All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Operation Rescue Baby Tortoise! (2021) -Plaintiffs Zamora Nace and boyfriend Christian Garcia suing defendant, Joshua Barraza for a tortoise that plaintiffs bought from defendant, and tortoise later was diagnosed with pneumonia.  Baby Tortoise was bought from defendant for $106 in 13 November.    They only have a receipt.   Then plaintiffs noticed tortoise was not right, so they took it to the vet, on 16 November.   Vet diagnosed possible pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection, and after treatments tortoise died.   PLaintiffs want a replacement tortoise, and almost $1,000 for vet bills.       

Defendant is asked if the other tortoises were sick, but he says they were fine.  Tortoise didn't have health guarantees or warranties.  Roxane Barraza (defendant's wife and part time bookkeeper) says there were no tortoise sales on the date in question, but a slightly different price a week earlier.    JJ suggests that employees of the pet store are fudging he books, and pocketing funds.   I suspect JJ is right.  However the tortoise sale was misidentified on the sales records.  There are no refunds on tortoises at any time since November. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (JJ says pet store owners might give them a replacement tortoise, but it's only a suggestion).

Child Support Fight (2013)- Plaintiff Sirenade Navaez is suing defendant Jose Martinez (ex-boyfriend) for a motorcycle loan, and child support arrest bail, on two occasions.   Plaintiff claims she bought motorcycle, and defendant has it at his house, and has the title.  Defendant says he's never had a motorcycle, and doesn't have one, or the title.    Plaintiff says previous owner's name is still on the title.   

Defendant was bailed out by plaintiff for $500, for a child support bill of almost $10k.    Then defendant was bailed again for $1,000 for the second child support arrest.  Baby's mother, defendant's  ex-girlfriend, also changed the baby's name, because defendant was 'trouble' twice, and she didn't want the baby to have his name.    Defendant gave up his parental rights, after the second arrest and future child support is no longer his problem).     Defendant still owes the $10,000 arrears on the child support to the ex, but does not have to pay child support after the date he signed to give up his parental rights.    (The $1500 bail money went to the ex for the child support, so he only owes $8500). 

JJ tells plaintiff to go find the motorcycle, and sell it.  Defendant still swears that he doesn't have a motorcycle, and doesn't know where it is. 

Plaintiff receives $1500 bail money back. 

Second (2020)-

Video of Assault While Holding a Baby! -Plaintiff Amanda Ward, and Grandfather, Lawrence Ward, suing ex-boyfriend, Jason Enright, baby daddy, for legal fees, and a loan to move, and are suing for $5,000.    There is a video of an attack on him in his home, while he was holding their baby. 

The video of the attack is appalling.  Defendant has another boy and girl that defendant has full custody of, and both litigants lived with the three kids, in Fontana, with a platonic roommate.   Then they moved to Rancho Cucamonga (I love that name).     Plaintiff's grandfather claims he made a loan to defendant for first, last month, and security deposit to defendant.     

Grandfather made loan to both for $4800.   So, it would be combined debt.   Defendant still lives in home, but plaintiff only lived there for six months. No repayment by either party during the six months of shacking up. 

Plaintiff Amanda Ward claims the assault resulted in her arrest, and restraining order, and attorney's fees.   $1,000 for attorney fees are claimed.   Plaintiff was arrested at the home the night of the assault by police, after plaintiff hit, and clawed the defendant.  

Plaintiff and two girlfriends were over, defendant was out.   Plaintiff heard noise at front door, then back door was broken to get into the house by defendant.    You could only get in if the inside deadbolts were unlocked, but keys wouldn't work from outside.   The video shows the drunk plaintiff attacking the defendant, while he's holding the baby in his arms.  She actually is clawing at his arms and back, punches him in the head.   Plaintiff claims defendant was belligerently drunk, but only plaintiff looks drunk on the video.    Plaintiff and defendant hadn't shared a bedroom for three months, of the six-month tenancy.    

The only belligerent person I saw was the plaintiff.    Defendant says plaintiff and friends ignored the doorbell, and knocking.    Plaintiff seems to think it's funny that she's committing an assault on a man holding a baby.   She actually hits him twice, and jumps on his back.    The plaintiff thinks what she did on film is funny.   

Grandfather case cut in half, $2400 awarded.

Case dismissed, except for $2400 to grandfather for half of loan.   

 

[Grifter Lives]

3 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

First, a shout out to Ryan Padilla, one of the sexiest 'bad boys' to grace Judge Judy's court this season. The past few seasons, Judge Judy has hit a dry spell - a desert, is more like it. This season she's had a few hotties (not as many as earlier seasons) and Padilla was enjoyable to watch. So thank you for being sued!

Second, most of the case was explaining to Judy what the transaction was all about. For the past 20 years she has been dealing with 'eBay' lawsuits. This site isn't that much different - the major difference is that it focuses in on a specific clientele (those addicted to sneakers). Why Judy wasted twenty minutes by telling the plaintiff 'Explain it to me' every few minutes was beyond comprehension.  And the plaintiff could only answer, 'Well basically...'.

Third, how does one become a an official, trusted 'sneaker authenticator' ? Does one go to Nike school for that? Does one get a degree or certificate for that ?  From the appearance of the two 'official authenticators' the plaintiff brought along, it looks like they sit home and do nothing but 'study sneakers'. And eat (at least one of them ate).

Her decision still bothers me.  Maybe she thought that Defendant was sexy, too, so she decided for him.  Or, she just wanted to use her soundbite, "Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug."

Part of her justification was that Plaintiffs were veteran Sneakerheads (although she is completely unaware of that well-established culture).  But, so was Defendant for at least 6 months.  She also said that Defendant didn't purport the sneakers to be authentic - but, he implied as much in his ad, since he advertised them without qualification otherwise on a website possibly geared for these sales.  (I wonder if it has any buyer protections that the Plaintiffs could have pursued.)  And, finally, Defendant said that he used a UV light when he  originally bought them a few days earlier, but Judge Judy didn't ask how his UV light could show that they were authentic, when Plaintiffs' UV light showed they were fakes.  She also ignored the competing accounts about if Defendant offered Plaintiffs his UV light to inspect the sneakers at the time of purchase.  I actually wanted to hear the authenticators list all the other tells that the shoes were knock-offs, and I was impressed that the Plaintiffs brought their witnesses. 

Also, Judge Judy accepted as proof of transaction the Defendant's bank statement that just showed a debit for the amount he said that he paid.  She's thrown out cases and scolded parties for the same evidence, saying that it didn't mean anything.  I think that she already made up her mind before the parties came before her.

[Carolina Girl]

23 hours ago, configdotsys said:

I am really hoping that since they are pulling out the oldies these days that we'll see to revisit the cheeseballs and the VFW Ladies' Auxliary brawl.

I'm hoping for the return of Kelli Filkins.  I really wish they'd reach back to some of the really good early early cases, before the airwaves became saturated with small claims shows and you had to have actually filed a lawsuit.  

[Carolina Girl]

19 hours ago, Grifter Lives said:

Her decision still bothers me.  Maybe she thought that Defendant was sexy, too, so she decided for him.  Or, she just wanted to use her soundbite, "Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug."

I'm trying to distinguish between her holding in this case and the one in the rerun we saw earlier this week re the Hermes bags.  It's odd that she gave the shoe defendant the benefit of the doubt but not the son of the Mommy with the overpriced bags.  In fact, in the latter case, she was all about having the kid prosecuted for a felony.  Maybe because the bags were obtained from a member of his family and he had closer "dealings" with them from the beginning rather than a third party.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Friends Let Friends Drive Drunk?! -Plaintiff Elena Richardson is suing defendant John Lyles Jr, over car damages from an accident, and a broken cell phone.  The litigants were hanging out and drinking Tequila.   Defendant drove to plaintiff's house in his car.    Then they were in her car, plaintiff was drunk, and scary behind the wheel, and so defendant took over driving, and then the car accident occurred.     They were both drinking Tequila, plaintiff from early in the evening.     Then they both were driving in plaintiff's car, and were going on an errand (maybe for more Tequila?) and to a friend's, and the accident happened.      When the litigants argued after the accident, plaintiff called 911, and then defendant smashed her phone (he's on parole, and doesn't want to deal with the police).     Defendant claims plaintiff's phone went out the car window, and was broken, but he didn't do it.

Plaintiff case dismissed, because drunk drivers don't get rewarded for being drunk.

Wedding Band Break-Up! -Plaintiff Andre Holmes suing defendant Ashanti Robertson for repairs to his car that he claims she gave him, if he'd fix it up.   Plaintiff fixed up the car, which defendant said if he fixed it up, he could keep it.   Defendant denies this, and said it was a loan.   Litigants bought matching wedding bands, and a wedding set, and plaintiff gives the matching piece to defendant.    (When Officer Byrd takes the band to defendant, JJ tells him it wouldn't look good on Byrd anyway).     

Plaintiff needs to prove what he spent to get car running.   Car has been sitting in front of defendant's parents house for six months, and isn't running.     

Plaintiff receives $1066 for car repairs. 

Prove It’s My Fault! -Plaintiff Hannah Huntley, and stepfather Mr. Wofford, are suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Caleb Kamara, for a car accident he had in plaintiff's car, a 2012 Dodge Avenger.     Defendant was turning left, and collided with two other cars that had right of way, and insurance paid for the other cars, and said fault was defendant's.      

Plaintiff submits the police report, it says defendant had two citations for having an expired driver's license, and no proof of insurance.   Defendant's license was revoked a couple of years before this.   Progressive insurance paid for the other two cars, but nothing for plaintiff's car damages because it wasn't fully insured.    Plaintiff was supposed to have full coverage on the car, since it was still being financed, but only had liability.     If plaintiff had full coverage, everything would have been covered. There is no way the insurance company screwed the liability vs. comprehensive insurance up, I suspect the plaintiffs decided to save money, and it bit them in the butt. 

Defendant had a revoked license, and it had been revoked a couple of years before.  Why would JJ give plaintiff money, when it wasn't fully insured, and the boyfriend had no license for years?

$5,000 to plaintiff. 

Second (2017)-

Quick!  Take This Homeless Baby?!-Plaintiff mother Carla Johnson, and stepfather Larry George are suing mother's adult daughter, Valencia Carroll for destroying their TV, and vandalizing their car.     There was an argument, and defendant went off, and caused damages, but defendant blames it on stepfather.   

Before this argument, defendant's homeless friend had a baby, and defendant wanted mother to watch baby for a few hours.   But mother/plaintiff said defendant wanted her to watch baby long term, and mother said only if it was done legally through the court,    Mother has a two year old also.    Defendant claims the friend/baby's mother is homeless, and can't keep the baby.   Daughter claimed social security card and birth certificate for baby were lost during eviction.  Daughter can't have roommates in her program apartment, so friend couldn't move in with her.   Daughter's on disability. 

Stepfather said he wasn't going to take care of baby, so stepdaughter defendant and friends could go out and party.     During the argument between mother, stepfather, and defendant, mother claims defendant destroyed her TV, and damaged her car.  Defendant says stepfather pushed her into the TV.   Mother says daughter punched the TV.    This was with the homeless friend and baby in the house too.    Defendant claims stepfather actually damaged the car.   Mother says her daughter is a liar.   Mother says when she got to the parking space, daughter had already vandalized the car.  Daughter admits she ripped off the car's windshield wiper, and hit stepfather with it.   Stepfather says daughter ripped off the windshield wiper, and is banging on the car, hit the stepfather with the wiper, and bit him.   

$2100  to plaintiff for the TV, and the car damages.

Single Mother Mayhem?-Plaintiff Chloe Early suing former friend defendant Chelsea Escobar for return of security deposit, and moving expenses.   Litigants each are both Sainted Single Mothers of One (SSMO) child each, and moved into an apartment together.    Defendant says she was moving out of her mother's place because the dad or step dad had a heart attack, and mother didn't want extra people in her home.      Plaintiff claims defendant said defendant's sister was going to take pictures of defendant's drug paraphernalia, and send it to DCFS, CPS, whatever it is.   

Plaintiff and child were living in the master bedroom, and defendant wanted to move her boyfriend in, and defendant demanded the master bedroom for defendant and her love muffin.     Plaintiff said no to the move in idea, and the kerfuffle started.   Defendant is counter suing for unpaid rent, utilities, damages.   

Defendant has cell phone photos of damages, blamed on plaintiff.   Defendant claims plaintiff stole her laptop, but no police report or proof, so it's thrown out.   In Hall-terview, plaintiff says defendant is a druggy, and had random men over all of the time.  

Plaintiff receives $1400 for her security deposit. minus $130 for unpaid rent for 5 days =$1270 to plaintiff

Edited March 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First (2020)-

Catfight Ensues After Woman Scams Client?!-Plaintiff Victoria Paul suing former consignment shop owner, Cece Rocker, (legal name Watson, not Rocker) for an arrest, and money owed for the consignment.    Plaintiff consigned new designer items, and there is proof that defendant, and others wore the clothes, and then sold them as used.    Plaintiff has the shop upstairs from defendant's shop.    Plaintiff went downstairs to retrieve her clothes a week after the consignment, after defendant never paid her for anything.  Plaintiff wanted the pay out, or to retrieve the clothes.    Plaintiff retrieved most of her items, and defendant wanted her hangers back, so defendant wanted her clothes hangers back.     Plaintiff was arrested for simple assault, but charges were dropped by the D.A.'s office. 

Defendant admits she never paid for anything on consignment.   Plaintiff has pictures of defendant and friends wearing the consignment clothes.    All but one items was new, one was not new, and once they have been worn they have to be sold as used, and they lose value.   There is a written contract, it says nothing about defendant wearing items, and returning to the shelves to be sold as used.   New value of clothing was $3256.     

The assault plaintiff was arrested for is over the duster (long sweater), and hangars, defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her.  (Defendant has a professional name-Cece Rocker is her professional name, not her legal name of Watson).    As JJ says, they both acted badly that day.

$3,256 to plaintiff, and nothing to defendant.

Give Your Ex-Lover $10k or Give It a Rest!  - Plaintiff Kiersten Walsh  suing former roommate/defendant/boyfriend Christopher Mackey for return of money for a car.    Litigants were live-in roommates, and plaintiff was going to take over payments on defendant car, and when she paid it off he would transfer the title to her.    Then they broke up, and he wanted the car back because his name was on the insurance, and registration.    Or she could pay him the $10k still owing on the car.  

Plaintiff made five $400 payments, and she kept her older Jeep, and was also driving the defendant's Hyundai.    Plaintiff wants the $2,000 for the Hyundai back, 

Plaintiff declines to pay $10k to defendant to pay the car off.   Defendant keeps the Hyundai. 

Case dismissed.  

Second (2020)-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 3/2/2021 at 6:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

ishy Boat Transaction-Plaintiff Amir and Susan Vossoughi, suing defendant /boat seller, William Hill over a pontoon boat purchase, parts, engine costs. and fees.   Plaintiffs claim they paid defendant for boat motor he never installed, and claim they can't register the boat, and never received a valid title. 

And, just  so happens that JJ has had several party boats and andis an expert on them as well as well.

But I'm still shaking my heat as to why they spent so much they spent so much money on a 30 yr boat? anyone smell scammer/?

Edited March 6, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[One Tough Cookie]

On 3/3/2021 at 6:42 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Vet Loses Australian Shepherd?!-Plaintiff Tiffany Best suing veterinarian Dr. Angelina Beeks, for losing her dog for seven days after being taken to the vet for a spay surgery.  This happened in the high desert in Califo

I thi k the vet was either stoned or  high 'She was totally chekcked out and didn't do her  reputation any good.

[configdotsys]

19 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I'm hoping for the return of Kelli Filkins.  I really wish they'd reach back to some of the really good early early cases, before the airwaves became saturated with small claims shows and you had to have actually filed a lawsuit.  

I believe she passed away some years ago. I'm not sure if that would stop them from airing that particular episode but I'd love to see some of the old classics. They really need to release DVDs of the seasons or put them on Netflix or something now that she is retiring. 

[LetsStartTalking]

20 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

I'm hoping for the return of Kelli Filkins.  I really wish they'd reach back to some of the really good early early cases, before the airwaves became saturated with small claims shows and you had to have actually filed a lawsuit.  

Filkins passed away shortly after the episode aired. Out of respect for her survivors, I don't think they will ever repeat this one.

Edited March 6, 2021 by LetsStartTalking

[LetsStartTalking]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:30 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First-

Operation Rescue Baby Tortoise! (2021) -Plaintiffs Zamora Nace and boyfriend Christian Garcia suing defendant, Joshua Barraza for a tortoise that plaintiffs bought from defendant, and tortoise later was diagnosed with pneumonia.  Baby Tortoise was bought from defendant for $106 in 13 November.    They only have a receipt.   Then plaintiffs noticed tortoise was not right, so they took it to the vet, on 16 November.   Vet diagnosed possible pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection, and after treatments tortoise died.   PLaintiffs want a replacement tortoise, and almost $1,000 for vet bills.       

Defendant is asked if the other tortoises were sick, but he says they were fine.  Tortoise didn't have health guarantees or warranties.  Roxane Barraza (defendant's wife and part time bookkeeper) says there were no tortoise sales on the date in question, but a slightly different price a week earlier.    JJ suggests that employees of the pet store are fudging he books, and pocketing funds.   I suspect JJ is right.  However the tortoise sale was misidentified on the sales records.  There are no refunds on tortoises at any time since November. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (JJ says pet store owners might give them a replacement tortoise, but it's only a suggestion).

Child Support Fight (2013)- Plaintiff Sirenade Navaez is suing defendant Jose Martinez (ex-boyfriend) for a motorcycle loan, and child support arrest bail, on two occasions.   Plaintiff claims she bought motorcycle, and defendant has it at his house, and has the title.  Defendant says he's never had a motorcycle, and doesn't have one, or the title.    Plaintiff says previous owner's name is still on the title.   

Defendant was bailed out by plaintiff for $500, for a child support bill of almost $10k.    Then defendant was bailed again for $1,000 for the second child support arrest.  Baby's mother, defendant's  ex-girlfriend, also changed the baby's name, because defendant was 'trouble' twice, and she didn't want the baby to have his name.    Defendant gave up his parental rights, after the second arrest and future child support is no longer his problem).     Defendant still owes the $10,000 arrears on the child support to the ex, but does not have to pay child support after the date he signed to give up his parental rights.    (The $1500 bail money went to the ex for the child support, so he only owes $8500). 

JJ tells plaintiff to go find the motorcycle, and sell it.  Defendant still swears that he doesn't have a motorcycle, and doesn't know where it is. 

Plaintiff receives $1500 bail money back. 

 

 

 

 

Operation Rescue Baby Tortoise!

RBG Judge Judy presiding:

Judge Judy went to eight years of post-grad school to listen to cases concerning sick tortoises. Imagine that ?

For some reason, when the plaintiff told Judy they went to the vet, "and the vet said..." JJ listened to her. She didn't shut her down and yell, "DON'T TELL ME WHAT THE VET SAID. THAT'S HEAR-SAY. IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU COULD'VE BROUGHT THE VET HERE AS YOUR WITNESS AND I COULD HAVE QUESTIONED HER LIKE I'M DOING YOU RIGHT NOW."  Instead, Judy let her speak and took it all in as evidence. Why is that ? I lost complete interest right then and there.

 

Child Support Fight (2013)

Estelle Getty Judge Judy presiding...

Nothing more fun than seeing two meth-heads battling the sh!t out in Judge Judy's courtroom. The best part was outside the courtroom for the interview - sounds like Sirenade faked a pregnancy test to hold onto Jose, but Jose wasn't having it. Fool him once...

 

BONUS POST:

Shout out to Mathew Rezvani, from earlier this week. Talk about a handsome, sexy guy. Every time he stuck his tongue out on camera to wet his lips he got an even bigger gay following...I assure you.  😛

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

9 hours ago, configdotsys said:

I believe she passed away some years ago. I'm not sure if that would stop them from airing that particular episode but I'd love to see some of the old classics. They really need to release DVDs of the seasons or put them on Netflix or something now that she is retiring. 

Yes, after being featured as a scammer on JJ, and then get prosecuted for her frauds, and prison time, she died.    You can catch the episode on one of the two DVDs they put out with some exceptional cases.   Unfortunately, the case we called Grease Ball Mommy from Hell (a houseguest's teen daughter was killed in a car accident, with GB Mommy's son, and GBM from Hell was suing the girl's mother for car damages, son is doing many years in prison), is also on one of the DVDs too. 

My favorite cases are Baby Boy (man who had his little poodle stolen, he found out who had him, and the defendant kept denying it was his dog.   They brought the dog into the court room, and put him down, and he ran to the man.   It was obviously his dog). The other dog one I loved was Mocha/Foxy the dog that JJ paid the one person for, and kept the puppy.   The dog looked very skinny and unloved.   And she had Officer Byrd hold the puppy.    Officer Byrd said he doesn't like dogs, but that one loved him.    JJ found a great home with one of the production staff, and she went on Entertainment Tonight with the puppy, and the new owners, because everyone was asking about what happened to the dog.  

The Patricia Bean and VFW ladies cases were classics too.   

Edited March 7, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

8 hours ago, configdotsys said:

I believe she passed away some years ago. I'm not sure if that would stop them from airing that particular episode but I'd love to see some of the old classics. They really need to release DVDs of the seasons or put them on Netflix or something now that she is retiring. 

Oh well, I'll follow the Thumper's Father rule (if you can't say something nice.....)

There are some episodes on You Tube but mostly snippets.  I agree - I'd love to see Hulu or Netflix put together some nice complications of the REALLY good cases ($10 says there isn't a single "he owes me for a cellphone" among them).

[Carolina Girl]

One of the ones I'd like to see again in full episode form is the one with the fat bitch that lied about buying a cute little white dog on the street and a man was trying to get it back and she has the dog brought into court and it runs right to the plaintiff.  One of the best moments ever.  Never believed a word out of the defendant's mouth.  

[configdotsys]

17 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

One of the ones I'd like to see again in full episode form is the one with the fat bitch that lied about buying a cute little white dog on the street and a man was trying to get it back and she has the dog brought into court and it runs right to the plaintiff.  One of the best moments ever.  Never believed a word out of the defendant's mouth.  

Baby Boy!

[Kandi C]

Let's see if I can clear some things up on this post.  Tom Lewis did not run Body Crystal for 15 years.  He stepped in to help run the company for the owner Jay Smith who was injured as a first responder during hurricane Maria for 3 years, from 2017 to 2020 when the bookkeeper (Ms. Cook) found over $36,000 missing from the company checking account & he was fired

It was also said that Mr. Lewis claimed there was never an agreement for Ms. Cook or Mr. Dacastello to work on the house and the only agreement was to work on his projects.  If that is true, then why did Mr. Lewis & Mr. Ramos file a complaint against Ms. Cook with the contractors state license board alleging contracting without a license?  She received a citation from the board for $3,000.

The only small claims case that Ms. Cook lost which was filed against Mr. Lewis happened because Mr. Ramos and he gave the judge a spreadsheet that said she had agreed to work in exchange for free rent and the judge believed their story.  Anyone who would bring a buddy and lie in court against a newly widowed lady just to get out of paying her is gross & sad.

And the comment about how Mr. Lewis had filed a restraining order against her is missing some information.  He did try to get a restraining order and it was denied by the court.  His business partner tried the same thing alleging elder abuse and that was also denied and thrown out of court.  

JJ was smart and figured out what scam artists these two guys are very quickly

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Murder, Prison and Conjugal Visits -Plaintiff Theodora Wright is guardian of her convicted murderer's two children (man was 19, and his late girlfriend was 16) is suing defendant Jaclyn "Jackie"Dougherty daycare provider for an unpaid loan, and daycare issues.    Brother killed his girlfriend, and fathered the two children while in jail, then mother and prisoner divorced, and mother had drug issues, and can't care for the children.   Defendant would go for the overnight extended family visitation with the two children (they have trailers where the visits happen).   Plaintiff says brother was a juvenile at the time of the murder, so he may get out sooner than 12 years.    Contract was 6 visits a month, supervised by defendant.    

Defendant says she was put on the visitation list for inmate.    Then plaintiff's brother made a contract with defendant for 50 visits, for $100 per visit.     Contract was with the plaintiff, and money for defendant came from brother's inheritance, with plaintiff in charge of the money.    Defendant did 14 visits, and has to return $3600 to plaintiff.    However, plaintiff says she loaned defendant $3820 to open her own daycare (and to pay off bills to get the daycare loan).     Defendant says the $3820 was for the two children's educational/daycare costs, not a loan (No it wasn't for daycare).

There is no counterclaim by defendant, but she says the $3820 was daycare costs, and private babysitting defendant also did.    Defendant says children's mother paid her bills (she was a counselor),  and then in 2017 mother went into rehab and plaintiff had custody of the children.    However, the loan to defendant by plaintiff was before the guardianship by plaintiff, when the children's mother was still paying the bills for the children, so it was a loan to play off defendant's outstanding credit issues. 

$5,000 to plaintiff.  (Sorry, this case was extremely confusing, so I only wrote what both litigants claim was the truth). 

Don’t Let the Bedbugs Bite! -Plaintiff Subrine Rogers suing defendant Christina Wheeler for the lease/purchase of furniture, and cleaning fees.    Plaintiff purchased the furniture on her credit card, and defendant was paying plaintiff for half of the furniture.   The the usual big argument happened, and defendant moved out, taking her furniture, but defendant stopped paying for the furniture.     As JJ says the logical thing for defendant to pickup her furniture, and keep it or sell it, but defendant claims the furniture has bedbugs in it, because of plaintiff's daughter.   

Defendant claims she was paying $300 a month for rent, and $200 a month for the furniture (all are ATMs withdrawls).   $1861 is left on the furniture payments.   Defendant claims she paid plaintiff half the cost of the furniture, but she left some behind.  Furniture cost $1500+, but then the rental company took the payments, so the price went up.  

Defendant took some of the furniture, and claims some of her previously owned furniture had bedbugs because of plaintiff's daughter (how would you know who was responsible for bed bugs?   They have little nametags says who brought them into the house?)

$1865 to plaintiff. 

Second (2017)-

Wedding Ring Theft?-Plaintiff Awni Safadi is suing  defendant, his  younger brother Joshua Goff.   Plaintiff is suing defendant for home damages, damaging his motorcycle, and stealing plaintiff's wife's wedding ring.   Defendant was kicked out by mother from family home, for smoking pot, having parties in her home, and plaintiff took the brother in.    Plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle wreck, was in the hospital, and plaintiff and wife came home from the hospital after three days, and found dog stuff on the rug, his motorcycle spray painted, TV broken, other spray paint vandalism, and the wife's wedding ring had been stolen, and pawned by defendant.   Defendant graduated from alternative high school.  

Defendant says house was trashed when he came home, and blames it on plaintiff's  enemies.   Defendant pawned the plaintiff's wife's wedding ring.  Plaintiff's witness is the pawn shop owner, saying the date and time the wedding ring was pawned, and paid defendant $900.  Defendant says the ring pawn was to pay for his cell phone the plaintiff broke.  However, defendant pawned the ring a few days before the phone was taken by plaintiff. 

Defendant signed it was his ring, and it wasn't reported stolen when it was pawned, and resold.   Defendant claims there was no party, and he's absolutely lying.  The ring was never reported as stolen, and the vandalism wasn't either   Ring was pawned the day after plaintiff returned from the hospital, for $900, and it was pawned by defendant.   If ring was never reported as stolen to the police, then how did pawn shop know it was hot?   Or did plaintiff go to the pawnshop?   

JJ tells the plaintiff to make a police report, against the defendant.    Plaintiff has five days to file the police report against defendant, and then he will get his show money.      Defendant can't keep his story straight.  (I know a lot more than I ever wanted to about pawning stolen items in Warren, Michigan). 

$2800 to plaintiff, plaintiff has five days to file a police complaint against the defendant, and after proof of a police complaint against defendant is filed the plaintiff gets paid.    (I bet the $2800 was never claimed by plaintiff, because he never filed the police report against his brother).

Don't Kiss Your Sister's Boyfriend-Plaintiff Brandy Parish  (21 years old) suing her older sister ,Veronica Williams (23)  over an unpaid loan.    Defendant claims plaintiff damaged her car, and that exceeded the cost of the loan.   Car damage happened when they had a fight involving plaintiff sucking face with defendant's boyfriend (is it too much to hope it's the defendant's ex-boyfriend? No, boyfriend is defendant's witness).   Plaintiff claims defendant damaged her own car.   

$416 to defendant for the car.  

Edited March 8, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m.-

First –

Camper Fire Nightmare (2021) -Plaintiff Justin Howerter suing defendant Daniel Radford over plaintiff's destroyed popup camper.   Defendant was supposed to get insurance on the pop up trailer.     Then defendant borrowed the camper/trailer, but came back from a trip to the mountains without the trailer.    Then grinning fool defendant, who seems to think destroying someone else's property is funny, says that he was driving down the mountain, following another vehicle too closely, ran off the road, and there was also a fire in the trailer.    Plaintiff says the insurance he had only covered plaintiff and his wife.

(Every time the defendant was standing their lying through his teeth to JJ, I swear I heard the banjos from Deliverance playing). 

There are no photos of the interior, because of damages from the accident, the pop-up no longer pops up.  Defendant first says two guest were with him, and fiance camping, but then says the other people had their own camper, and didn't use plaintiff's camper.   JJ figures out that defendant and fiance (Natasha Arnstad), came home, leaving the other two men with the pop-up trailer, and they caused the fire.   Plaintiff says defendant was supposed to be borrowing the pop-up for two weeks, and defendant came home after four days, and didn't call the plaintiff about the trailer for five additional days.    

Plaintiff receives $5,000. JJ tells plaintiff to dump remains of pop-up on defendant's lawn.  

DUI Bailout (2013)- Plaintiff/aunt Erika Patterson suing defendant/Nephew  Cesar Witherow over DUI Bail.  Defendant has been arrested for at least three DUIs, assaults, battery, drug distribution, etc.   Defendant seems proud of his long rap sheet.    Plaintiff bailed defendant out for $ , but defendant repaid her nothing.   

Defendant's girlfriend couldn't bail out defendant, because she was also in jail for DUI at the same time.  

$3500 to plaintiff for bail. 

Second (2014)-

Dream Car Rip-Off -Plaintiff Jared Sandoval suing defendant David Williams because defendant had a title loan on the Trans Am he sold plaintiff.  Plaintiff saved $3200 to pay defendant for the car, and defendant claims car was worth $8,000.    Plaintiff couldn't register car, because of the title loan.  Lien is more than what plaintiff paid for the car, but lien company won't tell anyone but defendant what the lien is.   Plaintiff wanted a refund on car, but defendant had spent the money already.    JJ says plaintiff has to give back the car, to get his $3500 back, but plaintiff still wants the car, and he'll have to pay the lien off somehow.

Plaintiff gets $3200, and car goes back to defendant.  (I think plaintiff was just hoping there is a way he could keep the car.   However, I'm glad the title loan company couldn't tell him how much the lien is for, or he would probably have tried to round up the money). 

Scammer Denial  -Case of plaintiff David Williams against Ms. Morris is dismissed.   He's trying to say he didn't know his live in girlfriend did the title loan, case is dismissed.  

Christmas Day Hit-and-Run-Plaintiff  Michael Copeland , car owner, (witness/fiance Andrea Jackson), are suing defendant Christopher Bailey  (car owner is his wife, Pennie Langston) over a hit-and-run accident on Christmas Day.  Plaintiff witness heard a collision, and  says she was looking at their car damage, when defendant climbed out of his SUV, looked at his car damage, and climbed back in his car, and left.   Plaintiffs got the license plate number.    When plaintiffs were still looking at the car damage defendant cruised by staring at the car and driving slowly, and then went by again.  Plaintiffs were talking to 911, and gave them the license number, and a description of the driver.

Defendant didn't get a ticket for leaving the scene of an accident.    Plaintiffs said defendant seemed to be impaired too.   

Defendant's wife, and car owner swears her husband, and car didn't do this.  Police report is submitted. 

(In the state I live in, hit-and-run auto is a total of 12 points, the same number of points needed to suspend your license, and where litigants live he didn't even get a ticket? ). 

Police saw fresh snow tracks leading to defendant's garage, and no one answered the door at defendant's house.  JJ says defendants are a perfect match for each other.  

Plaintiff receives $3791. 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Second (2014)-

Dream Car Rip-Off -Plaintiff Jared Sandoval suing defendant David Williams because defendant had a title loan on the Trans Am he sold plaintiff.  Plaintiff saved $3200 to pay defendant for the car, and defendant claims car was worth $8,000.    Plaintiff couldn't register car, because of the title loan.  Lien is more than what plaintiff paid for the car, but lien company won't tell anyone but defendant what the lien is.   Plaintiff wanted a refund on car, but defendant had spent the money already.    JJ says plaintiff has to give back the car, to get his $3500 back, but plaintiff still wants the car, and he'll have to pay the lien off somehow.

Plaintiff gets $3200, and car goes back to defendant. 

 

He seemed "challenged" and I'm glad JJ ruled in his favor. I  could see that he was extremely confused by his  choices, but he had an older gentleman with him and I assumed it was his father who helped him make the choice.

Edited March 9, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[One Tough Cookie]

56 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(2021) -Plaintiff Justin Howerter suing defendant Daniel Radford over plaintiff's destroyed popup camper.   Defendant was supposed to get insurance on the pop up trailer.     Then defendant borrowed the camper/trailer, but came back from a trip to the mountains without the trailer.    Then grinning fool defendant, who seems to think destroying someone else's property is funny, says that he was driving down the mountain, following another vehicle too closely, ran off the road, and there was also a fire in the trailer.    Plaintiff says the insurance he had only covered plaintiff and his wife.

Man, she went totally bat shit on the defendant, didn't she?  It must have sushi time.

Edited March 9, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[DoctorK]

37 minutes ago, One Tough Cookie said:

Man, she went totally bat shit on the defendant, didn't she?  

Totally justified, he was a giggling dishonest clown.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then grinning fool defendant, who seems to think destroying someone else's property is funny,

I never understand how some people think that grinning like an idiot every time you answer a question helps you come across as anything else but a lying dick.

1 hour ago, One Tough Cookie said:

Man, she went totally bat shit on the defendant, didn't she?

She also did not hold back on the scorn towards his GF Natasha,  who is probably very deserving of much contempt for continuing to be associated with that dishonest defendant.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Dream Car Rip-Off -

God, that defendant wouldn't STFU. So annoying. And what a lying liar he was

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

A Woman’s Dying Wishes -Plaintiff /stepfather Michael Perry suing defendant/stepdaughter Rebecca Allen for stealing from late mother/wife's bank accounts, for $24,218.   The mother and stepfather were married over 20 years.  Right after the mother died, the first withdrawal was $5,218, the second account withdrawal was over $19,000.   First account is claimed to be payment on death to daughter (no proof),   JJ wonders if defendant forged the mother's name, or if she took a death certificate, and showed she was the beneficiary.    The second account is a savings account with mother/wife's name on it, that was an over $19,000 withdrawal,    The second account had two 50/50 beneficiaries $19,000+.

(The defendant reminds me of Marla Hooch in A League of Their Own)

There is no way that two days after a death that the daughter had a death certificate.   

$2600 to plaintiff on the first account.    

Subwoofer Custody Battle -Plaintiff April Lauck suing defendant Johnathan Hogaboom over a van, TV, stereo equipment, and phones.  They were a couple for eight months, and lived together.   Plaintiff bought two phones (as usual, two iPhones) for defendant for a business they were starting, and two gift cards came with the phone purchase.   Plaintiff took the gift cards and bought subwoofers, and a TV for the home.  Plaintiff had an old car, sold her car for $1700, and bought another used car for $1350 for defendant.    And plaintiff drove defendant's Chrysler Town and Country.   When they split defendant took the Town & Country back, one phone, and subwoofer.   Defendant's phone have a balance left, of $386.  Plaintiff also stopped payment on a check to pay for defendant's van/car and so he took the Town & Country back.  

TV and Subwoofers dismissed, because defendant bought vacuum cleaner, and lawn mower for the house, and plaintiff still has the last two.

$1200 owed on minivan (defendant's).   The cargo van payment check was cancelled by plaintiff, and van was repo'd yesterday by the seller.  

Everything dismissed, all of the purchases, etc. cancelled each other out. 

Second (2012)-

Windshield Wiper Attack -Plaintiff Bailie Newman suing defendant/ex-boyfriend Brandon Youngfor vandalizing her vehicle after a drunken argument. Plaintiff claims defendant broke her windshield wipers after she was leaving.    The two litigants went to a gas station Shell minimart, and plaintiff claims defendant stole two case of beer, and store owner was going to call the police.   Then plaintiff claims she gave defendant and his sister a ride home, and halfway home plaintiff claims defendant wrecked her windshield wipers.     Defendant claims they were fighting over having sexual relations, even though they weren't dating.     Then defendant's sister says plaintiff was drunk, and driving, and litigants argued, and something happened to the windshield wipers.     Defendant's bizarre witness with the funky hairdo stands there and lies to JJ. 

$635 to plaintiff. 

Crash, Brake and Bills -Plaintiff Ashlin Horsley suing defendant/ex Taylor Pearson for wrecking her car, while he was driving her car.  However, they dated and lived together for 18 months, but plaintiff claims she doesn't know that defendant didn't have a driver's license.    Defendant was driving, and they were arguing, and defendant claims plaintiff grabbed his arm (in defendant's sworn statement).  Now defendant says plaintiff just distracted him, but  didn't grab his arm.

 

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's stupid.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First –

Single Mom Daycare Battle! (2021)-Plaintiff Mercy Monarrez suing defendant Felicia Biagi for daycare expenses, and food expenses for the three kids defendant left with plaintiff.    Defendant wanted plaintiff to take care of her three kids, including meals for the children.    Plaintiff filled out the paperwork to qualify for state daycare pay, and she was paid in September.   However, for August there was no pay by the state, or the defendant.     Defendant is counter claiming because plaintiff didn't give her notice, and had to quarantine her kids before entering the next daycare.

Defendant counterclaim dismissed.     There was no written contract.   Plaintiff wants $650 for the two weeks, which is half of the monthly stipend from the state for three kids, full-time for five days, was $1300 a month.   Some of the babysitting was overnight too. 

Plaintiff is also a full time student, but is actually paid to take classes.   $1000 a class is her payment. She also gets child support, EBT, and family pays her.  

Plaintiff receives $650.

Car Blow Up! (2014) – Plaintiffs Keith and Alice Kelly suing car seller/defendants Raven Seals, and brother Joe Dodd over a car plaintiffs bought from defendant.    Plaintiffs claim car blew up on the way to the mechanic’s shop.  Plaintiffs paid $3600 for the car, no test drive, no paperwork.   However, Joe Dodd, defendant says he left the bill of sale at home (apparently he thought he was coming to the beach today).   Plaintiffs put down $ for the car.  Instead of taking the car back to defendants, the plaintiffs took the car to the mechanic, and paid the mechanic for repairs.  A week later the plaintiffs paid to repair the car, and treating it as your own means you've completed the sale.   Therefore, the "As Is" rule, and the completed contract sink the chances of any rerun. 

Plaintiffs spent over $4500 on repairs.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Second (2020)-

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

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

Plaintiff can't find the $1500 charge for the card charge.  JJ also says the signature on the back of receipt that plaintiff submits is not defendant's signature. 

Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, and sent back to a local court to refile with proof. (I believe nothing the plaintiff says). 

Goat Killing Dogs?!-   Plaintiff Stefanie Carrasco-Tapia suing neighbor for her dog killing two goats, and for vet bills before the goats died, but defendant Eva Cruz claims the dogs weren't hers.    The litigants live in a rural area, for two years near each other, and goat pen was fenced.   Defendant has a Shepherd mix, and Pit Bull mix.    Video doesn't show the attack.  The video shows the dogs entering, and leaving the property.   

 Since there is no video showing an attack or the two dogs acting aggressively, JJ can't rule in plaintiff's favor.  I'm sure that the dogs did it, but there simply is no proof unless there's a video or a witness, that goats were injured by dogs, instead of coyotes.  Defendant says the dogs aren't her dogs, but she claims she feeds strays that don't belong to her.   (I don't even have to hear this testimony, there are a lot of domestic dogs that kill livestock, including goats, ponies, chickens, sheep, etc., so I side with plaintiff. Unfortunately, no one witnessed the attack, and can't prove who did the attack). 

Plaintiff case dismissed for lack of proof. 

 

[Carolina Girl]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:10 PM, DoctorK said:

Totally justified, he was a giggling dishonest clown.

Agree.  Wouldn't surprise me if he "rented" out the pop-up to his so-called friends for their two-week camping trip (I wasn't sure if the friend actually charged him anything for his borrowing of the pop-up for two weeks other than to ask for insurance).  They'd go up, get everything situated and then take off and leave the camper with the friends, going back at the end to drive it back down.  I guess the fire put an end to that and then they made up the "following too close" story to explain away other damage their friends probably did to it.  Glad the plaintiff got the full amount and is going to dump it on defendant's lawn.

The good news (if such there is) is that everyone who knows these two grifting, witless assholes and watched this episode will probably NEVER lend them so much as a screwdriver.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

And the Most Apathetic Landlord Award Goes To…?! -Plaintiff Stefany Leib /former tenant suing defendant/former landlord for cleaning costs, return of rent, and security deposit.    Charles Rupley.   Tenant claims landlord called them on move in at 10 p.m. asking who the tenants are, and landlord claims he never met Travis before, but Ms. Leib claims they had met before (no I don't care about this part either).    Tenants were Travis (witness), Jan, and Stefany.    Travis signed lease after Ms. Leib did, and she claims he came to look at rental, but landlord claims he's the other roommate.    Ms. Leib complained two weeks after move in that house wasn't clean, and said there was some kind of rodent upstairs, but landlord saw no evidence of a rodent (i.e. not rodent poop).    

After the complaints from tenant, after two weeks, landlord gave them 30 day notice.    $835 security deposit, and $150 pet deposit, were withheld because landlord claim tenants trashed the house.   Two pictures show some trash, but one picture a room full of trash.  

Plaintiffs get  $1820 back for a month's rent, and security and pet deposit. 

The Cadillac and the Ex-Con -Plaintiff John Johnson suing defendants Kristina and Chad Martin   Kristina Martin got out of jail, and wanted to go and visit her children.    She borrowed the Cadillac for two days, and didn't return it for five days, and it was full of dents, and scratches when it was returned.  Plaintiff reported it stolen to the police.    

Defendant claims she doesn't know how the multiple dents happened.    Plaintiff submits photos of the car.   

$2500 to plaintiff for car damages. 

Second (2013)-

Sex Swap for a Car? -Plaintiff  David Yanish suing Jessica Burden/defendant, ex-girlfriend over the VW Jetta, cell phone, Plaintiff claims defendant withdrew $1000 from his account using ATMs.    Plaintiff claims defendant was hooked on painkillers, and wanted him to pay for her Suboxone (?), and that was the end of the relationship.      Defendant said she had to sleep with plaintiff in return for the VW Jetta.  They no longer lived together, but had sex sometimes.     Plaintiff claims when he told her to leave, she claimed she was a tenant, and would leave if he gave her the Jetta.   Then defendant wrecked the car, and plaintiff was underwater on the car.   Then defendant gave plaintiff $600 to rent a car for her to drive, but it cost $800, so he wants $200.   They were still boinking during this time too.  

Plaintiff put defendant on his phone plan, bought two phones and defendant had them.   

Defendant claims plaintiff gave her $5,000 to move out ($3500 cash, and $1500 to pay their target bill), Defendant lived in plaintiff's house with two kids, her sister, someone else, and defendant agreed to sleep with plaintiff for the car.    

Plaintiff case dismissed because of continued boinking with defendant.    They only lived together for four months, and everything is dismissed.

Dinner Party Attack -Plaintiff Monique Shelton  suing defendant Rachel Maharaj over a fight over Thanksgiving dinner at plaintiff's place.   Plaintiff invited her cousin, who invited others, including a few strangers to plaintiff, and various other guests came too.    Plaintiff's cousin Ian also brought his girlfriend, Sonia.   Defendant decided that girlfriend Sonia took her cell phone.   Sonia denied taking the phone.

Sonia says defendant came into the kitchen, and then attacked Sonia without warning.    Plaintiff says the two women started fighting, and she tried to stop it, and defendant threw her head back, and broke plaintiff's tooth.   Defendant says she attacked over her missing cell phone, but why Sonia?   Defendant claims plaintiff attacked her after the tooth incident. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

$123,000 Lego Mini-figure Dispute?!-Plaintiff Casey Millerick suing LEGO seller Beth Jones,  for the LEGO parts she sold him.   Plaintiff said plastic storage container was supposed to be 200 lbs. of LEGO parts, for $800,  but only weighted 70 lbs.  Defendant says that plaintiff tried to sell the parts online for more than their value ($123,000).  Plaintiff collects the little LEGO figures that come in the LEGO sets, one or two per Lego set.  Plaintiff bought the Lego pieces from defendant, and the litigants carried it to his car.    Then plaintiff weighed the box, and texted the defendant about the missing 130 lbs.  Plaintiff had every chance to weight them at defendant's house, or could have picked out the figures out of the LEGO box, because he didn't want the LEGO pieces, just the little mini-figures.  

Plaintiff paid $800 for the LEGO tub.   Plaintiff has had the LEGO set for over a month, so as JJ says, who knows if he picked out what he wanted to keep?  Plaintiff said defendant failed to offer a refund, or anything else.  Plaintiff also didn't try to get a better deal from defendant, by bargaining the price down. 

Then the bombshell from defendant, that plaintiff has been trying to sell the LEGO figures on Ebay for $123,000, and plaintiff confirms some came from the box he bought from defendant.

JJ says $300 to plaintiff would be fair.  However, JJ also says it was up to plaintiff to weigh the box.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (2020)-

Outrageous Dog Owner?!-Plaintiff Gary Wong suing fellow dog owner/neighbor Ronald Nebreda for his broken glasses, and vet bills for his 10 lb. miniature Poodle.   In March and September, plaintiff says defendant's vicious dog attacked his tiny poodle twice.   In March, poodle was on leash, when Nebreda's dog attacked and bit his poodle.  Ronald Nebreda claims his dog was being watched (Siberian Husky/ German Shepherd mix) in the garage, by his neighbor.   Garage door was wide open, when defendant dog attacked the plaintiff's dog.    Defendant said he would be neighborly, and pay part of the bills.    (Sadly, defendant's witness has about 4 teeth, and can barely talk, and is a total liar).    Bills were $1487, and defendant refused to pay.   Defendant and his witness claim the 10 lb. poodle attacked the bigger dog.  Poodle was on leash, and defendant's dog never was leashed. 

In September, plaintiff was taking out the garbage, and going to walk his dog on leash, when he saw Nebreda's dog unleashed, and free.   Then Nebreda's dog attacked the tiny poodle again, and Nebreda finally got off his useless ass, and called his dog off.    Defendant claims the poodle came to his garage, and the poodle was on his property when it was nipped by the vicious defendant's animal. 

As JJ says, defendant's story is ridiculous.    

$4500 was the September bill,

Plaintiff receives $5000.  

Forbidden Pandemic Eviction?!-Plaintiff Angela Estrada suing former tenant, Madison Borrecco, over house damages, lock changing fees, late fees, and utilities.  Tenancy was from June 2018, and on June 2019 became month to month, and tenant lived in the house until May 2020.      There was a pandemic moratorium for non-payment starting in March 2020, and she couldn't evict for non-payment.     Tenant paid late, but still paid the entire rent owed, but late, and late fees are dismissed.     

Plaintiff says the defendant painted all of the bedrooms, didn't even take the painter's tape off.   However, plaintiff hadn't painted the house in five years.    Plaintiff kept the $1,000 security deposit, and she wants $4,000 from Officer Byrd's wallet.    JJ wants to see photographs of damages.   Front security door wouldn't close, and but had been pried open by tenant.   $360 for security door.    The tenant never changed the air filter in three years, and JJ blames that on plaintiff/landlord, (House rentals I've had required tenant to clean or change filter).   

House was renovated 11 years ago, when plaintiff inherited it, but only changed carpets five years ago, and painted five years ago also.  Sorry, paint job by tenant sucks, but house desperately needs paint, and new carpets.   

With one month vacancy, house was re-rented.   

Plaintiff gets $143, and keeps the $1000 she kept of the security deposit. 

[basiltherat]

LEGOS cost whaaattt????!!  That's even higher than the "collector"  sneakers!

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$123,000 Lego Mini-figure Dispute?!

I am not quite sure why the plaintiff bothered to bring that suit since it made him look a bit silly. Unless he felt really aggrieved by the fact that the Lego stock was far below the advertised weight, concluding there is a chance he might possibly have scored 65 % more valuable figurines if the full advertised weight had been met.

On the other hand there was no written contract, seller stated that the weight was an estimate and he did not make any attempt to check the weight before taking off with the items. It is roughly equivalent to litigants who do not get the used car they buy checked out by a mechanic before paying for it.

But his goose was truly cooked when it turned out he may have offered some of the figurines for sale at a handsome profit. Nothing illegal there, but if there is something JJ hates with a vengeance it's someone making a great deal without her getting a cut of the profits.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Forbidden Pandemic Eviction?!

JJ also hates landlords recouping damages costs and cuts down on those as much as possible. Which is why she screamed that after 5 years the landlord needed to paint and pay for it. Whereas if JJ has any rental properties, I would be surprised if there is a single tiny brushstroke that does not get billed back to the tenant, and certainly at a rate that is rather advantageous for Her Majesty.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Florinaldo

[Burning Rubber]

On FB marketplace, the price $123,456 is a code for "negotiable," "ask me," or the "prices for individual pieces are listed in the description."

I wonder if someone explained it and it was edited out.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

I’m Glad Your Cat’s Dead! -Plaintiff Olga Aguirre suing defendants/daughters Candelaria (30) and Rachel (19) Ramirez for damaging their rooms in her home.    Daughters say they were told to move out in the next two hours by stepfather.    Daughters also claim mother called and told them she was glad their cat was dead (Mother of the Year material).     Plaintiff says daughters moved out because they both met Prince Charming, and claims they were sneaking the boyfriends into their rooms at her home.   30 year old met boyfriend online, met in person and moved in with him after four weeks.   19 year old met the other sister's boyfriend, and he's friends with sister's boyfriend.    The daughters moved from California (mother's home), and to Texas with the boyfriends.     The girls say they moved out of state with the guys after a couple of in person meetings, because stepfather kicked them out.   

Mother was charging both daughters rent, and they were legal tenants.   Daughters are countersuing for hotel fees, a cat, a cell phone, and tuition.   Stepfather says the boys didn't have a motel room,, except one night, and the stepdaughters were sneaking them in at night. 

Older daughter says when mother kicked them out, that daughter was paying the cell phone bills, and mother took them away.  After daughter (30) moved out, and found out she was pregnant, and mother told her she would be a bad mother, and was glad daughter's cat died.   (Sorry JJ, just because your parents liked you, doesn't mean everyone else does, or all mothers are nice people).    Daughters were also paying rent, cell phone bills, and covering the parents mortgage.    Younger daughter says mother keeps texting that she's going to come and drag daughters home, and that the family cat's mysterious death keeps getting thrown in daughter's face. 

Everything dismissed.    (I wonder what's happened in the three years since this happened?)

Second (2013)-

Teen Behaving Badly -Plaintiff Wynahn Carroll claims her neighbor's daughter, and her hoodlum friends burglarized her apartment type house, is suing defendant mother,  Rose Bayles, and her (17 year old) Rosemary Duran daughter.   Police didn't send a unit immediately, because no one was injured.  Persephone Christian is a witness for plaintiff, says she went with plaintiff to defendant's mother's house, and says that some of the occupants of defendant's house gave plaintiff some shoes, and iPod, and other items that had been stolen from her house.    Daughter is blaming the boys for the burglary, and thefts.     Defendant daughter has been in jail several times already.    Defendant mother often leaves daughter in the home alone.  The burglary happened on the weekend, but defendant mother had been in Mexico since the previous Thursday, until mother returned home days later.    

Daughter has been truant repeatedly.   Daughter was in jail for four months, and claims for truancy, but it was for stealing at Walmart.   Plaintiff says the daughter's boyfriend was living in the home, and daughter moved him out.    Plaintiff says daughter lives there alone, and mother isn't there at all, and they have constant parties, drug use, booze, and it was only quiet when daughter was in jail.    So if the jail stretch of four months was for a first time theft at Walmart, why was it four months, and daughter had to take a Grand Theft Auto class, and is still on probation.   So how can daughter be on probation at 17, but the mother lives in Mexico, and is never home?   Daughter is blaming the boys for everything.   

Plaintiff is still missing stuff for her special needs son, jewelry, and other items.    Defendant mother apologized.    Defendant mother says "police searched her house, and didn't find any stolen property the second time".   

$3,000 to plaintiff. 

Good Samaritan Shakedown -Plaintiff Dyana Manikowski suing defendant Shawn Price for unpaid rent.    Defendant says he was taking care of plaintiff's mother for over a year, and that included room and board included.    The caretaker job was the only one defendant had for over a year, and plaintiff knew that.   The agreement between litigants says that defendant would pay $200 a month as soon as he gets a job.  

No job = no rent. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First –

Political Fight Dissolves Friendship?! (2021)- Plaintiff Richard Awa  suing defendant  TImo Jihani "T.J." Hanawa for unpaid rent.   Plaintiff allowed defendant to move in, but said that if defendant stayed more than a week, he would have to pay $500 a month rent.   Defendant lives in Finland, but rents his house near Loma Linda University, all of the time.    Defendant also says he owns a car that was at plaintiff's house, and driven by plaintiff's roommate Dan, but wanted to get that straightened out, and another car was stored at plaintiff's home, but the Dan car was only in defendants name while Dan was in China.     (No, I don't understand anything about the cars).    

The litigants had political arguments, and they weren't speaking by the time defendant moved out.   There was no contract.

Plaintiff case dismissed.   No contract, no payment. 

Sugar in the Gas Tank Threat (2014)- Plaintiff TamekaTurner  suing defendant /cousin Aleisha Davis for sugaring her gas tank.   Defendant let her sister-in-law drive her car, no license, and car was impounded.   Plaintiff would get car out of impound (paid the fees), and plaintiff would drive the car until defendant paid the impound fees off, but never did.   Defendant took her car back, without paying the impound fees.  Defendant says plaintiff sugared her gas tank.   Plaintiff says car was impounded, and repo'd at the same time.   Impound fees, and two payments equaled $1198.

Defendant says because she argued with plaintiff the night before, that plaintiff put the sugar in the gas tank.    Defendant's witness is such a liar, and was the accomplice to stealing the car back.  

$1198 to plaintiff.  For the impound and car payment.

 

Second (2020)-

Be Nice, It’s Judge Judy’s Birthday! - Plaintiff Ronald Mendez rented a room in John Gryga / defendant's house, and is suing for illegal eviction of himself and his family.  Plaintiff moved in, then moved other relatives in.  Rent was $500 a month, then one daughter, and the other daughter moved in, so rent went to $800, then third daughter moved in (they rented two bedrooms at the end).      Plaintiff bought a bunkbed, and first daughter lived in the room with him.   Then the second adult daughter of plaintiff moved in too.  Another man was property manager, when plaintiff moved in, named Jerry, then defendant was managing the home about 2014, and then bought the house. 

 Then defendant wanted plaintiff and his daughters out, in 2019, and finally defendant moved into the house himself.   Defendant says two daughters, weren't on the lease, and then another daughter moved in, also not on lease, and in 2018, plaintiff rented two rooms, for $800 a month.  Plaintiff's wife was also going to move into the two bedrooms rented at defendant's house.   Defendant says he bought the home in April 2019, from the original owner.   Defendant says he issued a 60 notice to quit on 11-11-2019 to plaintiff.     Eventually defendant filed for eviction of plaintiff.   Defendant says plaintiff moved back into the house in 2014. but plaintiff claims he lived in house from 2011.  

Plaintiff claims defendant didn't tell everyone he had bought the house.  So, what!     Plaintiff also says the November notice, with an end date of January 2020, shouldn't work because of Covid.  Covid moratoriums didn’t start in January 2020.    Defendant bought house in 30 April 2019, because it was going into foreclosure.   Defendant paid the back amount to the bank, assumed the mortgage.      House was a short sale, and previous owner, Jerry sold the house to defendant. 

Jerry, the previous owner agreed to transfer the house to defendant, if Jerry could still live in the house.   Jerry was about to be foreclosed on, so he made a good deal.   I don't understand what JJ has against the defendant buying the house.   It was for sale, and he purchased it, and the previous owner missed a huge mark against his credit.   I hate to break it to JJ, Zillow estimates are not accurate.   Plaintiff paid the back payments off ($29000), took over the mortgage (for over $300k), and then got a new loan for the mortgage.   I see no difference between the property manager giving an eviction notice, and the owner/property manager giving an eviction notice.    Defendant wanted to move into his house, and Jerry still lives there too. 

Plaintiff, wife, three daughters, all live in the rented house,  until May, 2020.    For $3000 a month.    However, in April the plaintiff didn't pay rent.  Plaintiff should have brought the elusive Jerry to court, instead of having his two daughters in court.        

Sorry JJ, but the passive-aggressive plaintiff and his family should have moved out when the eviction date happened.  A notice with a move out date of January 2020 has nothing to do with Covid moratoriums.    I see zero reason that defendant home owner should have to tell the plaintiff he owns the house.  

Plaintiff didn't pay rent for January, through April, adding up to $6400 (they had two rooms at $800 a month).   

Both cases dismissed.  (Sorry, but house was in bad shape, with a lot of work needed, and didn't even meet the amount that Zillow says because it needed a lot of expensive work).   (I think the defendant should have received rent from January to May).   

(Happy Birthday Judge Judy!)

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I think the defendant should have received rent from January to May).   

I think so too, but he made the fatal mistake of striking a very profitable deal when he bought the house. And as I said yesterday, JJ truly hates it when anyone but her manages to achieve that.

[parrotfeathers]

54 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I think so too, but he made the fatal mistake of striking a very profitable deal when he bought the house. And as I said yesterday, JJ truly hates it when anyone but her manages to achieve that.

Yes!

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Bleached Lawn Outrage! -Plaintiff Carrie Willoughby  suing defendant/landscaper Randy WIllis for vandalizing her yard after she argued with him.  Defendant says he did yard work for plaintiff for two years, and was owed $450, but when he asked her for his money, she claimed she never hired him, and didn't know him, and owed him nothing.    Photos of the lawn are submitted, and it does look like someone did kill some grass off.    Plaintiff tries to submit a witness statement, and witness can't come to court. so JJ tells plaintiff to go back locally, and file again in Cincinnati.     

Defendant has a counter claim for $450 for yard work, and some concrete work.   

$450 to defendant for his work.  

Unwed Parents Feud -Plaintiff Janetta Hazel suing defendant David Holliday for rent and late fees,  she wants from when they lived together.  Plaintiff has six children (plaintiff is a SSMOS- Sainted Single Mother of Six), including one with defendant, and he moved into her house.    Plaintiff wants 50% of the rent from defendant.  Defendant is counter claiming for a TV, a loan, and other property, and an illegal eviction.

JJ dismisses plaintiff's case, because they were living together.   Plaintiff also claims defendant used her debit card which was hacked, including her PIN number.  

Defendant borrowed money from his aunt, and loaned it to plaintiff to pay the bills, $1,000.   Loan was the month after defendant moved out of plaintiff's home.    

$1,000 to defendant.  Defendant gets his TV back.     Nothing to plaintiff.   

Time for Adult Child to Step Up! -Plaintiff Vicky Cintron suing defendant Carmen Martone, over a broken lease, and for his half of the rent.   The litigants shared a house, and rent was $1200 a month, and plaintiff says defendant should have paid $600 a month, for the many months since he moved out.   However, plaintiff's adult daughter (age 31) lives there too, and only pays $200 a month.    They broke up, and he moved out, and plaintiff wants late fees and rent for his half seven months.     Plaintiff does not have another roommate, just her daughter's $200 a month. 

Plaintiff's case dismissed. 

Second (2017)-

Don't Trust Men You Meet in a Supermarket?! -Plaintiff Ghandia Johnson suing defendant Nicholas Francis for an unpaid loan for lawyer fees for defendant, and for harassment.   Litigants met in supermarket, in March in Colorado, struck up a relationship, but it was only online after the one in person meeting, and until their meeting in court.    Defendant was arrested in April, in Florida, and he reached out to plaintiff by text.  Defendant was in jail in Florida, and plaintiff sent letter to defendant in jail.   If defendant didn't tell plaintiff he was in jail in Florida, then how did she get his address?   The answer is he sent plaintiff a text.  

Defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, and says he was 'profiled' and pulled over, but drugs were found in car.  Defendant says drug case was dropped (no it wasn't, States Attorney is still looking at drug case), and driving on a suspended license case is still pending.    There was a previous case for suspended license in another Florida county at the same time.  (When defendant says no drugs in his car, but then admits they found drugs, the audience, and JJ get a good laugh).  

(Ghandia Johnson is a former survivor contestant, I knew that name sounded familiar.  I recognized her from her publicity when she was on the show, when they publicized her home town connection).

$1500 for attorney fees to plaintiff. 

Flim Flam Car Sham?!- Plaintiff Doreen Washington suing defendant/her son's fiance, Elizabeth McDonald, over a Chevy Impala sold to defendant where car was repossessed.    When plaintiff and husband were divorcing he had the car in his name, and that's the car that plaintiff sold to the defendant (not legal at all), and was not the car that plaintiff had the legal right to sell.     Plaintiff and ex bought car together, and when they separated, no court ruling was made on ownership of the car.   During the divorce plaintiff paid the $9,200 on the car to pay the car off, and was titled in husband, and plaintiff's name.   Car was originally in husband's name.  Somehow,  plaintiff  got car titled in defendant's name.

Car was purchased in husband's name, and title was never signed over to plaintiff, but plaintiff claims husband signed car over to Elizabeth (defendant).   Plaintiff couldn't title car in her name, because she had a car registration/licensing issue.    Then car was titled to defendant, both litigants went to title loan company, got the money for the loan, and defendant was supposed to pay for it.    However, defendant paid nothing on car loan, so car was repossessed.   Defendant was counter suing over repossession fees, and ruined credit.   Plaintiff was driving the car when it was repossessed. 

Coming to court with dirty hands will not lead to a good result for the plaintiff, or the defendant.    

Counter claim from defendant is dismissed, because she spent the money from the loan. 

Everything dismissed. 

Mom Bails on Bail?!-Plaintiff Christopher Madron is suing his mother/defendant Dolly Dale for unpaid bail bond after she was arrested on drug charges in 2013.  Defendant claims the weed case was dismissed.    Defendant claims she called son after the arrest, but she didn't ask to be bailed out.   Bail bondsman Fletcher is plaintiff's witness.    Bail bondsman is pursuing the unpaid bail bond after 4 years.    Bondsman is selling business, and needs to clear up the bonds still on his records, so plaintiff paid $5500.   Because of threat of a lien on plaintiff's home he paid the loan off. 

$5000 to plaintiff for the bond fees.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First –

While the Car Owner is Away (2021)- Plaintiff  Jasmine Farr suing defendant Troy Blake for racking up tickets on her car when she was out of state, and defendants were using her car.  Defendant says two of plaintiff's friends were also driving the car, and had tickets too.   Plaintiff leased car to friend and pay expenses (insurance, etc) for $330 a month for friend, and another friend (this turns out to be Troy, the defendant) would be the only drivers.   Friend of friend wanted defendant to take over the payments on the car, which went from month-to-month, to week-by-week.    When plaintiff got back in August, (contract with defendant is dated 4 April), she discovered that there were a lot of tickets on the car.  From 4 April to 4 May there were tickets by defendant$249    However all of the tickets, plus late fees, add up to $1269.  After 4 May car went to $75 a week through August, when plaintiff returned.    April to May there were 4 tickets, May to August there were 3 tickets.   

JJ tells defendant that he can sue the witness (one of the other drivers), for her portion of the tickets (However, the ticket money comes out of the award pool, so defendant isn't out any money).    Defendant witness keeps chiming in, and yelling in court.   Witness claims he saw Britney (plaintiff's witness, and another driver of the car) driving in July.  

$630 to plaintiff.   JJ tells plaintiff to sue Brittany for the other $630.

Roommate Disaster (2014)- Plaintiff Jeremy Bauer and  Giovanna  Corado  suing defendant Nathan Osias for rent, and a dresser.   Plaintiffs were girlfriend, and boyfriend, and defendant was the third roommate.  Plaintiffs moved in another roommate, after defendant moved out.   This house has 2 full size bedrooms ($500 each), and a half size bedroom ($300) that they also rent out.     Plaintiffs locked the defendant out the second he left, and couldn't get back in.  

Defendant says previous tenant gave him the dresser.  Defendant paid a friend to store some of his things in a friend's van.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant case dismissed also. 

Second (2020)-

Vandalism Caught on Tape at Senior Center!  - Plaintiff Vickie Lewis is suing former upstairs neighbor/defendant Michael Thal,  at senior complex for moving expenses, and defamation.

In 2016 plaintiff moved into the complex, and defendant had already lived there for 10 years.     Plaintiff claims because of false accusations by defendant, that she was told to leave.    First conflict was when defendant did a background check on plaintiff, and shared everything on that record with all of the neighbors.     Defendant claims plaintiff was asking about who had security cameras, and defendant was upset by that.    

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

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

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

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

I'm just glad I don't live near the defendant, because he's a big pain.   I felt sorry for the plaintiff because of the son, but I wouldn't want to live near her either.   Why does the landlord allow the defendant to put cameras all over the complex?   

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

 

[LetsStartTalking]

On 3/10/2021 at 6:45 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

$123,000 Lego Mini-figure Dispute?!-Plaintiff Casey Millerick suing LEGO seller Beth Jones,  for the LEGO parts she sold him.   Plaintiff said plastic storage container was supposed to be 200 lbs. of LEGO parts, for $800,  but only weighted 70 lbs.  Defendant says that plaintiff tried to sell the parts online for more than their value ($123,000).  Plaintiff collects the little LEGO figures that come in the LEGO sets, one or two per Lego set.  Plaintiff bought the Lego pieces from defendant, and the litigants carried it to his car.    Then plaintiff weighed the box, and texted the defendant about the missing 130 lbs.  Plaintiff had every chance to weight them at defendant's house, or could have picked out the figures out of the LEGO box, because he didn't want the LEGO pieces, just the little mini-figures.  

Plaintiff paid $800 for the LEGO tub.   Plaintiff has had the LEGO set for over a month, so as JJ says, who knows if he picked out what he wanted to keep?  Plaintiff said defendant failed to offer a refund, or anything else.  Plaintiff also didn't try to get a better deal from defendant, by bargaining the price down. 

Then the bombshell from defendant, that plaintiff has been trying to sell the LEGO figures on Ebay for $123,000, and plaintiff confirms some came from the box he bought from defendant.

JJ says $300 to plaintiff would be fair.  However, JJ also says it was up to plaintiff to weigh the box.

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

 

Since when is the onus on the buyer to make sure the product weight is correct ?

If I buy a gallon of milk at the store for $3.99 (as the sign says in their refrigerator) and when I get home - before opening the secured lid - I realize it's not a full gallon, but a little more than half a gallon when I weigh it ,  it's my fault for not weighing this at the supermarket before purchasing? From now on, should we have every cashier at the market weigh every product before ringing us up to make sure it matches what's on the container ?

The woman sold 200 pounds of Legos for $800. That's $4 per pound. It came out to 70 pounds which equals $280. She owes him $520. Its' that simple. It doesn't matter what he did with the product afterwards - whether he melted it all down or sold each piece for six figures - the deal was $800 for 200 pounds, end of story.  She sold it BY THE POUND, not by 'the container' nor 'the collection'. She's at fault.

Shout out to cute Casey Millerick - he can play with my legos at any time!

 

Quote

While the Car Owner is Away (2021)- Plaintiff  Jasmine Farr suing defendant Troy Blake for racking up tickets on her car when she was out of state, and defendants were using her car.  Defendant says two of plaintiff's friends were also driving the car, and had tickets too.   Plaintiff leased car to friend and pay expenses (insurance, etc) for $330 a month for friend, and another friend (this turns out to be Troy, the defendant) would be the only drivers.   Friend of friend wanted defendant to take over the payments on the car, which went from month-to-month, to week-by-week.    When plaintiff got back in August, (contract with defendant is dated 4 April), she discovered that there were a lot of tickets on the car.  From 4 April to 4 May there were tickets by defendant$249    However all of the tickets, plus late fees, add up to $1269.  After 4 May car went to $75 a week through August, when plaintiff returned.    April to May there were 4 tickets, May to August there were 3 tickets.   

JJ tells defendant that he can sue the witness (one of the other drivers), for her portion of the tickets (However, the ticket money comes out of the award pool, so defendant isn't out any money).    Defendant witness keeps chiming in, and yelling in court.   Witness claims he saw Britney (plaintiff's witness, and another driver of the car) driving in July.  

$630 to plaintiff.   JJ tells plaintiff to sue Brittany for the other $630.

Another cute 'bad boy' on Judge Judy. I love these guys with such undeserved arrogance.

[NYGirl]

6 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Since when is the onus on the buyer to make sure the product weight is correct ?

If I buy a gallon of milk at the store for $3.99 (as the sign says in their refrigerator) and when I get home - before opening the secured lid - I realize it's not a full gallon, but a little more than half a gallon when I weigh it ,  it's my fault for not weighing this at the supermarket before purchasing? From now on, should we have every cashier at the market weigh every product before ringing us up to make sure it matches what's on the container ?

The woman sold 200 pounds of Legos for $800. That's $4 per pound. It came out to 70 pounds which equals $280. She owes him $520. Its' that simple. It doesn't matter what he did with the product afterwards - whether he melted it all down or sold each piece for six figures - the deal was $800 for 200 pounds, end of story.  She sold it BY THE POUND, not by 'the container' nor 'the collection'. She's at fault.

 

I agree with this 100%.  I felt that JJ just disliked the plaintiff for some reason because she just kept on him.  I couldn't understand why she'd dismiss the case just on it's merits.  She said it was 200 pounds and it was not.  What he did with the product afterwards is irrelevant.

This is why I am not watching ever day anymore and I'm even deleting episodes and not watching.  

So what if he was charging a lot on EBAY...really?  would he actually get $123,000 for those legos?  She seems to hate when people make lemonade out of lemons.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I can see the LEGO case from both sides.    I wonder how many pieces were taken out of the box of LEGOs after purchase?    If those figurines were that valuable, then I'm wondering why the buyer didn't weigh them at the seller's house?     Also, the buyer didn't even quibble over the price, and claimed she would have sold them for less anyway.    So, if the man had brought a scale with him, then he could have weighed them at the seller's house, and would have bargained the price down accordingly.    Interesting that putting $123,456 on eBay is a pricing shorthand.  

Just looking at that storage container, I bet if it had 200 lbs. of LEGOs in it, that the handles would have ripped off (I've ripped a few storage container handles off in my time).    There is no way it was even 100 lbs. in that container.   LEGOs are hollow, so how could that container have contained 200 lbs.?     

Edited March 15, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[jww]

Anyone with any sense would have realized there was not 200 pounds of Legos in that bin.  I doubt the bin would have held a 40 pound bag of dog food.  The plaintiff claimed he did not want to hurt his back trying to lift it as he was a physical therapist who had to lift people -first then he should know you don't lift with your back but with your legs and  200 pounds would be a very large man not a collection of plastic shells.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Gruesome Pet Discovery -Plaintiff Dachshund owner James Frame suing neighbor/dog owner defendant Monique Guerrero (one Husky, one Labrador) for her dogs dragging his dog under the fence, and injuring the dog.    Plaintiff came home, saw his male dog with a bleeding bite wound on his nose,  and couldn't find his second dog.  Plaintiff has previously put large rocks next to the fence to keep neighbor's dog out, and he saw a hole was dug under from defendant's side of the fence.    When he went next door, the neighbor/defendant admitted his dog was in her yard.   Dachshund was laying there bleeding.      Defendant claims she just found the dog, and didn't know who the owner was.  

Defendant claims she was going to plaintiff's house to leave a note, because the dog was in her front yard.  There is a picture of the hole, and the husky is large.    A few days later plaintiff claims the Husky dug under the fence in the same place, with her entire head sticking up in plaintiff's side of the fence.     I think the Husky did it, and the Dachshund got close enough for Husky to grab the Dachshund.    JJ says it's just as plausible that the two Dachshunds moved the rock.   

I think the Husky did it, at least the second time.   However, there are no witnesses, and plaintiff can't prove anything.   I agree with JJ, that the two Dachshunds being bitten probably means the little dogs went into defendant's yard.  

Plaintiff case dismissed.    

Single Mom Mayhem -Plaintiff  Charity Capizzi (daughter and SSMOTwo-Sainted Single Mother of Twone) /Mother Yolanda Carcamo suing defendants Donna Butnik Shindler (owner) and property manager/brother Richard Butnik.   Plaintiffs are suing for illegal eviction, and moving costs.    Defendants are owner, and brother is property manager for the apartment.    Plaintiff SSMOO, her child, and mother lived in the apartment for over a year, after the first year the lease went to month-to-month.  Some of the reasons that good tenants (plaintiffs say they were good tenants), include disabling the smoke alarms.   The plaintiffs were given a 30 day notice to leave, and left a month later.  

Plaintiffs didn't pay the rent for the last two months they lived in the apartment.    So defendants keep the last two months rent, and want damages.    Plaintiffs submit pictures of a dirty apartment.   Plaintiff thinks she's adorable, but she isn't.    

Defendants submit the cleaning bill.   $285 cleaning bill, and two months rent.  Defendant's witness is the downstairs neighbor, who says the noise from plaintiffs was unbearable. 

Plaintiffs get nothing, defendants get $216. 

Second (2017)-

Tree-Killing Mystery-Plaintiff William Giboyeaux suing defendant/landscaper Richard Gutierrez, Sr for chopping down the plaintiff's two huge trees.  Defendant was hired to trim Crepe Myrtles (hopefully not butchered in the way we call Crepe Murder in the South).   Plaintiff has a 'before' picture of the front of his house with two big lovely trees (Crepe Myrtles) that need trimming, and there are also one tree in the back yard that needed trimming.   Litigants agreed to $150 to trim the two trees in front.  The plaintiff wanted the two trees trimmed, but instead the defendant chopped the two trees down.   Plaintiff denies he wanted the trees chopped down, or ever said anything but 'trim' to the defendant.  

Receipt says $150 to trim and stack (put branches in the back yard for later removal), instead the defendant chopped the entire trees down to the ground, and defendant wrote cut down to the ground.  

The after picture is awful, the two trees that were taller than the house, are now two stumps, barely above the ground.   (No one would take down, and stack two trees of that size, and call it anything but 'tree removal'.    A lot of places you have to get a permit to remove trees, and you would have to pay a lot more than $150 total for two big trees.  

JJ simply doesn't realize that at worst, bad landscapers chop Crepe Myrtles back to a central, naked trunk (called Crepe Murder), but should trim them back a foot or two.  

JJ says it was miscommunication, not incompetence.   It will cost a lot of money, and take many years for two new Crepe Myrtles to grow to that size.   So getting someone who was working on the neighbor's yard to do your trees, and trying to save some money, backfired.    

Case dismissed.  

You Just Don't Get it!-Plaintiff Arlena Jones suing former friend Kristen Garcia for unpaid car payments, ruined credit, and car damage.   Plaintiff wanted a bigger car, so she sold the car to defendant for taking over the payments.  Defendant only made one payment, didn't pay the next two months, so plaintiff repossessed the car.   Car still had payments left on the note.   Defendant owes $638 for two months payments.    Car would have been paid off in a year.  

Plaintiff's mechanic witness is her husband, so he's dismissed.   Plaintiff claims she had to replace the motor in the car.  

Defendant claims she pre-paid six months of insurance, and wants that money refunded to her, and claims she was harassed.  Defendant claims she made one of the missed car payments, but has no proof.

$638 to plaintiff for two missed payments.

School Bus-Driving Mom Sues Son!?-Plaintiff Leslie Liston suing her son Marcus Cardoza for a loan made to buy a truck.    $1400 remains on the truck loan, which the defendant/son stopped paying.  Defendant was unemployed at the time of the truck purchase, and defendant lived with her, and he's still unemployed.     Son and mother argued, and son moved out and is couch surfing now.    

$1400 for plaintiff mother.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)-

Real Estate Agent Angel or Devil?!  -Plaintiff Rachel Sirois is suing defendant/realtor Scott Russell for a bad paint job he volunteered to do at her San Francisco condo that was being rented out.     Plaintiff hired defendant in July 2020, and signed the lease agreement with the tenant is September, 2020, for $4,000 a month (a 2 bedroom, 2 bath condo in San Francisco).    Realtor fee was $2880 (70% of first months rent).   Tenants wanted gray walls, not yellow.  So realtor volunteered to paint the condo a grey, called Etched Glass.   

Realtor/defendant claims that condo wasn't renting fast enough, and he wanted to paint to make new tenants happy.   Plaintiff shows photos that the paint job sucks, and plaintiff had to redo it.   When realtor told plaintiff that tenants wanted grey walls, not yellow, plaintiff said she's not paying to paint.    Plaintiff told realtor that he could pay for the paint, because she wasn't going to do that.

Plaintiff claims it cost $7200 to paint the apartment, after realtor screwed up the paint job.  One bedroom didn't need paint, so it's one bedroom, plus the rest of the rooms, minus one bedroom.    Plaintiff asked for the receipt for the payment, and it looks awful.    Video of the bad paint job is submitted (however, this is San Francisco, and it is more expensive there.   $5400 to get paint off of the wood floors, and $2500 to fix the paint job, and redo the trim).

Defendant says he paid for the paint out of his commission.    Video of the paint job by defendant is played.   The paint by defendant is hideous, it's streaky, paints over outlet covers, paint is on the formerly white ceiling, and the hardwood floors.  Trim and molding needs to be repainted, and it's on the window frame, and window panes.   

$2880 to plaintiff. 

Don’t Pay House Together!  -Plaintiff Sara Johnson  suing defendant/former boyfriend Frank Guizar over an unpaid loan.   Defendant moved in with plaintiff, and both signed on the lease.  Plaintiff claims she loaned defendant $4,000 for the truck, but defendant chimes in and says plaintiff never gave him the money.    Plaintiff would make the down payment on the truck, and defendant would make the payments, and go to therapy with her once a month, and not call in sick to work.   Plaintiff has the truck now.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and she's told to sell the truck to recoup her money.  

Second (2020)-

Bed and Breakfast Embarrassment?!-Plaintiff Maurice Barnes is suing defendant/ B&B owner Edward McIntyre because plaintiff walked into an open window at the B&B, and was injured.    Plaintiff had a housefire in October 2019, and was renting at various places after the fire.   Plaintiff was paying $70 a night, and was renting week-by-week ($490 a week).  Accident was in May 2020, and told defendant about the accident, and wanted to stay longer at the B&B.   Defendant said he wouldn't extend the plaintiff's stay, he was supposed to leave on 29 May, but didn't ask to stay until 2 June 2020.    Defendant said plaintiff couldn't stay any longer, because plaintiff generated a lot of complaints from other tenants, and staff.   

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

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

Defendant has a witness, Susan Martinez (is the B & B cleaning lady) to the drunken window crash, and to plaintiff taking a dump in the service alley at the B & B.  Susan Martinez says she saw the accident, and says plaintiff was drunk, jumped the fence, and ran into the window.  Then he called his mother on speaker phone, for advice, and Ms. Martinez says she heard plaintiff's mother say he should sue.  Plaintiff also tried to hire an attorney to sude defendant, but attorney wouldn't take the case.    JJ asks plaintiff mother if son drinks?   Why is JJ bringing up Covid?   The house fire happened six months before Covid, so I'm betting since plaintiff was long unemployed before Covid, that the moratorium wouldn't cover him, and the B & B is a short term rental, so probably not covered either by moratoriums.  

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

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2018)-

Head-Butting Tenant?! -Plaintiffs/former tenants Nicohole Wendland and boyfriend Skylar Marzola are suing defendant/former landlord Andrew Holmes for rent, and security deposit.     Landlord defendant says the plaintiff boyfriend head-butted him during an altercation.   Plaintiffs gave two months rent, and security deposit, $950 each, total $2850.     Rent included utilities, so at least we won't have to hear the usual unpaid utilities bickering.     Plaintiffs pay for everything from her financial aid checks for school, and defendant's part time job.   Plaintiffs moved in 1 October, moved out 29 November.    Then there was an altercation between the two men, after plaintiffs showed up with a dog at the apartment at the end of November.    

Plaintiffs will get $950 security deposit back $1187 total..    Defendant will not keep any security, because he's had over four months to get damages repaired, or estimates of his damage, and no proof.    Defendant claims after he smelled smoke coming from the plaintiffs' room, (in lease no smoking).    

$1187 to plaintiffs for security, and rent.

Irresponsible Healthcare Worker?! -Plaintiff/healthcare worker Anca Susan is suing  defendant, Marianne Gatto-McCann,  for a defamatory review on (bad online review) on care . com, leading to loss of income.   Plaintiff chose to care for her own mother, over a new patient, so defendant posted a nasty review online about the plaintiff.   Plaintiff has four years of dental school, 15 years of care giving, and other qualifications.   Defendant's father had a stroke, and had a permanent care giver, but care giver needed surgery, so defendant hired the plaintiff.   However, plaintiff's mother needed care, so she dumped the defendant's father for caring for her own mother.   

Defendant only contacted and interviewed the plaintiff two days before she needed to start work.  1 November  plaintiff applied, 9 November  was the interview, 10 November plaintiff was hired, and on 11 November the plaintiff told defendant she couldn't do the job, and job was supposed to start 12 November.    Then plaintiff says she called on 12 November, and said she couldn't start the job.   Plaintiff's mother entered the hospital on 10 November (the mother fell), and then needed more care, so plaintiff cancelled defendant's job on either the 11th or the 12th.  (I know that's confusing, but both dates are what plaintiff said). 

As plaintiff said, she chose her own mother, over defendant's family member.   

Why didn't the plaintiff call defendant earlier?   

Plaintiff case dismissed.   She was unprofessional, just as the review by defendant said.  (I like the defendant's lavender hair). 

Second (2017)-

Daisy Duke Spin Out! -Plaintiff Brett Dejong suing his ex-girlfriend Trena Roberts over the damages to his truck, and punitive charges for false charges.       Plaintiff painted the defendant's car (while they were still a couple), and he wants $700 for the paint job.   Before the car was painted, the two were still in a relationship, and she says he painted the car because he threw rocks at her front and rear window, and chipped the paint with rocks.   However, the plaintiff says he threw the rocks, because when she leaves his gravel driveway she hauls out like Daisy Duke, on the Dukes of Hazzard.     Defendant filed a domestic battery complaint against plaintiff, which became a protective order.   The rock throwing happened months before the repainting.   So if she was so afraid of him, why would she want him to paint her truck?  

Plaintiff says she sprayed him with gravel from the driveway, and he threw the rocks, and admits he broke her back window.   Also, plaintiff says she assaulted him, not the other way around.  Plaintiff posted ten flyers around the neighborhood saying defendant is a felon, with her picture.   Plaintiff claims the nasty text messages were actually spoofed by the defendant.     Plaintiff claims he gave the car buffer back to defendant.     

There was an outstanding warrant, so the police arrested the man, right as he finished the paint job.

The stupid cases by both litigants are dismissed, because they're ridiculous. 

Vacation Nightmare-Plaintiff Pamela Palitz  suing vacation landlords Jack and Michelle Dockery  for appliance repairs, the cost of groceries, and lack of peaceful enjoyment of premises.   Property is in Ocean City, NJ, and is a vacation rental.     Plaintiff says she paid to fix the refrigerator in the rental.   

Plaintiff rented for a week, for nine people to stay in the vacation rental.    Also, the defendants only own the bottom floor of the duplex, and plaintiff is complaining that the upstairs unit was being remodeled, and ruined her peaceful enjoyment for the week.    Plaintiff didn't tell the defendants about the 7 a.m. construction start for the upstairs unit, so how were they supposed to talk to the upstairs owners to please start later in the morning?    

Peaceful enjoyment is dismissed, because the upstairs unit construction wasn't known to the defendants, and they had no knowledge it was going on, or control over it (upstairs unit is owned by another family, and they were remodeling it).     

Plaintiff says when she went to the unit, she put everything in the fridge, and by the next morning her food was spoiled.   Plaintiff called a refrigerator repairman, he said it would come to fix fridge for $416, cash only.   Fridge repair was $482 total.     Defendant husband finally texted back, and said pay for the repair, and we'll reimburse you.   

Also, there was supposed to be another fold out bed (I think it was one of the foldout chair type), and it was missing, so defendant husband told woman to get an air mattress, and he would reimburse her for that.   (Do the defendants ever talk to each other?).

$482 for the fridge repair, and groceries.  Don't know why JJ didn't give the woman money for the air mattress, unless plaintiff took it with her. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes-

First (2021)–

Death of a Rare Shrub Contested! - Plaintiffs/former tenants Ashley Chaparro and husband Jose Rodriguez, suing defendant/landlord Eric Goldie for return of their security deposit, $1700.    Lease requires tenants to maintain lawn and landscaping, and tenants are blamed for the death of a rare shrub.   Plaintiffs moved in with her mother, and mother's two minor children, signed a one year lease, and then it went to month-to-month after that.    Plaintiffs claim they didn't know about maintaining the landscaping, and lawn.    JJ wants to see move out photos of the landscaping and lawn, and other damages, and the paid invoice to have damages repaired.  

Cleaning invoice submitted, $400 was paid by landlord.    Oven was extremely filthy.   Plaintiffs claim they didn't have notice to clean before they move.   Carpet looks disgusting, but JJ will not pay for it.   Tenants lived in home for three years.   Defendant moved back into the house, instead of renting it again.   Toilet was broken, cracked, and plaintiff claims she doesn't know how it happened, 

I hope the current landlords of the plaintiffs saw this case.     Sadly, if you're in the reserves, and are deployed for two years, you should expect people to trash your home, and get away with it. 

Plaintiffs receive $1300.      

It’s Your Fault I’m Homeless! -Plaintiff Dalonte James, Sr is suing defendant Kimberly Riley, over the failed purchase of an RV, leaving plaintiff homeless.   Plaintiff paid $300 to defendant, and was going to pay $1700 for the balance of the RV.   Plaintiff had $600, and borrowed the rest from relatives (his mother).  However, defendant cancelled the RV deal, so he never borrowed the money from his mother, but his mother was ready with the money.     

Defendant claims she was going to rent plaintiff the RV.   

Plaintiff receives his $300 deposit back.   

Second (2020)-

Covid Clampdown on Cheering! -Plaintiff/cheer program operator, Trisha Bryant  suing defendant/cheer mom Ramos for non-payment of cheerleading fees, but cheerleading training, and competitions were cancelled due to Covid.      Plaintiff's statement says defendant paid for two years, 2018-2019, and then in February 2020, defendant stopped paying.   First there are in-person lessons with coaches, and choreographers.   However, plaintiff didn't pay rent after March, 2020, and was going to relocate to another, safer city.     However, plaintiff hasn't relocated, and reopened the gym yet.       After 1 March, plaintiff went to Zoom teaching.    

There were also no competitions, because of Covid.   Defendant claims to have paid through February, but claims she paid in cash.   However, plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay her after November 2020.    Plaintiff says she took cash for the two children, because defendant's cards were declined.     

Plaintiff claims the charges are $3000 for the non-Covid periods, but doesn't include anything after March.   Plaintiff has a spread sheet showing missed payments.   

Why do business owners carry non-paying clients?   Bad business, and most will never catch up with payments. 

$150 to plaintiff.

Bad Review Bites Handyman Biz?! -Plaintiff Grace Olivetti suing defendant/handyman Harpinder Singh, who was hired to replace two doors, and adjust two more.        Handyman's employee botched the two door installations, and photos show door still isn't fixed.    Doors were $436, but no labor was paid yet to defendant. 

Plaintiff is suing for $1437, I'm not sure why.   She never paid for labor, new doors were bought by defendant, but he returned them to the big box store, so I don't see that plaintiff's out any money. 

Plaintiff will get $436 when she buys two new doors, however, the awful ones defendant worked on have been doing the job for seven months.  

[Florinaldo]

31 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sadly, if you're in the reserves, and are deployed for two years, you should expect people to trash your home, and get away with it. 

Especially if JJ decides to enable that behaviour.

She was initially very insistent on seeing a provision in the lease that would obligate tenants to take care of the vegetation, but after defendant pointed it out, she let it go and chose not to enforce it. I think she believed that it was non-existent and simply "verbal" as plaintiffs had said and did not appreciate being proven wrong. It did not fit the narrative that had obviously set in her mind because she took an instant dislike to the defendant.

She also took no notice of him saying that tenants had signed a document at the beginning of tenancy conforming that everything in the apartment was acceptable and that none of the problems they now claimed were noted at that time.

I think defendant was another underserving victim of the dreaded syndrom of missed-morning-bowel-movement, which JJ seems afflicted by more and more often in her last years.

[One Tough Cookie]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiffs pay for everything from her financial aid

AKA Byrd paid

editedt When her  highness takes her little dogs out to relieve themselves you KNOW she didn't go to 17665 years of law school to pick up  shit.  she has someone to do it, probably the gardener.  Or gardeners, because she, of course, has plenty of them😏

Edited March 17, 2021 by One Tough Cookie

[NYGirl]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Especially if JJ decides to enable that behaviour.

She was initially very insistent on seeing a provision in the lease that would obligate tenants to take care of the vegetation, but after defendant pointed it out, she let it go and chose not to enforce it. I think she believed that it was non-existent and simply "verbal" as plaintiffs had said and did not appreciate being proven wrong. It did not fit the narrative that had obviously set in her mind because she took an instant dislike to the defendant.

She also took no notice of him saying that tenants had signed a document at the beginning of tenancy conforming that everything in the apartment was acceptable and that none of the problems they now claimed were noted at that time.

I think defendant was another underserving victim of the dreaded syndrom of missed-morning-bowel-movement, which JJ seems afflicted by more and more often in her last years.

Just watched this case and my son got so annoyed with JJ that he cursed and went up to bed.  I see this a lot lately where she takes a disliking to one litigant and like a dog with a bone doesn't let up on them.  I feel this case was very unfair to the defendant.  I thought she respected the military usually.  I guess I'm wrong.

[Carolina Girl]

10 hours ago, NYGirl said:

Just watched this case and my son got so annoyed with JJ that he cursed and went up to bed.  I see this a lot lately where she takes a disliking to one litigant and like a dog with a bone doesn't let up on them.  I feel this case was very unfair to the defendant.  I thought she respected the military usually.  I guess I'm wrong.

Saw that in the condo painting case.  She fixated on the receipt and completely ignores the actual  broken down invoice the plaintiff put up.  
 

 

[Carolina Girl]

Oh and in that rerun on the bed and breakfast,  I sincerely hope the defendant sued that flimflam plaintiff’s family members for defamation.   
 

Also telling that sister and family didn’t want him living with them.  I don’t buy that COVID excuse for a minute.  

Edited March 17, 2021 by Carolina Girl
Thought of another point