All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Back Atcha · February 1, 2021

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Once upon a time I knew a few phone numbers.

When I was a teenager (I'm 80 now), I remembered EVERYONE'S phone number. We could "cruise Central" meet some new kids (mostly boys) and they'd give us their numbers. My friends would tell everyone to give the numbers to me because I "remember everything." Decades later, it was the same story with my older son (54) and when he bragged about it, I told him to not be so cocky...that he wouldn't remember those numbers FOREVER. And it came to be..... (We both still remember many of them--mostly disconnected.)

CrazyInAlabama · February 1, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Book Launch Fail!-Plaintiff Heather Van Arsdel suing ghost writer, defendant Loretta Paraguarasso for not writing her book proposal, title page, sample chapters to pitch to publishers. Book was about plaintiff's fascinating life, with high profile individuals. What defendant produced was a title page, Defendant says she couldn't do a synopsis of a book, because plaintiff didn't write the book. No table of contents for the same reason. Title page was produced, one sentence, and no contents page. Technical details, and author bio were not done, because no book, and no information from the plaintiff. Defendant claims book was about an NBA player that

Plaintiff paid $5,000 for the book proposal. and receives $5,000.

When Starving Golden Retrievers Attack?! -Plaintiff Leonard and Stacie Jablon are suing defendant Louis Palos. over defendant’s off-leash Golden Retriever and Bull Terrier attacking their small dog (10-15 pounds). Plaintiffs want vet bills and punitive damages, $2,000. Plaintiff's tiny dog was attacked by defendant's two off leash Golden Retrievers. Defendant says his dogs didn't attack the plaintiffs' dog, but the dogs went back to defendant's house after the attack. Vet bill is over $900, and was already paid by the plaintiffs.

Golden Retrievers are supposedly owned by defendant's ex-wife who lives in Las Vegas, so he claims they're not his dogs. The photo of the one Golden shows an emaciated dog.

Defendant's daughter is lying for her father. Defendant claims no one asked him to pay the bill. Plaintiff says animal control couldn't locate the dog, so plaintiff walked around the neighborhood, and found the pictured animal. Animal control came to pick the dog, and daughter was there upset about it, and plaintiff asked her why the dog was so emaciated, and talked to father on the phone about the bill. Defendant says the Golden is supposed to look like that. Plaintiff and JJ are very upset about the state of the Golden Retriever.

Defendant's dogs have a decent home now, I hope.

$1500 to plaintiffs

Second (2017)-

Last Will and Testament Surprise- Plaintiff Thomas Reilly suing his cousin, defendant Anna Wells for legal fees due to false allegations by her. Plaintiff's sister died in California, had cancer, and plaintiff and wife moved from Florida to California, However, plaintiffs are working on a contracting job in California, and still are, and didn't just move to help sister. Plaintiff says he did move with the wife, to help the sister, and are originally from California. (I hate plaintiff's witness/wife's hair bow). There were six siblings of the sister and plaintiff. Plaintiff and wife took care of the sister, for a long time.

Then sister dies, and at will reading the sister left everything to the cousin/defendant, and plaintiff was made trustee to the estate for the cousin/defendant. Plaintiff says defendant didn't like the way he handled the trust, and so plaintiff dropped out as trustee. Plaintiff says estate went through four attorneys for the estate in six months, because defendant is hard to work with.

After defendant got into the sister's condo, she claimed a lot of stuff was missing, and vandalized, so defendant put in a claim through the homeowner's insurance company. Insurance adjuster said the police report says defendant names plaintiff as the thief. (Plaintiff's wife is booted for butting in).

Plaintiff wasn't given a copy of police report, because he was named as the culprit by defendant. Defendant has a copy of the police report, which says defendant said plaintiff ruined the sleep number mattress, and other items, said plaintiff is unstable and vindictive, and she didn't want criminal charges, just a police report for the insurance company. Defendant also didn't want the police to contact the plaintiff either.

Defendant received $16,000 from the insurance company, for a bicycle, purse, mattress, etc., (When the amount is read of the payout, the audience members gasp, and don't get told to be quiet). However, as JJ points out, defendant paid for none of these items, but had a windfall from the insurance company. That's also why she didn't want an investigation, but just wanted the report for the insurance company. Defendant didn't even make the report to police until two months after the alleged theft. I can't believe the insurance company paid off on the vandalism and thefts, no proof of purchases to equal $16,000, no proof of who stole, or vandalized anything, it could have been anyone, including defendant, someone else with a key, or anyone who knew the condo was not occupied.

I don't see why the insurance company paid off on a theft, and vandalism where the defendant refused to file charges, wanted no investigation, and hadn't paid a penny for any of the items. How does the insurance company pay someone for items she can't prove existed? (On a personal nasty note, I can see that the amount of facial work defendant had done has eaten up the money from the insurance.) Defendant sold the condo for $407,500, net $120,000, plus the $16,000 for the insurance payout.

Plaintiff and wife are contractors, and this could have seriously hurt his ability to get bonded, and have a contractor's license. Plus a felony record disqualifies you for lot of jobs. I agree with plaintiff, it was all about the money. Defendant is counter suing for her insurance deductible, car insurance, harassment, etc., which will be dismissed. Defendant made a profit of $75k, plus the $16k, and is whining because she had to pay the condo/HOA fees, utilities.

Plaintiff's case is that to clear his name with the insurance agency, he had to hire an attorney for $800.

$800 for plaintiff for attorney fees.

Silent Partner Rip-Off-Plaintiff Tina Dunham suing former business partner/defendant Chris Uldall, over $1800 she calls a loan, and defendant said was a business investment that didn't pan out. Loan was supposed to pay defendant's bills. Defendant was also an ex of plaintiff's daughter.

As usual, defendant claims it was a failed investment, not his fault, and plaintiff isn't getting her 'investment' back. Defendant says business was to start flipping cars.

$1800 to plaintiff.

Edited February 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · February 1, 2021

16 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

DITTO...tho' not really a dinosaur, just rarely need to be using the cellphone. My outgoing voicemail message on the cell lets people know that it's rarely turned on..."and if you know me, call my home number."

That is exactly what my message is. Most people know not to waste their time on my cell. I usually jut turn it on when I go driving.

CrazyInAlabama · February 1, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Down and Out Divorcees! -Plaintiff Thomas Mercer suing defendant/former wife Jennifer Mercer over a car loan. They have four children together, plaintiff claims all four children lived with him after the divorce, and defendant claims the 11 and 8 year old child moved with her (they were 1 and 3 at the time). Plaintiff got the house, with the children. Plaintiff had physical custody of all four children, and there was a three year trial determining the divorce, custody, and property issues. In 2017 defendant moved back into the marital home until recently, with ex-husband, and four children. By 2018 defendant needed a car, so plaintiff took out a loan in 2019, for $3500 for car repairs, and then $9,000 for another car. Defendant claims the loan also was to pay for home repairs, not just her car.

Plaintiff says defendant has issues telling the truth.

JJ says they were shacking up, so it was marital debt, so plaintiff case dismissed.

Eviction Relief is not for Squatters -Plaintiff Artin Sarkissian suing defendant/former tenant Adela Zamora over unpaid rent. Plaintiff bought an apartment building, and issued new leases to tenants, including the defendant and her family. Plaintiff wants the last nine days, $558 rent for the nine days she went over to the next month. Defendant claims the house was horrible, but yet she stayed there over three years. Plaintiff will not get $5,000 he's suing for, because defendant's brother moved in, wouldn't leave, is still living in the apartment, never paid rent. However, plaintiff had brother on the original lease.

Plaintiff will have to sue defendant's brother for squatting in the apartment. Defendant's brother, wife, and two children live in the apartment also, and have since October. JJ tells plaintiff that the moratorium won't end until at least March 2021, so brother can't be evicted until then. However, defendant claims brother works at Wingstop, and plaintiff says Wingstop says brother doesn't work there, so plaintiff can try garnishing, bet it won't work. However, JJ points out the moratorium was for people who lost jobs due to Covid, and defendant brother claims he's had his hours cut, but was never laid off. (Supposedly, the rent is due in total at the end of the moratorium, so brother will be in big trouble. However, the apartment owner will be lucky to ever get the brother, and his family out, and if the apartment isn't totally destroyed).

$558 for unpaid rent to plaintiff.

Second (2020)-

Scorned Lovers Gang Up on Cheating Boyfriend?!-Plaintiff Randa Ramia suing ex-boyfriend/defendant Adrian Astorga, over his use of her credit cards for a business defendant was starting. Plaintiff claims defendant moved in with her last September, but defendant denies he moved in full time with plaintiff. Defendant is living with Baby Mama #2 Claudia, and has another kid (11) with another Baby Mama #1 Andrea. Defendant has been living with Baby Mama #2 Claudia for 2 years, but has been dating plaintiff for a long time.

In last September 2019 defendant moved into the plaintiff's apartment, and plaintiff claims he lived there full time. Then plaintiff was contacted by one of the other girlfriends (mother of 2 year old, Claudia Baby Mama #2). Plaintiff, and baby mama #2 Claudia met in person. Claudia, aka Baby Mama #2 lives with her mother, and defendant told her that plaintiff was his roommate's sister, and he was living with a male co-worker.

Defendant claims he wasn't ever living with plaintiff, just Baby Mama #2, Claudia. He also denies buying anything for himself with plaintiff's credit card.

Plaintiff paid $3100 for defendant's insurance, but defendant claims he didn't ask her to.

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

Nasty Driver Pays the Price?!-Plaintiff Eric Jimenez suing fellow motorist/defendant Melinda Robles for an accident in a shopping center parking lot. Both drivers were looking for a parking place in the lot, plaintiff's car was insured (plaintiff was driving a Honda Civic), and defendant claims she was also (her car was much bigger).

Plaintiff tried to contact defendant's insurance company, and Fred Loya's insurance, the adjustor said defendant claimed it wasn't her fault, and that's who the insurance company went with. So plaintiff's claim was denied.

Plaintiff says he was parking in a space, when defendant whacked into his car trying to beat him to the space. Plaintiff says defendant looked like she was turning down another aisle, went beyond the empty space, suddenly reversed, floored it, and hit his car. When litigants had the accident there was a vacant space, and the defendant went to make a right turn into another parking row, and then defendant backed up very quickly, and defendant backed into plaintiff's front fender.

Plaintiff receives $719.

Edited February 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

VartanFan · February 2, 2021

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims the house was horrible, but yet she stayed there over three years.

I wanted to slam the brother over the head with a frying pan. It went right over this twit's head that she kept saying the apartment was falling apart, not safe, had rodents but yet your brother will stay there with his wife, little kid, and baby?? Sure, right. I become infuriated over the people who have started to squat just because they know they can now. We have a single renter and she's thankfully been lucky and kept her job, but it's like...nobody is letting us off the hook for paying our mortgage! And guess what? We're in MA where, even if your renter pays you NOTHING, you can't charge late fees Your only recourse is to evict...but now you can't evict. So...if our tenant decides not to pay, we can TRY to get the back rent from her after the moratorium is up, but what do you think the odds are that judges will make plaintiffs pay ALL the money back? In the meantime, the mortgage company is charging the owner/landlord all sorts of fees and your credit is getting demolished.

I know this is a tough time for so many and it's the sleazeballs that anger me; not the people who are trying to do the right thing.

DoctorK · February 2, 2021

On 2/1/2021 at 7:28 PM, VartanFan said:

I wanted to slam the brother over the head with a frying pan.

That worthless POS planned this from the beginning. Get on the lease then don't pay any rent but use the Covid crap to squat for months. They planned this scam from the beginning to screw the property owner and get a free place to squat for free. OK, so you are so broke that you can't feed your kids without food stamps then lets pop out another baby so you can suck up benefits that the rest of us pay for. He was a complete grifting piece of crap. This piece of garbage knows that when the "Covid - can't evict" runs out he has no visible assets so the the property owner can never collect for the unpaid rent.

Edited February 8, 2021 by DoctorK

CrazyInAlabama · February 2, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

No One Talks to Judge Judy Like That! -Plaintiffs Mason and Ieasha Mekhi/landlords are suing defendant/former tenant Dalia Charlemagne for assault, and unpaid rent. This was a botched co-op deal for the plaintiffs, and they weren't allowed to sublet rooms. Not coming to court with clean hands sank the plaintiffs' case, and the plaintiff husband's back talk to JJ goes over badly.

Case dismissed.

Grief and Trauma Rental? – Plaintiff /former tenant Avissa Ilkhan suing defendants/landlords Anthony Cruz and Luis Jacobo, and plaintiff wants her security deposit back. Plaintiff quit her job, and moved back with her mother after mother had a death of a close family member, but plaintiff didn't give 30 days notice which is required in the lease. Defendant's are renting a house from a relative, and are allowed to rent rooms. $250 was security deposit.

Plaintiff claims the defendant said she could leave without 30 days notice, but defendants deny that. Defendants are counter claiming for cleaning fees, and additional occupant fees.

Plaintiff claims her abrupt departure was because her mother was sick, mother lost her sister suddenly, and was sick emotionally. Plaintiff quit her job, and moved home with her mother.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2012)-

Three-timing Boyfriend – Plaintiff Antranick Harrentsian went to jail for domestic violence, and he gave his cell phone to defendant, is suing defendant/ex-girlfriends of plaintiff for vandalizing his car, home, and belongings. Plaintiff was arrested for domestic violence. Plaintiff says Melinda Church has his cell phone, and Nancy Ramirez kept calling the cell phone. Melinda Church and Ms. Ramirez went to plaintiff's house, because she claimed and Ramirez (other girlfriend). Plaintiff's other girlfriend is Marie, who he had a restraining order against, but is at his house constantly by his invitation. Defendant witness, Ms. Ramirez claims she only took her property, but didn't damage anything else is the house, or steal anything.

Plaintiff claims defendants took his property, and ripped off his debit card number, and made charges on the card. He also says defendants scratched, and vandalized his car, and bleached and destroyed his clothes.

Plaintiff is a real estate broker, and has his own company, but made no money last year.

Defendant Ms. Church picked plaintiff up at the jail, in his car, but he claims he was afraid of defendant Church. but he rode home with her in his car. Plaintiff's witness is another friend with benefits,

Plaintiff case dismissed. (Defendant claims there are seven women that hate him, and count me as number eight).

Edited February 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 2, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

We Hate Your Boyfriend! -Plaintiffs Alyssa Galindo, and Arenia Robinson suing defendant Jazmin Linden, and they were all roommates. Plaintiffs say defendant's boyfriend was a virtual resident of the apartment, and it is claimed the boyfriend posted bad pictures on the internet, to strike back at the plaintiffs. After defendant moved out, she paid rent except for the $5660 owed for damages, and $400 for the last month's pro rated rent. Landlords charged for carpet, door, trim and other replacement.

Counter claim by defendant is for damages to her couch by plaintiff's cats, and burn marks from cigarettes. Defendant's counter claim dismissed.

The reason defendant moved out was she claims Arenia sent her a text that defendant's boyfriend was no longer welcome at the apartment.

JJ asks what boyfriend did to them, that made them say he was unwelcome in the apartment. JJ says that plaintiff's needed a reason to ban the boyfriend. Plaintiffs say boyfriend was there for multiple days in a row.

Plaintiff and defendant cases dismissed.

Sucker Punch – Plaintiff Regina Larrie suing defendant Darren Harrington for assaulting her, after she pushed him away. The litigants were at a small gathering at a friend's place, and plaintiff claims defendant touched her butt, and she pushed him away and told him not to touch her like that again. Plaintiff claims defendant punched her in the face. Defendant says he never touched the plaintiff, but claims she was drunk and shoved him.

Defendant claims everyone at the party was drinking heavily, and he was the one assaulted, not plaintiff.

$1500 for plaintiff for medical bills.

Second (2020)-

Operation Death to Pit Bulls?!-Plaintiff Sarah Gordon suing Pit Bull owner Michael Roston for vet bills after his dogs attacked and killed her dog. Chihuahua / terrier mix was about 16 lbs. Defendant's two dogs are mother and daughter, and he owned them their entire life. Defendant's girlfriend was walking the two dogs. On August 7 plaintiff was walking her dogs, when defendant's witness lost control of the dogs, the Pits attacked, and one Chi died after surgery.

Defendant is suing because San Diego Animal Control declared his two Pits a nuisance, and then defendant has to muzzle dogs outdoors, and had to get special renter's liability insurance on his dogs. Defendant claims plaintiff campaigned to have his dogs killed. Defendant claims his dogs are harmless, and if he blames the small dogs for the attack, I'll puke. Defendant's stupid claims are dismissed. Defendant claims plaintiff woman called his dog 'murderers' on social media, and claims it was plaintiff's social media storm, to get her friends to call the Humane society complaining about his dogs that had them declared vicious.

Defendant says his girlfriend will never walk the dogs again, because she can't control them. Defendant's girlfriend comes back in to testify. Girlfriend says she doesn't know if plaintiff's dogs were on harness, but claims the pit bulls were. Whitney Falk, defendant's witness was walking dogs after dark, dogs were on harness, when dogs stopped, and claims noise startled the dogs. Defendant and girlfriend claim the pits were wearing harnesses, and on leash, but no one was holding the leash. Then, girlfriend claims the dogs met in mutual combat, and she's blaming the Chi cross for the attack. Two 60 pound dogs, vs. a 16 pound dog. Statement by defendant is garbage. Defendant is still enraged that his dogs have to be muzzled. And I hope when they're out without it, someone notifies the authorities, because I have no doubt that defendant does what he wants to. This all happened in San Diego county.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

You're Suing the Wrong Person-Plaintiff Sean Badiian suing appliance repairman Andrew Khovrich for damage to his home. There is a home warranty contract with an annual payment, for repairs. Plaintiff called about a refrigerator leak, it took two trips to fix it, and floors under fridge were damaged, and plaintiff wants $3700 to fix floors. However, his contract is with company, not the repairman. Plaintiff didn't have homeowner's insurance at the time of the leak, and that is the appropriate place to file a claim.

When plaintiff told contract company and said he wanted $3700 for the floors, they told him that they're not responsible. So, he sued the defendant repairman. Defendant never says a word.

Case dismissed.

Edited February 2, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 3, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018) –

Study Abroad Freeloader?! -Plaintiff Lana Boulware/mother suing defendant/son Andre "Dre" Pennington (age 21) for putting his name on an insurance policy, and an unpaid loan. Until this incident, son lived in mother's house. Mother says she loaned son $600 for car insurance, before son went with girlfriend to go to Paris with his girlfriend, for six weeks. Son needed the loan until his student loans came in.

Son and girlfriend combined their funds, and the trip to Paris cost $7,000 total. Son says he was still going to school while he was on vacation, and was doing online classes too. Son denies mother gave him any money when he went to Europe. (I loathe plaintiff and her witness' hair, they look like my sister-in-law). Son has counter claim of illegal eviction from mother's house. Son and girlfriend (age 18) now live together.

Then mother and son called 911, and mother claimed son assaulted her, police didn't do anything to son. There is no proof mother is owed any money. Mother/plaintiff in hall-terview still claims she's going after the son for the thousands he owes her.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Road Rage with Children in the Car?! -Plaintiff Tamisha Moore suing fellow motorist/defendant Tylesha Askew for hitting her after a road rage incident, and both cars had children in them also. Defendant claims the plaintiff waved her over to a gas station for a discussion, and claims plaintiff backed into her car. Plaintiff says her insurance gave her a check to fix damages on her car ($1300), and months later during the repair process, more damages were found, and she wants $5,000 (It does give JJ a good laugh). Who knows what happened to that car during the five months between the incident, and repair shop?

Plaintiff is actually pouting like a little kid.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (2017) –

Internet Obscenity Revenge?!-Plaintiff Mary Class suing former tenants Steve Reid (Tenant #1)and Robert Turner (Tenant #2) for damages to her home, harassment, and defamation. There were six tenants at the end of the lease, and only two were left past lease termination. Plaintiff gave 30 day notice in April, to move out by 1 June, the two tenants were month-to-month tenants, but defendant idiot #1 (the one of the nasty texts to a 10 year old child) says he didn't want to move. Steve Reid. The third remaining tenant was also there until 11 June, Brady Ulrich is Tenant #3.

Tenant #1 Steve Reid, says when plaintiff called one of his Nigerian friends a "Ratchet Princess" he decided to retaliate. PLaintiff was moving back to her $2 million dollar beach house.

When JJ sees the text on plaintiff's phone, she has Officer Byrd show it to defendant witness, tenant #3. After seeing the nasty text sent by idiot #1, Steve Reid, to a 10 year old child, he says if someone sent that to a 10 year old in his family, that person wouldn't be sending any more texts. After the notice was given (they had six months notice that plaintiff wouldn't be renewing the lease), idiot #1, Steve Reid started posting plaintiff's address and other information on revenge porn sites. (Brady Ulrich, witness and tenant #3 is now a Physician's Assistant, so he must be a lot better character than Idiot #1. Judging from his responses at seeing the texts, his reaction is very appropriate).

The nasty ads show requests to call or visit the woman for various sex acts, and role play, all posted by Idiot #1, Steve Reid. They also included her phone number and address. There is nothing the plaintiff sent to defendants that was nasty in any way.

Plaintiff shows photos of the damages to the home.

$5,000 to plaintiff. $5,000 is against Steve Reid.

Wild Car Crash Caught on Tape- (I love cases with video that shows who is lying)-Plaintiff Nafeesa Leverette suing her former friend, Joseph Pinkston, for totaling her car. Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car (they are friends from church), running an errand stopped in at a store, left the motor running, and keys in the car, and the car was stolen (that’s the defendant’s story, which is total garbage). When defendant realized car was stolen (like hell it was, you know he wrecked it), he called plaintiff, a police report was made. 30 minutes later a fireman called plaintiff, asking if she was all right. Car was found wrecked, crashed into a telephone pole, and with the keys on the driver's seat.

Plaintiff had insurance, so that paid off, and there was a shortfall of over $1,000, which plaintiff has been paying off.

There is a video of the car crashing in the telephone pole, showing defendant jumping out of the car, and jumping into another car (sounds like they were street racing). The video is from a neighbor with security cameras, showing the race, the accident, and defendant running to the other car. Defendant is such a liar, it's the same jacket he was wearing when he borrowed the car, and it is absolutely the defendant.

$2800 for plaintiff to cover $1,000 deductible, and shortfall on car insurance.

Edited February 3, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 3, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Judge Unimpressed by Aspiring Rapper! – Plaintiff Erica Fulcher suing defendant, Kishawn Holmes, an unemployed musician, of extortion, crashing her car, and overspending on her credit card. (I'm so glad this isn't on The People's Court, or the defendant would be performing endlessly). Plaintiff rented cars for him, and she let him use her credit card. Defendant also admits to 'accidentally trashing the rental car'. Plaintiff is 35, and defendant is 25, and they aren't dating. (She finally says they were dating, defendant denies it). As JJ says, they were in an intimate relationship, and she gave him the credit card after the car destruction happened. Defendant says dating is only when you're exclusively, not when you're dating others too. It was dating, on this show aka, "Talking".

Defendant was using the rental car to film a music video, and doing tricks, and hit a wall. Plaintiff wanted the keys back on the second rental car, but this was when another woman came to look for the defendant at plaintiff's home.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Big Wedding? Meet the Coronavirus! -Plaintiffs Zuki Khorasanee, and wife suing defendant /wedding venue operator, Christa Mekki, for their $3,000 venue deposit, after the plaintiffs have their wedding over Zoom, instead of at the venue. Defendant says on the date of the wedding, they could still do 50 people total at indoor weddings (this was to happen in November 2020). After the middle of November, no more indoor weddings. Plaintiffs wanted to have 150 guests, in person, at an indoor venue. For their ceremony, on 8 November, they actually had 8 people at the wedding, and the rest were on Zoom.

On November 8, the 50 person limit was still allowed, and zero guests indoor started on 13 November.

JJ gives the $3,000 to the plaintiff. (I wouldn't have given a dime back to the plaintiffs).

Second (2020)-

Demolition Disaster! -Plaintiff Soraya Cassis had a house that burned down, and insurance gave her $210,000 to rebuild the house. Defendant Tony Duarte was hired to demolish the house, and he's being sued for $5,000 for non-performance of their contract. Plaintiff can't even remember how much insurance paid her to rebuild the house. When house burned down in November 2017, she claimed for $230,000 for cost to rebuild house. Defendant says he was only hired for $4800 to clean out house, not demolish it. Insurance paid $90,000 for house property inside, and $120,000 for the house (She did not rebuild). (Does plaintiff think that cheap wig is a disguise? It isn't).

Plaintiff didn't rebuild, but bought another house. Current house is going to be put into trust for her daughters, and she's also suing a former business partner over a deli business. Defendant's bond company is being sued by plaintiff, for $15000, but she only received $4800. Plaintiff paid previous mortgage off, paid cash for the townhouse she's in now.

Plaintiff claims she paid $4500 in advance to defendant to demolish, and rebuild house. Bond company for defendant paid her $4800 for the house demolition rebuilding that was never done. I wonder what her legal bills look like for all of these lawsuits?

Plaintiff claims demolition will cost her $8,000 for the burned home.

Defendant claims contract wasn't to demolish the home, but clean out, and dispose of contents.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

(The woman sued and received every penny back from the defendant through his bond company already, so this was a pointless case. She also had already received every penny from the insurance company for the house (minus $20,000 because she wasn't rebuilding), and her story kept changing. First, she was rebuilding, then she wasn't and bought another place (the townhouse for cash), and then claimed the defendant cheated her out of the demolition money she paid him. Except he was only cleaning the house out of any items left, so demolition could happen, according to the defendant. Then she was claiming to be broke, but had received money for house contents, the house, demolition on the house, but claimed to not know what caused the fire.

Her stories were totally implausible. JJ sent her back to local court, so they could call the fire investigators to testify, the insurance people. Plaintiff had already been made whole over the clean-up part she was suing defendant for, because she sued his bond company, and they paid her. I found it amazing that plaintiff claimed to not really know anything about how the fire started, or the cause. The woman was not out any money for anything, because the bond company, and insurance company paid her everything she had paid the defendant, and insurance paid for the house, and contents. The deli investment was another lawsuit she filed, and had nothing to do with the case at hand, or the house fire. I really hope the insurance and fire investigators did a full investigation on the house fire origin, and causes. I really wanted to see the full fire report, and insurance adjusters reports.)

Just because it was electrical doesn't mean that it didn't have help happening. Or it was bad electrical work by an amateur. With full replacement, you get paid as you rebuild, up to the full replacement, but that mean it replaces the house you had, in size, and other features, not just the cost of exactly replacing the previous home. That's why with full replacement you have to document a lot more to the insurance company. I suspect she had full insurance to the market value of house and contents, not full replacement value, because that would have been paid as the house was rebuilt.

A friend had full replacement on her house, and if they didn't rebuild, then they would have received the value of the property, and house that they lost, minus demo costs. Because they chose to rebuild, they had to submit different invoices, for labor, supplies, framing costs, etc., since they were their own General Contractors. It came out to more money from the insurance company, than the house they lost would have netted them. However, full replacement insurance costs more than regular homeowner's insurance.)

(I think I see what JJ was getting at. The woman bought the house, had two full mortgages, probably up to the total current amount of the house, and then the flames. I know an insurance adjustor, and being mortgaged to the hilt, is a big red flag.)

Don't Make This Courtroom Blunder!-Plaintiff Jorge Reyes Ruiz is suing defendant/body shop/mechanic Jorge Linares. Plaintiff's car was rear ended, and then hit with a hit and run accident, and plaintiff told defendant to not fix the rear end damages from accident #2. Rear of car from accident #2 was fixed anyway, and plaintiff is unhappy about the repair, but brought no proof to court (As JJ says, he thought he was going to the beach today).

Plaintiff says defendant tried to fix the damage from the other accident, which he wasn't supposed to. Plaintiff says the damage from accident #1 wasn't up to his standards, and it cost $4,000 for plaintiff to fix bad work. However, accident #2 damages were repaired satisfactorily.

Then pictures of damages are submitted showing driver's side, and repair shows the passenger side, so the photos are useless too.

Case dismissed, because it's stupid.

Edited February 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · February 4, 2021

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Unimpressed by Aspiring Rapper!

Didn't plaintiff describe him as an "inspiring rapper" when asked about his profession? What a silly mark who was such an easy and willing target for beng played.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ gives the $3,000 to the plaintiff. (I wouldn't have given a dime back to the plaintiffs).

I totally agree, JJ actually said she was ruling in favour of the plaintiffs because the wedding could not take place in light of of the state's restrictions, but when defendant pointed out those restrictions came into effect after the date in question, she still ruled for capricious and stubborn snowflakes Ps.

So she preferred going against her initial reasoning rather than admitting on camera that she made a mistake in her ruling. Typical of Her Majesty.

On 2/2/2021 at 5:53 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Three-timing Boyfriend –

I thought that the defendants came across as quite capable of doing the alleged damage and being the most likely culprits. But JJ so disliked plaintiff and took so much gratuitous glee in humiliating him, she would not explore that possibility in the least. Granted he was a dislikable person, but I do not think it warranted her going overboard to such an extent.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Florinaldo

parrotfeathers · February 4, 2021

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims contract wasn't to demolish the home, but clean out, and dispose of contents.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

I agree this woman was looney tunes. But, JJ doesn't seem to understand in any case that it shouldn't matter what the price of a house was when you bought it 20 years ago. She continually forgets the value of real estate goes up.

CrazyInAlabama · February 4, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Sucker Punch During Family Brunch?! -Plaintiff You You Xue suing defendant Karl Pogue over an assault at a restaurant. Plaintiff was going to a restaurant, and when defendant held the door for his wife and two sons (8 and 9 years old), when plaintiff barged past into the restaurant. Instead of waiting until wife and children cleared the door, the plaintiff barged past the wife, and defendant told plaintiff he was rude.

Then, defendant went to his vehicle, put on a beret, and coat, and went back into the restaurant, confronted the plaintiff, again told him he was rude. Then plaintiff said want to fight me? Plaintiff followed defendant out to the restaurant door, they continued the argument outside, and defendant punched plaintiff in the mouth. This happened two years ago, criminal charges were dismissed because of lack of proof. Defendant claims plaintiff wouldn't stop confronting him, and arguing.

Plaintiff claims he never touched the defendant, but defendant claims plaintiff did touch him first. A witness to the fight says plaintiff did touch the defendant first. However, going back into the restaurant in different clothes (the defendant was parked right by the door) was sitting up the confrontation.

Plaintiff receives $2,000, In my view both litigants were jerks.

No Help for Scammers?!- Plaintiff /sister Jennifer Davis (age 24) suing defendant/brother Brian Davis (age 21) for the balance on a car loan, after she co-signed for him. Car was registered in plaintiff's name, because defendant couldn't get insurance, so this defrauded the insurance company. Defendant was in an accident, and totaled the car, but there was no gap insurance, so a $3,000 shortfall.

Defendant still refuses to understand that he defrauded the insurance company, and the litigants didn't come to court with clean hands.

In hall-terview, defendant says

Plaintiff case dismissed, for defrauding the insurance company.

Second (2018)-

Hospital Cat Fight Mayhem! -Plaintiff suing Michelee Taylor suing defendant cousin Amanda Kidd. Defendant was legal guardian to her father, uncle of plaintiff, and plaintiff came with her mother and sister, to visit the defendant's father. Defendant was already legal guardian and later POA, for her father when plaintiff, and her relatives walked into the patient's father's room to visit. Plaintiff's mother wanted to talk to the doctor about the brother's condition (not legal under HIPAA). Plaintiff got a fractured finger in the melee. Plaintiff claims her sister cursed at the defendant, and defendant kicked at sister, and then plaintiff's mother grabbed the defendant's leg, and the fight was all right in the patient's room, and the doctor was there too. Plaintiff claims the defendant hit her, and then plaintiff and sister were dragged out of the room, but mother and defendant were still in the patient's room.

Defendant says the plaintiff and the rest of her coven wanted information about the father, and father had told the defendant what he wanted the plaintiff, and others to know about his condition. Defendant says there were two undercover security people in the room, and that is who dragged the plaintiff, and sister out. Medical records are submitted by defendant, and all were paid by her insurance. JJ doesn't want to see plaintiff's medical records and bill, because she was the aggressor, with her sister and mother.

Defendant is an elementary school teacher. Plaintiff claims there is proof the defendant attacked her first, but it's just social media postings. Defendant says she drop kicked the sister to the floor, and I would like to have defendant on my side in a fight. Plaintiff is whining because the defendant swore out warrants against her, mother, and sister.

Plaintiff's case dismissed.

(The first time this was on there was a great deal of speculation that the daughter drop kicking the patient’s sister, mother, and other relatives, was also on video, and widely circulated online. The drop-kicker/defendant in the video is an elementary school teacher, and packs a hell of a punch.)

It’s Not My Fault! -Plaintiff/former tenant Sabrina Gubik suing defendant /former landlord Andrew Cajas for return of rent, ($421) because she had paid for the month, but defendant and family moved out.. Plaintiff claims she was accused of theft, and forced to move out, and wants the return of her rent for that month. Defendant says plaintiff and a few friends were in the apartment, and at some point defendant's brother's glasses disappeared.

Defendant says since both litigants paid for the month, that plaintiff could stay in the apartment for the month. Defendant and family moved to a larger apartment, two doors down.

Defendant's counter suit dismissed. There is no proof of who stole the brother's glasses.

$421 to plaintiff.

Edited February 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 4, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

How to Pry Off a Pit Bull -Plaintiff Donna Cullum is suing defendant/Pit Bull owner Nicole Anderson for an attack by defendant’s Pit Bull on her two small dogs when plaintiff and her dog were injured. Plaintiff was walking her two dogs on the sidewalk, and across the street plaintiff saw defendant and boyfriend walking the Pit Bull, and Basset Hound. Plaintiff couldn't get to her home without crossing the street, where the Pit Bull attacked her terriers. Defendant witness Dylan Tripp was at the site of the fight. Defendant claims both litigants were on the same side of the street, which is denied by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims the Pit Bull got away from the defendant, and defendant lost control of her dog. Plaintiff says the defendant's dog attacked her dog, plaintiff went to grab her dog, and the Pit Bull grabbed the dog, and plaintiff was on the ground. Defendant witness got the Pit Bull off of plaintiff and her dog. Plaintiff witness Mr. Cullum talked to defense witness, and defense witness said he got the dogs loose by yanking on the leash. However, plaintiff witness/husband says defendant witness researched how to get a Pit Bull off of another dog, and claims the Pit broke the leash. Defendant witness lies and says he took the leash from the defendant. Defendant witness said he had to punch the Pit in the back of the neck three times, to get the Pit to release the small dog.

Plaintiff receives $5000 for vet bills, and medical bills.

Child Slides Down Dad’s Car! - Plaintiff Rocio Blauer is suing defendant/former husband Drew Blauer for car damages when defendant threw himself on her car hood. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced, but defendant moved back into the home for five months, and defendant slept. Litigants have a five year old son, and defendant says while plaintiff was supervising the son, he used the father's car as a slide, and damaged it, and defendant's counter suing for damages to his car. Both litigants, and son all slept in the same bed, for almost all of the five month period. Son is autistic, and likes to climb on defendant's car and slide down the car, and damaged the defendant's car. Plaintiff also likes to sit on the car, and slide down the windshield and hood too, and says when defendant saw the plaintiff and son on his car, is when he threw himself on the hood of her car, and damaged it.

JJ tells plaintiff to live with her car damages. Defendant is counter suing for his car damages, after plaintiff wrote "I need child support" on his car, but he didn't see her do it.

Everything dismissed.

Second (2020)-

Video Shoot Turns Violent?!-Plaintiff/landlord Malek Hanna suing former sublet, Ila Eaves, for damages to his condo (he has a lot of corporate housing units in L.A.). Plaintiff actually leases the properties from others, and releases them as short term or corporate apartments (there are 10 corporate/fully furnished/short term rental units in Hollywood, and Long Beach), the leases are in plaintiff's name, and he does short term and longer rentals. Defendant Ila Eaves checked in August 25 until August 27, including cleaning fee for two adults and seven children. Defendant was in town for an entertainment video starring her children. three audio and camera people on crew for the songwriter defendant, and numerous other actors, artists, and children. There were also a bunch of kids in the filming, and far in excess of the 2 adults and 7 children that were on the lease for the rental. Rental booking says 2 adults, 7 children, but many more adults leave the unit on the 28th.

Plaintiff has a police report, security videos, neighbor's videos, building manager messages, all on the 28 August. Defendant claims she only booked for 25 to 26, but because unit was so disgustingly dirty, she could stay an extra day (Yes, that's what defendant said, and it makes no sense). Defendant claims she actually left on the 27th, but then admits she left on the 28th. Damages are to apartment building by elevator in photo, and video.

Defendant claims she's being blamed for damages because everyone involved with her is Black.

Plaintiff also tells JJ she's an exceptionally bright woman. Greasing Judge Judy is not helping the case.

Video shows an adult in the hallway (another music artist), and the same man is shown forcing the outside door back against the concrete. On the video the man doing the damage says Ms. Eaves is his mother. Defendant admits the man is one of the artists in her video shoot. Defendant refuses to say the name of the person who did the vandalism. Sound on video has the defendant swearing, and saying she wanted to get the groups of children out of the apartment before the police, and plaintiff arrive. Defendant Eaves keep glaring at plaintiff, and JJ. Officer Byrd has to tell defendant to shut up in court.

Video shows the vandal, two other older teens, or 20's, and defendant and her three kids leaving the apartment. I hope Airbnb, and VRBO, and the other short-term rentals banned this woman from their properties.

Defendant's daughter is brought in to testify. Defendant keeps chiming in, and gives snotty attitude to Officer Byrd. Promise Murray is the daughter, who gives the professional name of the vandal, Gip da Prince. Witness /daughter keeps interrupting too. (Sorry, after the video, it isn't alleged vandal). Daughter says vandal was locked out of his house, and that vandal could sit in the front lobby. Daughter also let the vandal into the apartment lobby, and he was later on video leaving the apartment when the defendant, and her many associates scurried out of the condo, before the police arrived.

(Everyone on both sides of this case is some kind of performer. So even if they lose, they get publicity, so they really win).

Plaintiff receives $1841, in spite of the fact he just won't shut up.

Edited February 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

parrotfeathers · February 5, 2021

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

and defense witness said he got the dogs loose by yanking on the leash.

When donkeys fly he got the dog off by yanking on the leash. I have a small poodle. When she argues with one of my other girls a leash means nothing and it sure wouldn't with a pit bull. I am not against pit bulls either. I just don't want one.

Plus I don't really think those two old people would lie about it.

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant keeps chiming in, and gives snotty attitude to Officer Byrd. Promise Murray is the daughter, who gives the professional name of the vandal, Gip da Prince. Witness /daughter keeps interrupting too. (Sorry, after the video, it isn't alleged vandal). Daughter says vandal was locked out of his house, and that vandal could sit in the front lobby. Daughter also let the vandal into the house.

Awful bunch of people. They were anything but entertainers.

CrazyInAlabama · February 5, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018) –

Don’t Make Babies If You Don’t Have a Job! -Plaintiff Destany Arnold suing defendant Jasmine Arnold for car damage They were fighting over Zandor Nash, apparently a huge object of everyone's affection. Zandor Nash has one child with Jasmine Arnold, and another appearing soon (probably kid is 2 by now). Zandor and girlfriend/defendant are living with his mom, and sister, plus the girlfriend, and their two kids, and sister had a baby, and mother is supporting everyone. Litigants are fighting over Zandor Nash, the Stud Muffin.

The two litigants had a physical fight, in broad daylight, on a major highway in Atlanta. Plaintiff was driving, hear pebbles hit her car, pulled over, and a brick smashed her window, and hit her in the face (this doesn't match the plaintiff's court statement). Police report says Zandor Nash threw the brick, and Zandor pled guilty to vandalizing plaintiff's car, and didn't pay restitution. Plaintiff claims female defendant assaulted her. Plaintiff's female cousin was arrested for assault, and pled guilty also. Plaintiff claims there is another pending court case against Zandor too. Plaintiff and defendant have medical records. Plaintiff was arrested, and charges were dismissed. Defendant claims she couldn't throw a brick, because she hold her baby in her arms. Defendant was claiming the baby was injured by the plaintiff, but those are the charges that were dropped. Defendant says plaintiff has a previous assault conviction, that was dismissed.

Cases dismissed, because they're stupid.

Final Days for First Cousins -Plaintiff John David is suing defendant/cousin Ashley Cropsey for $3500, for an apartment he co-signed for her, and then she skipped, and the account went to collections, and for ruining his credit. Late rent, damaged property, unpaid utility bills, and unpaid rent were included in the collections case, and plaintiff paid the total amount his cousin owed. Original collections amount was $5200, but defendant paid him $1500, so he's still owed $3500.

$3500 to plaintiff.

Kicking Cars and Drinking! -Plaintiff Christian Scott suing Jeremy Powe, defendant for kicking plaintiff's car. Both litigants were drinking, and then the car damage happened. However, plaintiff's witness saw defendant kick plaintiff's car. Plaintiff submits three estimates for the huge dent in the car tailgate.

Plaintiff gets $500

Second (2018) –

Short Love, Long Loan! -Plaintiff Bradley Samavati suing defendant, Karissa Davis for a maintenance on her car, a Purple mattress, and a PS4. After their second date, plaintiff agreed to sign for the used car for defendant. Plaintiff paid for maintenance on the used car for defendant, . Defendant also used his credit card on her Amazon account to buy a mattress, but defendant claims plaintiff agreed for her to buy the mattress on his account. Plaintiff is a juice squeezer, and defendant is a waitress, and their relationship only lasted a month. PS4 purchase was cancelled.

Plaintiff lives at home with his mother, and brother. So mattress was for plaintiff's apartment.

$362 to plaintiff.

Videographer in the Ex-Lover Hot Seat?! -Plaintiff Bree Martin suing defendant/her ex (they were involved over 10 years ago, for a short time), Adrian Mack for video footage for her blog. Defendant is married, and has four kids. Plaintiff claims the video and editing was free, but defendant says he was to film for free, but be paid for editing.

Defendant says she paid for his air fare, but nothing else, and refused to pay him for editing the video. Plaintiff says defendant spent four days filming her for some blog, and when she refused to pay him for editing, he refused to give her the video footage, or edited product. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was doing her a favor, but wants to be repaid for the airline ticket for him to come to her location, and for his footage cost.

JJ tells defendant to send the video footage to plaintiff, and plaintiff gets no money. JJ says defendant was supposed to get paid for editing the footage, but didn't edit it. However, JJ advises defendant to copyright the footage, and then plaintiff can't use any of it without paying for the rights to defendant.

Plaintiff gets the raw footage from defendant within five days, and if she wants to use the footage, she will have to pay defendant.

Edited February 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 5, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021) –

Nice, Older Couple or Scamming Spinsters?! – Plaintiff Bryan Epner suing defendants Jeanine Bender, and husband Tom Uhrig over a 22 year old Jeep he purchased from the defendants, after a five minute test drive, plus driving it for a few hours total. Since the Jeep now needs a transmission, plaintiff says defendants cheated him, Another plaintiff who doesn't understand "As is", or getting a mechanic to examine a car before purchase. Plaintiff bought Jeep, didn't drive it too much, and a few days later went to gas the Jeep up, and then drove home (differs from sworn statement). Then plaintiff claims that five minutes later the Jeep wouldn't move, and he had to push it to the curb.

Plaintiff brought the mechanic to court, to testify that the transmission was bad, and since Jeep can't be driven, and therefore, can't pass the smog test, and be registered. However, Jeep passed the smog test to be registered in June, and it was registered by the previous owners, so the smog test was passed (required in their state for registration).

Defendants had the Jeep since it was 10 years old, and sold at 22 years old to plaintiff. Defendants said they drove the Jeep almost every day, and had no issues with it. Apparently, the Jeep is 4 wheel drive capable, and manual transmission. Plaintiff's cars have all been automatic transmission. After the case, plaintiff claims the defendants are liars, committed fraud, and cheat him. Defendant husband says he knows what plaintiff did to ruin the transmission, he says plaintiff put it in 4 wheel drive to try it, but didn't stop, and back up to disengage the 4 wheel drive, and ruined the transmission. (I hope that's an accurate description of the defendant's analysis of what ruined the transmission, I don't know how to drive a manual, and don't know anything about engaging, or stopping the 4 wheel drive).

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Unfit to Stand Trial? – Plaintiff Jason Baker is suing defendant Justin Defranco had him arrested, vandalized his property, and locked him out. Plaintiff also wants his two service animals back, and claims the U-Haul stuff was dropped at his grandmother's place, and a lot is missing. Defendant called police, and said plaintiff was waving a gun around. Defendant was arrested, and when he got out of jail, all of his property was gone. Plaintiff was living rent free with plaintiff, and was moving out, Plaintiff had an outstanding warrant.

Defendant claims he never called the police, but police did serve a warrant on him. Plaintiff had no lease, so illegal eviction is dismissed.

Plaintiff says defendant rented him a U-Haul, and was helping him move. Defendant says he helped plaintiff get a car. Plaintiff has some issues, and defendant admits he does also.

Both cases dismissed. Defendant has a restraining order against plaintiff.

Second (2020)-

Gay Pride Activist Denies Felony Charges! - Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez (in a band part time, is an HVAC tech full time) is suing event promoter/defendant Lawrence "LP" Phillips, for fees owed for a performance, and bank fees. Plaintiff says he performed with band at event for defendant, and defendant paid him with two checks that both bounced. Plaintiff says defendant paid him some money. Performance was at event, and pay for staging, lighting, and sound, plus performance fees. $1500 for the two checks, bounced at the bank, $2,000 for sound was covered by plaintiff. Defendant wrote two checks for $750 each, and they bounced at the bank.

Defendant says checks were returned because his account had too little money, because he thought that the charity sponsorships would pay him enough to cover the checks. Plaintiff says defendant eventually paid him $950, and there's another bad check from defendant too. Third check was to sound guy for $2,000, and plaintiff covered the check to sound man with his own funds (Sound was totaling $4,000).

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed for lack of proof.

Edited February 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · February 6, 2021

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Nice, Older Couple or Scamming Spinsters?

What a big whiny stubborn crybaby of a plaintiff! Unable to accept that it was his responsibility to have the car inspected before buying it, that a short test drive is not sufficient to create liability on the part of the sellers, and that the alleged damage could have occured after he took possession of the Jeep. His repeated claim of fraudulent behaviour was unsubstantiated, of course, and he was extremely annoying just to hear him talking.

I would have liked for the mechanic to testify, if only to see how he could argue that the transmission problem must have existed before the sale (not that it would have mattered much in an "as is" sale).

Deendants mentioned the SMOG receipt would have been in the glove compartment. Is it standard practice in the US to leave important documents like that in the car? I know many people mention leaving the registration inside, which I think only makes the job easier for people who steal the car. Is it a legal requirement or just laziness on the part of owners? If there are multiple drivers, surely it is possible to get extra copies of the registration, although there must be a small administrative fee which some people would prefer not to pay.

DoctorK · February 6, 2021

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

but didn't stop, and back up to disengage the 4 wheel drive, and ruined the transmission.

I believe this, I had a Geo Tracker (before they became Chevys) like that and the owners manual in big bold print warned about this. The plaintiff was really a jerk, didn't listen to the judge's explanation, deserved nothing and got it.

SRTouch · February 6, 2021

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I believe this, I had a Geo Tracker (before they became Chevys) like that and the owners manual in big bold print warned about this. The plaintiff was really a jerk, didn't listen to the judge's explanation, deserved nothing and got it.

Can't speak to 22 year old jeeps, but that absolutely was the case on my Ford 4x4. Stock 4x4s, especially older ones with some form of locking differential, are not made to drive on paved roads - it will eat up the gears in the differential, not the transmission........ I was kind of sorry JJ didn't know what questions to ask the mechanic witness, as this makes a hell of lot more sense to me than trying to say putting gas in the vehicle caused the transmission to melt down.

Edited February 6, 2021 by SRTouch

Back Atcha · February 6, 2021

7 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Deendants mentioned the SMOG receipt would have been in the glove compartment. Is it standard practice in the US to leave important documents like that in the car?

In my state, if an officer stops me, I'd better have my driver's license, registration, and insurance information handy IMMEDIATELY. Most of us carry our license with us...often requested for identification. Registration and insurance information are in the glove box of most cars.

6 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff was really a jerk, didn't listen to the judge's explanation, deserved nothing and got it.

I think the plaintiff was nervous and (actually) Judy was more of a JERK in this case. There are SO MANY things on which she pontificates--when she knows little or nothing on the topics. I believe that the plaintiff's claim that he has insurance. I don't think a car has to be running to be insured. You want to insure it against theft and damage that could occur while it's parked. Judy essentially called him a liar when she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's embarrassing--and her little tirade left him without giving his full testimony. I think he would have lost anyway, but it certainly wasn't a fair hearing.

PURPLE MATTRESS. Judy thinks "no one" talks about mattress brands. We are all inundated by BRANDING these days. Brands are extremely important to teens and 20-somethings. Even little kids know and request various brands for things that don't matter at all to adults or Judys. Sealey Posturepedic? Sleep Number? Memory Foam. Tempur-Pedic. Judge Judy's associates all have "little people" to do their work, so she has no clue about everyday living. OH! She's an expert on "Ding Doctor" charges? You can be sure she has NEVER had any of her luxury automobiles even touched by one of these "little people."

arejay · February 6, 2021

In the newlyweds vs. venue case, JJ truly made a huge error. The venue was open and ready to serve with restrictions required at the time. I don’t think whiny, smarmy, too-smiley plaintiff should have been rewarded for deciding that 50 of his nearest & dearest with others on live link was not as good as a living room ceremony with a cyber audience.

DoctorK · February 6, 2021

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant is lucky the two men didn't file criminal charges against him for check kiting, a felony.

I also liked the way that the defendant objected to and got all huffy about the judge saying the checks "bounced". JJ pushed back on that very nicely.

nora1992 · February 6, 2021

5 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

In my state, if an officer stops me, I'd better have my driver's license, registration, and insurance information handy IMMEDIATELY. Most of us carry our license with us...often requested for identification. Registration and insurance information are in the glove box of most cars.

I think the plaintiff was nervous and (actually) Judy was more of a JERK in this case. There are SO MANY things on which she pontificates--when she knows little or nothing on the topics. I believe that the plaintiff's claim that he has insurance. I don't think a car has to be running to be insured. You want to insure it against theft and damage that could occur while it's parked. Judy essentially called him a liar when she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's embarrassing--and her little tirade left him without giving his full testimony. I think he would have lost anyway, but it certainly wasn't a fair hearing.

PURPLE MATTRESS. Judy thinks "no one" talks about mattress brands. We are all inundated by BRANDING these days. Brands are extremely important to teens and 20-somethings. Even little kids know and request various brands for things that don't matter at all to adults or Judys. Sealey Posturepedic? Sleep Number? Memory Foam. Tempur-Pedic. Judge Judy's associates all have "little people" to do their work, so she has no clue about everyday living. OH! She's an expert on "Ding Doctor" charges? You can be sure she has NEVER had any of her luxury automobiles even touched by one of these "little people."

Quoting the post because liking it doesn’t show enough support. It’s as if the lack of a studio audience removed the last check on her god-complex.

Florinaldo · February 6, 2021

5 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

In my state, if an officer stops me, I'd better have my driver's license, registration, and insurance information handy IMMEDIATELY.

Which is why up here we generally carry these documents on us, in our wallets most often. Leaving the registration in the car seems to make it easier for a thief to commit fraud after purloining one's vehicle.

LetsStartTalking · February 6, 2021

On 2/2/2021 at 6:47 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sucker Punch – Plaintiff Regina Larrie suing defendant Darren Harrington for assaulting her, after she pushed him away. The litigants were at a small gathering at a friend's place, and plaintiff claims defendant touched her butt, and she pushed him away and told him not to touch her like that again. Plaintiff claims defendant punched her in the face. Defendant says he never touched the plaintiff, but claims she was drunk and shoved him.

Defendant claims everyone at the party was drinking heavily, and he was the one assaulted, not plaintiff.

$1500 for plaintiff for medical bills.

How many were as surprised as I was to see actor Sherman Hemsley of 'The Jeffersons' come back to life in the form of Darren Harrington ? Ms, Larrie was the size of a baby elephant, and Mr. Harrington weighed about a hundred ten pounds - soaking wet with rocks in his pocket. If the two were opposite weights, no way would JJ believe the one hundred-ten pound woman hit the baby elephant man. She'd laugh her head off. But the genders were reversed and JJ ruled for the woman. Go figure.

Quote

Judge Unimpressed by Aspiring Rapper! – Plaintiff Erica Fulcher suing defendant, Kishawn Holmes, an unemployed musician, of extortion, crashing her car, and overspending on her credit card. (I'm so glad this isn't on The People's Court, or the defendant would be performing endlessly). Plaintiff rented cars for him, and she let him use her credit card. Defendant also admits to 'accidentally trashing the rental car'. Plaintiff is 35, and defendant is 25, and they aren't dating. (She finally says they were dating, defendant denies it). As JJ says, they were in an intimate relationship, and she gave him the credit card after the car destruction happened. Defendant says dating is only when you're exclusively, not when you're dating others too. It was dating, on this show aka, "Talking".

Defendant was using the rental car to film a music video, and doing tricks, and hit a wall. Plaintiff wanted the keys back on the second rental car, but this was when another woman came to look for the defendant at plaintiff's home.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

FINALLY - another sexy 'bad boy' on Judge Judy. I will be more than happy to finance Kishawn Holmes' rap career if he played on my team. Guy was handsome and sexy. What was wrong with her ? She only slept with him a few times in four months ? If she wasn't with him for the sex, what was she with him for ? His ambition and lack of financial sense ?

Quote

Nice, Older Couple or Scamming Spinsters?! – Plaintiff Bryan Epner suing defendants Jeanine Bender, and husband Tom Uhrig over a 22 year old Jeep he purchased from the defendants, after a five minute test drive, plus driving it for a few hours total. Since the Jeep now needs a transmission, plaintiff says defendants cheated him, Another plaintiff who doesn't understand "As is", or getting a mechanic to examine a car before purchase. Plaintiff bought Jeep, didn't drive it too much, and a few days later went to gas the Jeep up, and then drove home (differs from sworn statement). Then plaintiff claims that five minutes later the Jeep wouldn't move, and he had to push it to the curb.

Plaintiff brought the mechanic to court, to testify that the transmission was bad, and since Jeep can't be driven, and therefore, can't pass the smog test, and be registered. However, Jeep passed the smog test to be registered in June, and it was registered by the previous owners, so the smog test was passed (required in their state for registration).

Defendants had the Jeep since it was 10 years old, and sold at 22 years old to plaintiff. Defendants said they drove the Jeep almost every day, and had no issues with it. Apparently, the Jeep is 4 wheel drive capable, and manual transmission. Plaintiff's cars have all been automatic transmission. After the case, plaintiff claims the defendants are liars, committed fraud, and cheat him. Defendant husband says he knows what plaintiff did to ruin the transmission, he says plaintiff put it in 4 wheel drive to try it, but didn't stop, and back up to disengage the 4 wheel drive, and ruined the transmission. (I hope that's an accurate description of the defendant's analysis of what ruined the transmission, I don't know how to drive a manual, and don't know anything about engaging, or stopping the 4 wheel drive).

Plaintiff case dismissed.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Judy was completely wrong on this one.

Judy asks plaintiff if he has insurance on his car. The plaintiff said he has insurance on the car, but couldn't get it registered because of the smog test. Judy claims you can't insure a car without it being registered first, so he's lying. The car is registered.

This is absolutely false, at least in my state. Before you register the car you have to insure it first (the insurance company asks you for the VIN to insure it). Once it's insured, you then head out to the registry with your registration form AND proof of insurance, and then you get it registered. No proof of insurance ? No registration.

I just went through this a few months ago when I bought my new 2021 car at a Subaru dealership. In order for them to register the car for me (they gave me a temp registration which expired in 10 days) , I had to have it insured first. I did that by calling my insurance company and giving them my VIN. Once my required payment went through (an e-payment) they emailed the dealership a 'letter of insured' for them to print out and bring to the registry. Otherwise, they couldn't register the car for me.

Judy couldn't be more wrong on this one.

CrazyInAlabama · February 6, 2021

I think JJ had some confusion going on. You need insurance to register anything (except in a couple of states where you are allowed to self-insure), but you have to have passed a smog test to either register or renew the registration if that is required by your state, and I'm guessing this was California, where smog tests are required. The Jeep sellers had renewed the registration in June, so it still had a valid smog certificate. Everywhere I've lived, you have to have insurance on a vehicle to register it, or renew the registration, and some states I had to smog every year or two.

I think as others said, the Jeep buyer didn't know that when he put it in 4 wheel, he had to follow the procedures to disengage the 4 wheel drive, and he didn't do that. I'm betting the defendant explained that to him when he bought it. Also, plaintiff/buyer didn't take it to a mechanic before he bought it, so I don't care what happened after the purchase, "As Is" reigns again. Since the mechanic didn't see the Jeep until after the transmission was ruined, he couldn't add anything to the testimony, in my opinion.

Edited February 6, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

configdotsys · February 7, 2021

Have been watching some old cases these days and saw one that I'd not seen before: Father vs Father over their sons and a car. Plaintiff son-- who seemed like a nice, responsible type kid-- had a car and let his 15 year old friend drive. Said friend crashed into a gate somehow. Talking between themselves, they decided that it would be better to tell the police that the Plaintiff son was driving because he was a legit driver. So that's what they did.

Plaintiff son, when he saw how much money it cost his parents to get the car fixed, felt terrible about that so he decided to fess up and tell them what really happened. His father called the defendant's father and the defendant's father said the boys would be better off if they just kept the lie going. Defendant son told JJ that he was on "corporal punishment right now" and JJ asked if his father beats him daily, to which the boy replied "No." The father insisted that as punishment, the son "has to work harder than he ever did," whatever the hell that means.

After thinking it over, Plaintiff Father could not live with that so they went to the police and explained what really happened. Plaintiff son was charged with lying to police and had to do community service. He may also have a record of some kind. Defendant son got a ticket for driving without a license or underage driving or driving without insurance, I can't remember now. Plaintiff father gets $2500 of the $3k he was seeking for car repairs.

What a refreshing case this was and what a great parent the plaintiff was. The Defendant Father saying they should just let the lie to the police stand was teaching his son a great lesson there...

Edited February 7, 2021 by configdotsys
I can spell. I just can't type.

CrazyInAlabama · February 8, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Love Triangle Double Assault! -Plaintiff Sarahi Hernandez suing her ex, Samuel Galvan, and his current girlfriend Rocio DeLeon over their assault of plaintiff. Defendant witness was defendant man's girlfriend during the entire period that plaintiff was dating him. There was a 2017 attack by defendant woman on plaintiff leading to car damages on plaintiff's car.

Plaintiff found out about defendant woman, and sent her a text. Defendant woman claims she and defendant both cheated a lot. Defendant woman seems to have a huge mole on her chin, and it's disgusting. Then plaintiff produces text messages from this year from defendant boyfriend. Defendant woman says she and slime ball defendant man are moving out of state, and getting married, Then the two women had another fight, when plaintiff was leaving work (the same place she worked at during the 2017 cheating, and assault).

Then defendants went to the mall, and 'just happened' to run into plaintiff, And defendant woman assaulted her as plaintiff was going into the parking lot to her car. Police report is being submitted, and there was a current order of protection against defendant cheating boyfriend at the time of the assault. Plaintiff's restraining order barred defendant man from going near plaintiff's workplace, and home. Plaintiff claims defendant man lifted his shirt up, and displayed a handgun, and threatened the others with plaintiff to let defendant woman continue the assault. (I bet Officer Byrd and the security crew aren't doing cross word puzzles with the defendants in court today).

Defendant witness says plaintiff was injured during the attack, and defendant witness says plaintiff was injured "Because she didn't know how to fight".

$3,000 to plaintiff. Officer Byrd not only has defendants leave first, but follows them down the aisle all the way outside the court room.

Second (2018)-

Registered Sex Offender Fail -Plaintiff Jennifer Alexander suing defendant, Summer Alexander (married to plaintiff's brother), sister-in-law for child care costs, school clothes, car loan, and a flute for defendant's three children. Defendant moved in with her mother-in-law, and children had to leave because uncle is on the sex offender registry. Defendant was in prison for a few days, and when she came back to MIL's home, the uncle got out of prison and moved in with his sister (the mother-in-law), and children can't live with the uncle. Defendant has to pay $700 to $800 in child support, and her wages are garnished. Defendant says she can't afford a place of her own, because she has to pay child support, but is $7,000 behind on child support, and plaintiff says defendant is no longer employed. Plaintiff and husband are trying to adopt the three children, but defendant would just have to get a place of her own to get the children back. Children have been with the plaintiff for 18 months, and before that plaintiff had the defendant and the kids were living with her and husband for two years.

Defendant blames plaintiff for the outstanding warrants in Pennsylvania, and that's how she ended up in jail for a week. Plaintiff says defendant told her that if they bought a car for defendant, then defendant would sign to terminate her parental rights. Plaintiff's receive $231 a month for each kid, not much money at all. Defendant says the plaintiff and her husband took her to lunch, and only wanted to talk about parental rights, and defendant claims the car was a gift. Flute claim dismissed.

Bartering children is offering the car in return for parental rights, so that's dismissed. I hope the plaintiff and husband adopted the children.

JJ says nothing was a loan to defendant, nothing for plaintiff.

Girl on Bike Hit by Car! -Plaintiffs Perla Murrieta suing driver/defendant Elandra Lee for hitting her daughter, Cassandra Romero, while she was riding her bicycle.

JJ wants to know if defendant was insured at the time of the accident. JJ sends defendant out to get proof of insurance, so JJ says no insurance. Plaintiff tried to sue defendant's insurance company, but can't find out who the insurance company is, and if the (car belongs to defendant's boyfriend) is insured, and if defendant is covered. Defendant says accident was the plaintiff's daughter's fault, and daughter had a pre-existing condition. Plaintiff claims daughter wasn't involved in a previous accident, but daughter says she was.

Defendant was exiting parking lot, when daughter drove into the side of the defendant's car, daughter was riding on the sidewalk, and daughter said she was limping because of a previous accident. Daughter walked the bike home, and was taken to the hospital by mother. Plaintiff mother claims daughter was upset, and that's why she said she was hurt from a previous accident. Daughter had a sprain, and was never taken for a follow up by plaintiff mother.

As JJ says, plaintiff will cover medical bills for child.

Defendant says she's in custody battle with her ex-boyfriend, and he refuses to give proof of insurance. JJ points out as car owner the ex-boyfriend is liable also, and can be sued. Defendant says plaintiff wanted the bike (brother's bike)

Medical bills will be paid to plaintiff.

Edited February 8, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

Silver Raven · February 8, 2021

The YouTube couple still have a channel, and they are both really annoying.

nora1992 · February 8, 2021

Today’s litigants make me want to walk or ride my bike everywhere. Imagine the fighting if digging cars out from snow entered into the equation.

CrazyInAlabama · February 8, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Vicious Neighbor Endangers Lives?! -Plaintiff LaShawn Oliver suing defendant Tyler DeCoud (woman) for screaming at her close up without a mask, during Covid, and endangering their lives. There was a dispute about parking, and plaintiff lives across the street from plaintiff's father. Video shows the plaintiff is telling the truth, and defendant started the fight, and assaulted plaintiff. The confrontation shows defendant in plaintiff's face, and Body-Englishing plaintiff all of the way up to her home. Defendant father parks across the street in front of plaintiff's house, and it blocks the plaintiff's father's car in.

Defendant says plaintiff and father park so close to defendant's car that the bumpers overlap. Then, plaintiff submits the video of the cars, and the fight. Defendant and her friends or relatives are taking videos of the fight too. Defendant is on plaintiff's father's property, and confronting the plaintiff. Defendant's mother trying to get defendant to leave the property. Plaintiff is not parking properly, and doesn't care that she's blocking anyone in. Second video shows defendant's mother hitting plaintiff's daughter. The plaintiff's father, and defendant's car are parked very close together.

Defendant was upset about the parking, but defendant or plaintiff could just go forward or back to leave the spot, plaintiff's car wasn't interfering with defendant car's moving, or driving. Defendant claims plaintiff's father's car damaged her father's bumper, and submits a photo. JJ sees no damages to bumper, the cars aren't actually touching. This all happened in July 2020, and defendant's father sold the car later.

JJ is watching the rest of the fight video, and then the defendant's video. Defendant is right in plaintiff's face, and no mask in sight, during Covid. Defendant's mother is just as out of control as defendant is. Defendant claims to operate a charity, but won't say what it is for. You can see the defendant mother, and daughter on video touching plaintiff. No medical report is submitted by plaintiff, but she claims an eye injury from getting kicked (no it doesn't make sense to me either).

When defendant disses JJ, she is thrown out of court. Police report is submitted, saying witness said the defendant's father was choking her. Defendant mother thrown out of court. There was no criminal proceeding, but plaintiff received a three year protective order against defendant, but not her parents. Plaintiff was parking partially over the driveway, because her other relatives were parking in the driveway, and garage. So plaintiff was parking illegally, blocking a driveway. Next time, JJ says plaintiff should park without obstructing others, before her car gets vandalized by defendants.

$500 to plaintiff for assault.

Second (2020) –

Social Media Oblivious to Pandemic!-Plaintiff Keshwan Clark suing defendant Kory Ingram, over a Youtube channel she wanted, and over the cost of props to start her Youtube channel. Plaintiff purchased a camera, lights, and props. Plaintiff claims defendant Kory Ingram had the idea of the Youtube channel, but defendant says the channel was always only plaintiff's idea. (What a shock, plaintiff is an aspiring actress and model, and a fitness model).

They stopped filming videos in June 2020. The litigants had a major disagreement over the work plaintiff wanted defendant to put into the video channel. JJ tells plaintiff to sell equipment if she wants money for the props, and equipment.

(Last time this aired, there was a great deal of viewer speculation about what exactly the videos, and props were demonstrating).

Case dismissed.

Eyelash Heist-Plaintiff Carina Schumacher suing defendant Christine Aragon for a security deposit, eyelashes and other property stolen. Plaintiff claims defendant picked up her package of eyelashes, and she's returning them to her in court (after some JJ minion fetches them). Plaintiff claims defendant's dog chewed plaintiff's vacuum cleaner cord.

Defendant claims plaintiff brought two rats into the apartment, and one died on defendant's pillow.

Security deposit was paid by every tenant, but every tenant lost their security deposit (there were two dogs, and four roommates), and two rats. Plaintiff claims the carpet damages were the reason for the security deposit loss.

Eyelashes are returned to plaintiff, and everything else is dismissed.

Florinaldo · February 9, 2021

14 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Vicious Neighbor Endangers Lives?!

Defendant's family, except perhaps the father who was trying to restrain his daughter and wife, were really a bunch of savages. There was no justification to escalate it to that point over that parking issue. The mother seemed even more aggressive and violent than the daughter.

On the other hand, plaintiff has stupid parking habits: inching so very close to defendant's dad's car and partially obstructing entrance to the large driveway. Her justification for the latter is that her kids park their cars in her garage space. Are they precious snowflakes too fragile to walk the extra distance necessary to find an available – non-blocking – space on the street? I have a feeling the mother may be indulging them so excessively on all fronts.

If not for that, she might have deserved more as compensation for the defendants' abhorrent behaviour, even though she did not bother to go to a clinic for her alleged injury.

One Tough Cookie · February 9, 2021

On 2/5/2021 at 5:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Cases dismissed, because they're stupid.

That should be the title of this whole thread!!!

One Tough Cookie · February 9, 2021

My favorite was three Long Islanders who were trying to scam JJ. The plaintiff said he was disabled and couldn't work but mentioned he liked to work out in his Total Gym. JJ cleverly led him down the path exposing him and his two defendants who were in on the scam said he owes them money for rent after his house "{accidentally} caught fire. JJ gave them all just enough rope to hang themselves and JJ gave them a blistering dismissal and as the plaintiff walked out of the court he said Aw I shoulda gone on the Peoples Court. My all time fave!

Edited February 9, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

PrincessPurrsALot · February 9, 2021

On 1/26/2021 at 3:18 PM, Niconeb said:

Judge judy episode where 2 elderly ladies are in court and one says she takes all her vaseline and the other one says "my crotch is cracking"

I combined the threads. Anyone know where to find this classic? Ah, vaseline, without it we would all have cracked crotches . . . . Or maybe that is just an issue for Judge Judy litigants. I am betting on the latter.

Carolina Girl · February 9, 2021

20 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

My favorite was three Long Islanders who were trying to scam JJ. The plaintiff said he was disabled and couldn't work but mentioned he liked to work out in his Total Gym. JJ cleverly led him down the path exposing him and his two defendants who were in on the scam said he owes them money for rent after his house "{accidentally} caught fire. JJ gave them all just enough rope to hang themselves and JJ gave them a blistering dismissal and as the plaintiff walked out of the court he said Aw I shoulda gone on the Peoples Court. My all time fave!

I've always wondered if the show withholds payment of that litigation pot if there is suspicion that they "perpetrated a fraud upon the court" as it were. I know that it's been revealed that the litigants are paid an "appearance" fee - now I wonder if the cases are dismissed there is no jackpot to be split between the litigants. I haven't seen the disclaimer recently about the proceeds division but maybe I haven't been looking hard enough for it.

Unfortunately with so many of these court cases now in existence they've gone past combing through genuine small claims cases (although they still do this) and soliciting "claims" - which means the making up of claims for a litigation pot probably happens more often than we know.

Back Atcha · February 9, 2021

On 2/6/2021 at 6:29 AM, nora1992 said:

Quoting the post because liking it doesn’t show enough support.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'm going to steal your idea...sometimes that heart just isn't enough.

On 2/6/2021 at 6:29 AM, nora1992 said:

It’s as if the lack of a studio audience removed the last check on her god-complex.

She's getting SO MEAN. The only thing I miss when there's no audience is the way she used to get a bit crazy and bounced up and down on her Judicial Throne...a new bounce with almost every word.

Back Atcha · February 9, 2021

21 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

On the other hand, plaintiff has stupid parking habits: inching so very close to defendant's dad's car and partially obstructing entrance to the large driveway. Her justification for the latter is that her kids park their cars in her garage space. Are they precious snowflakes too fragile to walk the extra distance necessary to find an available – non-blocking – space on the street? I have a feeling the mother may be indulging them so excessively on all fronts.

Questions that went unasked:

· Does the red car ALWAYS park after the grey car is already there?
Always?
· Why doesn't the father park his grey car on HIS side of the street?
Is HE a precious snowflake too?
· Is he so feeble that his hopped-up daughter has to handle his conversations?

Edited February 9, 2021 by Back Atcha
Previous? I meant precious...

CrazyInAlabama · February 9, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Hazmat Poisoning of Innocent Family- Plaintiffs Donald and Tanya Gray are suing their next door neighbors (witnesses are son of plaintiff, and his girlfriend), defendants Robert and Janet Johnson for spraying poison on his landscaping, and poisoning the family. Plaintiff and wife are still complaining about the pigeon spikes on a joint fence put up by the defendants, and removed two years ago. Plaintiffs have three cats that wander the neighborhood constantly. Defendant claims the spikes are to keep predatory possums off of his property. Plaintiffs removed the spikes, before mentioning anything to defendant, and also called the police.

Part of plaintiff's wife's issue seems to be the wife of plaintiff married, and moved in after they did (1998 and 1999). Plaintiffs do nothing about the cats wandering, clawing, and going after the defendants' small dogs. Plaintiff wife claims their cats are innocent, but there are other cats in the neighborhood. The plaintiff also removed the spikes the defendant had to keep the plaintiff's wandering, pooping cats off of his yard.

Plaintiffs claims the spraying of the tree on defendant's side of the property, caused breathing issues with their son's girlfriend, and they had to get the AC unit cleaned out. The only 'proof' plaintiff has is his paranoid idea that the defendant didn't dilute the spray, and was trying to poison his family. However, defendant used to be a professional exterminator, and claims he didn’t spray when the plaintiffs claim he did, and that the light breeze didn’t push anything towards the plaintiff’s house, and he also says he diluted the mixture the way the label calls for. The defendant used to do pest control for a profession, so I think he knows how to spray, and when. Malathion was bought from Home Depot, sold to the general public, and was applied form one of the pump spray bottles the malathion comes in. The tree is a maple tree, and they do get aphids. From the spray bottle I saw, this was premixed by the company, and not the concentrate the plaintiffs have the label warning for.

Plaintiffs claim multiple diseases came from the spraying, but some of them have asthma and allergies, have cats, and mother of the year smokes (looks like a lot too, judging from her wrinkly mouth). Other 'proof' is when the plaintiff called 911, and claimed that his family was poisoned, the hazmat team showed up in full gear, so no proof at all. That's what happens when you call 911, and say there's a hazardous material incident.

Defendant wife also claimed that the second the woman plaintiff returned from the hospital (hospital trip found nothing wrong with plaintiff, except she's a jerk), that plaintiff was outside smoking like a chimney the second she arrived home.

Malathion is also used in mosquito control spraying that some cities do. I looked online, and all of the big box hardware stores here sell it, as a premix, and so do many grocery stores, so it's still available to consumers.

Plaintiff is complaining about defendants having counter tops for defendant's house, and claims the defendant were poisoning them with the resin dust. Girlfriend of plaintiff son is a perfect fit in the family, a loud mouth who won't shut up and shows her ignorance with every sentence.

Plaintiff case is garbage, and so it's dismissed. Plaintiffs are pissed off at JJ too.

Second (2018)-

Give Me My Sports Car! -Plaintiff Denise White is suing defendant/father of her child, ex-boyfriend, Eric Anderson, for a loan, and child care costs. Litigants lived together for four years, and have one child together. Plaintiff says defendant took out a loan against plaintiff's CD for $10k, and paid household bills with it, Money also went to pay a previous loan of defendant ($2,000), in defendant's name. Defendant says after they separated he pays child support, and if plaintiff needs more money, go back to court. Remaining $8,000 went for household bills, and purchased a family car that defendant still has. Defendant says car is undriveable in winter, and can't get car registered, and insured, because co-owner (plaintiff) won't sign. Car was $4,000. Plaintiff won't get any money from the court, until the car title is signed over to defendant.

Defendant says plaintiff was out of work for a year, so some of the loan money went to pay the bills. There's a $4,000 balance on the loan, which was joint, and that means that each person gets $2,000. We now get to the totally boring child care expenses by plaintiff, for January to April 2017, when the child support order was in effect. The court fixed arrears at $40 every two weeks, until the January to April child support equivalency was made up. Plaintiff wants defendant and JJ to pay money plaintiff never claimed in court, and it's been adjudicated in family court, so it's dismissed.

JJ tells plaintiff to sign car over to defendant. $2,000 to plaintiff for her half of the loan remaining.

When Potted Plants Attack -Plaintiff Paloma Mayorga suing defendant Alyssa Caballos for a potted plant from defendant's balcony, falling and damaging her car windshield in the parking lot below. Plaintiff was in assigned parking, below the defendant's balcony. Defendant has five plants in pots. Plaintiff walked out on 9/11 and her car had a bashed in windshield, and it was a potted plant from defendant's balcony. Defendant puts plants in terracotta and other pots, on the balcony rail (it looks like a wide stucco ledge) for better sun. Plaintiff car was parked with the front windshield was smashed, and this either was someone bashing the windshield, or the potted plant. If this is in California, I would worry about strong winds, and earthquake tremors.

Defendant claims the neighbor with the other balcony has hanging plants, and a bicycle on their balcony. And defendant claims since that person was moving out, that they dropped something on plaintiff's windshield.

Plaintiff receives $260 for her windshield.

Edited February 9, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

KittyQ · February 9, 2021

Hazmat Poisoning -

Although they didn't get into it, it seems as though there is more going on between the neighbors to account for plaintiffs' suit. It seems as though they are not even trying to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, but there's no actual proof of ill-intent or negligence WRT to the spraying. I wonder if there has been hostility between them since spike issue. I don't recall whether one of their cats was injured by that - if so, perhaps that's the root of the trouble.

Also, I don't understand why some of these people decide to go to Judge Judy - surely they'd have a more "pleasant" experience in regular small claims court, without the judge yelling at them and cutting them short.

CrazyInAlabama · February 9, 2021

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021) –

I’ll Take the Shotgun, Not the Wedding! -Plaintiff Leslie Orm is suing defendant Lori Mosley, his ex-fiance, for unpaid loans (a cruise deposit of $300, and for two airline tickets for defendant's son and daughter in law), and a shotgun. Defendant lied to plaintiff and said her son has the shotgun, but then defendant fesses up, and says she sold the shotgun.

All of this happened two years ago, so what was the delay in filing by the plaintiff? When defendant told plaintiff she was being evicted, and moving, that's when he wanted the shotgun back, and that was recently. Plaintiff didn't claim for the engagement ring, which he could get back. Defendant changes her story about the shotgun changes constantly, so plaintiff gets $500 for the shotgun. The $300 cruise loan was a gift, not a loan, so that's dismissed. The tickets for defendant's relatives are now in question, but it was a family trip, so plaintiff doesn't get money for the airline tickets.

Plaintiff receives $500 for the shotgun

Crashes and Lies -Plaintiff Kaneshia Davis suing her sister, Shemika Davis, defendant/driver over car damages from defendant driving the plaintiff's car on a stormy night, defendant skidded off the road, and totaled the plaintiff's car. Litigants switched cars in October, so plaintiff took sister's truck to move. On Halloween, defendant was driving plaintiff's car, and claims another driver did a hit-and-run, and she went off the car. Defendant's children were in the car, and were not injured. 2003 Dodge Stratus owned by plaintiff only had liability on it.

Defendant says they had a verbal agreement, and plaintiff would drive her car until she could replace it. Defendant claims plaintiff bought a car that was repo'd after a week. There is no proof except defendant's story about the accident.

$1500 to plaintiff, and defendant counter claim is gone.

Second (2020)-

Lane-Splitting Scooter Collides with Pedestrian?!-Plaintiff Linus Lee was driving Uber, and is suing defendant Christopher Peterson for his electric scooter cutting between lanes, hitting a pedestrian and the scooter flipped and then bounced off the pedestrian, and hit the plaintiff's car, damaging the car. Defendant claims a jay walking pedestrian was in a downtown San Francisco street after dark, so he's blaming the pedestrian. Defendant was sick of the traffic jam, so he was 'lane splitting' the opposite direction of traffic, straddling the double yellow line, and looked like he was on the left side of the oncoming traffic lane, according to the video. He hit the pedestrian, scooter flipped, and hit the plaintiff's car.

Defendant estimates he was going 15 mph on the electric scooter, and pedestrian was going about 2 mph when the accident occurred. Electric scooter has a top speed of 38 mph. There is a video of the defendant's lane splitting, and it's terrifying. Good thing there wasn't a little kid, or animal in defendant's way. Heaven forbid that the defendant would have to wait like everyone else. Defendant says plaintiff should have found the pedestrian, and sued him for causing the accident.

My guess is this lane splitting is illegal, because the video showed the scooter clearly on the wrong travel lane, over a double yellow line. He was filmed from the travel lane going the other direction. In California (and only California), lane-splitting is legal, but not if you’re doing it on the wrong side of the road, the way the defendant did.

Defendant is responsible for the damages to plaintiff's car. Plaintiff grosses $250 to $300 a day driving Uber, and that's his only job Repairs will take five days to complete. (The funniest part of the case is when defendant claims he was doing everything legally, and says he thought he was called to court to testify against the pedestrian, and car owner).

$2500 to plaintiff for car damages, and lost wages for two days. (I would have given the man $4,000 for inconvenience added to lost wages, and damages).

Coronavirus Strikes Again! – Plaintiffs Ted Barnett, and daughter Claire Barnett, suing Lisa Brown, defendant over a room rental in defendant's home, $1300 a month, for return of rent, and security deposit. It was a one bedroom, so plaintiff used the bedroom, and defendant lived in the dining room. Defendant's daughter came home from school, with her dog, and moved back into defendant mother's apartment. Defendant, and daughter lived in a portion of the dining room. Plaintiff suing for return of security deposit, and defendant wants unpaid rent. Daughter of defendant moved back into apartment from December through the rest of 2020. This is a one-bedroom apartment with three people, a dog, and one bathroom.

I wonder if subletting is legal for the defendant?

Plaintiff moved home the end of March, taking all of her stuff with her. Security deposit paid by plaintiff was $1300. Defendant says there was a lease breaking fee of $1300 for leaving early.

$1300 to plaintiff, defendant's garbage claim dismissed.

Florinaldo · February 10, 2021

16 minutes ago, KittyQ said:

Also, I don't understand why some of these people decide to go to Judge Judy - surely they'd have a more "pleasant" experience in regular small claims court, without the judge yelling at them and cutting them short.

There is the incentive of a free trip to LA for a few days; they seem to still be doing that since litigants are in the courtroom, along with Byrd, and only JJ is remote. I believe there is also a small appearance per diem or appearance fee.

Plus, in regular small claims you may get a judgement in your favour but people do not always succeed in collecting on it. With these court shows you have a chance to get guaranteed money since both litigants have a bite at the award kitty, which they may get whole or in part depending on the outcome.

2 hours ago, Back Atcha said:

· Why doesn't the father park his grey car on HIS side of the street?

People find all sorts of reasons to park where they do, and it can irritate some other residents. One person on our street used to park in front of my house even though he lived about a block away. It did not bother me, in part because my house is quite a distance from the road and all the trees hide the cars from view. But other people had their panties all tied up in a knot and wanted something to be done. To which I replied that these are public streets and there is no by-laws restricting parking (except in winter), so people can plunk their vehicle wherever they wish, as long as they do not block a driveway like the plaintiff did. Which still irked my neighbours, for no really rational reason.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Florinaldo

Carolina Girl · February 10, 2021

15 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

One person on our street used to park in front of my house even though he lived about a block away.

The drug dealers across the street from our house have something like 8 adults living in a 2-bedroom house (we think CPS took the kids away) and have something like seven cars. They are continually parking in front of other people's homes, when there is available parking not all that far away (25 steps) on what is another home's "side" yard of a corner lot. Not only that, their customers are famous for pulling across people's driveways to make their buys. Very infuriating for everyone.

LetsStartTalking · February 10, 2021

46 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

The drug dealers across the street from our house have something like 8 adults living in a 2-bedroom house (we think CPS took the kids away) and have something like seven cars. They are continually parking in front of other people's homes, when there is available parking not all that far away (25 steps) on what is another home's "side" yard of a corner lot. Not only that, their customers are famous for pulling across people's driveways to make their buys. Very infuriating for everyone.

This sounds EXACTLY like what I'm putting up with right now with my neighbors across the street !

LetsStartTalking · February 10, 2021

Quote

First (2021) –

I’ll Take the Shotgun, Not the Wedding! -Plaintiff Leslie Orm is suing defendant Lori Mosley, his ex-fiance, for unpaid loans (a cruise deposit of $300, and for two airline tickets for defendant's son and daughter in law), and a shotgun. Defendant lied to plaintiff and said her son has the shotgun, but then defendant fesses up, and says she sold the shotgun.

All of this happened two years ago, so what was the delay in filing by the plaintiff? When defendant told plaintiff she was being evicted, and moving, that's when he wanted the shotgun back, and that was recently. Plaintiff didn't claim for the engagement ring, which he could get back. Defendant changes her story about the shotgun changes constantly, so plaintiff gets $500 for the shotgun. The $300 cruise loan was a gift, not a loan, so that's dismissed. The tickets for defendant's relatives are now in question, but it was a family trip, so plaintiff doesn't get money for the airline tickets.

Plaintiff receives $500 for the shotgun

Crashes and Lies -Plaintiff Kaneshia Davis suing her sister, Shemika Davis, defendant/driver over car damages from defendant driving the plaintiff's car on a stormy night, defendant skidded off the road, and totaled the plaintiff's car. Litigants switched cars in October, so plaintiff took sister's truck to move. On Halloween, defendant was driving plaintiff's car, and claims another driver did a hit-and-run, and she went off the car. Defendant's children were in the car, and were not injured. 2003 Dodge Stratus owned by plaintiff only had liability on it.

Defendant says they had a verbal agreement, and plaintiff would drive her car until she could replace it. Defendant claims plaintiff bought a car that was repo'd after a week. There is no proof except defendant's story about the accident.

$1500 to plaintiff, and defendant counter claim is gone.

For my area, Judge Judy was pre-empted because of the Senate Impeachment being covered by CBS ('JJ' airs on a CBS affiliate channel at 3 pm each day in my area). I have a feeling she will be pre-empted for a while if the coverage continues for the next fw weeks.

SRTouch · February 10, 2021

57 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

The drug dealers across the street from our house have something like 8 adults living in a 2-bedroom house (we think CPS took the kids away) and have something like seven cars. They are continually parking in front of other people's homes, when there is available parking not all that far away (25 steps) on what is another home's "side" yard of a corner lot. Not only that, their customers are famous for pulling across people's driveways to make their buys. Very infuriating for everyone.

Long ago I lived in a small apartment complex with 2 buildings and a total of 16 units. Anyway, our manager offered to let the police set up surveillance in an empty 2nd floor appartment - very hush hush, no police cars or anyone in uniform. I lived downstairs and didn't have a clue until they made arrests. Only took a couple weeks until they made several arrests and closed place down - course I imagine the dealers just moved a block or two beffort it was business as usual.

Back Atcha · February 10, 2021

38 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

For my area, Judge Judy was pre-empted because of the Senate Impeachment being covered by CBS ('JJ' airs on a CBS affiliate channel at 3 pm each day in my area). I have a feeling she will be pre-empted for a while if the coverage continues for the next fw weeks.

She's on an independent channel here, so everything else was pre-empted, but Feisty Judy was right here. I also asked my DVR to record "every" episode, so those on the off-channels show up too. I think there are 5-6 Judys every day on that gizmo.

Carolina Girl · February 10, 2021

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Long ago I lived in a small apartment complex with 2 buildings and a total of 16 units. Anyway, our manager offered to let the police set up surveillance in an empty 2nd floor appartment - very hush hush, no police cars or anyone in uniform. I lived downstairs and didn't have a clue until they made arrests. Only took a couple weeks until they made several arrests and closed place down - course I imagine the dealers just moved a block or two beffort it was business as usual.

On Labor Day some years ago, the Sheriff's Office staged a raid. One of them went away for awhile. He's back now, living in a trailer in the driveway (with a camera mounted over the door) and getting all sorts of visitors at all hours. They avoid going in and out via the front door as well; go around the back.

CrazyInAlabama · February 10, 2021

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Unwed Parents Payback – Plaintiff Katie Nichols suing defendant Brenda Birdsong (her ex-boyfriend's mother). Plaintiff wants the money back on a car she bought from the defendant. Defendant says car was purchased for $6,000, with four payments of $1500 each, and claims plaintiff only made one payment of $1500. Defendant repo'd the car. Officer Byrd says the 2008 Chevy Impala was worth $5075. (It was a special edition LT), Plaintiff says she only paid $1500 for the car, to pay off the last of defendant's title loan. Car actually belonged to defendant's son, but was titled in defendant's name, for three years, and this was when plaintiff and defendant's son were living together.

Plaintiff bought a Chevy Tahoe 2008, then the relationship ended, and defendant ex took the Tahoe to tote his multiple other children around. Defendant son owes a lot of child support to the state, so the car could not be titled in his name. So plaintiff let defendant ex to use the Tahoe, and plaintiff would pay $1500 to defendant for the Impala. However, plaintiff has the Tahoe now, and defendant has the Impala back. The two exes had an altercation,

Defendant keeps the Impala, and plaintiff gets the $1500 back, and plaintiff keeps the Tahoe.

From Homeless to Houseless -Plaintiffs Julian Ramirez and Desiree Gamino are suing defendant/landlord Eileen Godoy over their eviction from her home, hotel costs, and punitive damages. Defendant is suing for rent and breach of contract/lease. Defendant says the tenants argued constantly, and loudly, and that's why they were evicted from her home. (In this case JJ simply doesn't realize that in the Bay Area/Silicon Valley area, two people with jobs still can't afford an apartment (man is a forklift operator fulltime, and woman is a part time sales associate). Plaintiff man's mother was getting evicted, and the two plaintiffs were living in their car for a month before they rented the room for $750 in defendant's apartment.

Defendant told plaintiffs to stop fighting, and claims it was a physical fight, and both plaintiffs were drinking heavily. Then plaintiffs left for the night, and claims that plaintiffs came back a few hours later with even more liquor.

Plaintiffs get their $200 security back. Plaintiffs also receive some rent back, $187, so a total of $387.

Second (2018)-

Stealth Assault by Neighbor?! – Plaintiff Curtis Levine is suing defendant Daniel Silva for an assault in his driveway. Litigants live across the street from each other, in the mountains. Plaintiff says when a previous neighbor was foreclosed on, the residents abandoned their cats. Plaintiff claims the defendant trapped the cats, and abandoned them to be killed by predators in the mountains. Defendant denies this.

Defendant claims that since the only parking easement is on the plaintiff's side of the public road, and plaintiff blocked the road easement off, and puts No Parking stickers on people's cars on the public right of way. Plaintiff claims the defendant's tenant parked on his side of the road, and at 5:45 a.m. plaintiff went to gather willows for his furniture business. Plaintiff claims that he gathers willow on private property of friends, but defendant claims plaintiff trespasses on public property, and is illegally gathering willows.

About 7:00 a.m. plaintiff returned home, and pulled into his driveway to open the driveway gate manually. Then, plaintiff had to close the gate, but defendant had parked his truck in front of defendant's house. When plaintiff went to open the gate, and he saw then claims defendant attacked him from behind. Plaintiff claims defendant was hiding behind the defendant's vehicle. (Another case of people who shouldn't live across from each other). Plaintiff claims defendant punctured his ear drum. He also claims defendant accused him of puncturing his tires, and other vandalism.

JJ also upset about what plaintiff wrote on the evidence, on the police report. Defendant is counter suing for property damage, and harassment. I don't care what the plaintiff says, there is a public easement on the street to park on plaintiff's side of the street. Defendant told police that when he was parked on the plaintiff's side of the street, and says someone (blames the plaintiff) let the air out of his tires. Defendant told police he lost it when he saw the vandalism by the plaintiff. Defendant, and the neighbors dislike that plaintiff runs his compressor outside early in the morning, 7 a.m. usually. Plaintiff claims 7 a.m. is the legal time to run equipment, still annoying. I agree with the defendant, and JJ, plaintiff is the awful neighbor, and probably a bit of a nut (JJ's words). JJ also tells defendant that you don't try to teach a pig to sing, it doesn't work, and annoys the pig.

JJ is wrong. The roadside easement on a public road does not belong to plaintiff, and is for anyone to park there that wants to. In my view, plaintiff is another person who loves to harass others, and this time he pushed the wrong person too far. Defendant claims the plaintiff tried to run him over too.

Plaintiff receives $5,000.

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment