Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

I HATED the landlord/defendant in the case with Aziz plaintiff. He was so smarmy and obnoxious. Judge Judy’s meager correction from “yep” to “yes, judge” did not satisfy my need for blood vengeance. C’mon, this is the exact reason I watch Judge Judy, to see major dickheads get epic smack downs!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, NYCFree said:

I HATED the landlord/defendant in the case with Aziz plaintiff. He was so smarmy and obnoxious. Judge Judy’s meager correction from “yep” to “yes, judge” did not satisfy my need for blood vengeance. C’mon, this is the exact reason I watch Judge Judy, to see major dickheads get epic smack downs!

I was waiting for the smackdown as well. The guy was just so full of himself - I got the idea that he has participated in the criminal justice system in the past and not in a good way. But the plaintiff was a hot mess express as well (I originally thought maybe the guy was in the military from the promo which would have made me even more angry). I would make a horrible judge. I would just rule against people that pissed me off and damn the law!!!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Wake Up! You're a Squatter-Plaintiff wants her security deposit back, and all kinds of damages.  Plaintiff rented room in house, with a one year lease, at $1100 a month, and $1100 security.     Defendant was renting the room, but didn't own the house, and it was being sold.    Plaintiff moved in August.   Defendant stayed in house past the end of August, and was in litigation with the owner of the house, didn't pay rent past August, and I totally want to rip that stupid top knot off of her head by the roots.    Plaintiff claims she has an agreement with the owner to squat in house until December 31st.     She's a total scammer, and another housing court cretin.   The owner can't move into their own house until the loser's gone, but in the owner's place, I would move in right now, and get some big, mean roommates that dislike squatters.    I wonder if the local biker club has a rent-a-hulk program?    

 

I got the impression from this case that the plaintiff entered into an illegal sublet with the defendant, and the defendant kept the security deposit and rent that was never hers to begin with.  There was something in the way the defendant knew the house was being sold, but waited until the last minute to tell the plaintiff.  I think the plaintiff had no idea how to articulate her case and Judge Judy was all over her being a squatter.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I respectfully disagree.     I think the defendant was renting and managing the house, and sublet to room renters at least with the current owner's permission.     They had signed leases, and it had been going on for a while, until the d. was notified the house was sold, and the new owner would take over on 1 September, and would not be leasing.     The defendant gave months of notice about the change, and the need to move, and I bet if the tenant-plaintiff had moved out on time, the security would have been returned.     I found it despicable that the tenant stayed for four months after the ownership change, and the owner couldn't move in to the house they purchased.     I think the reason the new owner agreed to the plaintiff staying is that's when the original lease expired, and now owners are tied to leases that come with the property.      I hope the plaintiff's new landlords saw that show, and make a note of her name.    I think this case was very different from many other's we've seen with illegal rentals or sublets, and I'm adding this one to the long list of reasons I'll never be a landlord, or rent out a room.  

I'm guessing the tenant/plaintiff has a lot of experience with extorting landlords for free months, because of the eviction laws where they live.    I have heard of evictions taking six months or more in some jurisdictions.    I can't imagine living where room rent is over $1,000 a month either.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I respectfully disagree.     I think the defendant was renting and managing the house, and sublet to room renters at least with the current owner's permission.     They had signed leases, and it had been going on for a while, until the d. was notified the house was sold, and the new owner would take over on 1 September, and would not be leasing.     The defendant gave months of notice about the change, and the need to move, and I bet if the tenant-plaintiff had moved out on time, the security would have been returned.     I found it despicable that the tenant stayed for four months after the ownership change, and the owner couldn't move in to the house they purchased.     I think the reason the new owner agreed to the plaintiff staying is that's when the original lease expired, and now owners are tied to leases that come with the property.      I hope the plaintiff's new landlords saw that show, and make a note of her name.    I think this case was very different from many other's we've seen with illegal rentals or sublets, and I'm adding this one to the long list of reasons I'll never be a landlord, or rent out a room.  

I'm guessing the tenant/plaintiff has a lot of experience with extorting landlords for free months, because of the eviction laws where they live.    I have heard of evictions taking six months or more in some jurisdictions.    I can't imagine living where room rent is over $1,000 a month either.  

I agree with your disagreement.  In simple terms, not everything is a lawsuit.  The plaintiff failed to demonstrate how she was injured by the defendant and by virtue of some litigated "agreement" with the property owner (probably in exchange for her finally vacating his property) was thousands ahead when she was allowed to leave without paying the three months of back rent she owed.  Any fan of JJ knows that she'd sooner let one of her dogs be mounted by a pit bull than enrich a squatter. 

Edited by Byrd is the Word
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I agree with Judge Judy, and loving the dog and wanting it back may be the worst mistake he's ever made.     The defendant was totally out of control, and I'm sure her idiot mother will give her a phony alibi when she steals the dog back, after ramming his house with her car.      Since this was a rerun, I wonder what interesting things have happened since.     

What kind of a man shelters an addict (in addition to a 20 something "waif"), clearly enjoys the sexual benefits, gives her money and then sues to get it back? Rule #1 in the Enablers Handbook is that you never, ever give one money. She's a junkie mess, but he's the one who really skeeved me out. Compassion, he says.  My ass.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2018 at 4:41 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

The $800 wasn't out of line for a regular tax return, and probably state return, from a franchise tax company.   I worked for the military for many years, and the tax service at the base exchanges were outlets of national tax services, and charged $400 and up, and most of the younger ones only needed a 1040 EZ.      A lot of people go to these places because they give you your portion of the refund, minus their interest fees, and prep charges, and give you a check or deposit to your account right then.   So you only get about 75% after fees they deduct, in return for getting your money now.  It's a very profitable racket.     The worst part to me is that you can do your own taxes online, many times for free, and get a refund very quickly.  

The part I don't understand is how the scammy defendant was able to file some sort of amended return without the plaintiff's signature.  Either she falsified the P's signature or the P was aware of the amended return.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, but I just watched Ms.Rabhan, a despicable, lowlife, useless POS. I can't remember when a litigant made me so angry. She wants to be addicted to "everything"? Go ahead, you skank, take them. Overdose on them, but first get yourself sterilized. She stands there, in her tacky, shoulder-baring cheap cocktail dress, with a goofy smile that made her seem really zonked on something here, explaining how an innocent baby was born addicted to her drugs and had to go through withdrawal I assume. How lovely. Her lowlife friend takes the infant then gives her back to this worthless scumbag. CPS finds out and the poor child is bounced to another foster home. Very nice. Now Ms. Rabhan also looks after the fruit of her useless son's loins he produced with his former "waif" who now bunks with creepy plaintiff, Uncle Fester.

Plaintiff is a total weirdo, drawn to messed-up skanks and offers room and board in exchange for sexual favours, or so it seemed.

By comparison, the squatting Ms. Wilson, she of the heavy blue eyeshadow and exposed, sagging breasts was almost a breath of fresh air. She's just an every-day scammer working the system and weaseling her way out paying rent. No biggie. Everyone should have landlords who tell them, "You don't need to pay rent. It's all good!"

Aziz vs. dumbass, smart-mouthed douchebag: Who cares?

Edited by AngelaHunter · Reason: Not enough sleep and too much wine.
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Most Ridiculous Error in Judgment Goes To (woman cosigns for apartment lease for idiot son, and idiot friend)-Plaintiff arrested with suspended license, for old ticket for not having insurance.   Defendant Mom actually says "It's nice having him gone" about idiot son.   Mother signed for lease for son and friend, 70 year old friend, and her 50's age son.    Defendant paid bail $1245 for idiot plaintiff, and got $1k back, still owes $245 to plaintiff.    $1945, security deposit not given back, so defendant owes $732.50, and was evicted for not paying rent.    Defendant also borrowed $700 from plaintiff idiot Mom.    Plaintiff gets $1700, and still is making excuses for everyone else involved in this.  I wonder how Thanksgiving dinner was at plaintiff's house, since she said how glad she was for idiot son to move out?     How sad that the older friend and her adult son can't get a place to live.   

Hooters Manager Not So Manageable-Plaintiff has 3 bedroom apartment, and rents 2 bedrooms out (he's lived there for years).    He rents room for $500 plus utilities.    Defendant gave plaintiff $500, and $250 in July, no lease of course.     Plaintiff claims he loaned $50 to defendant, and was paid back.   Then plaintiff loaned the defendant $50 more, and was never paid back; $60 another time, not repaid; $120 in July, not repaid; $100 end of July, not paid back.  If the plaintiff says what letter he assigned to the exhibits, I hope Byrd beats the snot out of him, because he's not Perry Mason, and this isn't the Supreme Court.     Then defendant wants $20.    Plaintiff  claims defendant moved out without notice, owes back rent, and loans, which equal $825.    Plaintiff claims defendant who never drinks coffee stole a Keurig.    Plaintiff is up to 112 text messages, and a bunch of exhibits, and I'd like to hit him.     Defendant is a loser, and deadbeat, but the plaintiff is a total pain.     Defendant moves out 1 August, and mysteriously stopped receiving texts from plaintiff.      Plaintiff gets $975, and the exhibits end.   I think defendant is right, and something is seriously off with plaintiff, but defendant is still a deadbeat, and d. absolutely stole the Keurig, just to piss off the plaintiff.   Why do I have the feeling the plaintiff is unfortunately experienced at small claims court, and housing court (if they have one where he lives), but I can't believe he kept loaning money to the deadbeat defendant.      

Marital Debt Drama-Plaintiff does two loans to soon-to-be ex daughter-in-law.     On a shallow note, are those cheap extensions on the plaitiff?     Outstanding balance on loans is $3012, and defendant claims they're a gift, so soon to be ex could live in a trailer on some land they own.    Neat trick to state that husband dumped her, after his second affair, and wanted her to forgive him.     Since the defendant and husband are still married, so $3k is marital debt, and should be in the divorce agreement, and plaintiff should have it included in the divorce, and half is the defendant's debt.  

Teenager Hit at School-Plaintiff has ugly mole or something next to her lip, and it already bugs me.   Defendant backed into plaintiff's car outside of school picking up brother.    Defendant of course says she hit a curb, not the other car.     There are matching dents in the cars that correspond to the accident the way the plaintiff says it happened.   The defendant is an idiot, and her brother the witness is also an idiot, and both are liars.    Plaintiff didn't have insurance, naughty girl!     $783 to plaintiff, and defendant is still a jerk.   I bet the defendant always claims everything is someone else's fault. 

Child's Bike / Car Collision Caught on Tape-Plaintiff claims neighbor's little boy whacked into her car with his bicycle, and it's all on video!    Kid was riding on the sidewalk, plaintiff moved out of driveway blocking the sidewalk, and kid ran into the left side back door.       Judge Judy said no money for plaintiff, because the bush on plaintiff's property blocks her vision of pedestrians.   Now plaintiff claims she saw the kid, and blocked the sidewalk anyway.     I hope the defendant and son move, because the plaintiff is not a good person to live around, and now claims she deliberately blocked the sidewalk.    Case dismissed, and plaintiff is a jerk.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I bet the tax accountant just used the pin filing number that is used lieu of the actual signature you put on electronic taxes.   My suspicion is the plaintiff said something in the heat of anger after finding out that the prep fees, and interest on the money loan she got for the refund (so you get it immediately, they all charge a bundle on that, I think about 20% or so).   Then when she talked to the defendant she said something that screwed up her original tax form, such as not really qualifying for head of household or something that gets you a big refund.   So the defendant filed an amended tax form, which is a requirement of the IRS to be a tax prep. office.     

My guess is the defendant acting rather calm about the outcome is that she was going to rat out the plaintiff to the IRS, with both versions of the taxes, and her information the plaintiff swore was correct.      Never cheat on your taxes, or the IRS will get you, that's the only way they got Al Capone, and a lot of other people who escaped the law for years.    And if there's deliberate fraud, then the informant gets a percentage of the recovery, and if they prove you committed fraud, then the audit is to your first tax return, not just three years that is the limit for most audits.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Hooters Manager Not So Manageable.         defendant is still a deadbeat. 

 

I adored the Plaintiff.  He kept such good records!

 

Quote

Teenager Hit at School-Plaintiff has ugly mole or something next to her lip, and it already bugs me.  

Yeah, that was an ugly cold sore.  Gross. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Most Ridiculous Error in Judgment Goes To (woman cosigns for apartment lease for idiot son, and idiot friend)

She also moved in her deadbeat, does "odd jobs", 52-year old bum friend and his mommy, in addition to loser son who can't keep a job and insolent stupid porker def. How this woman has managed to live this long with such terminal stupidity is truly amazing. Really, I'm amazed, both at the degree of idiocy and the longevity!

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Hooters Manager Not So Manageable-

Oy vey! Mr. Sluka, a persnickety, peculiar, particular (and vastly annoying) little person ("Here is exhibit G, and exhibit F and exhibit O and texts 109 through 112")always invites strangers to bunk in with him. He is so buttoned-down and tidy it's truly a wonder when you see what he chose to live with him this time - the 29-year old, shifty, slimy little wharf rat def. But I guess we all would, right? We see yet again the Ultimate in Douche-tastic 'Dos - the shaved sides with pelt on top of his narrow little head, but the big earplugs were hot. Is there such a thing as a man (loosely described as such) sporting such a 'do who is not a douchebag? Could be, but I have yet to see him. Anyway, Mr. Sluka felt the wormy little shit was not only going to be the ideal housemate, but a great candidate for a whole bunch of loans - again, as would we all, I'm sure. Really, Mr. Sluka?? Byrd's facial expressions as he was collecting the growing pile of exhibits were subtle, but said it all.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I bet the defendant always claims everything is someone else's fault. 

Kind of funny: "My car has the latest technology and I could not have hit her car because it would warn me. Oh, I hit a curb." Must have been some high curb. She was so colossal it was almost majestic. The huge shiny lip bubble, not so much.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oy vey! Mr. Sluka, a persnickety, peculiar, particular (and vastly annoying) little person ("Here is exhibit G, and exhibit F and exhibit O and texts 109 through 112")always invites strangers to bunk in with him. He is so buttoned-down and tidy it's truly a wonder when you see what he chose to live with him this time - the 29-year old, shifty, slimy little wharf rat def.

I actually admired Mr. Sluka for his organizational skills - there's nothing worse than litigants shuffling through piles of paper when JJ asks for something simple like a receipt (I notice that lots of people these days have Post-Its on their paperwork, so I'm guessing the assistants at JJ are helping them mark their stuff, cos most of them don't seem too organized in their personal lives. Anywho. . . back to Mr. Sluka who  made me wonder why he had Hooter Hoodrat in his house. Perhaps he enjoys a walk on the wild side, watching that half shaved head tell of the exploits of Hooterville when he arrived home. However, Hooter Hoodrat was just pitiful, y'all. Pretending he didn't get any texts from the defendant after a certain time? Pshhh, sit down, dude. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I actually admired Mr. Sluka for his organizational skills

Definitely. It was all this endless "Exhibit" stuff (for a 20$ loan) that seemed like he watches too much Perry Mason on MeTV. The people who endlessly shuffle papers when asked for something are those who know they don't have what is needed ("I didn't bring that with me today." "I DO have it, but I left it at home.") and are probably hoping JJ will say, "Oh, well. Forget about it."

 

32 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

back to Mr. Sluka who  made me wonder why he had Hooter Hoodrat in his house.

That is truly the mystery. The oddest Odd Couple ever. What was it about Wharf Rat that made Mr. Sluka say, "A likely lad -  perfect for my next roommate"? What??

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I actually admired Mr. Sluka for his organizational skills - there's nothing worse than litigants shuffling through piles of paper when JJ asks for something simple like a receipt (I notice that lots of people these days have Post-Its on their paperwork, so I'm guessing the assistants at JJ are helping them mark their stuff, cos most of them don't seem too organized in their personal lives. Anywho. . . back to Mr. Sluka who  made me wonder why he had Hooter Hoodrat in his house. Perhaps he enjoys a walk on the wild side, watching that half shaved head tell of the exploits of Hooterville when he arrived home. However, Hooter Hoodrat was just pitiful, y'all. Pretending he didn't get any texts from the defendant after a certain time? Pshhh, sit down, dude. 

It's possible he could have blocked Plaintiff's phone number.  That would stop the texts from showing up.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Hooters Manager Not So Manageable A lonely old man renting rooms via craigslist to shifty little hustlers like the defendant should at least know better than to hand them any money.  Good grief.  And who doesn't admire the "If I was going to steal something of his, I'd steal his TV" defense against the charge of stealing a cheap coffee maker?  Hopefully Hooters upper management recognizes that this guy should not be trusted with the dishes and certainly not allowed within 20' of the cash register.  But unless the labor pool in Cincinnati is more shallow than most it's unlikely that this looser is anything more than the guy picking cigarette butts from the urinals.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I've always liked the looks of the Keurig coffee maker, but it is too pricy for me, same for the individual cups. If I had one, I would be pissed if someone stole it, though.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

And who doesn't admire the "If I was going to steal something of his, I'd steal his TV" defense against the charge of stealing a cheap coffee maker? 

I know? "When I steal things, I don't bother with the cheap stuff." That's right, Al Capone, you're so in the Big Time you hustle 20 bucks for gas money from some naive little man. Truly a criminal mastermind.

I've had a Keurig coffee maker for years and I'm on my 3rd one. I use it to dispense hot water for tea as well. Yes, I have now reached a stage where I am too lazy to boil water.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I've always liked the looks of the Keurig coffee maker, but it is too pricy for me, same for the individual cups. If I had one, I would be pissed if someone stole it, though.

We got a basic model off of FB Marketplace for reasonable.  Right around $25.  You can buy a little mesh cup from Keurig and put your own coffee in.  We bought one of FB Marketplace to donate to my husband's AA group, who barely has enough money to keep going.  They were making an urn of coffee for 3 people and throwing the rest out.  They all pitched high holy heck about the Keurig and whined about it, and when my husband's prior job kept him away from meetings, they packed it up and got the urn back out, and continue to throw away coffee.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 

Mr. Sluka, a persnickety, peculiar, particular (and vastly annoying) little person


 

Oh yeah, Team Annoying for me. I was half expecting him to ask the court to have the evidence admitted, just like a real lawyer. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Translating some famous parting words of unsuccessful defendants:

"It is what it is" = I tried to lie and bullshit my way out of this and it didn't work.

"No good deed goes unpunished" = I'm an entitled asshole who can't be expected to be accountable for my actions.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

We got a basic model off of FB Marketplace for reasonable.  Right around $25.  You can buy a little mesh cup from Keurig and put your own coffee in.  We bought one of FB Marketplace to donate to my husband's AA group, who barely has enough money to keep going.  They were making an urn of coffee for 3 people and throwing the rest out.  They all pitched high holy heck about the Keurig and whined about it, and when my husband's prior job kept him away from meetings, they packed it up and got the urn back out, and continue to throw away coffee.  

From experience, that urn of coffee is some nasty-ass stuff!  Thanks for the Keurig info, now I am a little more interested!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote
3 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

Oh yeah, Team Annoying for me. I was half expecting him to ask the court to have the evidence admitted, just like a real lawyer. 

 

Team Annoying here too.  Of course the defendant never intended to return that money, but doesn’t JJ usually say “you loaned him X and he never paid you back so you loaned him Y?  Sorry, you’re an idiot.  You knew you weren’t getting that money back.”  I mean C’MON.  Exhibits A-F or whatever of multiple piddly little “loans”?  I also think the defendant was truthful in the “halterview” when he said that the plaintiff freaked him out.  He freaked me out and I never lived with him!  Frankly he strikes me as the quiet serial killer type.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I think the Hooters 'manager' is a total jerk, and a user, and if the plaintiff was a quiet serial killer type, we wouldn't be seeing the defendant on my TV, and giving me heartburn.

Todays first 30 minute case is a rerun, but it totally enrages me, and I hate the plaintiff, and her idiot grandpa.      The defendant plumber supported himself, and two little kids he has full custody of, makes the mistake of his life by knocking up the Sainted Single Mother Daughter of Satan (SSMDS).     Grandpa loaned money to both parties, so he gets $2400 back.   

One night plaintiff SSMDofS got drunk, had some friends over, locked the defendant out, and defendant had to crawl in through the doggy door.      Plaintiff SSMDofS wants money for having to get a lawyer when the police did their duty, arrest the heifer for domestic violence, and defending herself against a restraining order.   I've seldom seen a plaintiff more deserving of having a permanent restraining order against her, and have her parental rights severed to that poor little kid she spawned.  The look on JJ's face at the video is amazing.    Where this loser videos the assault on the defendant while he is holding the baby.    The way she went after the defendant punching at him could easily have severely injured the baby.       The plaintiff is actually proud of her actions.   I suspect there is a good reason that the defendant was locked out, and her friends were there, and a video camera was going for the entire assault, and I bet she wanted to set him up for an arrest.       Nothing for anyone except the grandpa of Satan, so he gets $2400, and she gets nothing.  Defendant is a fool if he thinks she'll ever be a good mother to that poor kid, and ever stop being a total pain.

 

Puppy Death Drama-Plaintiff owners blame the puppy breeder for the death of a German Shepherd.    Plaintiffs paid $500 for the puppy.      However, after the puppy died defendant posted the remaining puppies as German Shepherd/Lab mixes.    A bargain price for a puppy, isn't a bargain at all, as the plaintiffs found out.     Plaintiff claims puppy had parvo, but vet says puppy didn't have that at all.    Plaintiff also had parvo tests on the rest of the litter, and the tests were all negative.     I agree with the judge, a few vets over-treat, and I think this puppy either had a virus, or the idiot plaintiffs fed him something he shouldn't have, and I bet they switched his food out too, which can have horrible consequences.    Plaintiffs get $500 back for the puppy, since it wasn't a pure bred.    The staff will contact other owners of the puppies to see if the puppies are sick or not.  Plaintiffs spoke to three owners, and both plaintiffs look like they're sad the puppies are okay.        The other puppies were fine, so the whiny plaintiffs get the money for the puppy, but no vet bills, which were $3,000.    Like everyone these days, they couldn't afford the puppies treatment, and set up a Gofundme page.  

 

Lightning Strike Strife-Air conditioning repairman sues old hag defendant over insurance payment on air conditioning repair.    Lightning strike on heat pump, plaintiff gave an estimate for $6900, she submitted the claim to her insurance company, and they paid the entire amount.   She only paid the repairman $3000, and she pocketed $2300 after the deductible.      Repairman gets a well deserved $2347, but the check from the insurance deducted her $1500 deductible, so the a/c man was screwed over.     I hope the old bat's insurance company saw this, and every workman within a 100 miles of Atlanta puts her on the refusal of service list.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, funky-rat said:

You can buy a little mesh cup from Keurig and put your own coffee in.

Yes, you can. I have one but I'm also too lazy to use that. I get the K-cups at my local grocery - 30/14$.

I didn't see persnickety exhibiting wanna-be lawyer as a serial killer type. More of an exaggerated Mr. Belvedere.

Thanks, CrazyInAlabama. I now know which eps to skip. I think I actually hate the people who financially support the scumbag BYBers more than I hate the puppy peddlers themselves. No excuse for ignorance these days. I guess "I want what I want and I want it NOW", is the bottom line.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

So re-run today.  Two Old Bitches screw over AC repair dude.

Old Bitch #1 (homeowner) has AC hit by lightning.  Hires AC dude to repair.  SIGNS his bid for $6900.  She files insurance claim and ultimately receives $5300, but gives repair guy only $3000.

Old Bitch #2 (JJ) reams her out while bragging about law degree, etc.  So. Finally gives AC guy another $2300.  

Here's the rub, AC guy is still getting shorted the last $1600.00 because that's the deductible.  That is a legitimate debt owed by OB#1.  When repair guy tried to ask about his remaining money OB#2 denies and gives him the bums rush.

So OB#1 smirks on the way out because she still managed to screw AC dude in the end.

That chapped my ample ass!  Does OB#2 have any idea how insurance works???  Dude legit earned that money.  I hope he put a lien on OB#1's house for balance.

OB#2 is such a hypocrite.  Constantly harping about people getting A JOB, but having no trouble jacking a blue collar professional out of his money.  It's not the first time someone drew up short because either A, she knows squat about how things work and/or B, she has disdain for everyone in the trades.

Aaargh.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Does OB#2 have any idea how insurance works???

It's not the first time she rules along those lines, forcing the contractor to eat the deductible. She may have gone to law school, contrary to most of us lowly peons as she reminded OB#1 during the case, but she obvioulsy needs a refresher course in insurance law and claims procedure.

 

22 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I actually admired Mr. Sluka for his organizational skills - there's nothing worse than litigants shuffling through piles of paper when JJ asks for something simple like a receipt (I notice that lots of people these days have Post-Its on their paperwork, so I'm guessing the assistants at JJ are helping them mark their stuff, cos most of them don't seem too organized in their personal lives.

I did appreciate that he organised his evidence so we were spared the constant shuffling and reshuffling of papers so many litigants go through, probably failing to notice the salient document at least once before they locate it, but he was another example of someone making questionables choices and then feeling a compulsion to come on national TV to let the world know all about them.

Even more annoying than the shufflers though are the litigants who come on and say "yes, I do have that document or piece of evidence... just not here". Bloody idiots.

Sometimes they say that they were notified of the countersuit too late for them to have time to gather the relevant evidence. How long in advance do they get notice of a counterclaim (or of an amended claim)? They make it sound as if they were informed only the day before, or is it nasty of me to suppose that in many cases they did not even bother to read the documentation that the show sends them or are simply unable to understand it?

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

 "She may have gone to law school, contrary to most of us lowly peons as she reminded OB#1 during the case, but she obvioulsy needs a refresher course in insurance law and claims procedure."

I don't believe what  OB1 did  in stiffing the AC repairman  was insurance "fraud".  In my experience with insurance claims for hail damaged  roofs, the adjuster/inspector  will come out determine the damage and  the estimated cost and then give you a check for 50% of the repair  cost minus your deductible, then when the job is done you get a check for the remaining 50% made out to you and your mortgage holder who will want proof the repair was made before they endorse the check.  You are perfectly in your rights to pocket the first check and not do any repairs (you may be in violation of your mortgage  contract in not maintain the house),  the insurance  company keeps the remaining 50% and will not honor any future claims resulting from not making the earlier repairs such as not repairing the roof which then leaks.  Fraud would be if OB1 intentionally damaged her old AC unit and then put in a claim or submitted bogus high repair bills.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jww said:

I don't believe what  OB1 did  in stiffing the AC repairman  was insurance "fraud".  In my experience with insurance claims for hail damaged  roofs, the adjuster/inspector  will come out determine the damage and  the estimated cost and then give you a check for 50% of the repair  cost minus your deductible, then when the job is done you get a check for the remaining 50% made out to you and your mortgage holder who will want proof the repair was made before they endorse the check.  You are perfectly in your rights to pocket the first check and not do any repairs (you may be in violation of your mortgage  contract in not maintain the house),  the insurance  company keeps the remaining 50% and will not honor any future claims resulting from not making the earlier repairs such as not repairing the roof which then leaks.  Fraud would be if OB1 intentionally damaged her old AC unit and then put in a claim or submitted bogus high repair bills.

It's not fraud, at least in my state.  I bumped a person at my old job in the parking lot.  She was parked illegally and I put a very small scratch on her old hoopty beater car.  I offered to have it fixed for her, but she demanded it go through my insurance.  She never fixed the car, but she cashed the check.  I went to my insurance and they said that she's not required to fix the car by law.  And it didn't matter that she was parked illegally either, unfortunately for me.

Less than a year before I got rid of my beater car, someone hit me in an ice storm.  I didn't know if the car had hidden damage, so I took her insurance info, and they examined my car.  Next thing I knew, I had a check.  I took it to two body shops and they laughed at me, and said "don't bother" (the car had rust, etc) and they were afraid to even attempt to taking the fender apart.  So I admit to keeping the $300 (no hidden damage - just a scratch and small dent) in that case.  My insurance company told me I was legal to do so, and they agreed it was not worth fixing (and was shocked her insurance paid out).  But what the P did in that case was terrible.  That was thousands of dollars, and they did the work and she stiffed them.

Edited by funky-rat · Reason: A bumper is not a fender
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

doesn’t JJ usually say “you loaned him X and he never paid you back so you loaned him Y?  Sorry, you’re an idiot.  You knew you weren’t getting that money back.”  I mean C’MON

YES. My DH and I were both saying this as the case went on. Jeebus Christmas. What reasonable expectation would you have of being paid back after the 4th "loan"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It may not meet the legal definition of "fraud" in some jurisdictions, but the fraud aspect was not the main reason I was disgusted by OB#1's behaviour and JJ's ruling. The contractor had provided a legitimate estimate, which was accepted. This means that the defendant had the obligation to see that he got paid that amount,  both with the money paid by the insurance company and out of her own pocket to make up the difference resulting from to the deductible.

He did not "agree to do it for 5 000 $" as JJ said dismissively; he did work which was worth the full amount of his estimate but got stiffed by OB#1 and OB#2. The defendant probably had the right to not have the repairs made and pocket the money, accepting to live with the consequences of living without AC. But as soon as she let him do the repairs, he was allowed to collect the full amount. JJ does not seem to know how insurance claims work. Unless there was somewhere in the file a notation that the did agree to do it for 5 k$, but I doubt a contractor would be stupid enough to do that.

JJ's ruling also had the collateral effect of enriching the defendant since the amount for the deductible was not paid out of the awards kitty, which left a bigger sum to be split amongst the two litigants. If he had been awarded the rest of his estimate, that would have reduced substantially the sum OB#1 got for her appearance on the show.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Frightened Mother's Telling Texts (woman claims she was scared for her and kids's lives by ex, his texts tell it differently).  Man who was desperate to move (previous place condemned) so he moves in with defendant, and her kids, she was already behind on rent.    $895 was rent of house for month.     I'm guessing plaintiff is a Sainted Single Mother (SSM).     They had a kerfuffle, and plaintiff was removed by police, after defendant told police p. threatened her.     Police escorted him out, and only let him get some personal belongings, and not his electronics, and furniture.    The plaintiff paid by check, and has copies.   Defendant claims plaintiff's cancelled check was $895 was actually hers, and she gave it to him-what a stupid fool the defendant is.

Defendant conned landlord into giving plaintiff eviction notice in February, but they were still sleeping in the same room through 22 February.     Am I the only person on Earth that doesn't have a huge TV?     He gets his sound bar (I guess for the TV), intake he doesn't get, and some other stuff that I don't have a clue what it is.  Apparently, when ho defendant moved out of the house (my guess evicted), she dumped his stuff on the porch, and it was stolen.      She also had a restraining order against him, and she claims she was terrified of him, but she was sending him messages on Facebook at the same time.   She is such a schemer.  And if she has extra money, she should give her mother money for dentures, by the way this is what meth does to your teeth.     She posted on his brother's facebook a taunt about finding her, and that's pretty stupid of someone who is in fear of her life.     

 

Defendant owes Plaintiff $895 for rent.    1218, owed by defendant, plus $300 for something else= $1,518 for the plaintiff, 

 

Bed Rest Made Me Do It (missed car payments because she was ill)-Defendant buys car, aunt purchased it, and defendant claimed she would pay for it, and d. didn't pay for it and it was towed.   To get car back d. had to pay $1400 to get it back.      Then defendant didn't pay after that, car was repossessed at plaintiff Aunt's call to the bank, car was sold at auction, and there was a $9,000 shortfall.    By the way, when the tow company is call something like repossession, it wasn't just towed, it was repo'ed.     Defendant got the car back, then aunt repo'd from her, and had it towed back to the finance company on January 10, after the police report.     The aunt was stupid to trust the niece, and her credit is trashed by this.     Niece owed well over $1,000 with 2 months payments, and fees when it was repo'ed.   Defendant's insurance is over $400 a month, and claims she didn't pay for the insurance either.    The defendant niece is a total liar. 

Plaintiff gets $ 5000 paid to Capital One. toward the shortfall of $9558. 

 

Worst Teen Driver Award- Idiot defendant teen is being sued by plaintiff for car wreck caused by defendant.    It took quite a while for plaintiff to track down the defendant, and idiot defendant was driving without a license, but drives constantly.   Defendant changed lanes without looking, and hit plaintiff, but was in the left turn lane, and changed to straight ahead lane, and hit plaintiff.     Phone number the defendant gave was wrong, and it took two months to get the defendant's information, and track the loser down.     Defendant didn't  pass the driver's test.     Father of defendant is as stupid as his idiot son.      Plaintiff gets over $1900.        

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Worst Teen Driver Award- Idiot defendant teen is being sued by plaintiff for car wreck caused by defendant.    It took quite a while for plaintiff to track down the defendant, and idiot defendant was driving without a license, but drives constantly.   Defendant changed lanes without looking, and hit plaintiff, but was in the left turn lane, and changed to straight ahead lane, and hit plaintiff.     Phone number the defendant gave was wrong, and it took two months to get the defendant's information, and track the loser down.     Defendant didn't  pass the driver's test.     Father of defendant is as stupid as his idiot son.      Plaintiff gets over $1900. 

What a maroon!  Did you notice he used the term 'lane-switching'?  Like that is really a thing?  I know what that means; that is when you see an idiot slaloming down the freeway in and out of all the lanes, passing everyone because he is entitled to it!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Sluka is going to make the website I use to buy my exhibit stickers start requiring customers prove their credentials, because right now, any Joe Schmo can go on there and order a bunch. Hey, those $7 packs last a long time! (And when I go in to do my taxes and the accountant gives me some side-eye when I tell him I spent $14 on exhibit stickers last year, I make him put it down because it's a legitimate business expense, dammit.)

 

Costco sells K-cups by the case, and Christmas Tree Shop also sometimes has some great deals on them. Just make sure to check the expiration dates with the latter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

There's a local bargain place that sells K-cups in huge boxes (I guess for offices?), and all kinds of huge amounts of odds and ends.    However, I went in there once, and the K-cups looked old enough to vote.

 

I hated that little twerp without a license.    His father was even worse, "he has to drive to work without a license, because it costs too much for Uber"-tell that to the next person numb-nuts runs into, and that person isn't as law abiding as the plaintiff, and beats the living snot out of the little twerp.  I hope there's a video too, and I would love to see it.       I wonder how long it will be before Cuadro (?) Jr runs over some kid, or someone else, and daddy is telling people why the little cretin has no insurance, no license, and is totally justified in leaving the scene.  I know it's going to happen.  I hope daddy's insurance company saw this episode also, and cancelled his insurance, and he has to go to one of those high risk pools, or alternative insurance for bad drivers (like The General), and that will cost him thousands.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I hated that little twerp without a license.    His father was even worse, "he has to drive to work without a license, because it costs too much for Uber"-tell that to the next person numb-nuts runs into, and that person isn't as law abiding as the plaintiff, and beats the living snot out of the little twerp.   I wonder how long it will be before Cuadro (?) Jr runs over some kid, or someone else, and daddy is telling people why the little cretin has no insurance, no license, and is totally justified in leaving the scene.  I know it's going to happen.  

Wasn't this in Orange County?  LA?  I KNOW they have buses there!  WTF?  Uber?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, funky-rat said:

It's not fraud, at least in my state.  I bumped a person at my old job in the parking lot.  She was parked illegally and I put a very small scratch on her old hoopty beater car.  I offered to have it fixed for her, but she demanded it go through my insurance.  She never fixed the car, but she cashed the check.  I went to my insurance and they said that she's not required to fix the car by law.  And it didn't matter that she was parked illegally either, unfortunately for me.

Less than a year before I got rid of my beater car, someone hit me in an ice storm.  I didn't know if the car had hidden damage, so I took her insurance info, and they examined my car.  Next thing I knew, I had a check.  I took it to two body shops and they laughed at me, and said "don't bother" (the car had rust, etc) and they were afraid to even attempt to taking the fender apart.  So I admit to keeping the $300 (no hidden damage - just a scratch and small dent) in that case.  My insurance company told me I was legal to do so, and they agreed it was not worth fixing (and was shocked her insurance paid out).  But what the P did in that case was terrible.  That was thousands of dollars, and they did the work and she stiffed them.

I doubt it's fraud either.  It's an insurance settlement.  It's probably no less a fraud than the insurance company settling for a lesser amount than it will cost you to replace your totaled automobile.  The real injustice is that the old bitch still managed to screw the tradesman out of her $1,500 deductible that he earned and that she's obligated to pay.  BTW, did anyone else notice that her turkey neck looked like a certain part of female anatomy?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This case with the 17 unlicensed drive was a total waste of time.  He looses for anyone ONE of the following reasons: 1.) No driver's license. 2.) No insurance 3.) Failuer to yield the right of way 4.) Changing lanes in an intersection.  The only mystery here is why we wasn't at least ticketed if not even arrested.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

This case with the 17 unlicensed driver was a total waste of time.  He looses for anyone ONE of the following reasons: 1.) No driver's license. 2.) No insurance 3.) Failure to yield the right of way 4.) Changing lanes in an intersection.  The only mystery here is why we wasn't at least ticketed if not even arrested.

I've noticed the trend of people with no insurance lately.  The solution to this is so obvious that I'm at a loss as to why we don't do it:

1.  Forget about paper insurance cards.  When a person is pulled over or in an accident, have the police access an insurance database that shows them in real time if the car is insured.

2.  If there is no insurance, that person is not driving home.  They call a tow truck and impound the car.

If an ignoramus like me can figure this out, why can't people like Judge Judy get this done?

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, TheLastKidPicked said:

If an ignoramus like me can figure this out, why can't people like Judge Judy get this done?

A small city close to me has a scan gun that looks like a radar gun.  It accesses the state (Tx) insurance data base and lets them know on the fly.  Probably wildly expensive.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

A small city close to me has a scan gun that looks like a radar gun.  It accesses the state (Tx) insurance data base and lets them know on the fly.  Probably wildly expensive.

And here is the solution to that:  Use the money from no insurance tickets to pay for the radar guns.

To put a finer point on it:  We don't have to watch Judge Judy for very long before we notice that certain cases come up over and over, such as people running around with no insurance.  If we see this so often on Judge Judy, then it makes sense that in courts around the country they are dealing with the same thing over and over.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, TheLastKidPicked said:

And here is the solution to that:  Use the money from no insurance tickets to pay for the radar guns.

As my Dad says: "There you go, trying to apply logic to government again.'

I bet JJ & JM have saved me $$$ over the years as I watch for hooptys and drive waaaay away from them.  Of course, I also pay $15. mo extra for uninsured coverage.

Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

If you are in an accident or pulled over in my town, Tucson, AZ law enforcement can look in the computer and see if you are insured. If the answer is no your vehicle will be impounded. Unfortunately there might be an issue with that due to single sainted mothers who cannot afford insurance and how can they be abandoned by the side of the road...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

Official notice that the topic of Sean DeMarco is off limits. If you have 1-on-1 thoughts to complete please take it to PM with each other.

If you have questions, contact the forum moderator @PrincessPurrsALot.  Do not discuss this limit to this discussion in here. Doing so will result in a warning. 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×