All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. both new-

First (New)-

Puppy Death by Rat Poisoning?!-Plaintiffs Deric and Nicole Trotter are suing neighbor Kevin Edquist over the death of their dog from poison.  There is a wall between the two homes, and it's always been there.   The plaintiffs dog was a Schnoodle puppy, which stayed out in the block walled yard, and plaintiffs say the defendant's rat poison from months before poisoned and killed their dog.    Plaintiffs paid $350 for the puppy.

In August the puppy was sick, and later in the day Loki was lethargic  in the morning, and hours later they took the dog to the vet.   There is a vet report from one blood test at the vet, and plaintiff wife can't find it.   Plaintiffs blamed the illness on rat poison, and told the vet that, but vet says neurological defects, impaired breathing, had issues walking, and breathing.    The vet says toxin, but doesn't say what toxin.    Animal control has a report, with plaintiffs blaming the defendant's rat poison from a while before this happened.    There is no confirmation of the toxin, what kind of poisoning, or why the dog died.  

Plaintiffs claim defendant put the poison over the fence, and poisoned their dog deliberately.      ANimal control says the dog had green looking feces for two weeks before the death.   There is no way the green pellets I bet were used wouldn't kill the little dog much faster than two weeks.   Animal Control said there is no evidence of poisoning, and defendant didn't do anything deliberate.     There is no proof that the little dog was poisoned by anything the defendant did.     Plaintiff feeds raw food, so I wonder if it was Salmonella, or other fatal food poisoning?   E Coli is also possible.   

Plaintiffs claim that defendant puts poison on their property, but defendant says he puts it on his side of the property line, over the last 10 to 12 years.    The plaintiffs will never stop claiming the defendant killed their dog, did it deliberately, because otherwise they have to admit it was something they fed, or the dog got access to on their property.   Defendant says he hadn't used the rat poison for a long time before the dog died.   With most rat poison, the animal bleeds out, it doesn't linger for weeks.  

As JJ says the plaintiffs have to prove the dog died of a toxin, and that the defendant did it.   The plaintiffs proved nothing, but do show they have no grasp of reality.   

Yes, the dog poisoning sounds more like the pool chemicals being dropped, or the puppy could have eaten almost anything.   I wonder what the plaintiffs have around for fertilizing the lawn.   My Azalea food is chemically based, and it's bright green, there's also an organic form, but I don't know what it looks like.     The fact the dog feces had some bright green color on two occasions in the previous weeks means to me that it wasn't rat poison.   

With the most commonly used rat poison the animal bleeds out, it doesn't have strychnine or other poisons these days.   Whatever eats the poison dies very quickly, and a tiny puppy would have died the same day probably, and been severely ill immediately  My guess is that the plaintiffs will never stop harassing the man next door over any slight.     So the plaintiffs claim the defendant trespassed in their yard, planted rat poison, tied it to the vines with zip ties, and only one dog got sick?    That's ridiculous.   They're just trying to find someone else to blame for the dog's death, and I bet the truth is in their garden shed, or somewhere else where they store things.  

My guess is the next place the two sides will meet is over the restraining order the defendant will have to get against the plaintiffs.   I hope he gets security cameras.   And that vine that covers the common wall?    I would cut it right on the property line, and never let it be a rodent highway again.    My guess is the gardeners put the zip ties, to keep the vines on the wall controlled.  Those zip ties that the plaintiffs had photos of looked old, and dried out.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Second (New)-

Bitter Ex-Wife or Deadbeat Dad?-Plaintiff Clarise Fernandez suing her ex-husband,  Manuel Fernandez, and he didn't repay the amount she loaned him, $1500.    Plaintiff had one child with defendant, and has custody of her husbands other child.   Plaintiff wants payment for school supplies for both children, and for a car repair loan.     Defendant is paying child support, and that should pay for the school supplies for both children.     When both litigants went with the children to Vegas, and Knotts Berry Farm, defendant's car broke down, and plaintiff loaned him the money for the repair.   Then the daughter blabbed that daddy lived with a girlfriend for over a year, and plaintiff got mad, and decided the money was a loan.  

Neither litigant brought receipts for the transmission repair to court, must have thought they were going to a Tea Dance or the beach today? 

Plaintiff can't find the $1500 charge for the card charge.  

Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, and sent back to a local court to refile with proof.

Goat Killing Dogs?!-(I don't even have to hear this testimony, there are a lot of domestic dogs that kill livestock, including goats, ponies, chickens, sheep, etc., so I side with plaintiff, if they have proof of what animal did the attack).    Plaintiff Stefanie Carrasco-Tapia suing neighbor for her dog killing two goats, and for vet bills before the goats died, but defendant Eva Cruz claims the dogs weren't hers.    The litigants live in a rural area, for two years near each other,  and goat pen was fenced.   Defendant has a Shepherd mix, and Pit Bull mix.    Video doesn't show the attack.  The video shows the dogs entering, and leaving the property.    Since there is no video showing an attack or the two dogs acting aggressively, JJ can't rule in plaintiff's favor.  I'm sure that the dogs did it, but there simply is no proof unless there's a video or a witness, that goats were injured by dogs, instead of coyotes.  Defendant says the dogs aren't her dogs, but she claims she feeds strays that don't belong to her.   

Plaintiff case dismissed for lack of proof. 

(Next week, because of football, I will only have JJ Monday through Wednesday, not on Thursday and Friday.  However, the Judge Judy site says a new episode on Thursday and Friday, so if you're show isn't on Fox, or another one that has sports for two days straight, you might get to watch them.)

Edited November 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Toaster Strudel]

The rat poison puppy plaintiffs struck me as people who were looking for someone to scapegoat.

They've had dogs for years... why would the neighbor suddenly kill a puppy? He's probably allowed to spread rat poison on his property.

[LetsStartTalking]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bitter Ex-Wife or Deadbeat Dad?-Plaintiff Clarise Fernandez suing her ex-husband,  Manuel Fernandez, and he didn't repay the amount she loaned him, $1500.    Plaintiff had one child with defendant, and has custody of her husbands other child.   Plaintiff wants payment for school supplies for both children, and for a car repair loan.     Defendant is paying child support, and that should pay for the school supplies for both children.     When both litigants went with the children to Vegas, and Knotts Berry Farm, defendant's car broke down, and plaintiff loaned him the money for the repair.   Then the daughter blabbed that daddy lived with a girlfriend for over a year, and plaintiff got mad, and decided the money was a loan.  

Neither litigant brought receipts for the transmission repair to court, must have thought they were going to a Tea Dance or the beach today? 

Plaintiff can't find the $1500 charge for the card charge.  

Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, and sent back to a local court to refile with proof.

 

Dear Miss Clarise,

When you have a head shaped like an egg-plant, it is not too wise to have a burgundy 'Janky Wig' sitting on your head. And lipstick to match. And a dress that matches, too. Perhaps the store was out of Daffodil Yellow and Easter Egg Blue, but here was still Grass Green and Cotton Candy Pink you could've chosen. That's all I'm sayin' about this case.

Thank You

[Florinaldo]

On 11/20/2020 at 8:05 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

The rat poison puppy plaintiffs struck me as people who were looking for someone to scapegoat.

It's something that happens often enough. Something awful has happened to them: they need to blame someone, anyone, for it; they have somehow fixated on the idea that their neighbour deliberately poisoned their dog as the only possible explanation; he must pay for it; they will not listen to any other possible explanation for the event in question. Facts and arguments do not matter; only their personal conviction does. Which means they do not need concrete evidence, because they know.

They will keep on believing their little scenario and it will probably get even more deeply entrenched over time.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Knife Fight! Woman Stabs Herself in the Neck?! - (This is Part 1, and Part 2 is tomorrow at the same time)-Plaintiff Kayesha Hedgeman is suing Neshdae Denson (her ex-girlfriend's sister)  for stabbing plaintiff.   This happened in Little Rock, I'm guessing.   Plaintiff was hospitalized for the stabbing in 2015.   SisterNishundera  Denson,  is the defendant's witness.   Plaintiff left town for two weeks, and then when she returned to town, they resumed their relationship.    Plaintiff was also pregnant by some unnamed man.    Then litigants, and defendant sister had an argument,  Defendant claims plaintiff didn't stay at the defendant's place, and the police were called when the argument started.   (Is this the biggest entourage of witnesses?   Three women, plus defendant, another sister Maleah Denson).   Plaintiff's scar on her neck goes all of the way horizontally across her lower neck.    

Defendant says plaintiff came in her home, pulled a knife out of her bosom, a big folding knife (Is she like Angela from 90 Day Fiance,the Other Way, and carries everything in her bra?).   Then the fight (altercation) started with yelling, and went to physical, and stabbing.    Defendant claims plaintiff hit her in the face, and the physical fight was on, and the knife was pulled.    Defendant swears plaintiff started cutting her own neck, and slashed defendant's pinkie finger.    Defendant claims the fight happened outside of her house, not inside.   Defendant says after her finger got cut, she went to the hospital, and doesn't know what happened with the plaintiff's neck wounds.   At the hospital plaintiff went to surgery, and defendant and her tiny pinkie cut went to jail.  Plaintiff went to the hospital in an ambulance, with severe wounds.    

Police came to the apartment, and to the hospital.  Plaintiff had two bad neck wounds, and was in the hospital for a month.    This happened almost two years ago, and defendants still live in Arkansas.  Plaintiff now lives in Los Angeles.   

Police report says plaintiff was stabbed by defendant, according to her sister/girlfriend.    Then ex-girlfriend changed her story to the police, and lied. 

Case will be continued tomorrow, and we find out where plaintiff carried the knife, because she claims it wasn't in her bra.

Second (2017)-

From Homeless to Helpless?!-Plaintiff /former day care worker Daisyrain Lyle suing Megan Kelly, and 15 year old son Austin Kelly for return of property, and assault by son.   (Daisyrain is the real name, no spaces in it either).   Defendant mother was pals with plaintiff's incarcerated father, but only friends, and only when he was in jail.   Plaintiff moved in with defendant mother, because plaintiff was short on cash.   Plaintiff claims there was no rental or other agreements.    Defendant is a CNA, and has children that needed care, so she had plaintiff certified to collect state day care for the defendant's children, for $2,000 a month from the state.  Defendant claims plaintiff was evicted from previous apartment.

Plaintiff claims she gave defendant money every month, plus $400 to plaintiff's aunt.    Plaintiff claims defendant kept all of her belongings when she moved out.     Plaintiff claims she moved out of house, and was still collecting state money for babysitting that was being done by someone else for defendant.

JJ dismisses the property plaintiff claims defendant kept, defendant says she doesn't have it.    Plaintiff is claiming for anonymous tire slashing, but no proof who did that.    Plaintiff claims the defendant son assaulted her, when plaintiff was trespassing getting her stuff.  Plaintiff claims son pushed and hit her, broke her glasses, but she was trespassing.    Anthony Ehli, plaintiff witness was also with her during the trespass and assault.     

Defendant son says his siblings were yelling, and saw plaintiff and her witness trespassing and stealing items from the house, and then witness and two other men assaulted the son, and threatened him with Anthony Ehli's gun (he has a concealed carry permit).  Defendant says plaintiff took her children's car seats, and a stroller with her when she left.   

JJ says neither litigant came to court with clean hands, cases dismissed. 

Hush Money?!-Plaintiff Dawn Kasner suing her daughter's ex Maxim Bellyy suing for  an unpaid $2,000 loan.     However, the loan was for bills when defendant, and the daughter were living together (plaintiff daughter is plaintiff's witness,  Kristina Kasner )  Defendant claims he paid $1,200 back to plaintiff.    Defendant claims he was still seeing the plaintiff's daughter, and claims plaintiff said if he stopped seeing daughter loan would be forgiven.

$800 to plaintiff

Edited November 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first new, second 2020-

First (New)-

Logic Gets a Zumba Workout?! -Plaintiff Taylor Coco Patterson, Zumba instructor suing former client for $2,000 for private classes. for defendant Nikki Herrera.  wanted private Zumba lessons, lasting two hours, but round trip driving was four hours total.   Plaintiff claims defendant signed up for two classes a week, for a total of  ten two-hour classes.   Plaintiff didn't collect up front, and claims defendant didn't pay her.  Defendant admits she took seven classes, but claim they weren't even a full two hours, but was invoiced for $2,000 for the classes.   (Why would anyone drive two hours each way to get private Zumba classes?   This entire case makes zero sense).

Defendant owes $1400 for the classes she had, but didn't pay for.  

$1400 to plaintiff.

Misguided Tanning Bed Fight!-Plaintiff Joyette Esspamer suing Ravi Travi (?) , and Rabih Abou Yonnes  for equipment left behind at the defendant's salon.   Salon agreement was with a Mr. Asfor, a previous owner. 

Mr Asfor owed $340 when the two defendants took over the salon.  However, plaintiff's agreement was with previous salon owner, and not the defendants.  Mr Asfor, the previous owner of the salon,  owes the money, not the defendants. 

Plaintiff told to find Mr. Asfor, and sue him for the $340.  

Second (2020)-

Shocking Video of Jaw-Breaking Assault!-Plaintiff suing fellow MMA fighter for breaking his jaw during an altercation at a bar, during the after party. .  Two litigants met before the fight, and defendant started trash talking the plaintiff.   Defendant also claimed they used to spar at the same gym together, but plaintiff says they didn't work out at the same gym.    After the fight at an after party, when plaintiff saw defendant come in the bar, the plaintiff started to leave.  Then defendant and plaintiff met, but the first time after the fight.    Video of assault on plaintiff is awful.   Plaintiff is extending his hand to defendant, and defendant hit plaintiff twice in the face and broke his jaw.   

Defendant claims plaintiff challenged him at the after party, and claims the plaintiff threatened to shoot him.    Then defendant punched plaintiff, claiming it was after the threat.    Defendant claims he thought the plaintiff was armed.     

Video shows plaintiff reaching out to shake hands, and defendant punching him twice, breaking the plaintiff's jaw.   The only reason defendant didn't keep punching plaintiff is because some other man grabbed him, and stopped the assault.  

Defendant still claims it was self-defense and he would do it again.

$5,000 to plaintiff.  

First Date Morphs into 5K Loan-Plaintiff suing his former date for an unpaid loan, $5000 after their first date.    They met online, he's 58, and she's 39.    On date #1 they hit it off, and that was their only date.    Defendant claims there was only one date, not two. 

Then a month later defendant (Sainted Single Mother of Two-SSMOT), who is mother of a 15 and 17 year old wanted money for her bills, her mother, etc.     Defendant claims $5,000 loan was a gift.  

Defendant says plaintiff wanted sexual favors, without dates, after the money was in her hand.   

Check says "Loan" on the memo section, and plaintiff gets $5,000.

Edited November 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[VartanFan]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Logic Gets a Zumba Workout?! -Plaintiff Taylor Coco Patterson, Zumba instructor suing former client for $2,000 for private classes.

This is crazy!  I’m a certified Zumba instructor and the fact that people will pay $200 for a Zumba class is stunning.  Not only that, but individual Zumba classes totally defeat the purpose of Zumba.  The fun is that there’s a bunch of people and you’re dancing and laughing together.  

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Misguided Tanning Bed Fight!-

This case did not need to get to court, even a real one. All the defendants had to do was to provide the plaintiff with their contact info for the previous owner and the dispute would have been resolved in a minute.

But either no one thought about it, or plaintiff was stubborn and would not hear about it or was too lazy to go after the now far-away seller. I bet she still will not sue him and will be content with her share of the award kitty.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Florinaldo

[nora1992]

9 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

This case did not need to get to court, even a real one. All the defendants had to do was to provide the plaintiff with their contact info for the previous owner and the dispute would have been resolved in a minute.

But either no one thought about it, or plaintiff was stubborn and would not hear about it or was too lazy to go after the now far-away seller. I bet she still will not sue him and will be content with her share of the award kitty.

But I think the plaintiff was hoping retrieve the possessions left inside - that was as important to her as the $340, which would be covered by the appearance fee. 
Would she have won if, instead of saying hair accessories, she called them hair extensions?  Maybe JJ would have considered those worth her time.

[parrotfeathers]

On 11/20/2020 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

My guess is the gardeners put the zip ties, to keep the vines on the wall controlled.  Those zip ties that the plaintiffs had photos of looked old, and dried out.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

That was a weird case.  How convenient plaintiff "forgot" the piece of paper JJ asked for.  And no necropsy either (I do understand this can be difficult for pet owners, but you can ask for a "cosmetic" necropsy but it costs more.  Basically they put everything back and sew your pet up for burial.  Bloodwork of a live dog would have shown enough evidence to connect internal bleeding to rat poison.

[LetsStartTalking]

On 11/23/2020 at 6:47 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. first new, second 2020-

First (New)-

Logic Gets a Zumba Workout?! -Plaintiff Taylor Coco Patterson, Zumba instructor suing former client for $2,000 for private classes. for defendant Nikki Herrera.  wanted private Zumba lessons, lasting two hours, but round trip driving was four hours total.   Plaintiff claims defendant signed up for two classes a week, for a total of  ten two-hour classes.   Plaintiff didn't collect up front, and claims defendant didn't pay her.  Defendant admits she took seven classes, but claim they weren't even a full two hours, but was invoiced for $2,000 for the classes.   (Why would anyone drive two hours each way to get private Zumba classes?   This entire case makes zero sense).

Defendant owes $1400 for the classes she had, but didn't pay for.  

$1400 to plaintiff.

 

Well Taylor 'CoCo' Patterson certainly brought her S- curve to the show, starting with her (fake) boobs popping out of her blouse, and her fake rear end sticking out in the 'lobby'.  Pamela Anderson called - she wants her Baywatch Body from the 90s back.

Top it off with her botoxed face and funky weave...Kim Kardashain called. She wants her head back.

Why didn't JJ scold her and tell her to wrap herself in a king sized bed spread, since she was totally dressed inappropriately for court ? And I mean 'totally' ? So many insults JJ could have slung her way (as she does to male litigants):

Miss Coco Patterson, where did you think you were coming today ? To apply as a dancer at a strip club? To audition for a porn movie ? To the plastic surgeon for more work to your face and body?

If nothing else, she scored more Twitter followers from the horny men in the viewing audience, and I'm sure that's what she wanted.

Edited November 28, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Knife Fight Part 2 (part 1 was yesterday)-(Plaintiff Kayesha Hedgeman is suing her ex-girlfriend’s sister, Neshdae Denson over her stabbing two years ago, in Little Rock (2015).    Ex-girlfriend Nishundera Denson is witness for her sister, and lied to the police after the stabbing.   Plaintiff was in the hospital for a month after the attack.  Defendant stabber also claims the plaintiff pulled the folding blade knife out of her own bra, and stabbed herself.)

On Part 2, Plaintiff Kayesha Hedgeman is telling about the assault by her former girlfriend's (Nishundera Denson) sister, Neshae Denson.    Kayesha says she carried a knife, because that part of Little Rock is dangerous, and says knife was closed in her pocket.   Neshae Denson ended up with a tiny cut on her pinkie.   Nishundera  (ex-girlfriend) changed her story to the police, after plaintiff was taken to hospital.    Defendant was arrested, and charged.  Plaintiff took knife out of her pocket, and opened it during the argument.    Plaintiff claims ex, and sister were arguing, says Neshae was blocking her in the corner, and threatening her.   

Plaintiff case dismissed

Food Stamp Treachery-Next part, plaintiff is now ex-girlfriend Nishundera Denson, suing defendant Kayesha Hedgeman, for return of property.   Hedgeman had moved to L.A., was living off, and on with her baby's father, but claims plaintiff still wanted to rekindle their relationship, and at first agreed plaintiff should come to L.A.,     Then defendant said she didn't want plaintiff to move to L.A., and didn't want to continue the relationship, and defendant wanted to try to to make relationship with baby daddy work.

Then plaintiff is suing defendant, because defendant cancelled plaintiff's EBT card (Food Stamps, according to defendant).  Plaintiff claims defendant has her clothes, car key, shoes, etc.  Defendant claims plaintiff took everything when they both moved out of their mutual apartment.   Plaintiff was getting General Relief, and defendant cancelled the EBT card plaintiff had too.  When plaintiff applied for GR, and the EBT card, defendant says  plaintiff used defendant's address.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and everyone shown out of the courtroom.

Second (2017)-

Security Guards Turned Roommates-Plaintiff Leila Smith rented a room to homeless co-worker Jordan Parker, and is now suing him  for threats, unpaid rent.   Rent was $475 a month.   Plaintiff claims on move in defendant paid her half a month's rent, defendant denies this.   Co-worker moved in with two dogs, and girlfriend, into plaintiff's house (she lived alone at the time).     Defendant claims rent was never mentioned to him by plaintiff, and claims plaintiff said he didn't have to worry about the rent.   Plaintiff admits defendant paid her $525.     He owes plaintiff $900 for remaining rent.  

Plaintiff says defendant and fiance (Kelsey McCoy) damaged tables and other furniture plaintiff let them use.   Table damage looks like the dogs chomped it, not a cat.    Defendant has a Labrador Retriever (girlfriend's dog), and carpets were nailed by dog.    Defendant claims plaintiff had six cats, and only five animals are allowed in the home.   Then defendant brought two dogs in.   So house had eight animals in a five pet maximum area.  

Defendant claims when he was forced out by the police he left his uniforms behind, but plaintiff's witness says he saw defendant take the clothes with him when he left.   Reci

$900 for rent, $250 for mattress damage,= $1150 for plaintiff, defendant case dismissed. 

Excuses Central-Plaintiff Reginald Benjamin suing former tenant defendant Jennifer Shealey SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four)  for unpaid rent, and stolen appliances (refrigerator and stove)..       

Defendant and her four kids lived in another house (I bet a trailer, since she said it needed to be jacked up and leveled periodically),    Defendant says she moved in to the plaintiff's property with her four children, but claims it wasn't up to her standards.  So plaintiff paid for defendant and her children to stay in a motel for a weekend before move in.   Plaintiff put them in a motel over the weekend because defendant had a plumber look at the drains, and fix it.     Plaintiff says defendant paid $400 deposit, $850 rent was paid for July only.    

Defendant stayed through August, September, October, and moved out in November.   Defendant claims she only paid $850 in September, but not the other three months.    Plaintiff claims defendant stole stove, and refrigerator on move out, and he has receipts for replacements.   Plaintiff says defendant, and her children actually lived in his home until January, not first part of November. 

Defendant claims she moved out when the house got shot up, and says she has a police report to prove it.  Plaintiff claims he was going to evict defendant, and her kids, after many calls from neighbors of the rental house, telling him about activities going on at his rental house. (Giving the neighbors your contact information is a great idea when you rent a property out).    

Plaintiff says defendant and children actually lived in his home until January, not first part of November.   JJ will confirm actual move in date with apartment landlord.     (If I hear about SSMOF's four kids again, I'm screaming!)  JJ wants to contact landlord of apartment rental (six months and out there too), and apartment landlord says defendant moved in (Honorable Citizens is the name of realty company),  My guess is defendant knows exactly who shot the place up, and why.   OK, she didn't mention day care costs for her four young kids, did she?   

Plaintiff receives $3830 for the rent, and appliances.   

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (2020 New)-

Cops and Robbers Ball Charity Feud!-Plaintiff Renee Roberts suing party planner for Maricela Reyes for unpaid work for a charity ball.  Defendant claims she never discussed payment, or the props plaintiff made for the ball.   Defendant never met plaintiff before court case.   Plaintiff says she had an oral contract for $882 for the props, and was via phone call with defendant.    Plaintiff can't find the call logged in her phone, just the subsequent emails to the person who arranged the props for the charity ball (Terry).   So why isn't Terry being sued also?   

Plaintiff says her husband dropped a sample at the charity office before the ball, and defendant saw the sample,   Defendant says she ordered 10 to 12 props via Terry, and plaintiff made the cutouts for the party.   Then defendant wanted two more, and plaintiff made them also. So defendant has now cancelled out everything she said about not being involved with ordering the props from the plaintiff.   

Defendant accepted the labor and props job,    Plaintiff sent invoice for $696 to charity organization a few days before the event for the props.

Plaintiff receives $696.     

Second (2020)-

Disabled Friend Duped!-Plaintiff Cynthia Nelson, and daughter Mikayla Nelson are suing her former roommate defendant Tiffany Espey for the unpaid balance on a car, ruined credit. and property damages to the home ,    Plaintiff daughter had many surgeries after a motorcycle accident, and faces many more.   Then mother moved away, and daughter stayed in the family home.   The daughter currently has five roommates.    One current roommate is fiance of daughter.     

Defendant was sleeping with a former roommate, and that was the only relationship plaintiff daughter, and defendant had.   Defendant needed a vehicle, and plaintiff was giving her rides, and defendant wanted a car, but had no credit.   So plaintiff daughter put her name on the car loan for defendant.   Defendant still has the same car.

When asked why plaintiff daughter is in credit trouble, despicable defendant says "plaintiff didn't make the first four payments" on a car defendant still drives.    To pay the four payments, plaintiff daughter took out a title loan on her own car to keep defendant car from being repossessed.  Title loan was $2600.    Defendant is now making the payments herself, but never paid a penny towards the title loan.   It was $1500 for the impound costs, and the car payments.   

Plaintiff mother says defendant never comes to the plaintiff's home, after she kicked in the roommate boyfriend's door.    Plaintiff daughter is disabled, and paid all of her savings to pay off the car loan.   Sadly, JJ has to tell daughter that there is no way the daughter will get her name off of the loan.  If daughter is on title when it's paid off, then she will be legal owner, and then she can then repo it?  

$4100 to plaintiff daughter.   

Who Will Fools Vote For?-Plaintiff Jaylee Stratton is employed, and former boyfriend Alejandro Hanson is unemployed. and his mother pays a friend to let him live at their house.     So defendant is an unemployed loser, who says he doesn't care that everyone he knows will see this case on TV.   Defendant says there is no job on earth he can do.

Plaintiff co-signs loan with defendant for the car.    Defendant had an accident in the car, without insurance.   Gap insurance wasn't on car until a week after accident, and he claims the insurance was back dated to the day after the accident (that means you didn't have insurance you fool).  The car didn't have gap insurance on the day of the accident, so plaintiff is on the hook for rest of the car loan above what the regular insurance paid.  The man who says he can't work, just said he drove the car to work the day of the accident. 

JJ says defendant is so stupid that he'll vote for anyone who claims to want to give defendant a guaranteed salary whether he works or not.   Defendant claims he should have given the car back to the bank, but plaintiff still would have owed the short fall on the loan amount.   JJ is right, defendant is an idiot, and he says he's not a dumb s$*% , but he is.  

$2496  to plaintiff, she can pay her own tow fees for being a fool.

(In the charity ball case, I think JJ hearing the testimony from defendant finally admitting she talked about the props, and the prices with plaintiff sealed the fate of the case.    Defendant started out with claiming she didn't even know the plaintiff, but finally tripped up and admitted they talked on multiple occasions, she saw the samples at the office, and she was in charge of the event.        

For the wigs, and other attempts at disguise, I think some of the shiftier litigants think no one will recognize them.   They're absolutely wrong, but at least they tried.      I'm also guessing that what we see is exactly what they dress and look like in real life.  Many people have zero taste in attire or hair). 

Edited November 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[LetsStartTalking]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (2020 New)-

Cops and Robbers Ball Charity Feud!-Plaintiff Renee Roberts suing party planner for Maricela Reyes for unpaid work for a charity ball.  Defendant claims she never discussed payment, or the props plaintiff made for the ball.   Defendant never met plaintiff before court case.   Plaintiff says she had an oral contract for $882 for the props, and was via phone call with defendant.    Plaintiff can't find the call logged in her phone, just the subsequent emails to the person who arranged the props for the charity ball (Terry).   So why isn't Terry being sued also?   

Plaintiff says her husband dropped a sample at the charity office before the ball, and defendant saw the sample,   Defendant says she ordered 10 to 12 props via Terry, and plaintiff made the cutouts for the party.   Then defendant wanted two more, and plaintiff made them also. So defendant has now cancelled out everything she said about not being involved with ordering the props from the plaintiff.   

Defendant accepted the labor and props job,    Plaintiff sent invoice for $696 to charity organization a few days before the event for the props.

Plaintiff receives $696.     

 

 

This indeed was a strange case for a number of reasons.

First and foremost- there was no contract between the two women, as far as I can tell. No written contract, no text messages explicitly saying what was expected and the price of services. It was very murky and totally dependent on 'Terry' the mystery woman who was the bridge between the two women.  Yet Judge Judy was satisfied with what the plaintiff presented ?

I've worked on many events myself, in the past 30+ years. Some providers are 'charitable' and will donate products or services for the 'promotion' of their brand or product. Others - understandably - are not, and want payment for products and services. A balance of both is what makes an event successful (financially) in the end.

It's up to the provider to make it clear whether the services / products are 'donated' or not. It's up to the provider (the plaintiff in this case) to present a itemized list of what will be given, and the cost of such if it's not being donated. Both parties sign off on this if accepted. It's not up to the event planner to create this contract.

So in this case, there was nothing presented to the defendant by the provider. Nothing at all. Because of this slip-up, I'm shocked the plaintiff was awarded money. She was at fault for not handling things appropriately.

Edited November 25, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

[PrincessPurrsALot]

On 11/21/2020 at 12:07 PM, LetsStartTalking said:

Dear Miss Clarise,

When you have a head shaped like an egg-plant, it is not too wise to have a burgundy 'Janky Wig' sitting on your head. And lipstick to match. And a dress that matches, too. Perhaps the store was out of Daffodil Yellow and Easter Egg Blue, but here was still Grass Green and Cotton Candy Pink you could've chosen. That's all I'm sayin' about this case.

Thank You

If she had worn a green wig, she would be an eggplant emoji.  That's a look to go for!

[LetsStartTalking]

5 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

If she had worn a green wig, she would be an eggplant emoji.  That's a look to go for!

What has happened to taste and self-decency in this world? There was a time when people really paid attention to their appearance in public - especially on a TV show. They tried to look their very best - from hair and makeup to clothing.  Now people try to look their hideous with janky wigs, makeup, clothes, tattoos, etc. Are they craving that much attention ? Between Clarisse and Taylor Coco - wow !

[dvr devotee]

Today's "new" episode is weird.

Episode is called 'KAREN' ACCUSED OF TERRORIZING LANDLORD?; I WANT MY RENT AND PROPERTY. The "Karen" part of the episode is in pandemic-style. But the second case in the episode is an old case, with JJ with her hair down, and an audience. The case has the new 25th anniversary announcer for the voiceovers, but it is so glaringly obvious that this case is several years old. Judging by how JJ looks (hairstyle and age-wise--her cheeks are fuller in this case than they are currently), I think it's probably from 2016ish.

It's so jarring that they went from a new case to an old case within one episode. I am doubtful that they'll be able to fulfill the rest of the episodes ordered for this last season, if they're already only able to show one new case in an episode.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Man Has No Clue Why Girlfriend is Mad!-Plaintiff Kenneth Starke suing ex-girlfriend Rachelle Martin over her breaking his TV.   This all started over him eating something that disagreed with him, and girlfriend told him not to eat it.   When girlfriend started arguing, he told her to leave, and that's when she broke his TV.     They were dating, had an argument, at his apartment, and plaintiff claims defendant grabbed his TV off the mantle.   After defendant broke the TV, she still stayed at plaintiff's apartment that night.  

Defendant claims her texts saying she broke the TV, and would pay for it, were just telling plaintiff what he wanted to hear.   

$1,380 to plaintiff for his TV.

Remembrance of Trucks Past-Plaintiff Misty Beal suing defendant Donald Prager for the loss of an old truck she inherited from her late father.   Defendant charges $50 a month, and plaintiff claims she paid defendant $600 in cash, and her son watched the transaction.   Defendant says plaintiff didn't pay him a penny, and he was out of state at the time.   A former employee of defendant was the only person who was accepting money at the time, and she was fired.    Plaintiff claims business was closed when she paid the defendant the money.  Defendant says the only record is $99.99 on a card, but plaintiff claims she doesn't pay by card.  Truck was left in November 2015, and in May of 2017 plaintiff went for her truck and it was long gone, for non-payment of storage fees.    (What the hell is the plaintiff wearing?   It looks like Teddy Bear fur on her sweater).

There is no proof that plaintiff paid for the storage fee, and if you believe her (I don't), she only paid for a year, not 18 months.      At the end of the year, plaintiff wanted the truck back, but it had been sold off long before.   Plaintiff should have paid $900, for the 18 months.   Plaintiff claims she went and visited the truck regularly.   After November of 2016 truck storage was never paid, and he sold the truck off for junk in March of 2017.    

JJ gives plaintiff benefit of the doubt, and says plaintiff still owes $600 to defendant for a year of storage (he only does a year at a time).   I would give him $1200, because there is no receipt, defendant was out of state, when plaintiff claims she paid him, and she's a liar.  Defendant has a bedroom rented out, her brother lives in the attic, plus another tenant.   

$600 to defendant, plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2017)-

Snake in the Basement!-Plaintiff Tara Davis suing former friend Jeaneches Perry tenant, suing former landlady (defendant is renting the house from someone else) for her property left behind after a two month tenancy. and her dog.   Plaintiff says her son saw a snake, and defendant says there was only one snake.    Defendant gets SS disability, and rents the house, and her brother is paroled to the house.    Rent from defendant is $750, and her disability is $950, and she gets by renting rooms.    The basement is a big open room, and everyone shared the bedroom.    Plaintiff moved in with her 6 year old son, and a dog.    Plaintiff says she paid the $175 rent, a month late.    A month after move in plaintiff gave defendant $195, but should have paid $590,  Plaintiff is a CNA, and home health aide.     

Plaintiff says she moved out after she saw snakes in the basement.   Defendant claims the landlord removed the one snake, and blocked the hole it entered through.  The plaintiff and son moved back in. Plaintiff claims the son saw the snake again.    Plaintiff claims defendant wouldn't let her take her dog or her property, unless she paid $240 she owed.     Plaintiff now says she doesn't want her property back, because it might have snakes in it, so that's dismissed.

Pit Bull was left behind for days after plaintiff left,  and claims plaintiff wouldn't pick up dog.   

Defendant Jaeaneches Perry says dog was put in the back yard, and ran off.

$45 to defendant, nothing to plaintiff.

Truck Driving School Payback!-Plaintiff Grace  Garcia suing former boyfriend Rafael Mendoza for loans for truck driving school, and a gift for his nephew.    They moved in together, he paid $831 for rent, and she paid food, and some utilities.   They only lived together for two months.  Plaintiff made a loan to defendant for truck driving school, for $4,000 (to qualify for truck driving jobs).   This loan was for their future together.

Defendant now has a truck driving job, and litigants split up, after two months.   Plaintiff put the loan for $4,000 on her credit card, and he repaid $300.    Defendant owes plaintiff $4500 (he makes about $10k a month now).  

$4200 to plaintiff, plus interest=$4500.    

Edited November 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (2020)-

Karen Accused of Terrorizing Landlord?!(New case-2020)-Plaintiff Sarah Rolak  suing her former landlady, Ana Belacqua for her security deposit, illegal eviction, return of rent, and an assault. 

Plaintiff rented a room at defendant's house in May 2018, and rent was $1160.    Tenant moved out on August 21st.   Defendant paid rent mostly, but defendant accepted the rent, so shortfall not happening.    Tenant paid the rent until she moved out.    There was a written lease signed by both litigants, for 4 to 6 months.   Security was $800 in cash, claimed by plaintiff as paid.   

Defendant claims she has no record of security payment by plaintiff, but she says no one moves in without security deposit.   In August, they had an argument, and plaintiff moved out.   Room damages were minimal, but defendant claims plaintiff terrorized her, and another tenant, and so plaintiff was given a 30 day notice to leave.    Defendant claims the police were called seven times by plaintiff, and claims it was a reign of terror.   Defendant claims she returned $250 to plaintiff.   Defendant has a total meltdown about 'Karen' plaintiff's behavior, and then gets nasty with JJ.  Defendant keeps telling JJ about being terrorized in her own home.    

$536 to plaintiff for security deposit, no rent returned, nothing on eviction.  Nothing to defendant, for rent, or restraining order attempts by plaintiff.

I Want My Rent and Property!(Judging from the hairstyle, and audience, this is an old case)-Plaintiff Tyler Hunter suing landlord to be Latownsend Cassell for return of property, and rent.    Townhouse was rented by defendant, and lease did not allow subleases/renting rooms.    Defendant advertised on craigslist, and plaintiff came to look at the room, and there was a current tenant.   Defendant's boyfriend's brother lived in the apartment.   Plaintiff gave defendant $660, including $300 security.     Defendant boyfriend Tylon, can't figure out who he's in a relationship with.   

Defendant claims plaintiff gave her $300, but not the $360 rent.   Plaintiff wants his $360 back, but has no proof he paid it, and for a ruined mattress Tylon, defendant's boyfriend put outside in the rain.   Defendant boyfriend claims he didn't put mattress out, but helped plaintiff move the mattress.

$300 to plaintiff.

(This is an old case.  If they're running short of new cases, why did they show two new ones  a day for weeks?).    

Second (2020)-

You're Not Charming, You're a Slug!-Plaintiff Garbielle Corriette came into a $100k, and defendant Alberto Alberty wanted her to go into a house flipping business with him, and needed a loan for unpaid child support.  Defendant has three kids 10, 1 and 2 1/2, and he barely pays anything to support them.   He claims he pays $430 once a month, but works under the table, and for cash.    Defendant was $4,000 behind on support, when the house flip idea came up.   

When they went to buy the first house, plaintiff did a $2,000 deposit on the house, and defendant needed the $4,000 paid off before he could buy the house.     Plaintiff paid $30k, and defendant paid zero,  Plaintiff paid $26,000 to buy the defendant out of the house, and $4,000 for the child support debt. Plaintiff claims when they sold the house, that defendant said he would pay her back the $4,000.   Defendant said he paid $15k on the house, but has no proof.    Plaintiff says there was a $20k hold back for construction, and defendant took that.  

Defendant works under the table, and pays virtually no taxes, or child support.   Plaintiff made zero on the house, and knows she will lose on the house if she sold it today.    Defendant is a DJ, and barber, and works for cash, and doesn't pay taxes.   

$4000 to plaintiff.  (Why do I suspect that after this aired, the plaintiff had a lot of people interested in the remaining money, and is probably broke now).  

Chihuahua Loses an Eye in a Pit Bull Attack-Plaintiff Amanda Calhoun suing Marybel Hernandez for $2200 vet bills, after defendant's dog attacked her dog.   Plaintiff found a stray dog at 1 a.m., and put in her back yard for the owner to be found.   Plaintiff found a chip, contacted the defendant, and defendant was going to pick up dog (Defendant claims it's not her dog).   Plaintiff let the Pit Bull into her house, and the dog attack happened.     Plaintiff's dog was attacked by defendant's dog, and little dog lost an eye, and suffered other injuries.    As JJ says, taking in the Pit Bull mix into her home was a mistake.   

Defendant witness/boyfriend met defendant in the beginning of January, and moved from Michigan, and moved in on January 15.   Defendant woman is still married to husband, but shacking up with her witness.   Defendant couldn't afford the dog, so she claims she rehomed the dog, but never told plaintiff how to contact the current owner when plaintiff found the dog.      Defendant boyfriend, Mitchel Martinez, is so dim.  Boyfriend is also unemployed.   

Defendant woman claims the man she rehomed the Pit Bull to was  some unknown man off craigslist, and she has no idea of where the person lives.  Defendant now has the dog back, because that's where plaintiff dropped the dog off.   JJ says defendant isn't responsible for the vet bills, because she rehomed it (like hell she rehomed the dog).   Defendant says the new owner called her and said the dog got away.     Defendant picked the dog up at plaintiff's home, and kept the dog, so I don't believe defendant ever gave the dog up.   Defendant still has the dog.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (I wish JJ had awarded the plaintiff the money.  She was foolish at taking the Pit Bull in, but she was trying to do the right thing for the dog).   

(I won't see any episodes Thursday or Friday, Fox will show sports both days).   

[One Tough Cookie]

On 11/23/2020 at 6:47 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

defendant Nikki Herrera

Wasn't she the one who had the ginormous ass? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I didn't even notice how Nikki Herrera was shaped, I was so horrified by Coco the Zumba teacher's huge chest area, and even bigger booty, and can't imagine being a class like Zumba with all of the jumping around, and movements.    I blame the Kartrashian clan for that.     

Edited November 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[babyhouseman]

I wonder if Judge Judy knew what a Karen was. 

[dvr devotee]

1 hour ago, babyhouseman said:

I wonder if Judge Judy knew what a Karen was. 

Karens are not usually self-aware, so probably not.

[LetsStartTalking]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (2020)-

Karen Accused of Terrorizing Landlord?!(New case-2020)-Plaintiff Sarah Rolak  suing her former landlady, Ana Belacqua for her security deposit, illegal eviction, return of rent, and an assault. 

Plaintiff rented a room at defendant's house in May 2018, and rent was $1160.    Tenant moved out on August 21st.   Defendant paid rent mostly, but defendant accepted the rent, so shortfall not happening.    Tenant paid the rent until she moved out.    There was a written lease signed by both litigants, for 4 to 6 months.   Security was $800 in cash, claimed by plaintiff as paid.   

Defendant claims she has no record of security payment by plaintiff, but she says no one moves in without security deposit.   In August, they had an argument, and plaintiff moved out.   Room damages were minimal, but defendant claims plaintiff terrorized her, and another tenant, and so plaintiff was given a 30 day notice to leave.    Defendant claims the police were called seven times by plaintiff, and claims it was a reign of terror.   Defendant claims she returned $250 to plaintiff.   Defendant has a total meltdown about 'Karen' plaintiff's behavior, and then gets nasty with JJ.  Defendant keeps telling JJ about being terrorized in her own home.    

$536 to plaintiff for security deposit, no rent returned, nothing on eviction.  Nothing to defendant, for rent, or restraining order attempts by plaintiff.

I Want My Rent and Property!(Judging from the hairstyle, and audience, this is an old case)-Plaintiff Tyler Hunter suing landlord to be Latownsend Cassell for return of property, and rent.    Townhouse was rented by defendant, and lease did not allow subleases/renting rooms.    Defendant advertised on craigslist, and plaintiff came to look at the room, and there was a current tenant.   Defendant's boyfriend's brother lived in the apartment.   Plaintiff gave defendant $660, including $300 security.     Defendant boyfriend Tylon, can't figure out who he's in a relationship with.   

Defendant claims plaintiff gave her $300, but not the $360 rent.   Plaintiff wants his $360 back, but has no proof he paid it, and for a ruined mattress Tylon, defendant's boyfriend put outside in the rain.   Defendant boyfriend claims he didn't put mattress out, but helped plaintiff move the mattress.

$300 to plaintiff.

(This is an old case.  If they're running short of new cases, why did they show two new ones  a day for weeks?).    

 

Karen Accused of Terrorizing Landlord?!

I think defendant Ana Belacqua has a damn good chance of winning a daytime Emmy next year for best dramatic performance by a supporting actress. She hit it out of the park:  she remembered her lines, knew her best camera angles, and even choked up on cue. She's a tough act to beat.

What was funny was Judge Judy kept mispronouncing the rent as  $1116 a month, and Belacqua tried to correct her by saying, $1160 a month. Judy wouldn't acknowledge her own mistake, of course. If she says it's $1116, then damn it! That's what it is. She also said to the defendant to continue with her therapy (or something of the sort) when in fact, Ana never said she was in therapy but she will need it after her trauma with the plaintiff.  This didn't go over well with Judy  -  how dare you correct her twice in one case ? Are you insinuating she's old and forgetful ?

 

I Want My Rent and Property!

The second case was rather jarring. A throwback to pre- Judy looking like RBG days. Judy changed her hairstyle to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg look in early 2019, so this had to be from 2018 or earlier. Plus she was in the studio with professional hair and make-up people, as well as a lighting director, so she had that soft youthful glow to her. These days, from her home, she's doing her own hair and makeup and home lighting - and she looks like the crypt keeper.

Back to the case - Tylon better be good in bed, because I can't understand why else the defendant would be with him. Although he was rather coherent at the end, and won the case for his girlfriend.

Speaking of the defendant Latownsend, she really didn't give a damn about violating her lease on the town house she rented. She certainly copped quite an attitude, for no reason at all.

As for the plaintiff, I think he needs to grow a pair before he ventures out on his own. He seemed to young and immature (IMO) to be renting rooms and living with people he doesn't know.  Maybe start off slow and rent something with someone you know and trust ?

[Taeolas]

I wonder if the "Old-New case" was one they had in the can but it never made it to air. That would imply they aren't able to process as many New cases in the COVID era as they need, so they're going further and further back into their editting room to find stuff to air. 

[badhaggis]

1 minute ago, Taeolas said:

I wonder if the "Old-New case" was one they had in the can but it never made it to air. That would imply they aren't able to process as many New cases in the COVID era as they need, so they're going further and further back into their editting room to find stuff to air. 

I saw this one's years ago. Not sure at all why the chose to air this one again. It wasn't particularly good.

[augmentedfourth]

The bank statements the plaintiff provided in the old new case were from May of 2013! I guess they kept this one sitting around just in case they needed a few minutes of filler.

 

I'm finally all caught up. I don't even know what to say about the last new episode I saw, with the plaintiff in the wheelchair who sues everyone who looks at him the wrong way and then some. My personal favorite was him suing the court reporter for one lawsuit for not providing the transcripts on time. (As a court reporter, I've never missed a deadline, but if it's rapidly approaching, we do charge extra fees. Methinks that may have been what was going on there.) Did he really think JJ was going to hear any of his nonsense or did he just want to collect his appearance fee?

[babyhouseman]

28 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

 

 

I'm finally all caught up. I don't even know what to say about the last new episode I saw, with the plaintiff in the wheelchair who sues everyone who looks at him the wrong way and then some. My personal favorite was him suing the court reporter for one lawsuit for not providing the transcripts on time. (As a court reporter, I've never missed a deadline, but if it's rapidly approaching, we do charge extra fees. Methinks that may have been what was going on there.) Did he really think JJ was going to hear any of his nonsense or did he just want to collect his appearance fee?

He was so annoying. He should be on Dr. Now's weight loss show, but he would sue Dr. Now.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, augmentedfourth said:

Did he really think JJ was going to hear any of his nonsense or did he just want to collect his appearance fee?

Perhaps he will sue the show because he thinks he should have received all of the award kitty instead of having to share it.

He must really live a sad and empty life if he finds pleasure mainly in suing people left and right for no valid reason.

[basiltherat]

I'm sure Byrd does not appreciate having to support his litigatious lifestyle!

[nora1992]

18 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Perhaps he will sue the show because he thinks he should have received all of the award kitty instead of having to share it.

He must really live a sad and empty life if he finds pleasure mainly in suing people left and right for no valid reason.

He seemingly has nothing else to do with his time.  No need to work  (and he still got his federal funding while a guest of the county for 10 months!?!?!?!); even his lawyers (allegedly) wish him elsewhere.  Suing tellers individually for bad service?!?!? But I wish the defendant had won on the counterclaim, if only to see the plaintiff finally lose a case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Bedbugs Roaches, and Mold?-Plaintiff Lori Lambert suing her daughter Amy Fruth, for damages to her rental home.  Defendant rented from 2014, to 2017.      (This is the case where Amy Fruth moved to Kentucky, and refuses to say where to avoid mother/plaintiff knowing where she lives.  However, caption person puts her location as Lexington, KY).  Defendant, husband, two kids, and one or two friends lived in the house.  Defendant moved in July 2017, (plaintiff says August 2017), and left the two roommates in the house, and then defendant's problems with former roommates started.   Defendant claims the house had bedbugs, and roaches when she moved into it in 2014, but stayed for three years.   

After defendant moved out, plaintiff went to the house, and said there were six dogs left behind in the house.   The two roommates moved in with plaintiff's other daughter after defendant moved out of the rental house.   Defendant claims she left the dogs, dishes, etc. behind because two roommates wanted the stuff, and the dogs.   Plaintiff photos show the rental house is trashed, and the open construction dumpster she had to rent is full.  Defendant claims she didn't take dishes, furniture, and dogs because everything had bedbugs.  Plaintiff also hired an exterminator for the house.  My guess is with that many dogs, fleas were an issue, and roaches would love the trashy rooms that defendant left behind.   

$806 to plaintiff

Hit and Run Payback-Plaintiff Nakeesa Haskel suing her baby's father, Joseph for a car she co-signed with him, and they both used.  Defendant was driving their car, there was an accident, and car was totaled.   Defendant had plaintiff's permission to drive the car, it was fully insured, and accident wasn't his fault.    Plaintiff received all but $3500 for the car, and even though the police report said the accident was caused by a hit and run truck, plaintiff is suing defendant for the $3500.    

The car issue was after they broke up, and she also wants rent for the two months after she moved out, and defendant stayed for two more months.    Defendant couldn't afford the second month.    Plaintiff claims defendant owes $1600, but rent was $950.   Defendant can't prove he paid for one month.   Plaintiff had to pay a collection agency $1600 to pay rent off.  

Plaintiff won't get anything for the car.    Plaintiff also didn't have to pay security deposit to the complex.

Plaintiff receives $1600.   The apartment fees include damages. 

Second (2017)-

Boss Steals Worker's Car-Plaintiff Ellamae Perez suing former boss/car seller Larry McDonald for the car he repo'd.   She paid $2500 down, and was to make bi-weekly payments of $100 until car paid off.   Plaintiff skipped six payments, defendant repo'd car.    JJ say repo was legit.   

However, defendant didn't tell the plaintiff car was repo'd by him, so she reported it stolen, and police impounded the car.    JJ will not give impound, since defendant didn't tell plaintiff he had car.   Defendant also knew plaintiff was going to be fired soon.   Defendant says plaintiff had her insurance cancelled four times while she had the Jeep. 

There are allegations of car damages, and JJ tells defendant to use the $2500 down payment he received for the car damage, and impound.    

Gimme Back My Camera-Plaintiff Nadine Englund, and ex-fiance, Jonathan Kingsmore, defendant were shacking up, and she gave him an older camera in August 2016.  They were actually engaged for a while.     He moved in a month after they met, and he was still married, but separated from the wife.   Then they had a fight, and plaintiff went to drop him off at ex-wife and kid's place for Christmas.   Defendant asked to borrowed the new professional camera owned by professional photographer plaintiff, to take family pictures.    Defendant reconciled with ex-wife, and kept the professional camera.    The stereo and surround sound he had since 2014, was installed in plaintiff's home.  Defendant decides he doesn't need the counter claim property. 

JJ gives plaintiff back her expensive camera, and Byrd gives older camera to defendant, and case is over.  

Edited December 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[nora1992]

Plaintiff Barnes: men like him (and the prospective mother-in-law) are why I’m contentedly single.

He defies even my most sarcastic descriptions.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

5 p.m. episodes, first new, second 2020 rerun-

First (2020)-

Bed and Breakfast Embarrassment?!-Plaintiff Maurice Barnes is suing defendant, B&B owner Edward McIntyre because plaintiff walked into an open window at their B&B, and was injured.    Plaintiff had a housefire in October 2019, and was renting at various places after the fire.   Plaintiff was paying 70 a night, and was renting week-by-week.  Accident was in May 2020, and told defendant about the accident, and wanted to stay longer at the B&B.   Defendant said he wouldn't extend the plaintiff's stay, he was supposed to leave on 29 May, but didn't ask to stay until 2 June 2020.    Defendant said plaintiff couldn't stay any longer, because plaintiff generated a lot of complaints from other tenants, and staff.   

 Plaintiff also consulted an attorney about the accident, before he told the defendant, and attorney told him to forget suing.  This happened in La Jolla, CA, at the end of May at 7:30 p.m.      It figures that plaintiff brought his mother to court, who is a witness to nothing.    This is the same path that plaintiff took during his entire stay, which was over a month in duration.   

Defendant hired plaintiff for $1700 a month to promote the B&B on social media.   Defendant finally sold the B&B because they were losing money, and lost $500k on the sale.     JJ says since plaintiff stayed at the B&B, he could post any review he wanted.  However, any relative of his who never stayed there, and posted a negative review, can be sued by defendant.  

Defendant has a witness, Susan Martinez (is the B & B cleaning lady) to the drunken window crash, and to plaintiff taking a dump in the service alley at the B & B.  Susan Martinez says she saw the accident, and says plaintiff was drunk, jumped the fence, and ran into the window.  Then he went and called his mother on speaker phone, for advice, and hear her say he should sue.   JJ asks plaintiff mother if son drinks,   Why is JJ bringing up Covid?   The house fire happened six months before Covid.  

JJ dismisses everything for plaintiff.     Defendant case dismissed for lack of receipts.   

Second (2020)-

Army Buddy's Dishonorable Friendship-Plaintiff Rita Dixon (daughter), and mother, Rita Leroy are suing defendant Jeremy Miller for hotel rental, and transportation costs, and unpaid loans.   Defendant and plaintiff met in the military (Air Force), and were friends.  Plaintiff lives with her husband, two children, and her mother is co-plaintiff.  Plaintiff daughter works at Lackland AFB, Texas.  Plaintiff was called by defendant and told about his marital issues, and wanting to move to Texas.   Plaintiff offered to pay for bus or plane ticket, and defendant couldn't take certain HVAC equipment with him, a one-way car rental wasn't going to work either.   It was 8 to 10 hours driving time, plus a side trip to see defendant's son.   So plaintiff paid for the hotel room for defendant and his sons, and plaintiff met him at the motel the next day, and brought him back to Texas.    

Defendant says he didn't offer to pay for any expenses.  Plaintiff also offered to help defendant get a job at Lackland, AFB.   Plaintiff says defendant offered to help her remodel her current house, and prep it for sale.   Plaintiff spent $600  on the move, and plaintiff's mother loaned a fifth wheel trailer to defendant, and plaintiff mother spent $680 on lot rental for the trailer, plus awning damage.  Plaintiff also made loans $2285 to defendant.  

(I feel sorry for plaintiff, and her mother.   They tried to help someone, and got kicked in the teeth by defendant.)

Defendant now has a job, not at Lackland.   Defendant also claims plaintiff Rita Jr (Mom and daughter have the same name), stay with him at the RV Park constantly, and tries to turn it into something romantic. 

(I have to laugh, the summary on the cable guide says plaintiff drove cross-country for this, but they went from Oklahoma to Texas). 

$4375 to plaintiff.    

Consolidated Romance Fail!-Plaintiff Glen Peterson suing his ex-girlfriend Jeanette Rumsey for the transfer balance of a credit card debt.    Defendant had high interest credit card debt, and plaintiff gave her his 18 month, 0% interest credit card to make her loans more affordable.  However, plaintiff used the card a few times too.    Defendant owed $5700, but claims she paid $3500 on the card, and claims to have proof.    Defendant claims she never had the physical card.    Plaintiff claims defendant paid $1700.   

Plaintiff used the card a few times, and paid it off immediately, to earn points on the card.    Defendant also claims the plaintiff received points, and gift cards for the balance transfer.   They actually went on a cruise during this!

Case dismissed.     Both litigants are idiots. 

(Since the new episodes have all been entirely new, either before or after Covid, then my guess is that the one episode where the producers put an older episode in with a new one means that something happened with the original second case on that show.    The possibilities are that the case was all a scam, and they found this out, or something awful happened to one of the litigants, and the producers pulled it.   There was also one from a month or so ago, alleging the plaintiff's father stole their service dog, but dog had lived with the father for years, and plaintiff hadn't even seen the dog.   That one was replaced with another older rerun, so I'm betting something happened with a participant in that one too). 

Edited December 2, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

24 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bed and Breakfast Embarrassment?!

Mama's boy plaintiff seemed a little off mentally and not quite there there.

Too bad defendants were not awarded anything for the plaintiff's "crappy" behaviour, which means he gets half of the award kitty for acting like an immature idiot.

[KittyMom4]

17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Mama's boy plaintiff seemed a little off mentally and not quite there there.

I think Mama's boy was drunk or hungover or both. Sadly, he actually LOOKED like he had his shit together, until he started talking and his true idiocy came out front and center. And Mama has certainly enabled him to become such a loser. She with her grin and "I'm so proud of him" bullshit. Really? I look forward to seeing him on a future show as a defendant when he finds some stupid, desperate twit who will fork over $$$ in "loans" in order to have a man.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Show Me the Damage-Plaintiff Dana Hamlett is suing a commercial property neighbor, Geoff Kaiser, for damages to his building from water coming from defendant's building.   Defendant's building was his father, the dentist's, and defendant inherited, and rents to a dentist now.  Plaintiff purchased his building (attached to defendant) for a future salon for wife and daughter, but never opened a business there, or leased it.  Plaintiff pays $3,000 in property taxes, and is behind.    Plaintiff claims damage to the building exceed $5,000, but JJ suspects fraud, by plaintiff.  

Plaintiff building is for sale, but never has sold.   Plaintiff bought building "as is" in 2014, for $40k.  He also reroofed in 2014, right after buying the building, so is water damage left over from roof leaks?    Plaintiff's witness is the wife, no contractor is present.    There are no photos of building on purchase, so no way to establish damages since then.   

Plaintiff is suing defendant about address conflict between buildings, in another court.   Plaintiff claims defendant's downspout water caused the damage, but no damages are shown in the photos, except plaintiff dug a big hole in his own parking lot.   The interior photo of wet carpet could be coming from the roof of the building, or any where else, no proof it's the defendant's fault.   

Defendant says plaintiff's building was vacant at least two years before plaintiff purchased it, and ever since.   Defendant moved the downspout location in October 2017, after city told him too.  Plaintiff still wants more money for damages.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Don’t Trust Five-Star Reviews!-Plaintiff contractor Samuel Szpak suing former client Erin Bookey, for non-payment of charges for work he did in her home.    There are actually two contracts, and a final invoice.    However, plaintiff's 'signed contract' isn't signed by defendant, so not a contract.   Plaintiff says he did $475 from the contract work, but not a great majority of what he was supposed to do.   Plaintiff only should get $75 for work, and $350 for materials.   

$75 for plaintiff (no proof of materials purchase).

Second (2017)-

Great Childhood Friends, Lousy Roommates-Plaintiff Tierra Bunkley moved in with defendant, Christian Butler, and mother Vonda Butler, rent free, but was supposed to pay utilities.   .   Then plaintiff moved her boyfriend in for three or four days a week, and then when plaintiff was asked to leave, and claims it was an illegal lockout.   Plaintiff wants $5k for moving costs, illegal lockout, and other garbage.   Defendant inherited a house from her father, and she invited plaintiff to move in, but pay expenses (utilities, taxes) but pay no rent.  Plaintiff was saving at least $400 a month by living with the defendant.     Plaintiff financed everything off of her student loans, bad idea.   Defendant wanted plaintiff's boyfriend to pay one-third, plaintiff one-third, and defendant one third of house taxes, and utilities. 

Plaintiff gets $6k for one semester, and $3k for the second semester, and that's how she paid the utilities.   Plaintiff was saving a bundle by not paying rent, but just utilities.    Plaintiff claims when she received the $6k check, she loaned defendant $500.   However, defendant says the $6k was deposited in her account, and plaintiff took all of the money out immediately.    Money was all from FAFSA, and other federal student loans.   Loan is actually a parent loan, and plaintiff's mother is on the hook for the loans.   

Plaintiff boyfriend stayed in home 4 or more days a week, and was never a paying tenant, and when defendant said boyfriend had to help pay the bills, the argument via text messages started.   Defendant wanted plaintiff's boyfriend to pay one-third of the bills, and instead plaintiff and loser boyfriend left.     

JJ says she won't pay motel and moving costs, or pain and suffering, and plaintiff says "she won't allow it".   I hope JJ takes the money back.   The $500 was for half of the house taxes, not a loan.   Defendants are suing for unpaid bills, and lock changing fees.  

Plaintiff gets $500 for the loan, which was actually, from her student loans.  $150 for her TV.   Plaintiff gets $650, minus $92 for utilities, equaling $558.  No pain and suffering for plaintiff, or for me either. 

Short Temper, Long Rap Sheet-Plaintiff Chanel Karnes suing ex-boyfriend Joshua Walker, for vandalizing her home and car.  After the break up, the plaintiff claims the defendant showed up at her house, and plaintiff wouldn't let him into her home (apparently next boyfriend was there).    Then plaintiff says defendant damaged her house door, bashed her windshield, and damaged a tire.  Defendant was arrested, and pled out the case, and took a plea for the windshield damages.     Defendant was sent to anger management, which didn't work.  

Defendant had other domestic violence, and gun cases before this case.   

Plaintiff gets $1,036 for the front door.

Edited December 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (2020, new)-

Taser-Wielding Neighbor!-Plaintiff Channel Barnes suing neighbor in a four-plex,  Ponce and father Richard Ponce.    Plaintiff claims defendant father hit her car, and he admits hitting it, but says he car was parked illegally, and in the way.   Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible, rental car fees, and some other garbage.    Defendant daughter SSMOF (Sainted Single MOther of Four), and her four children moved in to the four-plex, and her boyfriend (father of SSMOF's youngest) argued with plaintiff over where the boyfriend parked.   Plaintiff claims she couldn't turn into her garage or park in front of her patio, because of the boyfriend's car.   Plaintiff wanted to park next to her patio, which is not a restricted parking area.    Plaintiff daughter says she told boyfriend not to park there, but he didn't listen.   

To get into or out of the plaintiff's garage, the boyfriend would have to move his car.    Defendant daughter mentions that if plaintiff parks in front of her own patio, then other tenants can't access their garages.     Defendant father says he hit plaintiff's van when he was working on daughter's new car, and plaintiff has the garage adjoining daughter's garage.   When defendant father backed up, he hit driver side of plaintiff's car, resulting in a $500 deductible.  Was plaintiff in a legal space either?    

Harassment case plaintiff claims people walking by are 'mean mugging' her (Is that the same as "He looked at me funny?"), and she thinks everyone is going to attack her, or come in her apartment.     Plaintiff claims defendant father is parking beside her patio, and claims the father, and another sister of the defendant started calling her names.     Plaintiff isn't suing defendant sister, so that's dismissed.    Plaintiff and defendant father were videoing each other.    Plaintiff also says there is 'high traffic number of people' going in and out of defendant's apartment.    

Defendant SSMOF really has nothing to do with this case, just the father, and boyfriend (boyfriend isn't in court).    Defendant father claims plaintiff pulled a taser on him, as a threat, and I believe him.     Defendant father also says plaintiff called him a drug addict, and other slurs.    

After the incident CPS showed up at defendant's house, what a coincidence.

(I hate the way plaintiff kept trying to claim the defendant, and her father were involved in drugs, and the remark she made about traffic in and out of the defendant's apartment was very obvious that she was claiming they were dealers.    I suspect that if the plaintiff moved out, that the other tenants would have a party the next day.    I think if the landlord was smart they would either put parking spaces on the patio side, or mark it no parking, and enforce it).  

$500 to plaintiff for deductible.  

Second (2020)-

All Aboard the Free Ride Express!-Plaintiff Jennifer Adams suing ex-boyfriend Mike Owens for an unpaid loan, and property damage.   Plaintiff not only lived for free in defendant's home, but when she moved out she left her college age daughter behind with defendant (daughter stayed there alone with defendant for four or five months).    Plaintiff claims she maintained her own apartment for that time, so what property did she leave at defendant's home?  

Plaintiff, and daughter never paid anything while staying at defendant's home.   Plaintiff claims she paid $3,000 for bills.    Defendant put plaintiff on his bank account, and that's how she paid the bills.  Plaintiff paid $60 for a power bill,  Plaintiff lived in the home for seven months.   Plaintiff's daughter moved in, and plaintiff's son stayed a month.     Plaintiff can only prove she paid $1200 for the entire time she lived there with her kids, and $3,000 she claims she paid him, so she can stuff that. Plaintiff works 8 hours a week, and is on disability, since 2003.   Plaintiff claims she got the expensive stuff back, but not her mirror.   And she only got the left shoes, not the right (or the other way around). 

As JJ says, she had plenty of time to move her stuff out, even if defendant didn't know she was dumping him, and her daughter still lived there for four or five months, so she can forget that part of her stupid claim too.  Defendant's new girlfriend is in court.   

Defendant counter claim is for the $1254 plaintiff took out of the joint bank account he foolishly had with plaintiff.   Plaintiff finally sent house keys back after she kept coming in the house, while the new girlfriend lived there.   His new girlfriend pays rent too.  (Plaintiff is despicable.   If defendant was so awful, then why was her college age daughter living with him for months, without plaintiff?) 

Plaintiff case dismissed.    Defendant case dismissed (he closed the account). 

Edited December 2, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 11/30/2020 at 6:54 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Army Buddy's Dishonorable Friendship-Plaintiff Rita Dixon (daughter), and mother, Rita Leroy are suing defendant Jeremy Miller for hotel rental, and transportation costs, and unpaid loans.   Defendant and plaintiff met in the military (Air Force), and were friends.  Plaintiff lives with her husband, two children, and her mother is co-plaintiff.  Plaintiff daughter works at Lackland AFB, Texas.  Plaintiff was called by defendant and told about his marital issues, and wanting to move to Texas.   Plaintiff offered to pay for bus or plane ticket, and defendant couldn't take certain HVAC equipment with him, a one-way car rental wasn't going to work either.   It was 8 to 10 hours driving time, plus a side trip to see defendant's son.   So plaintiff paid for the hotel room for defendant and his sons, and plaintiff met him at the motel the next day, and brought him back to Texas.    

Good Lord--if that's the kind of people in the military,  We.are. screwed! Plaintiff was kind caring,but the defendant was dumber than a box of hair!

[LetsStartTalking]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (2020, new)-

Taser-Wielding Neighbor!-Plaintiff Channel Barnes suing neighbor in a four-plex,  Ponce and father Richard Ponce.    Plaintiff claims defendant father hit her car, and he admits hitting it, but says he car was parked illegally, and in the way.   Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible, rental car fees, and some other garbage.    Defendant daughter SSMOF (Sainted Single MOther of Four), and her four children moved in to the four-plex, and her boyfriend (father of SSMOF's youngest) argued with plaintiff over where the boyfriend parked.   Plaintiff claims she couldn't turn into her garage or park in front of her patio, because of the boyfriend's car.   Plaintiff wanted to park next to her patio, which is not a restricted parking area.    Plaintiff daughter says she told boyfriend not to park there, but he didn't listen.   

To get into or out of the plaintiff's garage, the boyfriend would have to move his car.    Defendant daughter mentions that if plaintiff parks in front of her own patio, then other tenants can't access their garages.     Defendant father says he hit plaintiff's van when he was working on daughter's new car, and plaintiff has the garage adjoining daughter's garage.   When defendant father backed up, he hit driver side of plaintiff's car, resulting in a $500 deductible.  Was plaintiff in a legal space either?    

Harassment case plaintiff claims people walking by are 'mean mugging' her (Is that the same as "He looked at me funny?"), and she thinks everyone is going to attack her, or come in her apartment.     Plaintiff claims defendant father is parking beside her patio, and claims the father, and another sister of the defendant started calling her names.     Plaintiff isn't suing defendant sister, so that's dismissed.    Plaintiff and defendant father were videoing each other.    Plaintiff also says there is 'high traffic number of people' going in and out of defendant's apartment.    

Defendant SSMOF really has nothing to do with this case, just the father, and boyfriend (boyfriend isn't in court).    Defendant father claims plaintiff pulled a taser on him, as a threat, and I believe him.     Defendant father also says plaintiff called him a drug addict, and other slurs.    

After the incident CPS showed up at defendant's house, what a coincidence.

$500 to plaintiff for deductible.  

 

Now here was a case where I wished Judge Judy snapped "I didn't go to post-graduate school to figure out who parks in a garage". This was one of the dullest cases in JJ history. I can't believe she wasted all that time on this one.

[One Tough Cookie]

Did anyone hear dogs barking in the middle of yesterday -- guess her highness  brought of her dogs for a doggy day out.

[KittyMom4]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

To get into or out of the plaintiff's garage, the boyfriend would have to move his car.    Defendant daughter mentions that if plaintiff parks in front of her own patio, then other tenants can't access their garages. 

 

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Harassment case plaintiff claims people walking by are 'mean mugging' her (Is that the same as "He looked at me funny?"), and she thinks everyone is going to attack her, or come in her apartment.

I didn't understand why the landlord wasn't involved? I did feel bad for the plaintiff having to come home to this crap every day, the defendant and her father both seemed like mean people. I wouldn't want to have to confront my neighbor's boyfriend, I just don't get why the landlord wasn't called. 

[Bobby88]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (2020, new)-

Taser-Wielding Neighbor!-Plaintiff Channel Barnes suing neighbor in a four-plex,  Ponce and father Richard Ponce.    Plaintiff claims defendant father hit her car, and he admits hitting it, but says he car was parked illegally, and in the way.   Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible, rental car fees, and some other garbage.    Defendant daughter SSMOF (Sainted Single MOther of Four), and her four children moved in to the four-plex, and her boyfriend (father of SSMOF's youngest) argued with plaintiff over where the boyfriend parked.   Plaintiff claims she couldn't turn into her garage or park in front of her patio, because of the boyfriend's car.   Plaintiff wanted to park next to her patio, which is not a restricted parking area.    Plaintiff daughter says she told boyfriend not to park there, but he didn't listen.   

To get into or out of the plaintiff's garage, the boyfriend would have to move his car.    Defendant daughter mentions that if plaintiff parks in front of her own patio, then other tenants can't access their garages.     Defendant father says he hit plaintiff's van when he was working on daughter's new car, and plaintiff has the garage adjoining daughter's garage.   When defendant father backed up, he hit driver side of plaintiff's car, resulting in a $500 deductible.  Was plaintiff in a legal space either?    

Harassment case plaintiff claims people walking by are 'mean mugging' her (Is that the same as "He looked at me funny?"), and she thinks everyone is going to attack her, or come in her apartment.     Plaintiff claims defendant father is parking beside her patio, and claims the father, and another sister of the defendant started calling her names.     Plaintiff isn't suing defendant sister, so that's dismissed.    Plaintiff and defendant father were videoing each other.    Plaintiff also says there is 'high traffic number of people' going in and out of defendant's apartment.    

Defendant SSMOF really has nothing to do with this case, just the father, and boyfriend (boyfriend isn't in court).    Defendant father claims plaintiff pulled a taser on him, as a threat, and I believe him.     Defendant father also says plaintiff called him a drug addict, and other slurs.    

After the incident CPS showed up at defendant's house, what a coincidence.

$500 to plaintiff for deductible.  

This case SO did not warrant a full 30-minute episode. The defendants seem like jerks, but I think the plaintiff is a crybaby who was looking for  reasons to play the victim, hence the repeated references to "mean mugging" which is not a crime. And I actually do believe that she was illegally parked.

Anybody else get the feeling that this wasn't (or isn't) the first time she has accused other tenants in the complex of "threatening" her? 

I agree with whoever said this was one case where JJ's "I didn't go to law school to listen to [insert crap here]" spiel was totally in order. I really wish she had raked the plaintiff over the coals for the CPS call (which I absolutely believe happened and was done vindictively). That is exactly the way you're NOT supposed to use child protective agencies. Someone being a dick to you over a fender-bender doesn't mean they're abusive or neglectful parents. As far as the "high traffic number of people" in and out of the defendant's apartment is concerned, unless she can somehow prove that said people are committing some type of crime or hurting the defendants' children, it's none of her business who goes in and out of someone else's unit where she neither lives nor pays rent. If the landlord has an issue with the defendants' alleged visitors, it is his/her responsibility to address it, not another tenant.

Sorry to drag this out (not unlike the episode itself, lol), but has anyone else noticed a certain pattern with some litigants in recent years where the seemingly normal, calm, articulate ones (usually female plaintiffs like this one) actually seem like or end up being the real instigators while people like the defendants who come across as disrespectful and generally less educated are at least partially in the right?  I have little doubt that the plaintiff can be just as (as the kids nowadays say) ratchet as the defendants when she feels wronged, but knew what JJ likes to see and hear and as a result, the judgement was in her favor. There's obviously appropriate courtroom behavior and everyone who enters a court should try to be as respectful and prepared as possible, but these really stark contrasts between plaintiffs and litigants seem really contrived. The irony is that in this case and other similar cases, the bumbling defendants usually admit to some wrongdoing on their part and only really object to the situation being exaggerated. It's the well-dressed plaintiffs who usually keep insisting on $5,000 because they felt "threatened" over nothing.

I think these contestants know EXACTLY what JJ wants to hear and how she judges people based on certain characteristics and tailor their performances accordingly. And 99% of the time, it seems to work. I've seen her award articulate people who present zero real evidence the max while screaming at the other party (some of whom I'm convinced actually have some type of cognitive issues) because they get disability or some other noise about Byrd's money that isn't relevant to the case at hand.

Or am I imagining things?

Edited December 2, 2020 by Bobby88

[dvr devotee]

In today's "new" episode (TEEN PITCHES FIT OVER A/C?!; JUST DON'T DO IT!)  the first case is new in pandemic style, while the second is an old case. At the beginning of the second case, JJ admonishes the 22-year-old defendant with "I've been a star for 17 years, when you were still pooping your pants!" so it seems the case is from 2012. I guess it's good they're reaching further back so the cases won't be too familiar to viewers. It'll be interesting to see if the second half of this season ends up being "the best cases of the last 25 years." I actually wouldn't mind that at all.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Bobby88 said:

has anyone else noticed a certain pattern with some litigants in recent years where the seemingly normal, calm, articulate ones (usually female plaintiffs like this one) actually seem like or end up being the real instigators while people like the defendants who come across as disrespectful and generally less educated are at least partially in the right? 

That is what I felt on the "car girl" case today on PC (I suspect that most of us who watch one show, also watch the other). She did the cute little innocent girl routine from the beginning while the defendant came across as distinctly not much of a gentleman. However by the end, JM completely and clearly explained why everything bad that happened was completely the fault of the plaintiff.

Edited December 2, 2020 by DoctorK
clarified that I referred to a similar case on PC.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

https://apnews.com/article/judith-sheindlin-coronavirus-pandemic-courts-2d51bce24dc2f644353368a8aa333605?fbclid=IwAR0pcs-kP8CPz51oOJDROLuU9jRemrMLOLATmU_uKATRFRE8ajtiw9PEqto

This may have been posted before, but I really enjoyed this article!

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Ex-Heroin Addict Tire-Slashing Mother?-Plaintiff Robert Quaas (some kind of ice guide, whatever that is) is suing former roommate Jennifer Urrutia SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three children, the youngest is less than a year old) for slashing his tires, and disposing of his ice fishing equipment,   Defendant had her children living with her after the kids spent a year in foster care.    Defendant has mental health and physical issues, and receives SS disability, and a son also has SSDI.    Litigants lived in the same rental house, plaintiff rented a room, defendant, her boyfriend (father of her youngest child), and her children lived in the same home.    Plaintiff paid $3,000 for the season  (March to August) for rent, in cash, paid to defendant.  Plaintiff says defendant trashed all of his property when he moved out.  Plaintiff says his new place didn't have enough space for all of his property, so he left it behind.   In October, plaintiff turned the defendant into CPS, (however, he moved out in August), and says plaintiff is vindictive.  Plaintiff claims defendant abused her children while he lived in the rented room, but he didn't turn the audio tapes to CPS until August.  Defendant says CPS visited her home in August, but the tire slashing happened the first of October.

Defendant is receiving rent assistance, and two disability checks, but her live-in boyfriend claims she's paying her own way.  She also says her children were taken away because she was a heroin addict for years, but claims to be clean now.   There is some letter from a social worker saying what a nice person the defendant is.     Defendant has nothing saying when her case was opened, and closed.    

Defendant has a counter claim for plaintiff filing a false police report against her, and a CPS complaint.  Defendant also says she gets respite care where her problem child is sent outside the home to stay overnight, so defendant gets a break.

Plaintiff made a police report about the tires, but has no proof of who slashed the tires.   He claims some woman was paid by defendant to slash the tires.   

Everything dismissed. 

Used Car Exploitation-Plaintiff Letitia Contreras is suing Edward Wyrick Sr, and his fiance, Lorina Alexander, over a 17 year old car she sold them.    Plaintiff wants the full Blue Book price on car, but sold it for a lower price to defendants.    No one can agree on the exact price, or how much was paid on the car, and how much is left to be paid.   Defendants want the payments, and repair costs back.   Plaintiff claims the defendants have the car, but they say they don't.   TItle is in plaintiff's name.   Plaintiff claims car price was $1700, defendant claims $1500, and defendant claims he paid $1400.   So defendant either owe $100, or $300.     JJ has plaintiff sign title over to defendants.

JJ says they don't keep her here because she's gorgeous, and  plaintiff says "she's gorgeous too" (no, she isn't), and she interrupted JJ.      

Plaintiff claims defendants traded the car in, but how can they do it without the title?   Plaintiff bought the car at an auction, and sold to the defendant a little while later.   Defendants say they didn't trade the car in, but someone stole the license plates, and then the car disappeared. 

Plaintiff receives $100, and defendants get the signed title. 

Second (2017)-

Salon Thievery-Plaintiff Valarie Fails suing former business partners, Erica Taniehill, and Marissa Lampkin,  over a beauty salon business, alleging property stolen, and loss of income.   Plaintiff claims the two defendants illegally evicted her.  At one time both defendants worked for plaintiff, then they all decided to expand the salon, move to a new location, and become partners.    Plaintiff and husband did renovations on the new beauty shop, and she worked full time at the salon, but says  defendants were only in the salon a day or two a week, and worked other jobs. 

 Lease still has two more years to run.   Taniehill is the only one who signed the lease, and had the lease before the other two decided to move in, and start the salon.  Taniehill and Lampkin are still operating the salon, without plaintiff.   Both sides are claiming breach of partnership agreement.  

Plaintiff claims the two defendants breached the partnership contract by working very few hours.    Plaintiff claims she paid the utilities, and in December she came to work, and the lights were cut off.  Plaintiff called one defendant and asked about power outage, then other issues happened with the plumbing, and the end of the month plaintiff left the salon.  

Plaintiff claims she owned all salon equipment and stations, except one sofa, and claims defendants kept everything after she left.      Defendants deny plaintiff left much behind.   Funny, the defendant who is talking doesn't look at JJ at all.   Plaintiff has order giving her furniture back, everything that she brought from the old salon she owned.   

I'm guessing anything belonging to plaintiff was gone before they got back to their city. 

Defendants get nothing for the breach of lease, because only one defendant signed the lease, and not plaintiff.     

Plaintiffs get some chairs, cash register, iPod station, salon shampoo chairs, hard hair dryers, stand up mirrors, and her remaining items she brought from the old salon.  Plaintiff gets her stuff back (what defendant didn't trash or sell).   Plaintiff gets $500 for her property.     

You're an Idiot-Plaintiff Alison Williams Palmersuing ex-boyfriend Jordan Gilliam for an unpaid loan.    Defendant says the $800 loan for a car was a gift, not a loan.  Plaintiff, as usual, got a new phone since the loan, with text messages gone that prove $800 was a loan, not a gift.     (Plaintiff gave iPhone with messages to her 4 year old cousin, so we get to see them).   I'm almost as happy as JJ, when I hear that plaintiff still has the texts, making the 'gift' a loan. 

Texts were printed out, and show that it was a loan, so $800 to plaintiff. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (2020 new)-

Teen Pitches Fit Over A/C?-(2020 post Covid case)-Plaintiff Justin Hodge, age 18,  suing his mother, Christine Connel, for illegal eviction, moving costs, computer tablet, and broken phone  Son lived with aunt from 3 months to age 13.    Son had visitation with mother once a week, and aunt was his legal guardian.   Since age 13, plaintiff has been living with the mother, and the fight was over heat/ac conflict.   During the fight plaintiff says mother broke his phone, but she bought it.   Laptop was claimed to be purchased by the mother too.   Defendant claims plaintiff broke his own phone.     

During the argument police were called, and plaintiff grabbed a skillet "to defend himself" from defendant.   Plaintiff admits he hit the floor with the frying pan a couple of times.    Plaintiff says police did not do a report, and were called by neighbors.     

The fight was started by son, because mother turned the air conditioning off, and son wanted it back on.  Defendant claims son didn't have an issue about anything until his friend Devin told him what to do.     I think the defendant's right about that.   I bet Devin thinks that if son gets a restraining order, then mother will get removed from her own house, and he can move in a be another squatter.   

Litigants are estranged.   Defendant will give laptop back to plaintiff, because it was a gift from the mother.  

Plaintiff receives laptop back.       

Just Don’t Do It!-(2012, 17th season)-Plaintiff Tracy Cooper is suing Jeff Black, claiming he stole her exercise machine.     JJ asks defendant where the exercise machine is, and smart ass defendant says I don't have it.   Defendant looks like he's been pole axed.   Defendant's fiancee says defendant sold the exercise machine to a friend of defendant named, Adam.    JJ tells defendant fiancee that she's with a fool, and as usual, fiancee just smirks.  

Defendant claims plaintiff abandoned the exercise machine.   He claims plaintiff sold him the machine for $500, but plaintiff says he's lying. Plaintiff hired mover Jeff Black to move her household goods, including the exercise machine.   

Defendant fiancee says defendant loser sold the machine to Adam for $500.    Machine is gone.

In hall-terview defendant's fiancee says that defendant was just nervous, isn't a bad person (for a thief;, my view, not hers), and how it's all a misunderstanding.   (Guess who was totally slammed on his FB page for his moving company, in 2015?   That must have been a rerun of the episode.    Yes, good old Jeff, I wonder if he's still a mover? ).   Actually he specializes in pool table moves now.   No exercise machines.

Plaintiff receives $500 for the older exercise machine.  

Second (2020)-

My Grandfather Abused Me?!-Plaintiff Cassandra Currier suing grandfather Michael Walker for assault, illegal eviction, and restraining order .    Plaintiff was living with her grandfather, at her mother's for two months, and then went back to grandfather.    Plaintiff says her mother made false allegation of domestic violence against her, so police arrested her.  Plaintiff, grandfather, and mother all had conflicts, then mother moved out, and plaintiff went with her for two months.   Then plaintiff moved back in with grandfather.    Plaintiff paid no home expenses, so she was a guest, not a tenant.  

Grandfather is on parole for first degree murder (plaintiff manages to put that in there).    Plaintiff says grandfather can only live in the house if granddaughter lives there, because of parole conditions.     When plaintiff moved out, she lived in her car.   Plaintiff claims she's still living in her car, and has no job still, but is now staying with a friend (No, that doesn't make sense, but it's what she said).     Plaintiff claims she was going to be working at a job with shipping, and receiving but never got paid. 

In November 2019, plaintiff says a fight started between her, and the grandfather over the electric line to the well pump.    Plaintiff says grandfather punched her, and put her in a choke hold.  There are no reports or photos documenting abuse.   Then, grandfather says he heard an electrical spark, and plaintiff attached a 220 volt line to a ground wire, and grandfather told her to leave the water pump electric line alone.    Plaintiff claims a dog they were dog sitting on Rover . com, was given an overdose by grandfather, and the dog died.  

A month later the police were called by plaintiff, after defendant made a police report about her stealing a $1,000 cell phone.  Plaintiff was still living in the house with grandfather, and didn't try to file the police report for over a month after the 'assault' against her happened.     Plaintiff is a permanent victim.     Grandfather says in hall-terview that plaintiff ran up $14,000 plus on his credit cards. 

(My view is granddaughter filed everything, and made sure to tell the entire world that she moved out, and grandpa's parole was violated, because she thinks she'll get the house after he goes back to prison.   I guess mortgage, property taxes, utilities, etc. never crossed her mind.   Probably thinks she'll get the property in her name, and then sell it).   

I felt sorry for her at first, but not after the grandfather's side of the story,  I suspect everything that happens to the plaintiff is someone else's fault.  Plaintiff moved in with some unemployed man, and the man's mother.   I wonder how long the friend, and his mother will tolerate her in their house, and how long after he tells her to leave that she files against him?

Case dismissed.  

Woman Shoves Ex-Lover Down Stairs?!-Plaintiff Sean Rogers Sr suing ex-girlfriend Carla Robinson for hospital bills, and lost wages after defendant knocked him down stairs deliberately.   Plaintiff says after they broke up, he went to retrieve a few items at defendant's home, he says at 9 p.m., , and she pushed him down the stairs.    Defendant says plaintiff came over very late at night (11 p.m. or midnight), and defendant refused to let him in.   Defendant finally admits it was 9 p.m.     Defendant claims that when she refused to let him into her house, plaintiff ripped the house mailbox off, and that's when he fell off of the porch, and hurt his foot.  

Plaintiff is a walking salesman in Milwaukee, and sells to people directly.   Medical records are submitted by plaintiff, but he didn't go to doctor until long after his injury.   

Case dismissed. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

There is definitely something amiss with Sonny Jim A/C skillet boy.   Whatever it is, there's no way he would have the gumption or knowledge to file a lawsuit unless his "friend" Devin was advising him.

[parrotfeathers]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My Grandfather Abused Me?!-Plaintiff Cassandra Currier suing grandfather Michael Walker for assault, illegal eviction, and restraining order .    Plaintiff was living with her grandfather, at her mother's for two months, and then went back to grandfather.    Plaintiff says her mother made false allegation of domestic violence against her, so police arrested her.  Plaintiff, grandfather, and mother all had conflicts, then mother moved out, and plaintiff went with her for two months.   Then plaintiff moved back in with grandfather.    Plaintiff paid no home expenses, so she was a guest, not a tenant.  

She sure must be a peach to live with.   Glad JJ sent her packing with nothing.