an attorney, ripping her off for creating a trust, and modifying a previous trust, and failure to return documents.   Defendant is not an attorney.    JJ had proof in a facebook message that defendant was asked if they are a paralegal or an attorney, and the defendant said she's an attorney.   Defendant claims plaintiff took binder of documents, and refused to sign for package.    $200 to plaintiff.

Second-

Rage Against the Door-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for her attempt to break into his house.    The attempted break in happened the day after they broke up,during a big argument at his house.   He sent her a text that he would bring her belongings to a meeting place, but if she came to his house he would call the police.   As usual, defendant's phone was accidentally destroyed, and she has no texts.     (Note to defendant, that purple lipstick makes you look ugly, and cheap).  Police were called when defendant tried to kick the door down.    Plaintiff lives with his daughter, and brother, and I'm sure that child was terrified when this happened.     Defendant also had a 1 year old child mixed in with this.   Defendant claims she lived with plaintiff, but contradicts herself in her statement.   She brought a one year old into this mess.    Plaintiff gets $600, defendant gets $0.

Convicted Felon Wants Guns Back-Plaintiff kept ex-boyfriend's (he says ex-boyfriend, but they went through a divorce, very confusing) truck, a TV, and other property.     They are divorced, and he wants more visitation, or custody.   Defendant claims he only has supervised visitation, and wants more.   

Plaintiff wants her truck back, and she signed the truck over to him.    Truck was never re-registered in his name.    Defendant given two weeks to re-register the truck, or plaintiff gets it back. 

As usual, the next wife is defendant's witness.     Defendant mostly lived in the shed behind the house.    Defendant wants his BB guns back, and they are in the shed.  Plaintiff is told to leave the BB guns at the local police precinct for him to pickup, and police will decide if they are legal for him to possess (he's a convicted felon).  

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Drones, a Dead Goat, and a Drug Dealer-Plaintiff / landlord suing former tenant for breaching lease, and damaging his home.  Tenant has two special needs kids, with their service dogs.      Defendant says plaintiff flew drones over the property to spy on her, plaintiff claims defendant was running a day care in the home, illegally.   Plaintiff says in the three year tenancy that defendant damaged the home extensively, and she was dealing drugs.    Before pictures at move in were submitted by both litigants.  Defendant's move in pictures have no dates.    Microwave oven in home was trashed, and cracked.    Rent was $1400 a month, a double wide.   Defendant is now claiming something about tumors.   Defendant claims she hired a cleaning company to clean the home on move out.   

Plaintiff's pictures show tons of trash, even though defendant paid a cleaning company $500.      Defendant claims home was filthy on move in, so why did she stay three years?    Plaintiff charged $500 for the service dogs (on a registry?   Let me guess what kind of 'registry' they were on?   ).      Defendant claims neighbors were flying spy drones on her family.   One of tenant's 'service' dogs killed a pet goat on the property.     Defendant claims a neighbor used his own security cameras to spy on the tenants.   

Plaintiff kept the security deposit, and gets to keep it.   (I bet you anything that the reason the defendant family didn't live on base, is the 'service' dogs aren't really service dogs, and are banned breeds on post).  Defendant is counter claiming over the $500 for service dogs, because it's illegal to charge for service dogs.    The first two dogs (since deceased) went to a training school.   The last 3 dogs, were 'trained' by defendant.   Defendant claims dismissed, and plaintiff keeps the pet fee. 

The Totaled Takeover-Plaintiff owed on a car, (Chevy Cruze?) and defendant agreed to take over payments (total $10,300 or so), and defendant often paid the payments.   Defendant is claimed to have a bunch of tickets on car in plaintiff's name (transfer of title and registration couldn't happen until car was totally paid off).    Plaintiff repossessed the car, after an accident, and after defendant stopped paying for the car.    Car was undriveable after the accident (no hood, front fenders gone, and defendant rear ended another car or a tree-I've never confused the two objects, but defendant did).    Plaintiff receives $3,900+.   

Second (Rerun)-

Service Dog Scammer-Plaintiff claims his dog is a Service Dog, and is suing his former landlady for an illegal lockout, loss of property, and security deposit.  

Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's house.  Defendant claims false restraining order, property damage, etc, and claims his dog was not a service dog.   Plaintiff claims his doctor says the dog is a service animal, and claims the dog is a therapy animal (still not a service dog), and dog was needed for ?     Plaintiff claims his dog was a service dog, but means Emotional Support Animal-the doctor gives you a letter for that, or some online phony does.       (On a personal note, plaintiff's chin tattoo is hideous, but matches his awful hair dye job).  

Defendant says dog was not house trained, and did it's business all over the apartment.   Plaintiff filed for protective order after the 30 day eviction notice was issued. 

In the application for the protective order plaintiff claimed landlady was in a relationship with him, threw gasoline on him, hit him, made passes at him, and defendant lied under penalty of perjury.    (Landlady says plaintiff has done this before to other people). 

Plaintiff got a TRO, served the restraining order, and landlady couldn't evict him on time.      Landlady says on hearing for restraining order, plaintiff didn't show.   He claims he was hospitalized, but can't remember where or for what.   I feel so sorry for the former landlady.

Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves even less than that.  (I hope every landlord in Pennsylvania saw this case, and has a photo of the plaintiff on their desk).   Plaintiff gets what he deserves, nothing.  His case for illegal lockout, back rent, security deposit is dismissed.    Landlady put his items in a storage unit after eviction, and he claims she cut all of the cords, and threw bleach on it (is he kidding?).   

Counter claim by landlady starts now, over false restraining order.   Court extended restraining order, because of his 'hospitalization'.   He didn't show up for the second hearing, and protective order was dismissed.   $5000 for landlady for false restraining order.  

Defendant does best JJ Hall-terview ever.   The poor defendant says thanks to  Judge Judy, and says JJ is the best, and how she loves JJ.      

The Court Can't Help With Canoodling-Plaintiff and defendant were shacked up, and now want JJ to split up everything they bought or used during their canoodling.   She wanted him to pay for her car insurance after they split, and then she totaled the car.   Case dismissed. 

Edited February 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Burning Rubber]

Service dogs that attack and kill a goat?My money is on shitbull with fraudulent credentials.

[AuntiePam]

I turned her off today, when she couldn't contain herself -- laughing at the 33-year-old who had only been able to live on his own for a few years.  Yeah, Judy, we're all losers.  Nobody ever has to move home after a divorce, job loss, health emergency, etc.  And we all have excellent jobs, wait -- not jobs, careers, and savings for retirement.  And cars that are paid for, and credit card bills that are paid in full every month.  No offense intended to everyone who has managed that level of success, but the fact is that 50% of the country can't come up with $400 cash in an emergency.  Doesn't she watch her own show?  People are paying hundreds of dollars rent for rooms with strangers!  What is wrong with someone living with family?

What a bitch. 

[Silver Raven]

6 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I turned her off today, when she couldn't contain herself -- laughing at the 33-year-old who had only been able to live on his own for a few years.  Yeah, Judy, we're all losers.  Nobody ever has to move home after a divorce, job loss, health emergency, etc.  And we all have excellent jobs, wait -- not jobs, careers, and savings for retirement.  And cars that are paid for, and credit card bills that are paid in full every month.  No offense intended to everyone who has managed that level of success, but the fact is that 50% of the country can't come up with $400 cash in an emergency.  Doesn't she watch her own show?  People are paying hundreds of dollars rent for rooms with strangers!  What is wrong with someone living with family?

What a bitch. 

I commented that I hope she doesn't own rental property, because she hates renters.

 

[AuntiePam]

"Um is not an answer!" -- that's getting SO old.  Get some new shtick, Judge. 

If we know what you're going to say before you say it, maybe it's time for retirement. 

[khyber]

15 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Service dogs that attack and kill a goat?My money is on shitbull with fraudulent credentials.

My Uncle used to train Guide Dogs for the Blind. First the animals spent a year with a family and then if they were deemed suitable they started training them. Dog would wash out of the program if any issues arose.  I hate people who have "fake" service dogs. They just want their pets with them no matter the laws.

[KittyMom4]

On 2/26/2020 at 12:53 PM, laprin said:

There is not a special visa given for those jobs, which is why the language used made it sound like she was in marketing and instead of saying she received salary/tips, hey indicated salary/bonus.  It definitely would have sent up a red flag if I was to approve the application. 

Didn't she keep saying she was making $35 an hour??  I was so confused, she kept saying she was working in marketing at "Lanz An"and when JJ finally said "Lands End" I figured out what she meant, but then the whole "entertainment host" or whatever threw me off again. Sounds like she did not complete the application correctly or completely and that's why it was rejected, but that was not the defendants' fault.

On 2/26/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Estimate to fix bike is over $3k, but only worth $1500, so plaintiff gets $1500. 

I think he should have gotten the full amount, even Byrd said it was a custom bike, the plaintiff should have got what he asked for, even if both he and the defendant acted like thugs.

 

17 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I turned her off today, when she couldn't contain herself -- laughing at the 33-year-old who had only been able to live on his own for a few years.  Yeah, Judy, we're all losers.

I don't think she was laughing at all 33 year olds who live at home, my take was she was making fun of this guy who went from living with family, to buying a car that he didn't make payments on, and then having to move back in with family. In other words, an irresponsible, immature, lazy 33 year old who doesn't want to hold a job, pay his bills or be responsible for his own life.

[Ilovecomputers]

On 2/25/2020 at 1:45 PM, BexKeps said:

LOL - it was bizarre watching her pet her wig!

Yes, it looked like a horse's tail or something and she kept stroking it.  STOP IT!

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Cyclist in the Pedestrian Crossing Smash-Plaintiff bicyclist suing motorist for hitting him, while cyclist was in a crosswalk.  Plaintiff was on bike path, crossed crosswalk (it's part of a greenway bike path), stopped to check for traffic.   When plaintiff crossed defendant's SUV hit the bike.  There is a sign on crosswalk that says to watch for pedestrians, and cyclists.    There are no medical records of injury to the plaintiff.   Defendant doesn't care that he could have killed a person, just that he thinks he would have been right in his own mind.  Police report says plaintiff did nothing wrong, but defendant violated right of way for crosswalk.    Defendant was driving his sister-in-law's vehicle, and was insured.  Defendant claims he didn't hit the cyclist, and he's such a jerk.   

Plaintiff gets $550 for damage to his bike

Neighbor from Hell-Plaintiff suing neighbor for money owed for a car $500, and harassment.    Defendant claims car was a gift, and plaintiff was neighbor from hell, and wants $2,000 for plaintiff filing a false restraining order.   Defendant's car broke down, and plaintiff sold him a car for $500 (defendant says it was a gift).  Defendant has car, registered in his name, and JJ tells him to sign over the title, and give the car back.   Defendant given choice, either pay the $500, or sign the car back and return it.   (My view, plaintiff though befriending neighbor would work out much better for her than it did).    Plaintiff has several police reports claiming harassment, and applications for protective orders (dismissed after hearing).  In defendant's place, I would try to find somewhere else to live, not near the plaintiff.   I bet she's still bothering him, and his kids.    Plaintiff gets $500, nothing for defendant.  

Second-

Co-Parenting BBQ Snafu-Plaintiff says the father of her three year old child vandalized her car at a BBQ.   Defendant says he didn't do it.    After the BBQ everyone went to his house, and the two started fighting.   Defendant tried to get the tablet the child was using, and plaintiff got mad, and plaintiff called police on him.    Plaintiff claims the defendant was out of control.  Plaintiff claims defendant damaged her car, and she wants money.   JJ tells defendant to buy touch up paint, and fix the scratch on her car.    $50 to the plaintiff.  

Prized Tennis Shoes Feud-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for loan to buy Michael Jordan tennis shoes, as usual, defendant says they're a gift.   The defendant wanted the sneakers, said he would pay back the plaintiff, so plaintiff gets $190 for the shoes. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I don't think she was laughing at all 33 year olds who live at home, my take was she was making fun of this guy who went from living with family, to buying a car that he didn't make payments on, and then having to move back in with family. In other words, an irresponsible, immature, lazy 33 year old who doesn't want to hold a job, pay his bills or be responsible for his own life.

But, but, but, it's actually JJ's fault that he's irresponsible and immature, and she's a bitch because she's not sympathetic to his unwillingness to hold down a job and wants a car he can't afford. I mean, he's been coddled his whole life, so the mean old lady should give him a few million dollars so he doesn't have to face such hardships. Being so rich, it's really the least she can do. 🙂

[SRTouch]

22 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Service dogs that attack and kill a goat?My money is on shitbull with fraudulent credentials.

I'm totally against ''pretend" service dogs...... that said, and acknowledging I wasn't paying a lot of attention to case, I do wonder if JJ wasn't too quick to dismiss these dogs' credentials. First, seems first couple dogs WERE accredited after a 9 months training program. IIRC, woman claimed to be accredited as a trainer able to accredit other dogs due to training/working with the organization which accredited the first dogs (sounds suspicious, she may be accredited to train, but I would think dogs would need to pass texts administered by someone else).......... but JJ dismissed that out of hand without even asking how much training woman received or whether she had received any formal recognition/certificate/letter etc saying she could accredit additional dogs... BTW, is an example of how 'pretend service' dogs hurt the actual service dog - there have been so many fake dogs it's natural to automatically doubt one when you see it....... oh, and many 'alert' service dogs, as Woman claimed these were, are self taught and then accredited after receiving additional basic obedience training

A big problem most of us have with whether or not these additional dogs SHOULD be considered service dogs is the killing of the goat. I grant that killing another animal is extreme - but just like a human could claim a justified homocide in some cases, I can see calling killing a goat justified........ first off, all goats are not petting zoo friendly - some are downright MEAN, especially when hormones are up - second, if woman is to be believed, goat owner knew goats frequently visited her's yard and acted aggressively not only towards her dogs, but towards her children. The dogs were supposedly trained to help alert when children went out unattended, as thy could suffer anxiety, and presumably panic attacks. It's not too great a leap in my mind for the goats to detect a weakness in one of the children. After all, goats are herd animals who can be mean to each other when another is 'off'. And, yes, I can see an attack - especially if a scared the child screamed and tried to run away (not the best way to deal with attacking goat) - and for the dog to protect his charge, resulting in a dead goat - maybe an agreesive goat, maybe group of large mixed breed dogs forming a predatory pack - or maybe a service dog protecting charge/family.......

We'll never know what happened because JJ made her decision without sharing all the facts with us... in fact, entirely possible JJ had the facts, but didn't share because it was sushi day

Edited February 29, 2020 by SRTouch

[Silver Raven]

That case with the older man who was suing his landlord and another resident in what appears to have been some sort of halfway house was really sad.  The plaintiff clearly had mental problems.

 

[Bobby88]

2 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

That case with the older man who was suing his landlord and another resident in what appears to have been some sort of halfway house was really sad.  The plaintiff clearly had mental problems.

 

I actually wonder if he had some form of dementia. His anger issues were brought up several times. Personality changes such as newfound aggression can be early warning signs for the disease.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Airbnb Surfing Fail-Plaintiff / Airbnb owner suing former tenants for a cancelled trips, cleaning,  abuse of property,  and harassment.  Plaintiff claims tenants were a nightmare, used her vegan kitchen to cook meat, so she had to replace pots and pans.     Defendants stayed a month, but claim the plaintiff wouldn't let them used the air conditioner.    $436 was the payment for the 3 weeks.  Plaintiffs claim their rental property was so hot the toilet water boiled.   Airbnb is near Sacramento, and two defendants were long distance, trying to save money by surfing Airbnbs.  On arrival the defendant said they couldn't use the kitchen for meat, etc.   After 3 weeks they agreed on $800 a month.   Defendants paid only for the 3 weeks, paid for June, and in July or August they didn't pay for those months. (What kind of pension is defendant woman on?  $1800 a month for life, no adjustments).    Defendant claims it was so hot upstairs that the "toilet water boiled".     

Defendant woman claims it was too hot and uncomfortable, but stayed July and August without paying anything, and didn't move.    Oh no!  The "ate the steak" analogy again.    On June 18 defendant woman, and plaintiff had an argument, and defendants claimed they were leaving, and they didn't leave until the end of August.   

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer, and plaintiff lost in court already.   Court agreement was that squatter defendants would leave by 1 September, and plaintiff wouldn't sue for July and August rent.   Cases dismissed.  

When Trampolines Attack- Plaintiff is suing neighbor for her trampoline (Jessica Sunrise Shilquist) damaging his property, when a wind storm blew it on his property.   Trampoline landed on plaintiff property, against his house, and ended up on his  truck.     

Defendant claims her trampoline is innocent.    Defendant bought trampoline, and a big wind storm came up.   Defendant is a renter, and didn't have renter's insurance until after this.  $691 for roof repair, $65 for railing, $500 (deductible) for truck=totals $1255. 

(My guess is trampoline wasn't secured at all, and defendant is lying.  It's not an act of God either, God doesn't furnish trampolines).   

Second (New)-

Anger-Fueled Conspiracy Theory-Plaintiff /former tenant is suing former landlord/defendant, and another former roommate for filing a false restraining orders against plaintiff.     Plaintiff (Jeffrey Morgan) has not taken ordered anger management, because he doesn't need it.    There are up to 10 tenants in the house at one time.         Landlord was granted a temporary order, and plaintiff was evicted.    Then, the order was vacated, so plaintiff moved back in for a few months.   Then a 3 day to quit notice was taped on door of plaintiff's room, after plaintiff broke the window to defendant / tenant's room.   Defendant tenant is a hemophiliac, and the broken glass was next to him, and scaring the defendant, who got another restraining order against plaintiff.     

Defendant tenant filled out the protective order application, with the help of his mother, and another tenant.    Plaintiff's doctor sent text messages about plaintiff's anger management issues.    Restraining order trial was dismissed.    Plaintiff claims everything was a conspiracy between tenant and landlord, against plaintiff.    

 I hope defendant landlord has been able to get the plaintiff out.   (Plaintiff was evicted for non-payment of rent, and I hope they changed the locks).   (Sorry JJ, but a hemophiliac having broken glass hurled at him, is appropriate for a restraining order). 

Defendants are counter suing for an unreturned cable box, and damages to property.   As JJ says, defendant tenant had every right to file for failed protective order.    Plaintiff still claims the restraining orders were a conspiracy by the landlord, and this can't be proven, because it's garbage.     Plaintiff says he was evicted with a restraining order against him in 2012.   

I'm so glad the hunky, and protective Officer Byrd is next to JJ, because plaintiff is seriously out of control, and a few sandwiches short of a picnic.    Plaintiff was evicted through housing court for non-payment.   Both cases dismissed.  (JJ can't stand the landlord, because he rents to a lot of people?   If that house looks like what I think it does, I bet it has a ton of bedrooms, and is the only affordable housing for people that don't have the huge income to afford an apartment, or other home.      I bet it's not the only house with a lot of tenants either.     )

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

But, but, but, it's actually JJ's fault that he's irresponsible and immature, and she's a bitch because she's not sympathetic to his unwillingness to hold down a job and wants a car he can't afford. I mean, he's been coddled his whole life, so the mean old lady should give him a few million dollars so he doesn't have to face such hardships. Being so rich, it's really the least she can do. 🙂

Of course it's not JJ's fault, but she can tone it down a bit, the pointing and laughing at harmless idiots.  Sometimes JJ comes off like these slackers are the next Unabomber. 

She needs to remember that they are her bread and butter. 

And I don't think that occasionally moving home with mom is worthy of such contempt.

[ThePurpleArcher]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

I'm totally against ''pretend" service dogs......

I work at a college with about 6,000 students. You would not believe the number of students who now show up with 'Therapy Dogs', because these kids (18-22) are 'dealing with anxiety'. Keep in mind, this is the same generation who has been on prescription meds since the day they were born to 'deal with anxiety'.  It's gotten totally out of hand - the campus is a mess since no one picks up after their dogs, and there are 'housing issues' every semester (who's roomates are allergic to dogs, who's dog doesn't get along with the other dog in the room, etc,) SO long as you have a 'doctors note' , no one can tell these students they can't have a therapy dog - lest we see the parents and the college going at it on Judge Judy.

[VartanFan]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 (Sorry JJ, but a hemophiliac having broken glass hurled at him, is appropriate for a restraining order). 

Did anyone else do a double take that the defendant hemophiliac’s name was Ryan White?

[augmentedfourth]

"You ate the steak!"

"No, it was a vegan kitchen."

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *deep breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Amazing. A close second in that case was when the defendant said they had a "heated argument" about the air conditioning and the high temperature upstairs. Love it.

 

The trampoline defendant came off as kind of dumb, but the plaintiff was a dick in the hallterview, saying she should get out of his state and go back to the state she came from. Sorry she's sullying your precious Washington? I don't even know.

 

I agree that the second episode was kind of uncomfortable to watch, due to the litigants' serious issues.

[Bobby88]

4 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Did anyone else do a double take that the defendant hemophiliac’s name was Ryan White?

Yes! I thought I was the only one who noticed!

[AuntiePam]

Did it sound like JJ was having trouble with her teeth today?  As she was leaving the bench -- I think it was in the 10-tenant roommate case -- it almost looked like a bridge was coming loose or something, and it affected her enunciation.

 

[patty1h]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

Did it sound like JJ was having trouble with her teeth today?  As she was leaving the bench -- I think it was in the 10-tenant roommate case -- it almost looked like a bridge was coming loose or something, and it affected her enunciation.

 

I wasn't looking at the TV so I didn't see what you did but I heard and I thought maybe she had a lozenge in her mouth and was moving it around when she decided to respond, causing the change in her voice. 

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Airbnb Surfing Fail

Defendant lady had the most annoying voice in quite some time. Too bad the plaintiff was just trying to get another bite at the legal apple because it means that leeching couple got away scott-free, with a free trip to L.A. as a bonus.

Landlady may have had regrets about the terms of her settlement with them, but I suppose getting them out fast was a major consideration at the time it was signed.

Fake or improvised service/support animals are indeed an apalling nuisance. The trouble is how to weed out the false claims. Even if an employer or an airline for example asks for certification from an established organisation or training center, this may be challenged in courts or human rights tribunals, which often seem prejudiced in favour of claimants.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Defendant lady had the most annoying voice in quite some time. Too bad the plaintiff was just trying to get another bite at the legal apple because it means that leeching couple got away scott-free, with a free trip to L.A. as a bonus.

Landlady may have had regrets about the terms of her settlement with them, but I suppose getting them out fast was a major consideration at the time it was signed.

 

I like that when JJ told plaintiff air-bnb lady to stop interrupting, she really stopped.  The camera would pan to her and she'd be standing there, tight-lipped -- good job.

But didn't she also allege some damage?  After JJ learned of the unlawful detainer settlement, she refused to hear anything about damage to the property.  I felt sorry for her.  She under-charges for the rental (defendant even said she was surprised at how nice it was) and then loses rental income for three months. 

LOL'd at defendants claiming that water in the toilet bowl was boiling.  For pete's sake, people.  I doubt it even got warm.  Toilet bowls are always cold.  That's why dogs love 'em.

[Silver Raven]

I live in the city where that Air B&B is located.  It gets REALLY hot here.  We live in a mobile home that has a swamp cooler, no A/C, and the summers are miserable.  And yet I have yet to see the water in our toilets boiling.

 

[ThePurpleArcher]

On 2/29/2020 at 10:51 AM, AuntiePam said:

I like that when JJ told plaintiff air-bnb lady to stop interrupting, she really stopped.  The camera would pan to her and she'd be standing there, tight-lipped -- good job.

But didn't she also allege some damage?  After JJ learned of the unlawful detainer settlement, she refused to hear anything about damage to the property.  I felt sorry for her.  She under-charges for the rental (defendant even said she was surprised at how nice it was) and then loses rental income for three months. 

LOL'd at defendants claiming that water in the toilet bowl was boiling.  For pete's sake, people.  I doubt it even got warm.  Toilet bowls are always cold.  That's why dogs love 'em.

Maybe it was a cauldron in the bathroom, and not a toilet ? LOL! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

The Airbnb lady should never have been allowed on the show, since the case was already settled in housing court, and with a signed agreement to leave the rent, and other matters out of court.