All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Florinaldo]

Sing-song plaintiff was lucky on several fronts.

 

First, to have found a guy idiotic enough to tolerate her insufferable diction and voice.

 

Second that he was so dumb he did not bring any documentation to court, not even an estimate for the repairs or a catalog showing dishes of equivalent quality.

 

Third that JJ was inexplicably generous enough to let her make a running commentary during the first two thirds of the case, did not call her on her excessive familiarity, and let her revert to her verbal tics or substitute other ones ("so").

 

And fourth that JJ did not hold it against her that she invaded his privacy and went crazy with a baseball bat.

 

Her ex was no great BF material, but she was not even consolation prize level either. Her cutesy mannerisms must serve her well in daily life, which is why she also sported them in court and found favour with JJ; or perhaps just less disfavour than the defendant did.

 

It must have been a thematic day on JJ for crazy female exes, with the other plaintiff who got her revenge on the guy's bike and car. She may present herself nicely, but she gave off vibes of bitter jilted lover capable of any excess in retaliation. Again, the defendant undermined his own case, by selling his bike.

 

Still in scary crazy territory with the third one, who succeded in making her special brand of polished craziness as boring as the dull defendant.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Florinaldo

[Toaster Strudel]

Flavor of the day: VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS.

 

Crazy Dog Wenches - I have no idea why this was a case, fighting over a rescue dog for no reason.  Pickle Pants Rescue is a hoarder?  MKay.  The litigants were annoying, but more irritating than funny.  Two gavels.

 

Quackopractor - Another dumb case, I resented that JJ validated the quack by suggesting his training was a doctorate.  Yes, the quacks call it "doctor" of chiropractic but it's not recognized as an actual doctorate by any legitimate organization.  Both litigants were friends, are still friends, and canoodled to get JJ to pay their quack bills.  One gavel.

 

Manipulative Mom - The defendant tried to lure her son to give her money to pay her bills by promising him a house worth 400K with a 279K mortgage, on which she was in arrears, then reneged on the deal.  I was aghast that JJ had no sympathy for him and didn't rule in his favor to get his money back.  The mother cackled like an escapee from the looney bin.  Two gavels.

 

U-Turn Double-Talker - The accident was the defendant's fault, it was plain to see.  His slick double-talking was infuriating.  He had at least 50 different constructs as to why it was the plaintiff's fault, and I wanted to choke him with his socks after hearing every single one, especially when he tried to paint the plaintiff as having less than honest intentions.  Of course, the cretin bought insurance immediately after the accident; he was lapsed for "months" which I understood to mean "years."  Two gavels.

 

 

[27bored]

Quackopractor - Another dumb case, I resented that JJ validated the quack by suggesting his training was a doctorate.  Yes, the quacks call it "doctor" of chiropractic but it's not recognized as an actual doctorate by any legitimate organization.  Both litigants were friends, are still friends, and canoodled to get JJ to pay their quack bills.  One gavel.

 

It's funny that I immediately recognized the plaintiff as Raymond Sicilia, uncle of UFC fighter Sam Sicilia. I like Sam (he's tatted up and a brawler with a nasty right arm, but out of the ring he's a pretty well-humored, mild-mannered guy...into faith and family), so I was rooting for the guy.

[BubblingKettle]

During my teenage years, I was a candystriper at the local hospital.  I loved helping out, transporting patients, running things to the Labs, delivering flowers to rooms.....but the other girls and I always had wavering moments of both apprehension and gusto when we were called to pick up or deliver something to the hospital's 4th floor.  That floor was the psych ward/detox combo.*  The patients were either really quiet or really animated.  When Ms. Gombeliewski spoke, her mannerisms resembled those of the anmated people on the 4th floor.  Another thing, if 10 months have passed, and you haven't take a new dog to the vet, you cannot call yourself a dog rescuer.  This oddball thinks she can diagnose the dog's skin condition herself....oh, and vaccinations be damned, I guess.  That whole case made me uncomfortable.

 

Ms. Carlotta Hall reminded me of a Muppet, with her untamed hair, round glasses held up by big cheekbones, and a toothy mouth operated by a flapping hand.

 

Gem from the Re-homing Muppet Mom case:

Byrd's WTF? expression when Mr. Pengalley attempted to explain the deal with his mother.  I love when Byrd doesn't hold back.

 

*Now that I'm older, I realize that the poor souls on the 4th floor took a wrong turn in life's struggles, and there, but for the grace of God, go I.  But, at the time, my heart always skipped a beat when the big locks clicked and the air-pressurized doors opened automatically for me to walk in/out.  And the guy who made a break for it one day as I walked through the doors into the unit nearly made the stripes on my uniform start shaking. Those were good times.

[Toaster Strudel]

I agree, he should still get paid for performing quackery.  It's still a service.

[augmentedfourth]

I'm sure there was tons of backstory in the mother/son/house case that we weren't privy to. From the hallterview, the son seemed to imply that Mom's shafted him in the past (which I can actually believe), but on the flip side, he doesn't come across as a knight in shining armor for buying her $400K house for $2600 and then kicking her out with nowhere to go. I was left feeling the same way I do at the conclusion of a lot of these cases - they both came off as people I'm glad I have nothing to do with. However, while I won't lose sleep over it, I was a little surprised at the ruling. Sure, whatever agreement they had was convoluted as hell (and maybe not legal?), but it boiled down to he gave her money in exchange for her promising to do XYZ, then she never did XYZ or seemed to have any intentions of doing so. It bugged a little that JJ wouldn't even look at the messages he claimed to have. I felt like if it was a car, not a house, he would have won something, which led me to wonder - could JJ have issued an order directing Mom to sign the house over to him? Hmm....

 

I was always a bit of a goody two-shoes growing up (and into adulthood) and always tried to do the "right" thing, so it makes me happy when we get litigants like the 20-year-old plaintiff in the U-turn case who have their shit together. Especially since the younger generations are rarely represented well on this show. (Miracle and Malika, I'm looking at you. Also, I think most of the yesterday's litigants were in their early 20s, and none of them came across as well as U-Turn Plaintiff.) The defendant was a sleaze and I'm glad JJ tore into him the way she did, rather than reverting to "older driver + younger driver = younger driver always at fault".

[Toaster Strudel]

The house was in poor condition and worth 400K but was heavily mortgage, so really he got $111K plus a $279K mortgage.

 

She was desperate not to lose the $111 part, but this house still belonged mostly to the bank.  And since she could no longer pay, soon to be surrendered to the bank.  She was choosing between foreclosure and giving the house/mortgage to her son, and she got him to pay her bills in the deal.

[Quof]

he doesn't come across as a knight in shining armor for buying her $400K house for $2600 and then kicking her out with nowhere to go. I was left feeling the same way I do at the conclusion of a lot of these cases - they both came off as people I'm glad I have nothing to do with. However, while I won't lose sleep over it, I was a little surprised at the ruling. Sure, whatever agreement they had was convoluted as hell (and maybe not legal?), but it boiled down to he gave her money in exchange for her promising to do XYZ, then she never did XYZ or seemed to have any intentions of doing so

 

A contract for the transfer of land must be in writing, per the Statute of Frauds.  That's all I've got!

[AngelaHunter]

I agree, he should still get paid for performing quackery.  It's still a service.

 

Absolutely. I would never go to a chiropractor, but if I did I would pay him. Back pain is unverifiable, so if everyone who claimed he/she was not relieved of back pain by a doctor, chiro, physio or whatever used that as an excuse to stiff them, the courts would be able to hear no other cases.

[Florinaldo]

The litigants in the dog case quickly made me lose all interest or sympathy. These people have no business owning, rescuing or even just petting animals.

 

The mother-son case showed JJ at her arbitrary and subjective best. She refused to even consider the son's evidence, although she usually gladly peruses text messages, and cut him off repeatedly; granted he was a laborious speaker, an indication I think that he is probably not the most intelligent person around. Which made him the perfect target for his scamming scumbag of a mother and her convoluted scheme; she even cackled in delight at having screwed her son once more. JJ based her decision on the assumption that it was his job in life to help her, whereas I thought he was entitled to get his money back (not the house, obviously).

 

JJ must think chiropractic is a real science considering how she took pains to deferentially use the title "doctor". It may be quackery but a service is a service and if you agree to buy something worthless, like this or homeopathic medecine, you have to pay for it, whatever the results as long as the service is rendered. I was however miffed by the hallterviews; I think it was clear that the litigants were in cahoots to have the show pay for that treatment bill and were probably going for a beer afterwards.

 

It's refreshing to see once in a while someone as put together as the young lady in the U-Turn case. The defendant was of the type who always seem to have an endless supply of constantly reconfigured excuses.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Florinaldo

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

I'm STILL laughing at Mr Mac Book Pro Comegys!  From his very first utterance, I was picturing this Giant Cartoon Mallet bopping him on the head!

Gah, I wish I was the one bopping that cretin on the head with said mallet. What ever possesses women to hook up with guys like that? Let's see. . . IMHO he was not attractive (so the defense of "cute as hell and thinks he can get away with murder" goes down the tubes) and he has a "fashion line" (does that mean he sells fake Coach purses and Nike Jerseys out of the trunk of his Buick at the flea market?) and he needed a computer to watch porn and manage his "fashion line"?  I do think JJ would have given him some cash for the house damage but the moron didn't think he had to bring estimates. Who does that? 

 

RE: the Pickle Pants dog rescue case - the defendant was cray-cray. By the time ten months were up the dog could have just gotten replacement shots (source: I got a rescue dog through a third party and the only records the four year old dog had were her puppy shots- I got her all new shots just to make sure). 

 

And while I don't agree with chiropractors and their "adjustments" they do use a lot of physical therapy modalities (massage, ultrasound, TENS, etc) to help patients. 

[AngelaHunter]

The mother-son case showed JJ at her arbitrary and subjective best.

 

I admit I didn't really understand all the intricacies of that deal, but I just hated that pallid mutant son with his enormous shirt that still couldn't hide his moobs that I wanted him to lose no matter what. The fact that mom seems more than a little cracked didn't change that.

 

It's refreshing to see once in a while someone as put together as the young lady in the U-Turn case.

 

Yes! Only 20, works as a waitress and bought herself a brand new car only to have it smashed by that oily little weasel. He's been driving for a long time! He bought insurance after the accident! She just appeared out of thin air  - turned off her cloaking device I guess - while he was pulling his U-turn, so it's her fault. Ugh.

[teebax]

I admit I didn't really understand all the intricacies of that deal, but I just hated that pallid mutant son with his enormous shirt that still couldn't hide his moobs that I wanted him to lose no matter what. The fact that mom seems more than a little cracked didn't change that.

 

Yes! Only 20, works as a waitress and bought herself a brand new car only to have it smashed by that oily little weasel. He's been driving for a long time! He bought insurance after the accident! She just appeared out of thin air  - turned off her cloaking device I guess - while he was pulling his U-turn, so it's her fault. Ugh.

I think the son should have gotten his money back. The mother has apparently burned him before. I hope he won't help her again. He may have been a sloppy mess, but she is a hustla. Next!

The u-turn case made me chuckle because I just took a phone call just this morning from a gentleman wanting insurance. I only do commercial lines, but I try to help my personal lines department by getting rid of the types of clients we don't write. They're better served by the General and other carriers that will write you with a lapse, bad driving record, or terrible credit. Anyway, I asked him when he needed coverage, and he said. "yesterday."

Because I'm not a full-blown cynic yet, I laughed, thinking he was joking. Nope. Turns out he had an accident yesterday and wants to get a backdated insurance policy to cover him! Yeah, I laughed him off the phone.

[QuelleC]

I'm sorry but JJ hasn't known what it's like to be poor in years and years.  We'd all love to have auto and health  and life and dental insurance.  We really would. It's not even that easy to get a full time job with any of that. Yes, some intelligent, college educated people have poor credit ratings because of the Great Recession and losing their houses and the austerity (punishment) governors many of us have to live under. Thanks for chuckling at the circumstances he wants to make right. It's not just a saying that it costs more to be poor. I got the idea that u-turn guy was a little smarmy but not evil and just hit on hard times.  He was in the wrong to be sure but I got the idea he worked a lot and did his best but 20 yr old hadn't experienced life yet.  I don't know why she got any money, she had insurance and usually JJ doesn't let a plaintiff double dip like that.

Edited February 18, 2015 by QuelleC

[Intocats]

I'm sorry but JJ hasn't known what it's like to be poor in years and years.  We'd all love to have auto and health  and life and dental insurance.  We really would. It's not even that easy to get a full time job with any of that. Yes, some intelligent, college educated people have poor credit ratings because of the Great Recession and losing their houses and the austerity (punishment) governors many of us have to live under. Thanks for chuckling at the circumstances he wants to make right. It's not just a saying that it costs more to be poor. I got the idea that u-turn guy was a little smarmy but not evil and just hit on hard times.  He was in the wrong to be sure but I got the idea he worked a lot and did his best but 20 yr old hadn't experienced life yet.  I don't know why she got any money, she had insurance and usually JJ doesn't let a plaintiff double dip like that.

Quelle, I don't think the plaintiff can double dip. Teebax can weigh in on this, but how I understand it is that the defendant's insurance rates will increase if her carrier has to fix her car and can't collect from the uninsured defendant. If the defendant pays (as he should, since he caused the accident), the defendant can then reimburse her carrier and mitigate the damages.

 

I agree that JJ can be quite pompous and "smarter than thou" with her multimillion-dollar salary. However, the honest, well-intentioned hard-luck litigants seem to be far outnumbered by the people who just don't want to take responsibility for their bad judgment and dumb decisions. Letting one's pitbull off leash at a park, litigants "borrowing" their student loan money to a lowlife boyfriend for rims or bail, attacking an ex and his new girlfriend with a baseball bat.. .and all the while not admitting to any wrongdoing or expressing any desire or intent to turn their lives around.

[augmentedfourth]

I'm sorry but JJ hasn't known what it's like to be poor in years and years.  We'd all love to have auto and health  and life and dental insurance.  We really would. It's not even that easy to get a full time job with any of that. Yes, some intelligent, college educated people have poor credit ratings because of the Great Recession and losing their houses and the austerity (punishment) governors many of us have to live under. Thanks for chuckling at the circumstances he wants to make right. It's not just a saying that it costs more to be poor. I got the idea that u-turn guy was a little smarmy but not evil and just hit on hard times.  He was in the wrong to be sure but I got the idea he worked a lot and did his best but 20 yr old hadn't experienced life yet.  I don't know why she got any money, she had insurance and usually JJ doesn't let a plaintiff double dip like that.

There's a difference between auto insurance and the others, though. I believe it's illegal in most jurisdictions (if not all?) to drive an uninsured vehicle, which seems perfectly fair to me. If you don't have health, dental, life, etc. insurance, you're only hurting yourself if something happens, but the law is there so if you plow into another person while driving your car, that other person (hopefully) isn't totally screwed. I won't argue that JJ often is out of touch with a lot that goes on with her lower-income litigants, but I have zero problem with her tearing into uninsured drivers, because she's absolutely right. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford to drive a car, and the lack of funds isn't an excuse for breaking the law.

 

Also, I saw no evidence that the defendant wanted to "make things right". Try to cover his ass, sure. But all I heard from him regarding the actual accident was the excuse that the plaintiff was going too fast and/or should have seen him as he cut across multiple lanes of traffic. No apologies, no attempts to work things out, no offer to at least pay for part of her damages when he knew damn well he had no insurance to cover what happened at the time. I'm sticking with my original label of "sleaze".

[Sparger Springs]

I think JJ was wrong in the case of the son getting the house for 2600. He wasn't getting the house for $2600. He caught up her payments and helped her refinance the house. He was going to take over the house payments.  The mom most likely is going to need money from him again and she isn't going to get it. Mom changed the terms of the deal. JJ should have given him the 2600 since she basically defrauded the son.

[Intocats]

The litigants in the dog case quickly made me lose all interest or sympathy. These people have no business owning, rescuing or even just petting animals.

 

The mother-son case showed JJ at her arbitrary and subjective best. She refused to even consider the son's evidence, although she usually gladly peruses text messages, and cut him off repeatedly; granted he was a laborious talker, an indication I think that he is probably not the most intelligent person around. Which made him the perfect target for his scamming scumbag of a mother and her convoluted scheme; she even cackled in delight at having screwed her son once more. JJ based her decision on the assumption that it was his job in life to help her, whereas I thought he was entitled to get his money back (not the house, obviously).

 

JJ must think chiropractic is a real science considering how she took pains to deferentially use the title "doctor". It may be quackery but a service is a service and if you agree to buy something worthless, like this or homeopathic medecine, you have to pay for it, whatever the results as long as the service is rendered. I was however miffed by the hallterviews; I think it was clear that the litigants were in cahoots to have the show pay for that treatment bill and were probably going for a beer afterwards.

 

It's refreshing to see once in a while someone as put together as the young lady in the U-Turn case. The defendant was of the type who always seem to have an endless supply of constantly reconfigured excuses.

Yes, Florinaldo! You read my mind. Those two dog ladies were loopy. The poor dog looked sweet, but he needed a good bath and a brushing. And when the defendant said that she couldn't take Jesse to the vet because he wasn't up to date on his shots, I actually said, "Bullshit!" out loud to the TV set.

 

Crazy Mother was a piece of work, wasn't she? Granted, the son probably thought he had won the lottery for receiving a $400,000 house in exchange for a couple of mortgage payments, but Mom fooled him yet again. Look up "toxic relationship" in the dictionary and you will see a photo of those two.

 

I thought that Doctor Sicilia and Kenneth Dupree were in cahoots, too. The show pays the $4800 judgment, Kenneth keeps his settlement, and they and their wives go out for a nice steak dinner afterward. JJ is usually pretty good at sussing out those kinds of cases, but she missed the mark this time.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Intocats

[AngelaHunter]

There's a difference between auto insurance and the others, though. I believe it's illegal in most jurisdictions (if not all?) to drive an uninsured vehicle

 

Exactly, and if you don't have dental or life insurance, etc. that's not going to matter to someone you maim or cripple for life when you hit them with your car. You will not have your property and assets seized and your salary garnished for life to pay their damages.  Big difference. Auto ins. is a necessity, the others are optional.

[teebax]

Quelle, I don't think the plaintiff can double dip. Teebax can weigh in on this, but how I understand it is that the defendant's insurance rates will increase if her carrier has to fix her car and can't collect from the uninsured defendant. If the defendant pays (as he should, since he caused the accident), the defendant can then reimburse her carrier and mitigate the damages.

A claim for a not at fault accident with an uninsured driver should not raise your rates, unless you have a crappy carrier or, like what happened to me one time, your carrier incorrectly lists a claim on your clue report as being your fault when it's not. Of course, that can be fixed. JJ is wildly inconsistent in her rulings; Quellac is absolutely right about that. She usually requires litigants to go through their insurance if they have it. You can sue for your deductible, but to sue for the whole thing when you have insurance defeats the purpose of having coverage. I think the reason JJ may have allowed it this time is that she knew the plaintiff had no chance of collecting even her deductible from the defendant. You can't get blood from a stone. So the plaintiff gets the show to pay the whole thing and doesn't have to chase after him for the deductible, which she's never going to see. I'm okay with that, although I also wish JJ were more consistent.

I've been poor. My father lost his job when I was in junior high, and we were suddenly receiving government cheese and powdered milk. My parents are also really shitty with money, so even when both worked, we never seemed to have enough. Beginning with a paper route, I've had a job since I was 11 years old, and it ain't because I love working. I had to buy my own school clothes, my shoes, pay my activity fees, pay for my class pictures, field trips, etc.

I've also had bad credit, following a divorce that nearly bankrupted me. I have never, ever driven a car without insurance. It's inexcusable to me. When I didn't have enough money for insurance, it meant I didn't have enough money for a car. The cost of insurance should be a factor for anyone who's contemplating getting a car. It's not some option, like leather seats.

The defendant in the case we're discussing said he hadn't had insurance for months. Months! This isn't a guy who was a few days late while waiting for his next check. If he admitted to months, it's probably been even longer: maybe years. Driving without insurance is as egregious an offense, to me, as driving intoxicated. You could hit someone and ruin their entire life. I think both offenses should get your car impounded and carry hefty fines. If the repercussions were stiffer, maybe more people would be diligent about having, at the least, some liability coverage. There are too many damn people driving around without insurance, and I have zero sympathy for any of them.

Sorry for the rant. As someone who's been hit by two uninsured drivers and had countless clients in the same situation, I'm a little passionate about this issue!

[Puffaroo]

There's a difference between auto insurance and the others, though. I believe it's illegal in most jurisdictions (if not all?) to drive an uninsured vehicle, which seems perfectly fair to me.

 

Not all jurisdictions -- in my state, you don't have to have insurance unless you have an accident.  How's that for "Live Free or Die?"

 

 

A claim for a not at fault accident with an uninsured driver should not raise your rates, unless you have a crappy carrier or, like what happened to me one time, your carrier incorrectly lists a claim on your clue report as being your fault when it's not. Of course, that can be fixed.

 

When my car was rear-ended, the responding officer advised me to keep a copy of the state report I submitted, as he said this sometimes happens.  And it did!  I was really glad to have the copy to show I wasn't actually at fault.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Puffaroo

[arejay]

See, I had a little different take on the U-turn matter.  In her opening statement, the plaintiff said she was in a 'right-turn-only' lane, and the diagram clearly showed that she had passed a right turn onto a cross street.  If she had planned to turn at the NEXT right available, should she not have gotten into that lane until AFTER she had passed that street.  I think that if Defendant had thought of that, and suggested that Plaintiff was at least partly responsible, JJ might have gone the "deductible only recovery' route.  Yes, I used to be a claims adjuster.  My specialty was disputed liablility.

[teebax]

Not all jurisdictions -- in my state, you don't have to have insurance unless you have an accident.  How's that for "Live Free or Die?"

 

 

When my car was rear-ended, the responding officer advised me to keep a copy of the state report I submitted, as he said this sometimes happens.  And it did!  I was really glad to have the copy to show I wasn't actually at fault

I only know New Hampshire doesn't require it because JJ had a litigant on from there and was arguing with the litigant about it. You know JJ knows everything, so she didn't believe the litigant!

 

I tell my clients that checking their clue report after an accident is a really good idea. It's important to make sure if you're not at fault your record accurately reflects that. What happens with a lot of insureds is they stay with the same carrier, and if the rate increase is only minor they may never even know they're being charged.

 

Also, I've posted this before but I think it is worth repeating. If you do have a claim, regardless of fault, and you were previously getting a claim-free discount or a disappearing deductible, you may lose that discount. That happened to me, and I fought for months to get my discount back and lost. I don't know if every carrier does it, but it's something to be aware of.

[Florinaldo]

I'm sorry but JJ hasn't known what it's like to be poor in years and years. 

I am especially irritated when she says she does not care about the clothes, dishes or small appliances the litigants ask to be reimbursed for.  And then her condescending speech about how her parents did not send her to law school to deal with such trivial issues. Well, every job has aspects that are not the most exalting and are even downright annoying, but people still have to slug through them because that is what they are being paid for. And that's what judges, including her, are being paid to do: deal with daily life disputes. Replacing dishes and clothes may not seem like a big matter to her and her salary, but it can be quite a hardship for some of the people appearing before her, even though she sees them and their problems as quite beneath her. Just suck it up and do your job JJ!

 

I saw last week an episode of a British series, Judge Rinder; poor JJ would just die on that show in light of the piffling amounts involved. One award that night was a resounding 10 pounds! But it looked like the plaintiff really could use that money. By the way, litigants on that show make JJ's people look like members of a refined country club; sorry for UK members of this board, but most of the people I saw on Rinder were repulsive at first sight.

 

Crazy Mother was a piece of work, wasn't she? Granted, the son probably thought he had won the lottery for receiving a $400,000 house in exchange for a couple of mortgage payments, but Mom fooled him yet again. Look up "toxic relationship" in the dictionary and you will see a photo of those two.

No matter how unsympathetic the plaintiff appeared, he did not deserve to be screwed by his slimy bloodsucking mother. I think he is not very bright and may well be taken in again by her profiteering schemes.

 

The only reason I can see for JJ ruling in her favour is that she saw something of herself in that mother.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Florinaldo

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

but I have zero problem with her tearing into uninsured drivers, because she's absolutely right. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford to drive a car, and the lack of funds isn't an excuse for breaking the law.

WORD. I'm guessing from the street names that they lived in SW Florida and you gotta have insurance to drive in Florida. I too have been through my share of divorce issues, terrible credit, etc and never once did I let my insurance lapse. And there are a multitude of reasons why a person wouldn't have insurance - let's say your registration gets suspended for DUI or child support issues or unpaid traffic tickets or some other "petty" nonsense (which is common here in FL) - it's not necessarily just "I didn't have the money". 

 

I'm with Teebax on this one - I've been hit by several uninsured drivers and it's at the very least a pain to go to court against these people, to haggle with insurance and to lose my discounts and have my rates go up (not to mention I'm losing money by paying my deductible - hey, no problem for Mr. Uninsured, it's not HIS money) No sympathy from me. Ride the bus, buddy. 

[Christina]

I didn't see the episode, but if her car was over a certain age, she probably didn't purchase uninsured property damage coverage. At certain point, it's not financially worth it.  If she had a loan, I would think it would have been automatic.

[Toaster Strudel]

JJ was pre-empted by some unimportant mayoral race in Burlington!

 

Hot damn!  And today's cases looked so good!

[teebax]

I didn't see the episode, but if her car was over a certain age, she probably didn't purchase uninsured property damage coverage. At certain point, it's not financially worth it.  If she had a loan, I would think it would have been automatic.

I think she said it was a new car, but some people refer to old cars as new cars if the car is new to them. So I'm not positive about that detail.

JJ was pre-empted by some unimportant mayoral race in Burlington!

 

Hot damn!  And today's cases looked so good!

Oh, no! How am I going to know if I should stay in and watch JJ after work or go to the gym?!

[Quof]

Doesn't your gym have tv?  If not, you need to find a new gym.

[AngelaHunter]

I think she said it was a new car, but some people refer to old cars as new cars if the car is new to them

 

If you're talking about the 20 year old suing the uninsured creep for hitting her, she said her car was a 2014.

 

JJ was pre-empted by some unimportant mayoral race in Burlington!

 

 

Same for me. A bunch of geeky looking characters ranting about Joe's Hardware store and other shit. So bummed!

[Rick Kitchen]

I'm really worried about that poor dog that was in the first half hour today where the woman was suing the guy who bought the dog because he stopped paying for it.  He said, "She shivers in her cage every time I yell at her" and the woman who was suing him "is going to have to worry about the dog's future, not me."  Why would he not worry about the dog's future, he's the one with the dog?  That poor dog is probably living a horrible life.

[Toaster Strudel]

 

Same for me. A bunch of geeky looking characters ranting about Joe's Hardware store and other shit. So bummed!

Oh.  And I thought they cleaned up a bunch of street people.  My bad.

[BubblingKettle]

I'm really worried about that poor dog that was in the first half hour today where the woman was suing the guy who bought the dog because he stopped paying for it.  He said, "She shivers in her cage every time I yell at her" and the woman who was suing him "is going to have to worry about the dog's future, not me."  Why would he not worry about the dog's future, he's the one with the dog?  That poor dog is probably living a horrible life.

I agree, Rick Kitchen.  That guy worked up a sweat trying to hold in his anger during the case, and his comments in the hallterview made no sense.  What does he think most dogs do when yelled at by a huge man?  It was as if he was trying to say that the dog's frightened reaction made the animal "defective" in some way.  

 

And as a Philly native, I can say that the guy's Philly accent and broken grammar made my ears bleed.  

[AngelaHunter]

I take it back about the geeky Vermont governor debate or whatever it was. After reading Rick Kitchen's post, I thank them for taking our JJ away. I'm glad I didn't see that.

[27bored]

The rottweiler case was annoying. I didn't care who won. Why in the fuck do you draw up a bill of sale on a piece of paper you tore out of your child's notebook? The fuck? "Do you have a copy of the ad you posted"? No, I tried to get it off Craigslist but they had taken it down. "Do you have proof you paid for the dog"? Well see, what had happened was, my sister-in-law's baby cousin Tracy got us the dog for protection, so he paid for it, then I paid him back. Yeah, right. And she was not well-spoken.

 

And why was the dude trying to buy a rottweiler when he has a baby daughter? I bet she was crying because the dog was scary. Little girls don't want scary ass crazy looking dogs. They want Clifford, not damn Cujo.

[Sparger Springs]

I am especially irritated when she says she does not care about the clothes, dishes or small appliances the litigants ask to be reimbursed for.  And then her condescending speech about how her parents did not send her to law school to deal with such trivial issues. Well, every job has aspects that are not the most exalting and are even downright annoying, but people still have to slug through them because that is what they are being paid for. And that's what judges, including her, are being paid to do: deal with daily life disputes. Replacing dishes and clothes may not seem like a big matter to her and her salary, but it can be quite a hardship for some of the people appearing before her, even though she sees them and their problems as quite beneath her. Just suck it up and do your job JJ!

 

I saw last week an episode of a British series, Judge Rinder; poor JJ would just die on that show in light of the piffling amounts involved. One award that night was a resounding 10 pounds! But it looked like the plaintiff really could use that money. By the way, litigants on that show make JJ's people look like members of a refined country club; sorry for UK members of this board, but most of the people I saw on Rinder were repulsive at first sight.

 

No matter how unsympathetic the plaintiff appeared, he did not deserve to be screwed by his slimy bloodsucking mother. I think he is not very bright and may well be taken in again by her profiteering schemes.

 

The only reason I can see for JJ ruling in her favour is that she saw something of herself in that mother.

I was just thinking he is going to have to make sure the house payments are kept up because he co signed the loan for the refinance. If he doesn't do it his credit will be ruined. Mom really hit the jackpot on this one.

[teebax]

Doesn't your gym have tv?  If not, you need to find a new gym.

I record JJ at home. I've tried to get her to change her schedule to conform with my workout time, but so far she hasn't been inclined to to so.

Today's first episode included some boring case about an investment in a cupcake business. The investor was an attorney, so JJ of course made him look like an idiot. She also proclaimed the defendants to be hustlers, since they used a portion of the investment to pay their rent and buy a computer. One gavel for me.

Then we had a comforter case. A lady took her comforter to a dry cleaner. They lost it. The most interesting thing for me in that case was that JJ said they hadn't had a dry cleaning case in over a decade. Considering how often The People's Court has dry cleaning cases, that surprised me. But I actually can't remember seeing a dry cleaning case on JJ. I don't understand why JJ awarded full replacement cost for a year-old comforter, but that's what she did. One gavel for me.

In the second episode, we had someone who actually fell for the work from home scam in which they send you checks to cash and you cash them and send the money back. These were some well-disguised idiots. I can't believe any of them fell for this. Why would a company need you to cash checks for them? It makes no sense. The person who solicited the person for the job claimed to be a representative of the company had a gmail address.

JJ asked one of the defendants if she graduated from elementary school. She claimed she did, but I'm not so sure. We also learned that JJ doesn't speak Spanish or Thai. Two gavels, and I'm being generous. By the way, JJ gave the plaintiff a pass, which I wouldn't have done. It was really stupid of her to agree to cash these checks.

In the second case,we had a litigant with the biggest hair I've ever seen. Seriously, her hair took up my entire tv screen. The big-haired plaintiff was trying to re-home a dog. The price was $450, but the defendant only paid $200. The defendant didn't pay because, "she didn't give me no papers." He even signed an agreement to do so. Their contract didn't mention papers, so JJ awarded the plaintiff the balance. One gavel for the case, and half a gavel for the plaintiff's awesome hair.

Those of you who didn't get JJ today can rest easy that you didn't miss much.

[Brattinella]

Loved your recap, teebax!  I really liked the dry-cleaning guy who was saying "Well, I know we gave your comforter to the wrong person, but we are gonna wait til he BRINGS IT BACK and then give it to you!"  And then countersues for harassment because she calls to see if he got it back yet!

 

I think the Huge-Haired Lady really should not have won, I'm pretty sure the original ad for the dog specified "Pure-bred" and papers provided.

[AZChristian]

JJ sure didn't like that cleaner guy.  She gave the plaintiff full value of a used comforter.  Judge Milian would probably have given her depreciated value, which is probably why the cleaner's wife kept yelling, "It was a year old" all the way out of the courtroom.

[dustylil]

When would Judge Judy ever have known what it is like to be poor? Her father was a dentist. That usually means at least a middle class standard of living in her early years. And as  we have repeatedly been told, her parents paid her way though  law school. So she didn't start her professional career burdened with debt. Unless she got hosed in one of her divorces, I can't see when in her life she would have found finances to be a real struggle.

Of course, one doesn't have to have experienced hard times personally to be empathetic to the problems of others.

To be sure, her show would likely be less popular if she wasn't so nasty and snobbish :)

[BubblingKettle]

I saw the preview but didn't watch the case and I was screaming in my head: Finally! An example of what I want my hair to look like if my dream would come true! Y'all can laugh all you want, everyone does when I tell them this. If I had curly hair I would be rocking and knocking stuff down when I walked through a room. I know it was a wig. I would totally wear a wig if it weren't so dang hot and humid around here.

I must say, I found her hair to be really funktacular.  She styled it, and it suited her.  Her look would have been even better without the gold caps on all of her incisors, though.

[teebax]

I should have clarified that I actually loved her hair. I went natural as my New Year's Resolution (trying to get away from all that chemical processing), and I'm quite thrilled with it. My hair is only about an inch long right now, since we had to cut out all the relaxed part, and I couldn't be happier. My plan is to get it to Viola Davis-like proportions; I'm not sure I'd want it as big as the plaintiff's was, but I certainly liked it.

[Art Vandelay]

Quackopractor case - I was really hoping for a "you ate the steak!" I like how now that expression is used by JJ with no backstory about what it means. Guess she got tired of telling the story.

 

Love a good ol' JJ phone call. Mom's in Michigan, not Puerto Rico. But she's not really sure. I appreciated that the defendant said "I know, I'm sorry" when JJ called her annoying. At least she recognizes it, I guess.

[momtoall]

I know it was a wig. I would totally wear a wig if it weren't so dang hot and humid around here.

 

Really???  I didn't think it was a wig.  I thought it was really huge and I didn't like it.  But as my friend use to say, "that's why they don't make all hats red', because everyone's taste is different.  LOL!!

[Florinaldo]

JJ seems to be in a phase of mood swings this week, deciding cases in contradiction to some of her past principles and practices.

 

In the dry cleaner case, Crazy Comforter Lady got the full value of the lost comforter from a listing taken on some Web site, with no proof of what she paid for the wayward one and no account of the fact that it was one year old (and probably extensively "used" considering how tenacious the plaintiff was about it). JJ's story about how she would have kept after the dry cleaner even worse than the lady did indicates she once again identified with the obsessed plaintiff and that is why she ruled in her favour.

 

Crazy Dog Lady must think that putting your fingers in an electric socket is proper hairstyling protocol before appearing on TV. Again JJ showed inconsistency; she has considered written material outside of a contract when it changes the terms of the agreement or adds to them and is convincing enough. But here she simply would not even look at the text messages the defendant brought with him. And she kept loudly calling him "Santos!", no Mister or anything about it; I thought that was particularly disrepectful and rude, even by her standards. Although he seems to have an off-putting temper, I fully think that Crazy Dog Lady did not live up to their agreement and failed to provide documents she had said she would.

 

JJ again showed her ignorance of the reality of working from home. It is accepted practice to pay a portion of your rent and equipment from company funds or you can also claim such expenses on your tax return. But she saw that as an indication that it was a scam; unless they paid all of their rent from those funds, her conclusion was unwarranted. Oh, and how could the lawyer not represent himself; it's small claims court for heaven's sake! Just another opportunity for JJ to humiliate a fellow member of the bar.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

In the second episode, we had someone who actually fell for the work from home scam in which they send you checks to cash and you cash them and send the money back. These were some well-disguised idiots. I can't believe any of them fell for this. Why would a company need you to cash checks for them

The defendant certainly had her story down, didn't she? It was like "I-was-working-for-a-company-and-they-asked-me-to-deposit-money-orders-and-my-commission-was......" I liked the way JJ was dissecting her recitation because she couldn't back up and repeat her whole spiel again and again. I wonder if the Prince of Nigeria sent her those bogus money orders. 

 

Count me in on the Coveting Big Hair Club. My hair idol is Tracy Turnblad - I would puff that hairdo so high, spray it with Aquanet and then stick a teensy bow on top like a cherry. Unfortunately most of us white women can't get away with wearing wigs without looking foolish so I have to stick to my middle age "layered" style with about ten pounds of hairspray to hold my few strands together.

[Milz]

Then we had a comforter case. A lady took her comforter to a dry cleaner. They lost it. The most interesting thing for me in that case was that JJ said they hadn't had a dry cleaning case in over a decade. Considering how often The People's Court has dry cleaning cases, that surprised me. But I actually can't remember seeing a dry cleaning case on JJ. I don't understand why JJ awarded full replacement cost for a year-old comforter, but that's what she did. One gavel for me.

 

I think JJ awarded the full price because she thought the defendant was being a dickhead about the whole thing. Also she said he had a counterclaim of harassment; I guess that ticked her off too.

[Mz Anthrope]

I am still 'wtf'ing' over mom (black body suit with hot pink god-knows-what-but-it-sits-up-under-her-ass) who's being sued by pedi boyfriend to her *still* underage daughter (babybabymomma).  She storms out of the courtroom and shouts for her daughter to get out then charges back in that the man's a statuatory rapist and she has proof.  Chicha, you let the man SLEEP IN YOUR HOME WITH YOUR UNDERAGE DAUGHTER.  And you are on disability (with your polished aluminum grill) yet have 8 children, the youngest is 1 years old. 

 

This shit's just too effed up to make it up.  I swear I felt something pop inside my skull at some point watching that shit

[Milz]

I am still 'wtf'ing' over mom (black body suit with hot pink god-knows-what-but-it-sits-up-under-her-ass) who's being sued by pedi boyfriend to her *still* underage daughter (babybabymomma).  She storms out of the courtroom and shouts for her daughter to get out then charges back in that the man's a statuatory rapist and she has proof.  Chicha, you let the man SLEEP IN YOUR HOME WITH YOUR UNDERAGE DAUGHTER.  And you are on disability (with your polished aluminum grill) yet have 8 children, the youngest is 1 years old. 

 

This shit's just too effed up to make it up.  I swear I felt something pop inside my skull at some point watching that shit

 

one of the repeat episodes last night was a woman suing her sister. They got into a fight (next door neighbors broke up the fight) and defendant sister keyed plaintiff sister's car. While defendant sister was testifying (some stuff about Mom favoring plaintiff more than her, etc.), plaintiff and the witness were snickering like school girls at everything she said. JJ asked the witness who she was. Witness admits she is their mother. JJ asks why she thinks the other daughter's testimony is funny and why is she laughing. Mother says she doesn't think it was funny and is smiling while she says it. I sincerely hoped this family was scamming JJ because otherwise, it was one of the more dysfunctional families ever (and that's saying alot!)

[Toaster Strudel]

Ticket To Ride - Dumb car case, zero gavel.

 

Slumlady Barbie vs. Domestic Violence Blondie - The plaintiff rented an uninhabitable building to Domestic Violence Blondie for a couple of years and collected rent, and is hustling JJ for her to removate the dump because of cig burns on the carpet that the defendant alleges were made by a burglar, LOL. One gavel.

 

Daddy Died So We Need Two Cars Now - Sad people having a sad battle over some old lemon with a tow truck addiction.  Barely one gavel.

 

Peter Draper, Master Hoarder - Or should I have titled this one Salon Slander?  The plaintiff  (who picked up refuse salon chairs for free to bring to his 5-building rural hoard) probably reeked of rat piss and roach feces, don't let the suit fool you.  JJ probably saved on his dinner when he dumpster dived instead. Two gavels.