All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

The Great Slot Machine Heist-Plaintiff is suing his fiance's Brother in Law for lost wages, harassment, and stalking.    (When JJ asks plaintiff's witness, his fiance, if she's sick, she starts crying in court).   Defendant assaulted plaintiff after he led sister-in-law (plaintiff's witness) down a bad path, and after defendant saw plaintiff on his home security camera stealing his slot machine money (plaintiff owns two slot machines).    JJ asks the plaintiff's fiance how she's doing, both fiances are unemployed, living with a family friend, get food stamps.     Plaintiff complains because of the defendant, that he can't work at the casino any longer.  (That claim is funny, because plaintiff got the restraining order first, and then got the casino job, and he knew that defendant came to the casino often).   

Defendant's wife (sister of plaintiff witness), and son are in court.  Son testifies that he saw plaintiff pull into the driveway at father's (defendant's) house.   Son came home from school, climbed in the window (he didn't realize there was a spare key), and leaving home he saw plaintiff's car pull up to defendant's home.   Plaintiff was allowed to come in home to pick up food, and then slot machine money was gone too.  

Defendant called plaintiffs about his missing money.   Sister-in-law admitted fiance/plaintiff took the money.   Defendant broke a bathroom door in, and confronted plaintiff.  Plaintiff claims his fiance/witness took the money.    That's when defendant assaulted the plaintiff, who got an order of protection.     

Plaintiff claims defendant consistently violates the protective order by defendant going to the casino he worked at, so plaintiff quit working at the casino.      Plaintiff got the job working at the casino after the assault, knowing defendant would be coming in to gamble.   Plaintiff hasn't held a job more than two months at a time, only one job for four months.   (My guess, he works long enough to qualify for unemployment). 

 Plaintiff claims PTSD from assault, and is applying for disability from a congenital back problem, and says he has difficulty leaving his home after the assault.    I wonder if his PTSD extends to bathrooms, since that is where the assault happened?     

Plaintiff's claims of harassment boils down to "he looked at me funny" at the casino.    There is a police report, but the video is missing.    

Case is dismissed. 

Second-

Trip to Italy Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant / ex-boyfriend over a failed trip to Italy that never actually happened.       Plaintiff paid the $4,000 for the trip, but defendant paid nothing.  They had travel insurance, and defendant applied for, and received the almost $1200 refund, and kept all of it.    The litigants mutual child got sick, so they cancelled.    Plaintiff brought no proof that she paid her credit card off for the trip (for tickets for both litigants, and their child).     The trip insurance is to pay off what they paid for the trip, so plaintiff has to get proof she paid the credit card off.    

Defendant says he would pay the car payments for plaintiff, in lieu of paying plaintiff for the trip, or giving her the trip refund.    (No, it doesn't make sense to me either).    Plaintiff submits the paid bill for the trip.    Plaintiff received a refund from Priceline for the airline. 

Brother of defendant pays him in cash, so defendant can't have his wages garnished.   JJ advised plaintiff to tell the IRS about brother paying defendant under the table, and not doing withholding.   Plaintiff receives no child support from loser deadbeat defendant. 

$1144 to plaintiff.  

Super Bowl Overtime Controversy-Plaintiff and boyfriend suing defendant, and her friend over non-payment of a Super Bowl pool, that plaintiff won at the end of the 4th quarter.   However, defendant says because it went into overtime, that she doesn't owe the plaintiff the money.     The way it works, each participant buys a possible score from a list, and the closest to that wins the pool.     The lottery receipt has the score for the end of 4th quarter, but, defendant wanted to pay for the overtime score.    Receipt for pool entry doesn't say 'final' score, just end of 4th quarter.   Each square was $100, and there were 100 squares, which equals $10,000.     Defendant's witness was the overtime score winner of $4,000.    There are payouts at the end of each quarter.   

Plaintiffs received $100 for the score at the end of the 4th quarter. 

$2,000 to plaintiff, because the pool rules said nothing about overtime (apparently this was the first overtime game in Super Bowl history).   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Teen Stupidity Causes Bodily Injury-Defendant daughter (17 at the time) was driving mommy's car, without a drivers license (she's never tried to get a license).   Defendant took the car with her boyfriend, totaled the car, and boyfriend was in the hospital for 2 weeks, and rehab for a total of two months.    Driver claims it was plaintiff's fault, she also says she drove the car many times before.     Actually, defendant driver has flunked the driver's license test once, and never went back to try again.   

Plaintiff gets $3478.

The Bee's Knees-Plaintiffs are suing ex-roommates for unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, and all kinds of other garbage.     

$318 for unpaid utilities, and that's all.  

Black Friday BB Gun Deal-Plaintiff suing defendant niece for unpaid loan, moving costs, and something else, $2900+.    Plaintiff's sister has custody of defendant's children, and defendant was told to leave her mother's home.    Plaintiff aunt let niece move in, because she had no where to go.   Personally, I wouldn't let the niece into my house, ever.    The credit card was for Victoria's Secret purchases using the niece's discount, to get the discount, niece had to be an authorized user on the card, and niece kept using the credit card.    (I am horrified at the possibility of defendant wearing some strappy little nothing from Victoria's Secret).   It's very scary, but defendant has a nursing degree, and works in that field.   

Niece is suing for illegal eviction, but never paid one penny of rent. Niece kept coming back in the middle of the night, and setting off the alarm.   So aunt notified her she was changing the alarm code, and putting her stuff in storage, and not to come back to her house again.    Niece also wanted money for Christmas presents for her children, including BB guns.     

Plaintiff gets  $1904.   Defendant gets exactly what she deserves, nothing.  

Second-

Child Slapped for Wetting the Bed!?-Plaintiff ex-husband suing defendant ex-wife (with two kids 9 and 10 year old girls) for lost wages, libel, harassment, and defamation.  Plaintiff says actions by defendant have prevented him from keeping employment.   The defendant has a huge stack of evidence envelopes on her desk.   Ex-wife alleges domestic violence, and mental health issues in ex-husband.    Defendant claims plaintiff slapped the 9 year old girl (was there proof this happened?), for wetting the bed, custody hearing (at defendant's behalf) was held and woman wanted supervised visitation only.    Judge changed visitation for a couple of months, and then it went back to unsupervised.    Defendant has taken plaintiff to court repeatedly since 2014, all over custody and other issues, trying to get the plaintiff alienated from his children. 

Mother/defendant claims drug use (no evidence), abuse, mental health issues, and other issues for another custody hearing.   One time the man had the kids for three hours, noticed they were being followed, and went to a police station, and mother picked them up there.     (except he went to a police station a couple of hours away.  Maybe in the part of town where they live, the ex-wife has relatives on the force? Those were some very determined people to follow them enough for someone to notice). 

What a shock, ex-wife has remarried (right after the divorce), and my guess is she wants to erase the first husband from her kid's lives.   Ex-wife alleges plaintiff beat her, and the  oldest daughter, and there is no proof, but was before 2011 when they divorced.   There is zero proof of 'beatings'.   

I think the woman in the slapped child case was very practiced at looking like the responsible parent in court, and that was why she had the 50's hairstyle and makeup.    I couldn't stand her, and suspect that the plaintiff will be in court all of the time until the little girls are over 18.   I couldn't stand the defendant's current husband.    

There isn't  any proof except what the ex said about the slapping incident?     I'm sure the poor little girls either say what the mother wants them to say, or they suffer.    I found it very strange that a girl that was 9 would wet the bed, unless she was sick or had some physical problem.    

The entire defendant's table is covered with padded envelopes, but defendant didn't have the police report about beating or abuse by plaintiff.  

Ex-wife contacted the plaintiff's current girlfriend, and her father.     Ridiculous counterclaim by defendants dismissed.   

$1000 to plaintiff. 

[KittyMom4]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:53 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

The case of the couple with the guy who worked at LAX (got laid off due to COVID) and his pregnant wife was one of the most poignant illustrations of how hard it is to be working poor in the US these days. Was it always so hard? I feel like things have gotten much worse in Judge Judy Land.

They were renting a crappy room in some big flop house with 10 other roomies. Their small TV was standing on two $10 blue plastic crates. Their lease was for $600, within months they were asked $800, and out of nowhere suddenly they wanted $1000. At first they didn't get the room they were promised and slept in an open loft! All of this concluded with two adults having to go back to live with their parents.

They were getting hit from all sides. Not getting a living wage, having to do Door Dash when laid off, car breaks down, need a new car to work... these two weren't catching a break by a system rigged against workers. Always tethering on the edge of financial ruin, a regular lay off, or COVID, is all it takes to have to return to parents or live in one's car. Some people are getting obscenely rich somewhere, at the expense of people like them.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one whose heart ached for these people. All of the litigants in this case seemed like intelligent, hard-working people who were just trying to stay afloat. $8,000 mortgage payment?? $600-800 for a bedroom??? My god. Part of me wanted to shake both plantiffs and say move out of CA, move some place with a lower cost of living and for god's sake, stop having kids if you're gonna stay where you can barely afford a box to live in!! 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Man Suspects He's a Father-Plaintiff suing child's father for vandalizing her vehicle, and keeping, then disposing of her property.     Plaintiff had child by defendant, she wanted them to be a family (for 4 months, September to December), and co-parent the baby.     For the first four months of the child's life, plaintiff said someone else was the father, then there was a paternity test at the defendant's request.   When paternity was confirmed, defendant invited plaintiff to move in with him, for the baby's sake.   

The litigants were living together, as co-parents, not romantic partners.     In November, plaintiff claims man broke her phone, assaulted her, vandalized her car, trashed her property.    Plaintiff claims man came home to his own house, drunk and with another woman.   Plaintiff claims when she told the woman to leave, that he assaulted her, broke her phone, and vandalized her car.   

Police officer told man to leave until he sobered up.    Defendant slept at his friend's home, down the street.   Plaintiff complains that man came back to his own home the next day.    Police report notes no evidence of injury or abuse.   When plaintiff went with the police to the man's house, her property was outside, and claims a dent in her car was his fault.    

Plaintiff claims her phone was gone, and man admitted denting her Jeep.   Of course, defendant denies that.     Plaintiff also wants a TV, and dining set, but defendant says he has nothing belonging to the plaintiff.     

(I believe nothing the plaintiff says.    She didn't even tell defendant he might have a child, until he saw a picture of the baby, and demanded a DNA test).   

$994 for plaintiff. 

Dog Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing defendant/former friend over custody of a dog, and emotional distress.     (Defendant's Bozo red hair, and tattoo are ugly, and what is that giant mole next to her lip?)     Plaintiff and boyfriend lived together, bought the dog (a Pit Bull, and they claim it's a pocket Pit-which doesn't exist), broke up, and couldn't take the dog to her mother's house where she lived.          Plaintiff asked defendant to take care of dog, and now claims her mother will let her keep the dog at her place (plaintiff lives with Mom now, but brought Godmother to court).   When plaintiff went to defendant's house with the police to get the dog, she told police "she would figure it out" on where to take the dog.    Police refused to give the dog to plaintiff.   

Plaintiff came back again, and still had no where to take the dog.  Plaintiff claims she has somewhere to keep the dog, and gets the dog back.     

Second-

Father and Son Jail Time-Plaintiff suing father  for money owed for sale of vehicles, and lost wages.   Plaintiff received a $25k legal settlement for something that occurred in Juvenile hall, and the plaintiff received the money when he turned 18.       The litigants were estranged, reunited, and plaintiff's father stayed long enough to spend all of the plaintiff's money.   

Defendant's idea is to purchase a truck, plow vehicle, and a car, a pickup truck used for parts, only the car was running.     The plaintiff purchased the vehicles for $4,000, and only drove the car, and was rearrested for a DWI in the car.  Car crashed, and was totaled, and plaintiff went to jail for a year.   

Then when he was released from jail, son asked defendant where the other three vehicles were, (purchased for $3,000), and sold back to the friend for $1500.    Plaintiff is suing father for $4,000.   Father also went to jail for two years, again, as usual.     

(Plaintiff has to leave court to toss his cookies). 

Son spent the last $10k partying with father, and then spent the rest in jail, last of the money is gone.   

Case dismissed.

Car Lot Bug-Plaintiff wants money back for a car she wanted to purchase from defendant's car lot, for $6500 total price ($7200 with tax and tags).    Plaintiff wanted to purchase car on lay away, where defendant keeps the car on their sales lot, until car paid off.    The pay off date isn't in the original contract.   Additional note says plaintiff will pay off in 90 days.    Plaintiff claims the signature on the addendum is a forgery.    Plaintiff didn't pay off car, and complains car wasn't stored indoors, or covered with a tarp.    Defendants counter suing for unpaid balance ($4543).     

Plaintiff paid a total of $2800 over six months.    Then plaintiff says car was damaged by being outside on the lot, and she didn't want the car, and wants a refund.      (My guess, plaintiff has zero credit to buy a car). 

Plaintiff gets case dismissed, and will not get a refund.   Defendant keeps the $2800 plaintiff paid, and can resell the car.   Considering the Blue Book price, and the money they've already received, defendants can resell car, and make out at least even. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Deceased Father Fraud-Plaintiff claims her siblings/defendants lied to her about the sale of late father's home, and took money from his bank account.   Plaintiff claims she was coerced into defendant's son purchasing house for $7500, and son and wife of defendant went on the deed. 

The defendant's used the father's money to fix up the house (sounds like a total dump), and then son and his mother bought it, and the son now rents the house out.   I suspect plaintiff was only upset about the rental when she found out sister-in-law was on the deed. Sorry JJ but Zillow isn't a great resource for house prices.   Also, if the sister / plaintiff gets money for the house, then it's only fair she should have to pay for the funeral expenses too.  

Sister gets $1200.    

Mutilated Privacy Hedge-Plaintiff suing defendant/neighbor over the trimming of an 18-foot privacy hedge.    Man trimmed joint privacy hedge to 3 to 4 feet, after several break ins at his house, where the burglars are shielded from view by the gigantic hedges.     The man had trimmed the hedges before with her permission, but not that short.    The hedge is planted right on the property line, and branches hang over on his line.  Defendant trimmed the hedge for free for years, but only did hedge that short after the burglaries.     

$5,000 to plaintiff.      (Actually my parents neighbors had that kind of hedge, and if it's the type I think it is, it'll be very tall again in no time.) 

Second-

Dramatic Cyclist Meets Drunk Peddler?!-Plaintiff was t-boned by a fellow cyclist, on a bike path going in the same direction, plaintiff attempted to pass defendant on right side (but she says she wasn't going faster), and defendant (plaintiff claims) with booze bottle and ear buds drove into her.   

Plaintiff claims her husband saw everything, but he was ahead of both litigants, and didn't see the accident.   Defendant claims woman was going the opposite direction, and woman was fighting with her husband, and reversed course.  JJ doesn't believe the defendant, and but maybe he didn't want to go on city streets because of traffic, or just wanted more exercise.    Plaintiff is a total drama queen, and her story is full of holes.  

However, the plaintiff's reports to police, and medical are ridiculous, and makes the defendant sound like a hit man for the bicycle mafia.   

 Plaintiff gets $1288 for medical out of pocket, and bicycle. 

Where There's Smoke...There's More Smoke!-Plaintiff suing former landlord/defendant over not getting her security deposit back for smoking in the 1 bedroom apartment of a triplex, she rented from him.    Landlord has an estimate to deodorize the room for $810.   Signed lease says no smoking, but plaintiff's daughter was smoking in the apartment.  Security deposit was $850.  Plaintiff claims her daughter only smoked on cigarette in the apartment.  

 $40 to plaintiff.  

 

[Ta11]

On 9/19/2018 at 6:05 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Where is the episode with randy wade?

 

So catch of the century, Randy Wade, of Minnesota was on bail for a Nov 16 assault on a woman that fractured her vertebra, threw a phone and hit a little child in the face, and there were other things in there.   If you want to be nauseous Google "Randy Wade" domestic violence Minnesota and you'll be appalled.   His mom must be so proud.   I can't believe the ex-gf (after the vicious assault on his previous gf, and her kid) and the current one thought he was safe to be around.    He came close to killing the ex-gf, and I'm sure he will kill someone some day.   The smirking current gf was such an idiot, and really thinks the ex was to blame for the assault.   

The idiot ex gf (successor to victim I guess) loaned him $3588 ($200 bail payment, and the rest for him to find her a car), and current gf is sitting on his side with a huge grin, because she got the catch of the year.     As JJ put it "bum magnet".     The gf gets the money, and the current gf gets him.

Dog either hit in road, or p. swerved into the driveway (according to defendant).    On a shallow note, I haven't seen a prom hairdo like that on the plaintiff in many years.    Driver plaintiff says the dog ran out in the road, and she swerved to miss it.       The defendant says the plaintiff swerved into her huge front yard and driveway and hit the dog there.     Byrd should smack the d. with a fly swatter.   D. claims she was walking the dog, and dog got away and got hit in her driveway?  Defendant is so stupid she probably convinced herself it's true.     And d. claims the driveway is a huge dirt section.     Plaintiff wants $500 deductible.   The funny thing is the judge and caption keeps calling the defendant's witness her husband, but the defendant says it's her boyfriend, in spite of the same last names.   The boyfriend/husband of the defendant is doing his best not to get in trouble with nutso defendant.    It's a long flight back to Massachusetts, and I bet he's dreading every second of it with the defendant bitching him out the entire 

 

D. got 116 out of a $2k plus workmen's comp check.    Defendant at least is wearing a shirt over his t shirt.    Desperate Plaintiff, another stupid woman, paid for his hotel in May, they only met in April.  He got evicted from his previous apartment.       D. claims that p. wanted sex for paying for room.     He stayed over a month at the motel.   Defendant took out six pay day loans to pay for the room, because he said he was getting this huge settlement, which turned out to be $116 or so, because the courts took the rest for past unpaid child support.      He went back to live with his ex-girlfriend after he stayed with p. for three days between motel, and his gf.    $750 was bail from Denver, traffic failure to appear, and she paid $150.     I guess stupid woman doesn't know how to block calls, because he kept calling collect from jail  and begging, so she got a $750 loan.    She gets $150, not the money for the motel.      Halterview is d. saying she only did it because she's ugly and wanted his 'services'.   OK, what he actually said was "She wasn't a cutie, and she wanted the booty".      I have to go throw up now, a lot.

Settlement for fall on black ice, and p. cleared $65k.    P. suing for $4k loan to D.   P. has no real proof of loan actual amount, and JJ is not amused.      P. claims she took money out of savings, but amount doesn't match, and it was a couple of months before the loan anyway, and then she said she it from her settlement, and that didn't arrive for months after that.     It's obvious that they are just on here for the $4k, and are both liars, so JJ sent it back to local court where they can put up with these idiots.   I'm sure they nominated their own case, and will never file locally, because then the defendant will actually have to pay if she's found at fault, and I'm sure this loan never happened, and plaintiff will never get money out of her anyway.    By the way, the loan was to go to Columbia to get big hooter implants.  

 

[bad things are bad]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Deceased Father Fraud-Plaintiff claims her siblings/defendants lied to her about the sale of late father's home, and took money from his bank account.   Plaintiff claims she was coerced into defendant's son purchasing house for $7500, and son and wife of defendant went on the deed. 

This family will be forever angry at each other over a few thousand bucks. I've seen it a lot of times, and it's never more than a few thousand bucks that makes siblings stop talking to each other forever. Horrible.

I don't think my dad will leave much of anything, but I hope we can avoid this mess. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Lying Teens False Imprisonment-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend for assault, false imprisonment, and the cost of a new phone.    Plaintiff was staying over at the defendant's house, (she's 19, he's 21)..    Plaintiff mother claims daughter went to stay with her other sibling, but she really went to boyfriend's house instead.   Plaintiff arrived at 2 a.m. at defendant's home, and they were arguing.    Plaintiff says she wasn't drinking, because she was driving (doesn't mention she's underage).   

The next day, when plaintiff woke up, the argument continued.   Plaintiff didn't have her car, she came back to mother's house, and defendant picked her up at mother's house, and took her to his place.    Plaintiff's mother dislikes defendant, and so plaintiff was secretly staying at defendant's home.  (Plaintiff's mother certainly isn't looking happy with her daughter's court testimony.   

Plaintiff claims defendant kept her boots, and she started walking home in the snow, then defendant gave her the boots back.   Then she got in his car, and claims he took her to his apartment, and claims she jumped out of defendant's car.   Defendant says plaintiff must have left her phone somewhere, and he's going to pay for that.       Police report says nothing special, and defendant says plaintiff broke his phone.   

 Medical records say nothing about injuries.

Plaintiff gets $350 for her previous phone.     

Don't Be Late for Court-Plaintiff suing former friend, for car payments, and car insurance costs.    ( Defendant was late for court, can't figure out time changes from NY, to LA).     

Defendant had DUIs, and lost her license.   Plaintiff says defendant wanted him to drive her around, and she would pay car payments, and insurance, but didn't pay for two months.     

Plaintiff case is dismissed, since they were still involved.    

Second-

Don't Be a Selfish Parent-Plaintiff doesn't want defendant around their child, so she denies visitation whenever she feels like it.  Plaintiff suing for the cost of tires, an alignment, and her belongings.   Litigants have a child together.   Plaintiff says the car costs that she's suing for were for defendant's car.   Defendant let plaintiff live in his home while he was in Army training, and plaintiff borrowed defendant's car.  Defendant filed a case for visitation, but no DNA test yet.    (The plaintiff's hair looked like I cut it, not a good look).   

Plaintiff doesn't work, but is a SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) to the baby, and her older child.   Plaintiff thinks the custody, and visitation is up to her.    Defendant dropped the items plaintiff wants back, at her house on his way to PT (Army physical training), by 6 a.m.  (Sadly I used to live near the base and city where this happened, and it's a very common story.).  

Defendant says there is a photo of plaintiff crushing and using pills in his car, and claims she got the tires purchased by a friend in return for sexual favors. 

Case dismissed. 

Paint Job or Scam Job-Plaintiff paid defendant to paint her house.   Agreement was pay $800, and also give defendant a Craftsman lawn tractor, and three attachments, and mow her lawn for six months.   

However, plaintiff only paid the $800, refused to pay more for extra paint.   Defendant needed more paint, and either had to buy more paint himself, because she wouldn't buy any paint, or quit.    Defendant walked when plaintiff told him to leave,  after painting about half of walls on the house interior.     Plaintiff hired someone to finish the paint job.   

However, plaintiff claims work was substandard.   

Case is dismissed.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Hennessey Fueled Catfight-Plaintiff suing defendant for breaking a wall mirror, couch, and other items when they had a fist fight in plaintiff's house.    Plaintiff came home, found ex-friend defendant in plaintiff's home with her cousin.   The fight started when plaintiff told her to leave.    

I wonder if the missing teeth on defendant were from the fight?   Defendant claims plaintiff smacked her phone out of her hand, and plaintiff threw phone in toilet, and the big fight started.   Plaintiff's witness claims defendant threw the phone out the door, and phone broke.    Plaintiff claims defendant smashed the couch, then all of the fighting started, 

 I do wish we had a video of the fight.  

Case dismissed.

Homeless Man Home Invasion-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for breaking her bedroom window, stealing her TV, and damages.    The rented room was in defendant's father's home, and they broke up over a year ago.       Defendant was living in his car, and needed gas money.    Defendant owned TV, but had it given to plaintiff by a neighbor to hold.  Defendant claims plaintiff was to hold the TV for him.   The TV is so old it's worthless.      

Defendant claims he didn't break into the house, but the front door was open.     Pictures of window show the glass is broken.    I wonder who really broke the glass?     

 $160 for window to plaintiff.   

Second-

Judge's Biggest Fan Professes Love for Her!-Plaintiff says woman who was serving community service for traffic tickets (couldn't pay the fines) robbed him while he was in jail, including using his debit card.     Defendant lived with him for five or six days, then he was arrested for having naughty stuff in his possession (his former roommate's drugs he claims),  (he's so cute, he loves JJ) and the litigants went to store together. 

(Plaintiff claims he works for UPS, I seriously doubt he drives anything for them). 

Litigants started fighting, and woman called the police.    Plaintiff was arrested for failure to appear (the FTA was on another case, not this one), and he went to jail for 12 days.   When man returned home, computers, TV, etc.  was all gone, and money was taken out of his bank account.      

Defendant admits that the ex-girlfriend of plaintiff (Stephanie) was invited over by her. 

$2850 for the plaintiff.  As JJ ruled, whether the ex stole his stuff, or defendant did, she had control of his apartment, and property, so she's responsible.   

(Monday both hours will be preempted where I live for NFL football.   It also looks like next weeks episodes are all reruns).

(My guess is that if there are new cases, we'll see them when sweeps month starts in November).    I think the new cases from a couple of week ago should have been one new episode a day, and then we would have had a longer period with a new case per day.    

Edited October 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Toaster Strudel]

I demand new cases!

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Deliberate Finger Slam?!-Plaintiff suing former roommate (she was leasing the property, and renting rooms out) for property damage, loss of food, and stolen property.        Plaintiff says defendant broke locks on his room several times to steal his property, he also claims defendant cut off his electricity deliberately to spoil his food.

Defendant is being evicted after non-payment for part of a month, and another full month.    Home owner is evicting defendant, and defendant who is 20, claims she's been renting the house for three years.    JJ will call home owner and confirm that defendant only failed to pay rent for half of one month, and another full month.   Defendant claims she asked homeowner to evict her, to get rid of plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims home owner told everyone in the house to leave the end of July because defendant didn't pay the plaintiff.    Plaintiff changed the lock on his room, and defendant wants to be paid for changing them back.  As usual, plaintiff didn't bring the lock change bill to court, after he claims defendant broke his locks, and changed them.  

I hope I get this straight.   Defendant couldn't get into the house, so she went to an open window, tried to climb in, and claims plaintiff slammed the window down on her hand deliberately.     No medical report.

Both cases dismissed because they're both liars.

I'm Not Paying For a Dry Wig!-Plaintiff hair stylist suing former client for the cost of a wig, check return fees, and .   Defendant paid for the wig, $370 (for labor for assembling the wig, defendant bought the hair for the wig).    Defendant ordered the wig, brought the hair to the hair stylist, and came to look out the wig, and started complaining about the color, and that the wig looked dry.   Defendant says the plaintiff said the wig needed to be wet down, put product on it, then blew it dry, and then defendant tried the wig on.   At this point plaintiff acts like a fool, indicating that defendant is lying.    Defendant says she tried the wig on, wrote the check for it, and left.   Defendant also wanted a tighter band on the inside of the wig, made an appointment with the plaintiff.   

The second appointment was on 7 July, and defendant didn't read a text message cancelling the appointment.    Defendant claims the plaintiff didn't show on several other occasions, but defendant kept going back.     On 9 July plaintiff went to cash the check, and check had been stopped. 

$405 for the check and check fees. 

Second-

Sick and Kicked Out-Plaintiff suing her ex-boyfriend who was living with her for unpaid rent, utilities, and a loan.   She filed for a protective order, and changed the locks, while he in the hospital for a month.  Defendant was her boyfriend, and they were going to split the rent and utilities.   Then defendant had two surgeries, had to stop working, and plaintiff evicted him and wants rent for the month the defendant was in the hospital.     Loan was from plaintiff for car repairs, and only paid back $200 in cash.   $2200 in back rent, $872 for car loan, = $3072 to plaintiff. 

 When defendant went out of town for two days, plaintiff filed for protective order, and lock out order, this was because he owed her money.  (Since when is that a reason to grant a protective order?).   The lockout happened without any legal right by plaintiff.  The man had been living there for almost two years, and was a legal tenant. 

$3072 to plaintiff, but defendant's counter claim cancels this out.  

Defendant gets $3072 on his counter claim, and that means the plaintiff gets nothing, which she deserves for filing a false protective order.

Child Attacked by Out of Control Dog-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her son's medical bills after the neighbor's dog bit the child.      Dog is Boxer/Mastiff mix, was off leash, and there is no bite history (dog was put down).   Bite happened on plaintiff's property, and was out of defendant's control.   Plaintiff has two pit bulls by the way.   

Plaintiff sons were on a trampoline, with their two dogs, the defendant dog joined them, started fighting, and plaintiff son was bitten trying to separate the dogs.   Bite scar on plaintiff's hand looks bad.   Despicable defendant  says child's behavior caused the bite.

Out of pocket medical expenses for plaintiff were $4,000, and they had no health insurance.  

Friends Don't Loan to Friends-Plaintiff loaned money to defendant to buy a truck ($1700).     (defendant is a total Smart Ass, and a pain in the fanny).  Defendant's response is it was a gift, and he never asked for money.   Defendant says plaintiff gave him the money to fix the van he used for DJ work, and plaintiff would get 25% of the DJ gigs.   Defendant is such a liar.   

 $1700 to plaintiff.

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Fresh Start or Fifth DUI-Plaintiff (Melissa Therrian) needed a place to stay so moved in with defendant.    Defendant says arrest was for plaintiff's sixth DUI, and claims she found drug paraphernalia used for crack in the house.  Plaintiff had car impounded for no license, no insurance, and refused to do a blood draw, but did do a breathalyzer (DUI or OWI number 6), this all happened two weeks after moving in with defendant.   Plaintiff claims this was her second DUI/OWI in ten years.    Plaintiff spent three days in jail, but claims she was never charged.      

To get car out of impound, plaintiff signed car over to defendant, who got it out of impound.   Defendant paid for impound fees, title and registration fees,  Plaintiff drove her car (now defendant's car) without a license.   Defendant sold the car a while later.   Plaintiff drove repeatedly without a license, still doesn't have one, and wants her car value back from defendant.   Plaintiff claims she needs the car value so she can get to work, but claims she doesn't intend to drive a car.     Defendant claims she found a Chore Boy crack smoking pipe, and other drug paraphernalia in plaintiff's room.    Defendant says plaintiff was arrested five other times before this for DUI/OWI, and this was the sixth arrest.   

Defendant says impound and car transfer/registration fees paperwork was stolen out of her house (assuming by plaintiff).  Defendant says right after plaintiff send two threatening text messages, that four windows on her house were smashed.   

Case dismissed, and I absolutely believe plaintiff smashed a bunch of windows at the defendant's house.   

Judy Quotes Pacino-Scott Owen, plaintiff suing the defendant (boyfriend of his daughter) for $1400 to fix his truck.   Oh, goody, witness girlfriend works in a care center.  The girlfriend says she told boyfriend it was a loan, not a gift.   

 JJ gets the girl to get the borrow/lend thing straight, but she can't fix the rest of the mangled English coming out of her mouth.      Tyler, the defendant, put off repayment, and is obviously a total idiot.   What a lovely couple Tyler and plaintiff's daughter make, with a combined IQ of maybe 50 points max.     

Tyler never paid back a freaking penny, and why am I not surprised?    I hope the idiot plaintiff's daughter takes JJ's words to heart, about siding against her family.  

$1400 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Girlfriend Vandal Hacks Into Lover's Phone?!-Plaintiff claims ex-girlfriend vandalized two of his cars, after she found out he was cheating on her with multiple other women.   One woman he was 'talking' to is now pregnant with his child.   Defendant says she was angry after she looked at his social media, but didn't do the vandalism.  The same day his phone said she hacked into his phone was the day the first car was vandalized.  Plaintiff looks very proud of the fact he has a bunch of women he's 'talking' to.  

 The second car was in her driveway, and that car had a smashed windshield, and someone wrote stuff on his second car too. (Sharpies are very effective for this purpose apparently).     

$3,785 for plaintiff.   

South African Carpet Theft?!-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of his carpet, and other property.   Defendant claims plaintiff took his carpet back already.   Plus he claims she has a TV, a drone, and other stuff.   Plaintiff brought a locksmith to the house, to pick the lock on her room where everything was locked up.   He claims the landlord stopped him from taking things, because he wasn't on the lease.   

JJ calls the landlady says she let him take his clothes, but not the TV, rug, drone, etc.   Defendant looks rather uncomfortable now.   Defendant wants to be reimbursed for a trip they scheduled to Africa, that never happened (she claims he was to meet up with the mother of his child).    Defendant changes her testimony from her sworn statement.  Defendant keeps trying to bring up a trip to Africa he backed out on.  In her statement defendant wrote that she didn't feel comfortable meeting the mother of his child, and the child in Africa, and she says she cancelled. 

 If the defendant was a decent person, she would have returned his rug. 

Plaintiff receives money for the carpet, $3116.   However, he will never be able to truly replace the carpet.      

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Husky Attacks Bichon Frise?!-Plaintiff is suing man for vet bills when plaintiff's dog was attacked by defendant's dog.   Plaintiff had a dog sitter while they were on vacation.   Plaintiffs were going out of town for two or three weeks.   Dog sitter had dog at her house, and boyfriend's roommate had a Husky that attacked the plaintiff's dog.   Dog sitter also had a boyfriend with a Jack Russell.   When the roommates was outside on the patio with boyfriend, and his roommate (Husky owner), they didn't bring the dog's outside.   However, this time the plaintiff's dog sitter brought the Bichon Frise along, had the Bichon outside with the Husky, and the little dog was attacked.    

I think the plaintiffs should have sued their dog sitter for the dog's injuries.   

(This is a guess, I missed a bit at the end.    My guess is JJ said the defendant was being responsible, and plaintiff's dog sitter got the little dog hurt, So defendant case dismissed, and plaintiff dog owners told to sue pet sitter.)

In hall-terview the dog owner says it's time to let this go. 

Sick Girlfriend Payback!-Plaintiff suing her former girlfriend for two months rent, and a car loan.    Defendant says she was sick, and couldn't pay the rent for two months.    Plaintiff is now living alone in the apartment with her three children from her previous marriage.   As JJ points out when one partner in a relationship gets sick, you take care of each other, you don't sue for rent and car loans when someone is still sick.   

Car was purchased out of plaintiff's car refund, they went to the car dealership together, when defendant wasn't working.   Defendant was making about $1000 a month, and plaintiff demanded she double up on paying rent, and the car loan added on.       Defendant stayed off work, and helped plaintiff when she got sick and needed help.   

Plaintiff never went back to work after her disability, she's on welfare.     Defendant moved out when relationship ended, and kept car that became a loan, not a gift.  

JJ floors me, she said the car loan will be paid, but not to plaintiff, but to state of Oregon because welfare means you can't have assets.    Defendant says she just wants her car title.     So car loan dismissed, and everything else cancelled.  

Second-

Family Living in Car Seeks Driveway Rental-Plaintiff is suing for illegal eviction, damaged property, and harassment.    Plaintiff was homeless, wanted to rent the driveway at defendant's home, for her, and her three children to live in plaintiff's car in the defendant's driveway.   Defendant instead rented a bedroom to plaintiff and her two daughters, and the son.   JJ has Officer Byrd escort plaintiff's 16 year old daughter out of the courtroom, however, well rehearsed witness daughter still spouts what Mommy Jinky taught her to say on her way out of court.     Plaintiff says the son lived elsewhere, and she lived with the two daughters in defendant's home.  

Plaintiff says she was unlawfully evicted, claims defendant vandalized her property, and harassed her.   Defendant says the argument leading to eviction was that she refused to allow plaintiff's married boyfriend to come to defendant's home.    Plaintiff wanted to rent the driveway to live in with kids, in her car.     $4400 a month was plaintiff's worker's comp.   Plaintiff says she was homeless because she had to pay for the two cars, and couldn't afford the rent on top of that.   Plus, plaintiff was paying for the two cars, cell phones, etc.  Plaintiff had two cars, so college son could drive two daughters to school.  Plaintiff, and two children lived with defendant,    Plaintiff moved from Arizona, to California a few years ago.  

Room was rented for $700 a month (price was $600 plus utilities).    Plaintiff claimed she paid for the third month's rent, and defendant started sending her mean texts.    Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay for the third month's rent, and when she asked for the rent, plaintiff got mad, and moved out.   

Defendant says plaintiff was upset that she wouldn't let her married boyfriend come in the house.   So calling plaintiff an adulterer is accurate by the defendant.   Then plaintiff and two kids moved out.   

Plaintiff gets nothing for unlawful eviction, because she left voluntarily, owing rent (plaintiff claims she paid $700 rent for the third month).    She's suing for damaged property she moved out of the defendant's home, and claims defendant broke her valuable property.     

This is the case where the plaintiff rented a U-Haul trailer, and loaded her stuff, but gave it to the mover who loaded the trailer for her.  Plaintiff claims she had no room left in her storage unit.    There is a video of the move out, with plaintiff and defendant arguing over proof of rent payments.   Plaintiff broke her own daughter's phone, when the girl wouldn't answer her as fast as she wanted her to.  

How much stuff did that woman cram into one bedroom with her two daughters?     

Mover cost $300, and gave him everything he loaded in the U-Haul for her. 

(Jinky Montiel, plaintiff, reminds me so much of a former co-worker, everything was a conspiracy with her too.     The caption says she's a registered nurse).  

I think the video of the move out, with defendant asking 'where's your receipt' is why JJ gave the $700 rent back to plaintiff.  However, who video tapes, and photographs someone loading her U-Haul, and then gives everything to the mover?   Plaintiff claims defendant broke her lamp, and claims plaintiff kept the broken lamp.     Plaintiff and daughters went to hotel, and kept switching hotels for a month.   Plaintiff claims her son still lived at defendant's house, but defendant says the son never lived with her.    

Defendant said plaintiff was a bad mother from leaving the two daughters alone for days, while plaintiff went to Vegas with her married boyfriend.    To me it sounds like plaintiff moved out, after paying the rent very late the last month. 

JJ dismisses the plaintiff's  property damage claim.     JJ does give $700 to plaintiff, for the last month's rent.   

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

How to Tell if You're a Crazy Cat Lady-JJ tells that she used to be a Crazy Cat Lady, so she knows how to tell someone is a crazy cat lady.   I remember this one.   Defendant has six cats she lets run loose, and they do the usual cat things, off the defendant's property.    Defendant thinks it's funny that neighbors have issues with her six cats, and will not stop the cats from roaming.   

Plaintiff is a loon too.  Defendant refuses to keep her cats in her house, and wants the neighbors to pay to repair her fence.   This has nothing to do with the cats roaming.    JJ tells defendant to keep cats on her property, and in her house or get rid of them.     Defendant's witness is just as irritating as the defendant.    Defendant keeps whining that neighbors should repair the wooden privacy fences, that won't stop the cats from easily going over.    Defendant witness keeps telling JJ that keeping the cats inside is only her opinion, I hope they throw her out soon.  

Plaintiff gets money for the clean up, $  (Not sure how much, I wanted to punch out both litigants, and defendant's witness so badly).  

Diamond-Encrusted Pawn Star-Plaintiff had a medallion that needed to be fixed.  Defendant wanted $200 to get the medallion fixed, then he lost, and found the medallion, and pawned it.   

Medallion is gone, and defendant claims plaintiff threatened him and his family, so says he was forced to pawn it.   Sadly, the plaintiff's receipt is done four days before case was heard.     Plaintiff claims it cost $3,000, and will cost more to make now.   

$2500 to plaintiff.

Illegal Tenant Trouble-Plaintiff ex-tenant was unhappy renting property from defendants, and wants her rent back.     Plaintiff saw the place before she rented, and still stayed there for six months.     Security deposit was $450, and paid rent every month.   Security was not returned, because tenant left without notice.   

Property was not legal to occupy, and there was no damage, so security of $450 is given to plaintiff.

Second-

The Weaponization of Child Protective Services-Plaintiff suing defendant / ex-girlfriend for bail money, and for false reports to CPS.  Defendant was arrested for perjury.    Defendant claims plaintiff called CPS twice on her, but they are anonymous.      Defendant claims she has text messages from plaintiff threatening to call CPS, but she does not have proof.   

There is a police report that plaintiff said defendant let her child with scabies, and measles around other children.    If that's true CPS should have done something about Carberry (defendant).  Defendant case dismissed.   Defendant told CPS that plaintiff offered both of their daughters marijuana.    How would defendant know?   She was incarcerated at the time.  

Plaintiff bailed defendant out of jail for perjury, and obstruction of justice.  Plaintiff gets bail money $617.  

Tax Fraud Conspiracy-Plaintiff suing painter for damage to home interior.   There is an unsigned contract, for $3800, and work changes from plaintiff changed final bill to $5550.   Defendant says plaintiff wanted bill date changed to January so she could deduct it on her taxes (yes, they both admitted to conspiracy to commit tax fraud on national tv.   Hope that IRS agent they assign to watch court shows caught this one).

Work was completed in November 2017, and invoice dated January 2018.    The pictures of the finished paint job are current, but the paint was done over two years ago.    I wonder what the plaintiff cleaned the basement trim with?   It looks like she used a solvent, and that could certainly make the paint melt.   Two year old paint is not going to still be liquid like that.    Defendant has texts from plaintiff saying how much she loves the paint job.   

Plaintiff gets zero.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

You Get What You Paint For!-Plaintiff suing painter for a paint job she only gave him five days to finish.    Plaintiff suing for money she paid defendant to paint her house, property damage, legal fees, and mental anguish, totaling $5,000.   Plaintiff paid $4511 to paint house inside and out, and only gave him five days to finish the paint job.    Defendant has a full time job, so the painting was only a side job.   Plaintiff previously received two other estimates, about $6300, and it was about $2000 or $1800 less than the defendant's price.    Three bedrooms, hallway, foyer, pantry, ceiling in the living room, and the exterior, and some wall paper had to be removed in foyer, and two other rooms.    Defendant worked for 13 total days. 

Plaintiff paid $2350 for the paint job from the other painter she hired to finish.     $1003 was paid by defendant for materials, and all materials were used.      The money plaintiff paid the two painters was still less than the two estimates she received from other painters.   After 18 days the realtor called defendant and said the paint job was amateur.   Defendant says plaintiff and husband were in house during the painting, but said nothing about paint job.  Plaintiff's witness just won't stop chiming in.     

Defendant tried to put a mechanic's lien on the house.    

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant's counter claim dismissed because he refused to come back and fix the work.  

Don't Fence Me In!-Plaintiff suing neighbor homeowner,  and tenant for damages to a fence, and harassment.    Plaintiff and defendants both own their respective homes.    They have been fighting, and plaintiff claims defendants have been harassing him for years.    Plaintiff asked defendant to pay half of the money on a joint fence eight years ago.    Fence has rotted again, and plaintiff wants the defendant home owner to pay half on another fence, and defendant refuses to build the retaining wall, to control water effects on the fence, so the next fence will rot out quickly again.   defendant's property.   Plaintiff says the way defendant tenant waters is toss a hose out, and it runs a lot.   

JJ asks plaintiff why he doesn't build a more durable fence on his side of the property line (cyclone, or chain link fence).   Plaintiff says defendant property is higher than his yard, so there would still be an erosion problem.   Plaintiff will not stop whining about the water erosion by the defendants. 

Defendant would save money if she paid half on the retaining wall, and replaced the fence, because the fence should last for many years. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second-

Stuck With the Bill Behind Bars-Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-girlfriend for a cable bill defendant put in his name, while he was incarcerated, plus his clothes and tools.      Plaintiff agreed to cable bill in his name, as long as defendant paid the bill, because they were going to live together when he left jail (that didn't happen).     

Defendant says plaintiff asked for care packages from the commissary at prison.   Defendant claims plaintiff said he would pay her back for the packages out of his income tax refund.   Defendant says all she has left that belongs to the plaintiff is a drill.  (You can't tell me defendant didn't sell plaintiff's tools)

Plaintiff gets his drill back, and other bills cancel each other out. 

Lyrical Lips Singer Scam-Plaintiff suing former business partners for death threats, breach of contract, and other garbage.    Everyone claims they were defamed.   Plaintiff is a so-called singer (fortunately, on JJ's show I don't have to hear her sing).     Plaintiff claims defendants were supposed to pay half for everything.   Plaintiff's performing name is "Lyrical Lips".    There were no proceeds to split, and the only recording was a single song.   There is a 3 album minimum to make the contract in effect.   

It only cost $40 to produce the one song.   Plus, it costs plaintiff $50 for some appearance, but she was supposed to sell a certain number of tickets to pay this, and she didn't sell tickets.      Plaintiff had to pay for her hair and makeup, for publicity photos, photos were paid for the photo shoot.    Plaintiff wants graphics for a non-existent album cover.   Plaintiff paid $20 for studio time, and defendants paid over $200 for the single song recording session.    Plaintiff claims she had a photo shoot at the defendant's request, and claims defendant never paid for the photos.   However, defendant has proof he paid for the photo shoot.   (Isn't it illegal to pay a radio station or DJ to play your music?   It's called Payola). 

Case is dismissed, and plaintiff gets $20.      (Why am I suspicious that Lyrical Lips came on this show for publicity?)

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Advocate Against Horse Slaughter-(I've seen the blog in question)-An award winning Racing, and Equestrian writer says she was slandered in the defendant's blog,     Plaintiff claims blog said she knew about race horses being sent to Mexico for slaughter, and sues for bullying by the blogger. Plaintiff thinks the blog posting was actually written by the defendant, and not another writer on the blog.   Plaintiff hired a private investigator, who found out the blog, and the posting were both from the same IP address.    Margaret Ransom has a lot to lose from this blog posting, and is very well known in the Thoroughbred industry as a writer.     

Jennifer Marek, (writing under the name of Shedrow Confessions)  defendant wants legal fees, because she had to hire an attorney to fight the plaintiff's case.    Marek's two witnesses in court, both claim she's not the blogger, but have no proof. 

However, my guess is that a posting would have to be from the same IP address, no matter who wrote it, because the blog is probably posted from the same computer, no matter the original source.       Defendant claims she didn't write the article in question, but refuses to name who is, so she loses.   

There are no legal slaughter houses in the U.S., and horses are sent to Mexico or Canada for slaughter for human consumption.    In the racing industry, anyone who funnels race horses for slaughter is in big trouble.   Just being hinted about being linked to sending racehorses to slaughter is the kiss of death for a horse industry person, so I can see why she was willing to pay for the investigator, and sue in court.  

Plaintiff was researching a specific San Diego TB rescue (rescue was shut down, and there is an on going investigation into it's operations, and animal cruelty allegations).     

Defendant refuses to name the blog posting writer, so she loses her case.  Defendant also claims plaintiff and her boyfriend threaten people.     Plaintiff awarded $5,000.   (Audience applauds).  

Second-

You'll Get Dizzy From All the Lying-Plaintiff claims she financed an iPhone, and an iPad for the defendant.   The two became friends at work, defendant had bad credit, and plaintiff put her on Verizon account, financing both devices.     $1684 was the cost of the devices, and defendant promised to pay monthly.  The two had a fight at work, over some loser boyfriend.   Then plaintiff told defendant to pay it off in the next 60 days.      Plaintiffs neck and chest are now hideously red and blotchy.     60 days aren't up,    Defendant claims she dropped the devices at work for plaintiff to pick up, and they disappeared, so she doesn't want to pay for them.    

Defendant told to call the workplace, and find out if anyone has the devices, and claims the manager, Laura has them in a safe at work.   Then the story is changed, and defendant now says Laura wasn't involved, and they weren't locked in the safe.   Plaintiff is asking for payment for the iPhone, iPad, and cancellation fees, $1680.   

$1295 to plaintiff.

Clueless Mechanic or Clever Thief-Plaintiff suing former mechanic for stealing his truck.   Defendant worked on truck in June, and a while later the plaintiff was driving truck was hit head on by another driver, and truck was towed.   Plaintiff claims mechanic received his truck, but later claims he doesn't have it.     Plaintiff claims defendant said on the phone that he had the truck, and there is a text that defendant will finish the work on the truck soon. 

 $2200 for plaintiff, truck can't be found.

(Next week there are new cases listed, one each on Monday through Wednesday, and two each on Thursday and Friday)

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Baby's Ashes Stolen?!-Plaintiff and defendant are fighting over some incarcerated jailbird (his name is Famous, incarcerated on a gun charge) that fathered children with both of them.  Plaintiff claims defendant  suing for theft of baby's ashes, false restraining orders, false CPS charges, and harassment. Plaintiff is SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four), who has been unemployed for years, and is going to school.  She was advised not to work by attorneys, because she's suing for medical malpractice over the baby's death.     SSI gave one child a back payment, so plaintiff MOther of the Year bought a Mazda 5, that Famous used to give people rides for money.    Famous has been in jail fairly often.   One complaint is defendant called CPS, and said Famous was molesting one of the children, and that plaintiff was on drugs (no proof about who called CPS).

Defendant, SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three, three boys, apparently with Famous) is a home health aide.    As JJ says, anyone who posts filth like the defendant shouldn't be taking care of elderly, vulnerable people.   Vernisha Nelson says her oldest son won't be like Famous, "because he plays Soccer".     Defendant claims plaintiff sent nude pictures of defendant to all of Famous' friends, and how would plaintiff get naked pictures of defendant?   

Plaintiff claims defendant broke in to her house, and stole her baby's ashes.    Plaintiff claims she has over 1,000 texts from defendant, and there is a text saying defendant stole the baby's ashes, because of something over defendant's brother.   However, ashes were left on plaintiff's doorstep after the theft.  

When the ashes were stolen Famous was boinking plaintiff, and staying with defendant at the time too.    Plaintiff claims defendant climbed through her window, but window is small, and high up, so how did she climb in?     Plaintiff had a restraining order against defendant, so why is plaintiff texting to defendant after that was issued, and going to defendant's children's doctors appointments with Famous? 

Plaintiff loves Famous, and I guess defendant does.   Defendant claims plaintiff has a husband besides Famous, but plaintiff still claims to love Famous.

Case dismissed.  

Daughter's Bad Behavior Battle-Plaintiff suing former roommate for balance of a lease, and the security deposit (apartment was in Florida).    Defendant suing for same garbage.    Plaintiff and daughter, plus defendant moved in together.    Plaintiff's daughter is a 20 year old brat, and misbehaved in the apartment, so defendant finally said daughter goes, or I move out, so defendant moved out.    Plaintiff claims her daughter is still a brat, but improving.   Plaintiff wants the balance of the lease, but plaintiff lived in the condo by herself, sometimes with daughter, so that's dismissed.

Security deposit was a month's rent.  After defendant moved out, plaintiff never had another roommate. Defendant will have to pay half of the months rent, but will get half of the security deposit.  

$735 for security deposit to defendant.    Both litigants will sign check in front of JJ's staff attorney, made payable to the attorney, and he will allot the money to defendant.    Defendant says there was a ton of drug use by plaintiff's daughter, and undesirable friends from daughter, so defendant moved.  

Second-

Land Thief?!-Plaintiff put in labor clearing out land he was promised by defendant, suing for non-payment of work performed on her property.   Defendant sold land to someone else, after plaintiff cleared the land.    Sadly, real property has to be done in writing, but it wasn't in this case.   Land was $38k, for 8.3 acres, for plaintiff to buy from defendant.   Plaintiff went on the land, cleared out a lot of junk and weeds.   Plaintiff wants to be compensated for work done before the sale, and defendant gave him permission to go on the property, but that doesn't mean a written contract.  Litigants had no contract about the land sale, or clearing the land.  

Too bad for plaintiff he worked on property for 3 1/2 months, and never received anything.  

Case dismissed. 

Blown Stop Sign Slam?!-Plaintiff suing other driver for broad siding his car.   Defendant hit the rear of plaintiff's car, and defendant claims plaintiff was next to her.   However, defendant pulled up to a stop sign, claims she looks all directions, then plaintiff was traveling through, and defendent hit him.    Police report says defendant was at a stop sign, and came in the intersection, and hit the plaintiff.   Defendant's insurance company refused to cover the damages to plaintiff's car.  

Plaintiff receives $1390 for car damage.

Fender Bender Battle!-Plaintiff and husband suing over parking lot fender bender.    Plaintiff wife was driving, and car was insured.   Defendant's insurance just lapsed,     Defendant backed into plaintiff in parking lot, but as usual, claims plaintiff hit him.      Defendant was backing out of a parking space when the collision happened.   Plaintiff was entering the parking lot, going straight, and defendant backed out of his parking space.      Defendant claims he was coming into the parking lot from another direction, and claims plaintiff hit his car while they were racing to the parking lot.    Police didn't ask defendant for proof of insurance.  

Plaintiff receives $1391

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Stroke Victim's Frivolous Family Fight-Plaintiff is adult sister suing her defendant brother and daughter for a 26 year old car that belonged to mother who had stroke.      Plaintiff is mother's guardian, and is in assisted living.    Car was defendant's before mother had stroke, or had a guardian.    Defendant acknowledges that he will pay for Aerostar van.   

JJ doesn't see car as a gift, so defendant will have to purchase it from the mother's estate when it comes to that.      Plaintiff won't shut up, and keeps refusing to admit the car sale should be split 3 ways, when the mother passes on.         Since the van wasn't a gift, or sale, then it goes back to the mother's possession.   Plaintiff wants half of the money, in spite of the fact there is another sibling, and she doesn't want that sibling to get anything.     (Welcome to a preview of when the mother dies).

Case dismissed. 

Photo Cookie Bust-Plaintiff (Andre Samoel?) suing defendant advertising that she would do photo cookies for his work event, but did nothing, partly because she had a cold.   The cookies were for a Christmas party for the business, and would have photos of the three business partners to be given out at the party.      It was $110 for three dozen cookies.  Also, defendant isn't the producer of the cookies, but buys them from someone else, and advertises them as her product.  

Defendant (Katie Lovell) is whining about plaintiff posting nasty things about her cookies, and service.   Plaintiff proves that the photo on her company web page advertising cookies uses the image from someone else's cookies online, that she took from pinterest.   

The plaintiff's witnesses are having hysterics sitting in the witness chair, and are the best part of the case.    (The defendant should have given the money back, to avoid this exposure of her cookie business, and how she conducts it.)

Plaintiff gets $110 back.    

Second-

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

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

I hope defendants do sell it for a halfway house, or operate one there themselves.    They will never be able to sell with the adverse possession of plaintiff, and her trespassing to a regular home buyer.    When you have to get a restraining order, it's not going to go well with potential buyers.    

Both cases dismissed.  

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

$5,000 to grandmother.  

(Next week Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday they're showing one new case each day, and Thursday and Friday two new cases)

[Florinaldo]

22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Photo Cookie Bust-

I understood that the defendant used a stock picture for her Facebook page; she mentioned something about taking it from a magazine. Stock or public domain pictures are a common practice, but it is something we never do for our own Web business and we discourage our clients from doing so on their sites. If you do, you expose yourself to interpretations like the one by JJ, who probably does not have a micro-seed of an idea of what the very basic concept of stock or generic pictures represents.

Plaintiffs certainly took their very petty claim to heart and went to extremes to pursue it; in the process, you could say that they made a croquembouche pièce montée out of a cookie.

31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Neighbor Resorts to Stockade Privacy Protection

Who in their right mind would give kookie plaintiff a machete as a gift?

Those neighbours are all PITAs and probably enjoy needling each other over trivial matters that could be resolved with just a short good faith discussion.

[Ashforth]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Land Thief?!-Plaintiff put in labor clearing out land he was promised by defendant, suing for non-payment of work performed on her property.   Defendant sold land to someone else, after plaintiff cleared the land.    Sadly, real property has to be done in writing, but it wasn't in this case.   Land was $38k, for 8.3 acres, for plaintiff to buy from defendant.   Plaintiff went on the land, cleared out a lot of junk and weeds.   Plaintiff wants to be compensated for work done before the sale, and defendant gave him permission to go on the property, but that doesn't mean a written contract.  Litigants had no contract about the land sale, or clearing the land.  

Too bad for plaintiff he worked on property for 3 1/2 months, and never received anything.  

Case dismissed. 

I thought the Plaintiff was terrifying. There was something off about the way he kept repeating the same things. His refusal to accept anything JJ said and the look on his face when he threatened in the hallterview that this isn't over. I could see him stalking and harming the Defendant.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I hope to never see or hear about the bad behaving daughter ever again.    Her mother was an enabling fool, and the daughter scared the hell out of me.      

I think the fence people gave the prune neighbor a machete hoping she'll fall off of a roof on it, ending their problems with her.    

Both sides of the land case were bizarre.   The plaintiff has way too much rage, and the defendant was a total snake.     The man should have demanded a signed contract before he did anything, and the defendant is lucky no one got hurt working on that land, or she would have been responsible.  

The cookie woman should have had a real invoice with date of delivery, and she should clearly say on her website, and fb, that she's the order middleman, not the cookie baker, and decorator.    I can see why the plaintiff was angry, it was the principle of the thing, not the $110.    Defendant never did seem to get the point, that advertising a product that you don't make yourself should say that on the website.       The plaintiff's partners/witnesses were very close to falling out of their chairs laughing.  

Edited October 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Attack Victim Cradles Pit Bull Like a Baby?!-Plaintiff suing neighbor / pit bull owner for being a total a-hole for vet bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.   Plaintiff says pit bull attacked him and his dog, as usual, defendant says dog was tethered to a tree in her front yard, and couldn't have attacked the man unless he came in her front yard.     Plaintiff has a Malamute, and Husky (both are over 7 years old, so rather old for the breeds).  Plaintiff was walking his dogs on the street, then he hears dog claws, sees the garage and house door open, the dog bit the plaintiff on the hand, then pit latched onto plaintiff's dog's leg, and bite the plaintiff's hand again.    He carried the dog to the house, was bleeding profusely, but defendant denies her dog every bit anyone or another dog.   

Defendant claims her dog was left in the house, and she let it out when she returned, and claims dog was tethered to a tree in the front yard, but then says she let dog out, but it was leashed at all times.    (Defendant is full of ca-ca isn't she?)   Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and her retired policeman hubby lied to police that he had been assaulted in his house by plaintiff.

After plaintiff returned home from the hospital for the hand injury, the police were waiting for him because of the false assault complaint.       

Oh no! The defendant has a 4 year old child, so please tell me we don't get the sad grandpa letter.   Defendant doesn't give a flip about the letter.     

You know what happened, the husband and kids went in the house, they left the door open while she was unloading, and the pit bull got out.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

Two Lemon Cars = Lemonade-Plaintiff suing co-worker for breach of contract, cost of replacement title, and something else.   Plaintiff had two cars she was selling, and defendant was to purchase both for $3,000, and pay $100 twice a month until paid off.  Defendant claims one car wasn't running, and he made three payments, and returned cars to a garage for plaintiff to pick up.     Plaintiff said she bought one recently to use for parts for the other car (they had bad body damages).     Plaintiff received $400, and both cars are still sitting at the gas station.  

Plaintiff repossessed the car, and one title is in the car.   The cars have been at the garage parking lot for three months.

JJ refuses to pay plaintiff, tells her to go get the cars.

Second-

Ex-Boyfriend's Attack Caught on Video?!-Plaintiff alleges assault (on the best example of over-acting and flopping since the last World Cup) by ex-boyfriend, and wants money for a dispute over a horse trailer.    Plaintiff and defendant were in a relationship for several years, and both were involved with horse, and jointly purchased a trailer, and truck to pull it.   Both went in on the down payment, but plaintiff claims he made the monthly payments.   Someone took over the truck payments, so that's ended.    However, trailer was to be paid to defendant at $800 a month, and plaintiff wants his $5,000 back he paid, because of the interest rate the trailer originally cost $10k, and still has $9k left on the note.  

The litigants never married.    Trailer is in defendant's name, so JJ suggests they sell the trailer, and if they make anything over $9k, they split it.  Plaintiff will not get $5,000 in payments back.    This is where the video of the 'assault' is submitted, to support plaintiff's claims about assault.   Plaintiff bought another trailer, and his payments will be considered as rent.    

The two litigants had a horse business, and both still are i  

Plaintiff filed for a restraining order, supported by the pathetic video.   Restraining order application is submitted by the defendant.    Plaintiff is such a liar.    Plaintiff never received an order of protection from judge, it was dismissed with prejudice, after testimony, and a hearing.   

JJ says the video is a set up.  

Case is dismissed for both litigants. 

Don't Act Like a Baby!-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for unpaid rent. LItigants rented a 2 bedroom, 1 bath, and plaintiff still lives in the apartment.

Defendant didn't pay for October $275, and $475 full rent for September.   Defendant also moved her boyfriend in, and boyfriend wasn't on the lease, and never paid rent either.   Plaintiff wants his $750 rent back.    Defendant claims she was forced to move into the apartment, and sign a lease.  Defendant claims the plaintiff moved in a day early, and it surprised her.   She also claims plaintiff paid the rent without telling her.   Defendant signed the lease.   

Plaintiff receives $775 for the rent. 

Failed Engagement Fallout-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for return of money paid for a car, and a wedding ring.   Each litigant put down half on the car, $1600 each, and they broke up a year later, and defendant kept the car.      Each person bought a wedding band, and each still has their own, and JJ said to sell them.    

The two litigants paid $1600 each for the 17 year old car, drove it for a year, and JJ says to sell it, and split the proceeds.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Judge Shares Grand Children's Misadventures!-Plaintiff suing defendants for a dog bite that occurred in a party in defendant and son's home.   

Plot twist, plaintiff says it cost $7,000 for her plastic surgery for her bite, but her father is a plastic surgeon, and did the surgery.  Party was when defendant's parents were out of town, Defendant son had the party, and some visitors brought booze of their own.   Party goers brought their own booze, and no food, to soak up the booze.     Dog was older, and has died of old age after this incident (The party and bite were almost two years ago). 

JJ tells the story about stolen dinghies by drunken teenage partiers, when her grandchild had a party. 

ER wasn't covered because it was out of network, and the surgical place was actually daddy's practice of plastic surgery.   As JJ says, why didn't plaintiff go home to have her father look at the bite?   The ER visit was $3,000 that would have been covered by plaintiff's family health insurance through Kaiser, but Cedars-Sinai was out of network.   

Plaintiff is asking for $7,000 for 5 stitches put in by her father.   

Let me guess why plaintiff didn't go home, she was drunk off of her gourd.

Plaintiff receives $1500 for pain and suffering only.  

Freewheeling Landlord!-Plaintiff suing for return of a security deposit for a used car lot he was leasing from the defendant.    Security deposit was $10k at the beginning of the lease, and at the end of the lease defendant kept $4700 from the security deposit.   Defendant says during the lease the plaintiff didn't pay for trash, and water, and one month's electricity ($77).     

Defendant says lease calls for trash and water payments by plaintiff.    It says on lease within 10 days of bill receipt they will be sent to the plaintiff for payment.      Instead of doing this defendant deducted the bills from the security deposit. 

Plaintiff receives his $4700 

Second (Rerun)-(Graphic dog attack in the first case)

Thanksgiving Pit Bull Terrorism-Kind people invited a family friend, her stupid boyfriend, and his 11 year old to Thanksgiving dinner, which is also the female plaintiff's birthday.    The defendant claims he asked for permission to bring the dog, an hour before arriving with Cujo. 

  The defendant had the dog for an entire month before this happened, and dog was about 3 years old.    Plaintiff was invited a month before Thanksgiving.   As JJ says, don't bring your dog to someone's house without an invitation.      

Defendant claims Pit was defending itself against a 3 pound Yorkie, and it's all prejudice against Pit Bulls.  

During the visit, Cujo the Pit Bull is in the back yard, the 3 pound Yorkie was attacked, and Cujo killed the Yorkie in front of the horrified Thanksgiving diners, including the female defendant who had the dog for 12 years.   

Idiot defendant still makes endless excuses how the Yorkie attacked his dog (bet the P.B. was unneutered too), and the P.B. was defending itself. 

There were no vet bills, and the defendant seems really happy about that, because he thinks the fact the poor little dog died in the yard without seeing a vet will let his sorry butt off the hook.       

Pit Bull owner hall-terview is pathetic.    Bet defendant still has the dog, and still tries to drag it to every event he can.    Defendant thinks saying the dog was playing with children right before the attack, not a defense either.    After their behavior during and after the attack, and in court, the defendants would never be on my property again.  

JJ has several articles taped to her desk top about fatal P.B. attacks, and reams the loser a new one, and awards the plaintiffs $5,000. 

Mysterious Mexican Van Vacation-Plaintiff is suing for damages to her house and garage. after cancelled Mexican vacation defendant woman retrieved her van from their garage by breaking in. 

Defendant woman has the cheapest wig I've seen in a long time, probably from the producers big bag of disguises.   

Plaintiff claims after busted vacation to Mexico, the Defendant's stole their van from the locked garage at the plaintiff's house, and broke into her house.    Defendant and plaintiff had a huge fight, defendant came home early, and the van was 'stolen' out of the garage, and garage was damaged.   

There is a phony witness for the plaintiff who saw someone breaking into the garage, but since he didn't call the police, JJ tells him he's a liar, and he is.   The defendant's claim the plaintiff told them to break into her garage to get the van out, another lie.     These people are all nuts, and I suspect the cheap liquor in Mexico was a great incentive to take that vacation there, and probably fueled every argument they had. 

Defendants also want travel expenses, and claim their van was outside of the locked garage, even though no one had been home to get the van out of the garage.     Defendant claims her van was parked outside the garage when she came back early from Mexico, and her lying witness agrees.   I guess the van didn't like being in the dark, so it forced it's way outside?  

Plaintiff gets $1,500 for the door damage.

(Very little plastic surgery is paid for by insurance.    Maybe for a reconstruction after cancer surgery, or after an accident, but not five stitches for a dog bite on the arm.)  

Edited October 27, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[nora1992]

Anyone else think the plastic surgeon’s bill might have been a wee bit inflated for court?  But what does it say about  a doctor who puts the family on an insurance plan that doesn’t cover his services?  How do the everyday patients pay?

[Chellichik]

25 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

Anyone else think the plastic surgeon’s bill might have been a wee bit inflated for court?  But what does it say about  a doctor who puts the family on an insurance plan that doesn’t cover his services?  How do the everyday patients pay?

Absolutely!  That plaintiff was full of crap.  No way did she pay her DAD $7000 for 5 stitches.  Honestly, I'm surprised JJ gave her $1500 for pain and suffering.  I would have given her maybe $500 at the very most.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

The cookie woman should have had a real invoice with date of delivery, and she should clearly say on her website, and fb, that she's the order middleman, not the cookie baker, and decorator

This case reminded me of the infamous Amy's Baking Co. episode of Gordon Ramsay's show. She too displayed a ton of fancy baked goods, but she did claim to have baked them. Apparently she did not

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Bullhorn Craziness Caught on Tape?!-Plaintiff (Francis "Steven" Hesley) suing neighbor for false charges, harassment, and property damages.    Defendant (Sheila Blazofsky)  thinks it's normal to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech by screaming filth at plaintiff with a bullhorn.    First incident was defendant was trimming branches on her side of the fence, but trimmings were falling on plaintiff's side of the fence.   Plaintiff talked to defendant about picking up the trimmings, and defendant responded with a lot of profanity.   JJ calling them twigs is mean.    This garbage has been going on since 2014.   In 2015 (after defendant's sad story of being ill for years, after being hit by a drunk driver).     After the profane tirade the plaintiff called the police about garbage on plaintiff's yard, and the profanity.   Nothing happened with the police in 2014. 

Plaintiff claims piles of debris are left in his yard by defendant.  Trash piles were larger branches, flip flops, wood, soccer ball.  Video of defendant screaming at plaintiff from the sidewalk with her bullhorn.      Defendant has a filthy mouth.  Police again did nothing, but in many jurisdictions screaming profanity is arrest offense.     (I would not be surprised to find out defendant ends up filing often against others). 

Defendant complained about plaintiff to newspapers, mayor, city attorney, and anyone else who couldn't escape her.  JJ is wrong, the defendant dumping stuff in plaintiff's yard is ridiculous, and inexcusable.   

Cases dismissed.   (Plaintiff should sell, but expect the buyer to sue him for non-disclosure of the defendant).  (This show is dated 2017, so this has been going on for over 3 years). 

Sublet Sorrow-Plaintiff suing Charly Cadet for unpaid rent on a subleased apartment.    Defendant was leasing a condo, right after he signed it, he wanted to move, and found the plaintiff to rent it from August through May, with three months remaining on the lease.   

Plaintiff said she would take over lease from August through May, and defendant said he would pay the lease in May, June, and July.   However, Charly didn't pay the last three month the way he promised to.     Defendant wasn't getting an awards letter, and couldn't stay in student house.

$1233 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Cousin Helping Cousin Catastrophe-Plaintiff moved into cousin's place with her furniture into her cousin's home, and now he won't give it back.  She claims she left a domestic violence situation.   Plaintiff suing for stealing her belongings, and filing a false police report against her.  Cousin's witness (his girlfriend) says plaintiff didn't move in before her furniture was moved in. 

 Defendant says plaintiff moved a lot more furniture into his house than he agreed to.  Plaintiff moved in items from her storage unit, into the plaintiff's empty apartment.     Plaintiff wants bed, and couch  back, car parts and rims, and defendant claims plaintiff gave him the couch.  Car parts are for remote controlled cars.    

Defendant says plaintiff never moved in, she just put her furniture in an empty apartment he either owned, or rented.   Plaintiff has five days to pick up bed and couch from defendant's with a marshal's help.     Plaintiff doesn't want her bed back, and wants the money instead, and she's not getting that.   

Plaintiff will get her couch back if she retrieves it in five days.   Restraining order case thrown out.  

Don't Run Away if You Did Nothing Wrong-Plaintiff (car owner) suing car owner, and driver over an automobile accident.   Plaintiff's daughter was driving, plaintiff's car.   Defendant's friend was driving defendant's car, and he fled the scene after the accident.   Defendant driver says he went to get help, because he had no cell phone, and he was distraught.    Plus, he forgot his cell phone at home (no one in the audience with a cell phone, left it at home today, after JJ asks.   I'm not that cell phone dependent, but a month or so ago I went to the store without my phone, and felt lost).   Defendant was over a mile away when he contacted the car owner/defendant.  

Car owner defendant claims insurance company contacted defendant car owner.   However, police report says they contacted the defendant car owner, who claimed to the police that she sold the car to a stranger, and she had no way to contact him.  (Does defendant driver even have a valid license?  His eyes point two different directions, and I wonder if he can even focus). 

Defendant driver claims plaintiff ran a stop sign, but if that happened, plaintiff daughter/driver should have been cited by police.     Why would driver flee if it wasn't his fault?    Defendant car owner still has the title to the car.   Defendant car owner claims she was going to meet defendant, and exchange money, and the title.   Defendant used to date the defendant driver.

Plaintiff driver claims she stopped at stop sign, but defendant driver was driving at 9:30 p.m. with his headlights off.  Defendant driver hit the plaintiff car, knocked her off the road, and into someone's yard.    Then, when plaintiff driver and passenger went to check on other driver, he fled the scene at high speed.    Defendant driver was never contacted by police, because defendant car owner lied to them.   If the man stole her car, then why didn't she file a police report?   Defendants are such liars.     JJ doesn't believe plaintiff didn't run the stop sign.  Defendant claims he had automatic headlights.   Plaintiff car hit the defendant's passenger door.   (I hope the police saw this tape, and charged him with leaving the scene of an accident, no insurance, and anything else.   I hope they charged the plaintiff driver with running a stop sign too). 

Case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Coronavirus Charity Case!-Plaintiff (William Reed) suing former roommate for return of rent, and constructive eviction because defendant made plaintiff's life miserable.     Room for plaintiff was paid for by a charitable organization, Lutheran Services and they paid six months rent in advance.   Plaintiff said his home burned down.  Rent was $600 a month according to plaintiff, but $800 a month according to defendant.  

Defendant (William Quigley) says he received $4800 over six months, from Lutheran Services.  Defendant has rented rooms in his home before, and had another tenant for a few months.   In March the rent from Lutheran Services ran out, and because of Covid plaintiff claims he couldn't be evicted.    Defendant is claiming for damage to property, and rent after 31 March.     Plaintiff had five roommates in his previous home that burned down.  Plaintiff says he always had a job, has a car he's still paying on, and is still employed.    Plaintiff stays for two full months after his lease, and the Lutheran Services money ran out.        Plaintiff's mother pays his car insurance, and car payment.  JJ will call mommy.  

Wow! She's calling from her bench!     

Plaintiff claims defendant locked him out, but defendant says he took plaintiff's key but doors weren't locked.   JJ says plaintiff doesn't qualify for the Covid eviction moratorium.     Plaintiff was never unemployed for 2 1/2 years before this case, had someone paying his car note, and insurance.               Damages claimed by defendant are flooring, (I'm not liking either litigant, and I'm very irritated with the defendant).

Plaintiff is now living in an Airbnb in Long Beach, and before that he was in a Hilton, since he left defendant's home.   Plaintiff pays $60 a night, and pays well over twice what defendant's place cost.

Everything dismissed.  The plaintiff is so deluded it's scary.   

Second (Rerun)-

Random Vandalism or Hillary Clinton Attack?-This is the Austin area case, where the plaintiff's (Dianne Arnett Becker) Toyota Highlander was parked at the giant movie theater multiplex, and defendant scratched the daylights out of her car.   There was a 6' plus scratch on the driver's side, and a 2' scratch on the hood.    There was curb on the passenger side, and the aisle was on the driver's side.   

The witness thought the defendant had locked his keys in his car, and she heard the loud scratching noise.    The witness saw one of the scratches on the car, the man walked toward the theater, met a couple of people, and they walked back to the man's car, and got in.      Witness wrote down the license plate number, and the police found him.   (How nice of the woman to witness what she saw).   Plaintiff witness says she saw Albert Harral  at the car, and he was with two younger people.     Since witness is a teacher I don't think she would mistake defendant's girlfriend and son with younger people.   

The bizarre fact is the defendant didn't stay for the movie, but went to another theater instead.    

JJ has girlfriend of defendant wait outside.

Plaintiff claims she never saw the defendant before, had no encounters, or parking issues with him.   

Plaintiff had a Hillary bumper sticker, and it is suspect that it  may have been the motive for the attack on the car.  

Defendant claims he got the wrong theater, with a similar name, and the witness/girlfriend looked up the movie time and theater.  

Defendant girlfriend testifies that she didn't look up anything about the movie.  She also says they've been at that specific multiplex half a dozen times.      Defendant went and parked the car, at the end of the parking lot.     They went to the other theater, bought tickets, and the theater was full, so they didn't see the movie.   What a bunch of liars. 

Plaintiff gets $2,622.22 and JJ thanks the plaintiff's witness. 

[TVMovieBuff]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Coronavirus Charity Case!-Plaintiff (William Reed) suing former roommate for return of rent, and constructive eviction because defendant made plaintiff's life miserable.     Room for plaintiff was paid for by a charitable organization, Lutheran Services and they paid six months rent in advance.   Plaintiff said his home burned down.  Rent was $600 a month according to plaintiff, but $800 a month according to defendant.  

Defendant (William Quigley) says he received $4800 over six months, from Lutheran Services.  Defendant has rented rooms in his home before, and had another tenant for a few months.   In March the rent from Lutheran Services ran out, and because of Covid plaintiff claims he couldn't be evicted.    Defendant is claiming for damage to property, and rent after 31 March.     Plaintiff had five roommates in his previous home that burned down.  Plaintiff says he always had a job, has a car he's still paying on, and is still employed.    Plaintiff stays for two full months after his lease, and the Lutheran Services money ran out.        Plaintiff's mother pays his car insurance, and car payment.  JJ will call mommy.  

Wow! She's calling from her bench!     

Plaintiff claims defendant locked him out, but defendant says he took plaintiff's key but doors weren't locked.   JJ says plaintiff doesn't qualify for the Covid eviction moratorium.     Plaintiff was never unemployed for 2 1/2 years before this case, had someone paying his car note, and insurance.               Damages claimed by defendant are flooring, (I'm not liking either litigant, and I'm very irritated with the defendant).

Plaintiff is now living in an Airbnb in Long Beach, and before that he was in a Hilton, since he left defendant's home.   Plaintiff pays $60 a night, and pays well over twice what defendant's place cost.

Everything dismissed.  The plaintiff is so deluded it's scary.   

Second (Rerun)-

Random Vandalism or Hillary Clinton Attack?-This is the Austin area case, where the plaintiff's (Dianne Arnett Becker) Toyota Highlander was parked at the giant movie theater multiplex, and defendant scratched the daylights out of her car.   There was a 6' plus scratch on the driver's side, and a 2' scratch on the hood.    There was curb on the passenger side, and the aisle was on the driver's side.   

The witness thought the defendant had locked his keys in his car, and she heard the loud scratching noise.    The witness saw one of the scratches on the car, the man walked toward the theater, met a couple of people, and they walked back to the man's car, and got in.      Witness wrote down the license plate number, and the police found him.   (How nice of the woman to witness what she saw).   Plaintiff witness says she saw Albert Harral  at the car, and he was with two younger people.     Since witness is a teacher I don't think she would mistake defendant's girlfriend and son with younger people.   

The bizarre fact is the defendant didn't stay for the movie, but went to another theater instead.    

JJ has girlfriend of defendant wait outside.

Plaintiff claims she never saw the defendant before, had no encounters, or parking issues with him.   

Plaintiff had a Hillary bumper sticker, and it is suspect that it  may have been the motive for the attack on the car.  

Defendant claims he got the wrong theater, with a similar name, and the witness/girlfriend looked up the movie time and theater.  

Defendant girlfriend testifies that she didn't look up anything about the movie.  She also says they've been at that specific multiplex half a dozen times.      Defendant went and parked the car, at the end of the parking lot.     They went to the other theater, bought tickets, and the theater was full, so they didn't see the movie.   What a bunch of liars. 

Plaintiff gets $2,622.22 and JJ thanks the plaintiff's witness. 

This case about the movie theater/ scratched car is my favorite JJ case ever! It is my third time seeing it. 

That defendant is a sleazeball. The kind that you don't suspect. A snake in the grass. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

[zillabreeze]

5 hours ago, TVMovieBuff said:

This case about the movie theater/ scratched car is my favorite JJ case ever! It is my third time seeing it. 

That defendant is a sleazeball. The kind that you don't suspect. A snake in the grass. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

 

Ooh mine too!   A JJ shining moment when she looked Mrs. MAGA, with the Hilary Hating AH boyfriend dead in the eye and told her to dump his sorry ass.

But, as we know, she prob did not.  Que the rally call of Court TV Idiot Women:. "An asshole is better than being alone"

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

WTF?  Sorry, CrazyinAlabama.  I can't get your quote right & can't delete.

And, just me or did JJ start looking like a hologram?

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by zillabreeze

[Brattinella]

This defendant lady is trying very hard to be Kim Kardashian.

 

[zillabreeze]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff is so deluded it's scary.   

I call BS on both of them.  Plaintiff had figured out how to grift charities and then decided that would be his chosen career.  IMO, lately "Uber" means "doing nothing".

I miss the olden days when JJ would say "it doesn't look like you've missed any meals".

Defendent got (and blew through) his upfront charity money and when he realized he couldn't soak anymore, want the P outta there.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Dogsitting Disaster!-(or according to my spell check Dog Sitting Disaster!)- Plaintiff (Cheryl Wilhite)  suing for vet bills, lost wages, and punitive damages, $5,000.   Plaintiff suing defendant who was dog sitting for her four dogs, however defendant took the four dogs to her house, and one dog got out (twice), and another dog was attacked by defendant's dog (dog later died).    Defendant claims she didn't like how the dogs were kept, and didn't want to stay at plaintiff's apartment, with twice a day visits.    Defendant is counter suing for harassment. 

Defendant claims plaintiff agreed to let defendant take the dogs to her home.    Plaintiff claims defendant and adult daughter agreed to visit twice a day to take care of the dogs.    Photo of dogs was on plaintiff's phone, and was dropped and destroyed.   Defendant's phone also croaked in a recent flood.   This all happened in 2015, and plaintiff took a couple of years to sue.   Defendant says plaintiff's injured dog also hurt defendant's dog.     Plaintiff saw a photo of her four dogs at defendant's house, but never demanded that her dogs be taken back to plaintiff's apartment/house, or interrupted her vacation and returned home early.    If plaintiff wasn't cheap, then her dogs would have been safe at a boarding kennel.    (Hunky Officer Byrd has to tell both litigants to shut it.   Both litigants need their filthy mouths washed out with soap too).

Vet bills for plaintiff are dismissed, no evidence of date, and whole case sounds rotten.

Cases dismissed. 

Surprise! We're Squatters?!-Plaintiffs  are suing former landlord for illegal eviction, and damages.     Defendant landlord (rental house) wants unpaid rent, damages, lock changing fees, and harassment..    Rent was $525 a month, and security was supposed to be $125, but defendant says security was never paid, and plaintiff claims he paid $1,000 security, but has no proof.     

Then when some work was being done at rental house, plaintiffs claim that defendant told them they could stay in another house for two weeks, but stayed three weeks.   Defendant claims he had access to the lockboxes because he's some kind of property manager.   However, actual home owner showed up at her house, discovered plaintiffs squatting in her house, called the police, and plaintiffs were removed.    Defendant had access to the lock box at the second house.

Plaintiffs went to a hotel until they found another place to rent.   They didn't pay May or June.  Plaintiffs claim they lost their jobs, bank account overdrawn, and other junk.

There was never a written lease for the house. Defendant has no proof of POA for owner, or other documents.   Defendant was actually renting the house, and sublet to plaintiffs (I'm guessing illegally). 

Case dismissed. 

Second-

Puppy Mill Advocacy Gone Wrong-Plaintiff photographer did a photo shoot of defendant's grandson for free, so she could use the photos for promoting her photography business.  Then, defendant (Amy Mahalko) had a cow over the fact that plaintiff did exactly what she said she would with the photo.     Then, defendant used the photos (copyright is the photographer/plaintiff's) herself for some anti-puppy mill campaign, with the photographer's logo on it, so people can assume that photographer is in line with the advocacy the grandmother put on it.    Then grandmother posted the same advocacy statement, and picture without the logo on her own facebook page. 

Defendant daughter claims that she never received any free photos, in return for the photo shoot. (On a rotten personal note, grandmother and daughter are both butt ugly, inside and out.   Also, daughter's dress had big purple beads on the neck and chest, and that's hideous too.  Grandmother has a bunch of beads too, how tacky.  Apparently love of dark purple everything is a family trait in defendant's family).   Daughter of defendant had a previous paid, family photo shoot with the photographer.  

At the time of the court case, the photo without the logo/watermark, and advocacy statement is still up all over the internet. 

Grandmother made a big boo-boo trying to school JJ on Illinois law on photography.   

Also, since the photos are all over the internet with the advocacy statement, then plaintiff can't use them for her business.  As JJ points out, the defendant daughter probably planned the photo theft all along.  The alterations the defendant made to the photo rendered it useless for the promotion.   

Defendants ridiculous counter claim is dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $500 for defendants' transgressions, and $30 for the session. 

Then, the hall-terview is hysterical.   The defendant mother and grandmother say that not having the photos available will kill defendant's son, and grandson, who is autistic.   This is, because he won't be able to see the photographer, and grandson gets attached to people.   

$530 to plaintiff.  

Say No to the Dress...and the Married Man-Plaintiff suing her former fiance, he gave her a check, and it bounced ($750), and the cost of a wedding dress.      By the way, plaintiff is a SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Five), and her intended Prince Charming is still married to someone else.    Plaintiff is still making payments on her wedding dress, what a fool she is.   Plaintiff made loans to married defendant/fiance, and the one check defendant gave plaintiff bounced.  The check from defendant is one of those phony internet scam checks. 

JJ tells fool plaintiff to stop paying for wedding dress, because defendant is still married (by the way, no refunds on wedding dresses).    Defendant's check is an internet check, from someone he doesn't know, and he claims plaintiff volunteered to cash it.   (Nasty personal question, Does defendant have any teeth?   I don't think so).     Also, defendant claims plaintiff would visit him without an invitation.   

The ridiculous sobs from plaintiff over her lost loser married boyfriend are ridiculous.   (If I am ever this stupid and desperate, I expect one of you to come to my home, and slap some sense back into me)

$750 to plaintiff for the bounced check, and everything else dismissed.   (I've had it with the desperate people who throw money at some loser.   I wouldn't have given plaintiff a penny.)

Edited October 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Brutal Vandalism for Parking Mistake!-Plaintiff suing neighbor for damages to her car after plaintiff (Jessica Camacho) accidentally parked in defendant's spot.   Plaintiff's assigned parking space is #60, and defendant's is #64 (Jennifer Rumps-Miller).      Plaintiff came home one night, and parked in defendant's parking space, and she had lived in the complex for six months.  Defendant is alleged to have poured detergent on the car, keyed the car, ripped off all three windshield wipers,  Defendant claims she only poured mild detergent on plaintiff's windshield, to express her displeasure, and left a note about parking in the wrong space.   (How do you accidentally part in spot 64 when you're assigned 60, or visa versa, after living there, and parking in that garage for six months?  Plaintiff is a jerk, but defendant is a much bigger jerk). 

The next day about noon, plaintiff came to look for her car, realized she parked in the wrong spot.   Claims there was laundry detergent all over the windshield, and windshield wipers broken off.   Pictures show liquid detergent on the windshield, and on the car sides, and down the doors. 

Two women met in the complex office.   Plaintiff paid $250 to fix the windshield wipers (two front, one back).    Plaintiff wants all vents flushed, because of the detergent.    Plaintiff claims car was dented, and car keyed, but it's not in the police report.  

Plaintiff sued for $4,000.   The after picture after detergent washed off shows corroded black trim, and blue stained car paint and decals.  (I'm not liking either litigant.   Defendant's apologies are pathetic.  Now defendant says she broke one windshield wiper blade, and arm (or whatever the metal piece that holds the blade is called). 

I think driving to the show today was not good for the plaintiff, because staff will go out and photograph car.   Why is defendant still whining?   We all know the show pays the award.   Staffer photo shows some trim corrosion, and car finish is now matte, not shiny.   (Sorry JJ, I think defendant did exactly what she intended to do) (Also, defendant needs to get her hair color fixed). 

Plaintiff receives $3500

Second (Rerun)-

Innocent Black Youth Threatened by Police?!-Defendant kid (12 years old) accused of breaking iPhone of other student.   Defendant's parents say police bullied kid into confessing, and even if his kid did break the phone, the school policy is the girl with the phone shouldn't have had it in school anyway.   Plaintiff claims his daughter's phone was broken by defendant kid.   

Defendant claims he found phone on floor in class, and tried to find the owner, claims Isaiah (some kid) said it was his phone, tried to grab the phone, and smashed the phone and threw it into the trash.     Defendant kid says no parents were there when he was questioned, but he said he broke the phone to school admin. and police (I'm guessing School Resource Officer).     

Defendant father says he can't find Isaiah's last name.   (So his kid doesn't know the kid's name?).   I think it's crucial to find out if Isaiah exists, and if Isaiah is really a bully.     Defendant mother says in the police report that she will give the plaintiff $400 for the phone.    The school didn't contact the defendant parents, the police contacted the mother, and she agreed to the payment.   Mom has all kinds of excuses why she couldn't locate Isaiah, and so does the father.      

Why didn't the kid hand the phone to the teacher?   

$400 to plaintiff.

The last time this ran, I think we were evenly split over the kid didn't do it, and the ones (like me) who thought he was another Eddie Haskell (Leave it to Beaver).    If anyone doesn't know who Eddie Haskell is, he's a rotten teen who pretends to be super polite, but is actually behind everything that goes wrong.

Botox Me Baby!-Plaintiff suing defendant for trampoline, loans for botox, and bills from a Care card (plaintiff co-signed).    Defendant woman who was short on funds (unemployed at the time) was desperate to get botox.       Plus, defendant wanted a trampoline, two years ago (JJ said stuff it).   Both women went to Vegas for defendant's kid's cheer competition, and never paid her half of the bill. 

Credit card collections statement is all the plaintiff has to prove bill, and no itemized bill.   

I suspect a scam attempt by both women to get more botox money.   

$400 for botox, $225 for hotel = $625 for plaintiff.

Edited October 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 10/26/2020 at 9:58 PM, Chellichik said:

On 10/26/2020 at 9:31 PM, nora1992 said:

Anyone else think the plastic surgeon’s bill might have been a wee bit inflated for court?  But what does it say about  a doctor who puts the family on an insurance plan that doesn’t cover his services?  How do the everyday patients pay?

Absolutely!  That plaintiff was full of crap.  No way did she pay her DAD $7000 for 5 stitches.  Honestly, I'm surprised JJ gave her $1500 for pain and suffering.  I would have given her maybe $500 at the very most.

I'd have given her $1.00

[One Tough Cookie]

On 10/27/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Coronavirus Charity Case!-Plaintiff (William Reed

so .frigging . annoying.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Brutal Vandalism for Parking Mistake!-Plaintiff suing neighbor for damages to her car after plaintiff (Jessica Camacho) accidentally parked in defendant's spot.   Plaintiff's assigned parking space is #60, and defendant's is #64 (Jennifer Rumps-Miller).      Plaintiff came home one night, and parked in defendant's parking space, and she had lived in the complex for six months.  Defendant is alleged to have poured detergent on the car, keyed the car, ripped off all three windshield wipers,  Defendant claims she only poured mild detergent on plaintiff's windshield, to express her displeasure, and left a note about parking in the wrong space.   

The next day about noon, plaintiff came to look for her car, realized she parked in the wrong spot.   Claims there was laundry detergent all over the windshield, and windshield wipers broken off.   Pictures show liquid detergent on the windshield, and on the car sides, and down the doors. 

Two women met in the complex office.   Plaintiff paid $250 to fix the windshield wipers (two front, one back).    Plaintiff wants all vents flushed, because of the detergent.    Plaintiff claims car was dented, and car keyed, but it's not in the police report.  

Plaintiff sued for $4,000.   The after picture after detergent washed off shows corroded black trim, and blue stained car paint and decals.  (I'm not liking either litigant.   Defendant's apologies are pathetic.  Now defendant says she broke one windshield wiper blade, and arm (or whatever the metal piece that holds the blade is called). 

I think driving to the show today was not good for the plaintiff, because staff will go out and photograph car.   Why is defendant still whining?   We all know the show pays the award.   Staffer photo shows some trim corrosion, and car finish is now matte, not shiny.   (Sorry JJ, I think defendant did exactly what she intended to do) (Also, defendant needs to get her hair color fixed). 

Plaintiff receives $3500

Boo hiss hated both these litigants. P caused the ruckus - how do you 'mistakedly' park in someone's assigned spot after living there 6 months? - then she was really reaching trying for bonanza money...... OTOH D has anger issues and WAY over acted - fine leave a note, but ripping off wipers on both front and back, then pouring straight undiluted laundry soap all over the car - yeah, I can totally believe P's paint, especially a clear coat finish, was messed up as P didn't discovered the deed for several hours. I was fine with D losing (even though she won'the actually pay) and not impressed with her admitting she done did P wrong 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

not impressed with her admitting she done did P

Yep, I hated the defendant, she did the whole phoney "I did something wrong but I am really sorry and will never do it again" schtick. I didn't buy it, she was a complete lying piece of trash. When she said that she took pictures of the plaintiff's car because she "was concerned that this would in some way come back against her" was a real giveaway, duh! how dare someone come after her for her malicious vandalism of someone's car.

Edited October 29, 2020 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Child Abuse Allegations and Assault?-Plaintiff Melissa Washington) suing sister-in-law for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering after an assault.    Plaintiff has two children (Ages 2 and 3) with husband, and they are divorcing.    Plaintiff and husband (Jared Washington) are supposed to swap weekends, but that doesn't happen too often.   SIL says plaintiff was trespassing, and assaulted her first (Assiria Washington).   This wasn't the first custody exchange at defendant's home.      Defendant says she tried to press trespass charges before this occasion, two months before, however, owners of house say they told plaintiff to stay off of their property.   Former husband has a DUI, and doesn't drive.    

Trespass claim thrown out.    Plaintiff pulled up in front of house, and uncle (home owner), opened door, and plaintiff mentioned one kid (Apollo) had a scab on knee.    When plaintiff came on Sunday morning to pick up both children at ex's family home, at the usual time.   Jared, ex husband asked what happened to the baby's knee.,, answered as day care by plaintiff.    Uncle let plaintiff in, and when plaintiff saw more scratches on the 2 year old's legs, plaintiff asked what happened to the youngest.      Defendant ex said he would talk to plaintiff later, and discuss it calmly and privately, plaintiff refused to stop yelling.    Plaintiff followed ex-husband, his mother, SIL, outside to their car, with plaintiff with two kids with her.   Both parents were acting badly in front of little children.    Plaintiff was yelling at everyone, including her former mother-in-law.   

Plaintiff took youngest child to ER that day, not admitted, or anything but antibiotic ointment.    (My guess, plaintiff is trying to get visitation cancelled with ex-husband, but keep child support coming in).

Continued on another episode. tomorrow afternoon.   

Second-

Spiteful Grandpa?-Plaintiff suing his son's girlfriend, for unpaid loan to pay vet bills for son's dog, and unauthorized credit card charges.    Defendant and boyfriend have been a couple for five years.     Son has daughter, and some charges are supposed to be for child.   Granddaughter is living with grandfather/plaintiff, but she doesn't see her father (defense witness) for the last year.    Plaintiff says son called, and for a vet bill for his dog would cost almost $600, and so plaintiff signed application for care credit, and the bill was charged to Care Credit card.    Defendant gets $3500 a month for alimony, but not child support (4 grown kids), and alimony stops when she remarries the defendant witness.  

Defendant woman claims the credit payment was a gift, not a loan.   Defendant woman claims fiance/plaintiff's son used father's credit card Care Credit to charge at the pharmacy for a lot of items.    Son admits to using the card, not his fiance.    Recliner cost $399 plus tax, and vet bill was $242, plus various charges by son (plaintiff's not able to sue defendant woman for boyfriend's charges).    Care Credit card was maxed out by January for vet bill, and charges by defendant man.  Son/defendant doesn't seem to think credit card charges aren't real money.

$242 to plaintiff for vet bill.  

Timber!  Healthy Tree Takedown!-Plaintiff suing neighbor for damaging his fence and storage shed when neighbor chopped down a tree.  Defendant chopped down tree at his rental property, next to plaintiff's property.    Defendant hired tree removal company, tree roots were causing a problem according to defendant.   Plaintiff says he never complained about the tree, and says tree was healthy.   Defendant hired some woman who had a handywoman service, and they took the tree down, nailing the fence and metal shed.   

Plaintiff says defendant claimed he could pay for fence, but didn't pay.    Defendant claims he had fence repaired months ago, but plaintiff says it was a minimal patch job.      Then plaintiff put up new fence to replay patched, damaged fence.   There are no photos of the repaired fence, before plaintiff paid to have fence replaced.    (Shed looks very old and rusty, fence was probably about 20 years old, and falling apart.  However, that doesn't give defendant right to smash them to hell either). 

Case dismissed.   

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes both new-

First (New)-

Scorned Lovers Gang Up on Cheating Boyfriend?!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend over his use of her credit cards for a business defendant was starting.   Defendant is living with Baby Mama #2, has another kid (11) with another Baby Mama.     Defendant has been living with Baby Mama #2 for 2 years, but has been dating plaintiff for a long time.    In last September defendant moved into the plaintiff's apartment, and lived there full time.   Then plaintiff was contacted by one of the other girlfriends (mother of 2 year old, Baby Mama #2).     Plaintiff and baby mama #2 met in person.   

Defendant claims he wasn't ever living with plaintiff, just Baby Mama #2.   He also denies buying anything for himself with plaintiff's credit card.  Plaintiff paid $3100 for defendant's insurance, but defendant claims he didn't ask her to.      

Plaintiff will get nothing, money wasn't a loan.

Nasty Driver Pays the Price?!-Plaintiff suing fellow motorist for an accident in a shopping center parking lot.    Both drivers were looking for a parking place in the lot, plaintiff's car was insured, and defendant claims she was also.      Plaintiff says he was parking in a space, when defendant whacked into his car trying to beat him to the space.    Plaintiff says defendant looked like she was turning down another aisle, went beyond the empty space, suddenly reversed, floored it, and hit his car.   

Plaintiff tried to contact defendant's insurance company, and the insurance company informed him that defendant's insurance wasn't valid.   When litigants had the accident there was a vacant space, and for the bigger car driven by defendant she had to back up a little, because she backed into him.

Plaintiff receives $719. 

Second (New)-

Vandalism Caught on Tape at Senior Center!-Plaintiff is suing former upstairs neighbor at senior complex for moving expenses from (Michael Thal) defendant's slander and harassment.    In 2016 plaintiff moved into the complex, and defendant already lived there for 10 years.     Plaintiff claims because of false accusations by defendant that she was told to leave.    First conflict was when defendant did a background check on plaintiff, and shared everything on that record with all of the neighbors.     Defendant claims plaintiff was asking about who had security cameras, and defendant was upset by that.    

Defendant claims two bikes were stolen a month before plaintiff's garage sale (it was at her church, not in her apartment), and he emailed to the manager that plaintiff was a drunk and having a garage sale in the alley.    Defendant said that plaintiff was probably selling the stolen bikes.  Plaintiff has the email about the yard sale allegations, and that defendant says she's a drunk, when she hasn't had a drink in six years.  Defendant said plaintiff was throwing two cases of beer bottles in the trash daily, if that's not calling someone a drunk then I don't know what is. 

Defendant called police about plaintiff glaring at defendant's security camera.     Defendant claims he heard on his camera he was spying on neighbors with that plaintiff was going to cut him, so he called police.    How predictable that no one else hears her say that on the recording.    Plaintiff claims defendant slammed the metal security door on her, when he came to her home to berate her.    Defendant also does background checks on anyone he's mad at.    

Plaintiff's sister is a witness when defendant made the allegations about the threat.    Plaintiff's son has mental issues, and she has a restraining order against him, and when he shows up she calls the police and has him arrested or trespassed off the property.     Son doesn't have address where plaintiff moved to after the eviction.   Defendant caught son kicking neighbor's car on his camera.     Attack by son was reported to management, and defendant sent the video copy to them of the son's vandalism.    Just because defendant's security camera caught an actual crime once, doesn't make his 24/7 monitoring good.    How many cameras does the defendant have on ?

Reason for plaintiff's eviction was because of the problems with her son, they also cited another incident that wasn't the son.    As JJ says, she isn't sure the complex had the right to evict her when the person was a non-resident that plaintiff had a restraining order against.     

I'm just glad I don't live near the defendant, because he's a big pain.   I felt sorry for the plaintiff because of the son, but I wouldn't want to live near her either. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

(Tomorrow's second new case is a dog attack).

     

Edited October 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Oh my, JJ is in rare form. First case all she cares about is how foolish P was and how big a man-slut D is with his various baby mamas and P - JJ really doesn't establish any facts or who is lying, but stories couldn't be more different -  from the ruling JJ had already decided their was never a loan and isn't going to listen as P tries to show evidence he had made a couple big payments....... Not sure what she saw outside the courtroom, but I have no clue if these two ever lived together, if there was a loan, or WTH happened 

2nd case Begins the same way with JJ attacking litigants - this one about a parking lot collision, and JJ goes on attack like somebody didn't have insurance, even though it appears both had insurance - sounds like parking lot version of road rage as the two were driving up and down jockeying to be first in the next empty space - anyway, P says D, who was in front of him, saw an empty space and tried to back up so she could get into space and needed to back up to make it into space - I figure instead of him backing up and letting her back up, he stops and starts honking horn and yelling out window - they collide and P has over $700 in damage - his deductible is too high to cover it, and she tells her insurance he ran into her not that she backed into him - both behaved poorly and should split cost........ JJ still on her rant, rules against D and orders P get full amount, then ignores P as he tries to get more money for lost wages

next episode is grumpy old folks feuding at the senior living center apparently they're drunks, thefts, cops involved, restraining orders, arrests, evictions, the whole enchilada.......... I may come back and watch, but for now I'm just thankful not to live anywhere near these two

Edited October 30, 2020 by SRTouch

[parrotfeathers]

On 10/26/2020 at 8:58 PM, Chellichik said:

Absolutely!  That plaintiff was full of crap.  No way did she pay her DAD $7000 for 5 stitches.  Honestly, I'm surprised JJ gave her $1500 for pain and suffering.  I would have given her maybe $500 at the very most.

Saw that one today.  Was she not quite the idiot on national TV.   Wonder what daddy's customers think of him now.

I would have not given her anything but a raking over the coals.

[configdotsys]

On 10/28/2020 at 6:49 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant father says he can't find Isaiah's last name.   (So his kid doesn't know the kid's name?).   I think it's crucial to find out if Isaiah exists, and if Isaiah is really a bully.     Defendant mother says in the police report that she will give the plaintiff $400 for the phone.    The school didn't contact the defendant parents, the police contacted the mother, and she agreed to the payment.   Mom has all kinds of excuses why she couldn't locate Isaiah, and so does the father.      

When I was in grade school, there were kids in my grade that I never really spoke to, but I knew everyone's name. You see the same kids every day, there are class trips, etc. My high school was gigantic and I knew who just about everyone was. Why did JJ not ask the girl if she knows who Isaiah is? At least JJ would know he exists if she did. So this happened before spring break. Okay, when school resumed, the parents just let it drop until they got a summons in the mail and even at that point did not attempt to identify Isaiah to see what went down?

I didn't get a mean vibe from the kid defendant but maybe he, and perhaps Isaiah thought it was funny to smash the phone. His parents were worse. They were not open to admitting that their kid had some responsibility. There was a case not too, too long ago where a girl yeeted a backpack and broke a girl's Chromebook. The girl and her mother claimed that someone named Joaquin threw the bag to her feet and then another kid told her to yeet it and she did. JJ told the defendant mom that she was certainly within her right to sue Joaquin for half the cost of the computer since no one could prove which throw broke it. She should have told the parents that they could sue Isaiah for half if they were both involved in breaking the phone. 

The plastic surgery dog bite victim looked pissed after she got the $1500. I agree with the poster who said she should have gotten a dollar. 

The son in the evicted lady/busybody neighbor case was one scary dude.

Edited October 30, 2020 by configdotsys
double talk

[Burning Rubber]

Ugh, today's smirking defendant really got under my skin!

[VartanFan]

Quote

On 10/28/2020 at 5:46 PM, zillabreeze said:

Defendent got (and blew through) his upfront charity money and when he realized he couldn't soak anymore, want the P outta there.

 

While I think the D - bootleg Kevin Cronin or bootleg Lindsay Buckingham - was happy for the initial easy money, this P knew he was going to have to pay for himself after February.  He was working Uber all those 6 months and couldn’t put together whatever the rent was during that time while having to pay NO other bills?  You were right that the P has figured out the scam.  Then he decided he would just take advantage of the anti-eviction laws because of Covid.  Yuck.

I wanted to drop kick the broken-armed, scumbag defendant in the face.  If the P did have some evidence of him paying it back, JJ should have listened.  I’m wondering what we don’t know about the additional context (that they don’t show).  

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm just glad I don't live near the defendant, because he's a big pain.

I think both litigants would be equally nightmarish to have as neighbours.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

19 hours ago, configdotsys said:

The plastic surgery dog bite victim looked pissed after she got the $1500. I agree with the poster who said she should have gotten a dollar. 

Wasn't it her arm that was sewn up? She needed a plastic surgeon for that? I've always had the ER doctor sew me up and done fine (stuff like my hands, etc). As long as it wasn't a facial injury (like a lip where a plastic surgeon needs to line up the lip line). And who "charges" their own kid to sew them up? Oh, perhaps the plastic surgeon looking for a bo-nan-za from the defendant. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-First one is part two of yesterdays part one, so I'm pasting that in first.

 

(Child Abuse Allegations and Assault?-Plaintiff Melissa Washington) suing sister-in-law for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering after an assault.    Plaintiff has two children (Ages 2 and 3) with husband, and they are divorcing.    Plaintiff and husband (Jared Washington) are supposed to swap weekends, but that doesn't happen too often.   SIL says plaintiff was trespassing, and assaulted her first (Assiria Washington).   This wasn't the first custody exchange at defendant's home.      Defendant says she tried to press trespass charges before this occasion, two months before, however, owners of house say they told plaintiff to stay off of their property.   Former husband has a DUI, and doesn't drive.    

Trespass claim thrown out.    Plaintiff pulled up in front of house, and uncle (home owner), opened door, and plaintiff mentioned one kid (Apollo) had a scab on knee.    When plaintiff came on Sunday morning to pick up both children at ex's family home, at the usual time.   Jared, ex husband asked what happened to the baby's knee.,, answered as day care by plaintiff.    Uncle let plaintiff in, and when plaintiff saw more scratches on the 2 year old's legs, plaintiff asked what happened to the youngest.      Defendant ex said he would talk to plaintiff later, and discuss it calmly and privately, plaintiff refused to stop yelling.    Plaintiff followed ex-husband, his mother, SIL, outside to their car, with plaintiff with two kids with her.   Both parents were acting badly in front of little children.    Plaintiff was yelling at everyone, including her former mother-in-law.   

Plaintiff took youngest child to ER that day, not admitted, or anything but antibiotic ointment.    (My guess, plaintiff is trying to get visitation cancelled with ex-husband, but keep child support coming in).   Case continued below in first episode.

First-

Street Cat Fight in Front of Children?-(part 2 of this revolting tale of family brawlers, part 1 from yesterday reprinted above)-Plaintiff, a soon to be ex-wife (Melissa Washington) is suing her soon to be ex-sister-in-law (Assiria Washington) for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering after an assault.   Ex-husband (Jared Washington), ex SIL, and her family all live at the house where plaintiff came to pick up the 2 and 3 year old after weekend visitation.   SIL/defendant claims an assault by plaintiff, and claims plaintiff hit first.   

Defendant/ex-husband says both litigants were yelling insults at each other, and then plaintiff put 2 year old in the middle of the street, and a neighbor picked up the 2 year old out of the street (Apollo).     Plaintiff says she was arguing with the SIL/defendant (plaintiff was carrying the 2 year old, and dragging the 3 year old along), when SIL and MIL yelled at her, and claims SIL broke plaintiff's nose and busted her lip.   

Plaintiff filed for a protective order, and it's granted for a year, unless SIL requests a hearing, so order was in effect for one year.    Parents do exchanges at McDonalds (good choice, they have cameras).    Plaintiff picture is bad, and defendant has no photos of her injuries.  My conclusion is SIL can really land a punch.     

Plaintiff should have stayed off the defendant's property, and out of their house.   The soon to be exes should have arranged the McDonald's handoffs much sooner.  Defendant says plaintiff dropped the 2 year old in the street, leaving the 3 year old alone, and a neighbor picked the little boy out of the street.     JJ disbelieves the SIL/defendant's police report, and defendant claims plaintiff ripped out chunks of hair. 

Bet Officer Byrd, and security guards are on high alert through this, and Officer Byrd has to tell litigants to shut up, and calm down.    

$3700 to plaintiff. (So JJ rewarded plaintiff for dropping her 2 year old in the street so she could brawl?)

Young Waitress Dupes Older Man?-Plaintiff (59 year old) suing defendant/restaurant server (20 years old) for an unpaid loan to buy a laptop computer.   Defendant says it was a gift.   Plaintiff was a regular customer at the restaurant, and defendant was a server at a Hooters style restaurant where the servers wear costumes, lingerie, and she claims they were friendly.    Plaintiff was gullible, but defendant was a predator. 

Defendant says she thinks plaintiff wanted to sleep with her for the computer.    Defendant claims computer was a gift, in return for possible sex.   (Big surprise if she turns out to be an aspiring actress).     Honestly, in my view there is no written contract, and I bet there was no real expectation of repayment for plaintiff.  After computer purchase, defendant dumped customers. 

Computer cost $2300, no payments were made by defendant.   

Plaintiff receives $2436.

Second-

Slashed Tires and Stolen iPhone?-Plaintiff suing former friend for stealing her iPhone 7.    Plaintiff was supposed to babysit for defendant in return for the iPhone, she accidentally left her phone at defendant's apartment, the two argued,  and defendant refuses to return it.  Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and only a police report was filed, no medical report.      Phone cost plaintiff $ Defendant filed yesterday for a restraining order.    Plaintiff claims she was supposed to baby sit the defendant's kids on three overnight occasions.    Plaintiff was also supposed to accept one package at her place for defendant, but many other pieces of mail come to plaintiff's address for defendant under a variety of names (sounds like a scammer to me).

Defendant claims plaintiff slashed her tires twice, and has no witness to that.

There is a temporary order of protection against plaintiff until a hearing.   

Everything dismissed. 

Moving Violations Bonanza!-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid car tickets, impound fees, toll fees, towing fees, and one month's car payment.   Plaintiff bought new car, but still had $12,000 remaining on old car (she had car for two years), and defendant took the car over until it was paid off.  However, plaintiff's name was on loan, and registration, and he received proof that defendant racked up over sixteen tickets that plaintiff has proof of.   Defendant claims she only had two parking tickets.    There are red light tickets, parking tickets, several speeding, bus lane parking, expired parking meters, and other violations, adding up to $1900+.      Car was impounded because defendant parked illegally, and plaintiff kept car after he got car out of impound.     JJ tells defendant that it's the equivalent of car rent.    Defendant claims car was going to be discharged in bankruptcy, and she didn't have to keep paying for car, or the tickets.

Plaintiff claims defendant did nothing for the tickets, and he didn't have to pay the other tickets to get the car out of impound in Chicago.   Plaintiff says there were over 30 tickets total on the car, and he paid 14 of them to get car out of impound.    Car loan wasn't discharged in bankruptcy, because plaintiff had bankruptcy application cancelled.   However, plaintiff has to reregister car in a month, and will have to pay the other $1900+ at that time to re-register the car.     

Defendant claims she notified plaintiff of car impound, but plaintiff has texts from defendant .

$2551 to plaintiff. 

 

 

[One Tough Cookie]

re: Pain and suffering--don't ANY of the idiots watch the show and realize P&S is awarded .999999% of  the time?

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. new episodes-

First (New)-

Gay Pride Activist Denies Felony Charges!-Plaintiff suing event promoter for fees owed for a performance, and bank fees.  Plaintiff says he performed with band at event for defendant, and defendant paid him with two checks that both bounced.     Plaintiff says defendant paid his some money.    Performance was at event, and pay for staging, lighting, and sound, plus performance fees.     $1500 for bank, $4,000 for sound, and other things.   Defendant wrote two checks for $750 each, and they bounced at the bank.  

Defendant says checks were returned because his account had too little money, because he thought that the charity sponsorships would pay him enough to cover the checks.    Plaintiff says defendant eventually paid his $950, and there's another bad check from defendant too.   Third check was to sound guy for $2,000, and plaintiff covered the check to sound man with his own funds.

So $2550 remaining on balance due, plus bank fees.   Lawrence "LP" Lawrence stiffed the sound guy for $2,000 too, and admits that.  Defendant is lucky the two men didn't file criminal charges against him for check kiting, a felony.

Plaintiff receives $2550 for banks, plus fees of $10 totaling, $2560.

Covid-19 Stimulus Check Stolen?!-Plaintiff (Derrick Anders Jr) suing his former friend for stealing his stimulus money from his bank account.   Plaintiff received $1200 from IRS electronically.   Deposit was through "Cash APP" on plaintiff's phone, after he applied on the IRS website (what a shock plaintiff is a singer/songwriter, entrepreneur).   Defendant's bow tie is very crooked, and it's driving me nuts (yes, it's a short trip).

Plaintiff claims defendant (Tevin Warfield) stole $1100 of the $1200 from the Cash App.      (The giggling by the defendant is very irritating, and makes him sound guilty)   Tevin is also known as "Little Poochy Daddy" online.

Personally, I think the defendant's laughing, and giggling is so irritating, he should be thrown out of court right now.  (I found both litigants so irritating that I wish Officer Byrd had taken the Fly Swatter of Justice to drive them out of the court room). 

Plaintiff case dismissed for lack of proof.     

Second (New)-

The Reason Judge Judy Never Goes to Dog Parks!-Plaintiff (Jemma Coster)dog owner suing other dog owner for attack at a dog park.     Defendant only had a dog (Michael Daniels)  for six weeks.   Plaintiff has two dogs, a rat terrier/Boston Terrier mix, and another small Chi cross. Defendant claims his 90 lbs Golden / Lab Cross didn't attack, and didn't hurt the dog.      Plaintiff took her dogs to the large dog area (30 lb minimum), because the 22 lb taller dog. Ellie, likes to play with larger dogs.    

Plaintiff took dogs to the small dog side, and went through the gate to the large dog side, and both dogs went to play for about 30 minutes.    Plaintiff sat down by the park entrance, with her two dogs, and then defendant came in the park.    Plaintiff claims defendant dog went after a Whippet (a fragile 10 lb dog) , and Whippet and owner left the park after harassment from defendant's dog.    Then plaintiff claims defendant's dog growled at,  and was aggressive towards the Australian Shepherd, and dogs were barking at each other. (My question, so why didn't plaintiff grab her dogs and leave?)     

Plaintiff put her dogs on their split leash, and went to leave, when defendant's dog came after her dogs.     So 22 lbs Ellie was on leash, and 90 lbs defendant dog charged plaintiff's dogs, bite Ellie, and plaintiff says Ellie was picked up in defendant dog's mouth.   

Lying defendant's story is he let Golden/Lab off leash at park, and does admit the Whippet was scared by defendant's dog, and owner took Whippet and left immediately.     (Why are these small, fragile dogs in the big dog park).    Defendant's story is plaintiff dog barked and lunged at his dog, and attacked his dog.  

There are two issues to me.  First, why did plaintiff, and others have tiny dogs in the large dog side, and why didn't she leave when she saw the larger dog go after other dogs?   The other one is what does defendant's dog have to do before he stops bringing his dog to the dog park?    Or leash his dog when it went after two other dogs in the dog park, before it went after plaintiffs dogs?   

Defendant claims the second incident with the Australian Shepherd,  was about a minute after the Whippet incident, then the third attack happened, resulting in the horrible injuries to plaintiff's dog.   

Defendant claims his dog bit the plaintiff's small dog, but didn't really hurt the dog.   Defendant claims the plaintiff dog was the aggressor. Defendant claims he had nine training sessions with the new dog before the attack.    I'm wondering where the defendant got the dog from, and why he was available?    

Vet bills are $4591.     Ellie had a chest puncture, and crushed ribs.    JJ says you assume a certain risk going to the dog park, and disregard the small/large dog areas at your own risk.     How can the defendant claim his dog isn't vicious after three attacks in a short time?    

50/50 blame, so plaintiff gets half, $2296. (I'm betting both litigants are still taking risks.    The plaintiff is probably still taking her dogs to the big dog side, and Cujo the 90 lb mauler is still tackling, and growling at dogs any time he wants to).  (I'm also wondering why an adult Golden/Lab cross [I'm doubting the accuracy of the breed mix too] was available, and why 9 dog training sessions?).      There are some aggressive Lab/Golden crosses, but I've never seen one that's aggressive the way the dog in this case is.    They usually (I had one of those crosses for years) are hell on rats if they corner one, but they don't even kill things, except by accident.      I suspect either there was pit in the mix or a Cur type dog, which can be very animal aggressive.     I'm hoping plaintiff made reports to animal control, along with the Whippet, and Australian Shepherd owners.    

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama