All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Quof]

I'm sure she would have no problem with a woman who stays home to take care of the kids while the boyfriend goes to work.

 

 

In fact, she makes it quite clear she does have a problem with it, and expects both mothers and fathers to support their children.

[Lillybee]

Today's show where a woman is suing her tenants because their dog bit her little girl.  The woman turned the tenants' water off, even though they have a two year lease, and JJ's response was, "A-move!  Move tomorrow!"  Does she really believe somebody can up and move at the drop of a hat?  She is so far out of the scope of reality

 

 

 

 

 

What bothered me about that show was that JJ seemed to be making fun of the little 6 year old girl's name, Granted it was long and a bit unusual but compared to some of the people on this show almost normal. JJ told the child that JJ's children would have hated her for naming them something like that. She also said something about names should only have 5 letters. To me, she was being extra nasty.

[designing1]

I think she was trying to be complimentary to the little girl -- kind of a "you're so smart to be able to spell your long name" (except she's SIX, so really no big deal) -- but it came out sounding really wrong.

[Guest]

I think she was trying to be complimentary to the little girl -- kind of a "you're so smart to be able to spell your long name" (except she's SIX, so really no big deal) -- but it came out sounding really wrong.

Yeah, that's how I read it, too. She certainly lacks nuance. 

 

But I'm glad that the mother didn't get a windfall from the dog bite considering the dog acted in response to a kid it thought was going to punch him in his face. I am glad JJ didn't ask what happened to their chihuahua; I've a feeling the response wouldn't have a happy ending.

[teebax]

I think she was trying to be complimentary to the little girl -- kind of a "you're so smart to be able to spell your long name" (except she's SIX, so really no big deal) -- but it came out sounding really wrong.

I heard it that way, too. I think she came off as being nasty to the little girl but it wasn't her intention.

 

She needs to quit with her "move" business. It's certainly easier for someone like her to move than it is for most of her litigants. First you have the deposits, first/last month's rent (esp. if you have bad credit), the cost of the moving van and sometimes paying people to help you do the actual moving. Some people have to pay deposits to turn on utilities.

 

I have my house on the market and just the thought of moving exhausts me. I'm buying a house closer to my work for my sanity, but the move itself is NOT something I'm looking forward to. And I say that as someone who will be having professional movers do most of the work. It's not that easy.

[Quof]

Face it, Kaspiana is a stupid name.

[Intocats]

I loved the hipster Stern brothers of Minneapolis today. The exquisite hipster ennui on the face of the defendant's witness brother...sheer perfection! I must have missed this gem when it ran for the first time.

When Ben (?), the plaintiff, complained about the volume of his brother's girlfriend's stereo, I flashed back on This is Spinal Tap, where Nigel Tufnel's amp "went up to eleven"!!

Edited July 4, 2014 by Intocats

[teebax]

This is now the second time I've seen the case with the dental technician and the woman she didn't speak to because the other woman is "just" a receptionist. And I still have no idea what happened at the end of the case. First it was dismissed and then JJ gave the plaintiff $5,000. What did I miss?

[DoctorK]

On the dental office brouhaha, JJ had ended it with the defendant losing until she (JJ) walked back in with a Columbo-esque "just one more question" moment in which she called the defendant back and asked her if she was suing the doctor. As soon as the defendant said she was, JJ did a 180 and found for the plaintiff. I can sort of understand this, JJ couldn't see any reason why the defendant would be making this up (and perhaps inflicting her own wounds to make a better case) when she suddenly asked that question as an afterthought. With that piece of information, the defendant had good motives to exaggerate and fabricate key parts of the story to support her (multi-million dollar?) lawsuit against the deep pockets of the doctor. Like I said, I can sort of understand this, but not the way that JJ did it. Personally, I didn't trust either the plaintiff or the defendant.

Edited July 4, 2014 by DoctorK

[Ouisch]

When Ben (?), the plaintiff, complained about the volume of his brother's girlfriend's stereo, I flashed back on This is Spinal Tap, where Nigel Tufnel's amp "went up to eleven"!!

 

 

LOL - I immediately thought the same thing!! Speaking of this case, defendant Saffia Elhuraibi, who was ever so indignant that JJ didn't realize she was innocent, I tell you - innocent!, of those strong-arm robbery charges. She's a nice girl, just a victim of circumstance. Who has been arrested at least twice since this episode aired: once for violating a restraining order, and once for domestic violence.

[Jamoche]

Whoa. Dog "trainer" equates being paid to look after and train someone else's dog - which he then lost - with parking a car in an "at your own risk" lot? Dude, you expect anyone to trust you with their dog after this? And you eye-rolled at JJ. Smart move, dingbat.

[maggiemae]

I've been puzzled because I keep seeing an ad from an insurance guy for purchasing insurance to drive another's car....and JJ has always said that "is not possible." She got caught on that today and it was somewhat embarrassing since she said every lawyer learns you can't in law 101 (paraphrased). LOL, like laws never change and aren't different in different states. This case was from Calif which JJ blew off but I live in another state.

 

Although it does make some sense since I am assuming it is for collision only and not liability (although the one who has the insurance said Geico offers $1M liability with their insurance for those that drive friends and family's cars and not a registered owner of the car.

[Intocats]

LOL - I immediately thought the same thing!! Speaking of this case, defendant Saffia Elhuraibi, who was ever so indignant that JJ didn't realize she was innocent, I tell you - innocent!, of those strong-arm robbery charges. She's a nice girl, just a victim of circumstance. Who has been arrested at least twice since this episode aired: once for violating a restraining order, and once for domestic violence.

Yes! And she was arrested for "trying to save someone's dog"! Yeah, right.

I've been puzzled because I keep seeing an ad from an insurance guy for purchasing insurance to drive another's car....and JJ has always said that "is not possible." She got caught on that today and it was somewhat embarrassing since she said every lawyer learns you can't in law 101 (paraphrased). LOL, like laws never change and aren't different in different states. This case was from Calif which JJ blew off but I live in another state.

 

Although it does make some sense since I am assuming it is for collision only and not liability (although the one who has the insurance said Geico offers $1M liability with their insurance for those that drive friends and family's cars and not a registered owner of the car.

There was obviously a huge backstory to this case, but the show couldn't delve into it due to time constraints. This guy, Mr. Miller, is a network engineer with four children with his estranged wife and a new baby with the current girlfriend, and credit so bad he could only qualify on his own for a 12-14% car loan and needed to rent out his car to strangers on the weekends to make extra money? And why was his mother's boyfriend a co-defendant when he is not listed on the title of the car? JJ sure made him sit down in a hurry.

 

I would love to find out exactly what was going on there.

[teebax]

I've been puzzled because I keep seeing an ad from an insurance guy for purchasing insurance to drive another's car....and JJ has always said that "is not possible." She got caught on that today and it was somewhat embarrassing since she said every lawyer learns you can't in law 101 (paraphrased). LOL, like laws never change and aren't different in different states. This case was from Calif which JJ blew off but I live in another state.

 

Although it does make some sense since I am assuming it is for collision only and not liability (although the one who has the insurance said Geico offers $1M liability with their insurance for those that drive friends and family's cars and not a registered owner of the car.

I don't think JJ is wrong about that. I'm an insurance agent and have been for many years. You have to have an insurable interest in something in order to insure it. I think the problem is that some agents and direct writers don't do their due diligence. If someone calls them in order to buy a policy, they're not asking the necessary follow up questions to ascertain who owns the vehicle. I've never been asked to provide a copy of the registration or title in order to buy insurance. For the record, I always ask the question when a client wants to start a new policy or add a vehicle to an existing one.

Also, if there's a loan on on the car, the lienholder is supposed to ask for proof that the person who has the loan has insurance. The theory is that someone else would not have a financial stake in the car and wouldn't necessarily take good care of it. JJ's example of taking out life insurance on a legal stranger is spot-on. Otherwise, I could take out a policy on something you own, steal or destroy it, and then collect insurance on it. That's what the rule is trying to avoid.

If someone is going to buy insurance on a car that's in someone else's name, they'd better make sure there's full disclosure. Otherwise they could run into a problem if they file a claim later on. We all know that insurance companies are really good at finding excuses not to pay claims.

As for the ads you're seeing, that sounds really shady to me. I would guess they're having their clients do leaseback forms so that there's sort of an insurable interest,but that seems really dangerous to me. I wouldn't want someone else buying insurance on me or anything I own! Incidentally, Walmart had some bad press recently when it came out that they were secretly taking out life insurance on their own employees. Apparently it's legal in several states that ruled that an employer/employee relationship creates an insurable interest. I think it's bullshit. If my company took out life insurance on me I'd be furious. Walmart stopped doing it but still collects on the policies they bought before they stopped the practice.

[Quof]

 

Although it does make some sense since I am assuming it is for collision only and not liability (although the one who has the insurance said Geico offers $1M liability with their insurance

 

You CAN by liability insurance that protects you when you drive someone else's vehicle, in case you cause an accident and have liability to a third person(not the owner of the car you are driving.). What you can't buy is collision insurance on a vehicle you don't own.

[teebax]

You CAN by liability insurance that protects you when you drive someone else's vehicle, in case you cause an accident and have liability to a third person(not the owner of the car you are driving.). What you can't buy is collision insurance on a vehicle you don't own.

Correct. For obvious reasons.

[Guest]

the woman she didn't speak to because the other woman is "just" a receptionist.

I just cannot get this awful Angel McDaniel off my mind. I love how she was all to the manor born with her speaking affect and "regal" personal presentation, including the faux-hair bun on the back of her shrunken head and those tacky nail tips. At least the "just a receptionist" woman didn't speak in grammatically incorrect sentences while trying to present herself as the standard bearer for refinement and elegance.

Also, dear Angel McDaniel, honey you didn't get a degree from Harvard Law. You are a dental hygienist with a two-year community college education. Shove another donut in your mouth and call me when YOU get to decide who is and isn't beneath you on society's ladder.

[Intocats]

Angel McDaniel was a dental technician, which is different than a hygienist. Hygienists are required to graduate from a two-year college program, and some hygienists have bachelor's degrees or more. Technicians and dental assistants in many states can be trained on the job, with no education beyond high school. Certain expanded functions in dental offices will require special training or licensure.

Whatever her level of education (and I suspect it's none too high), clearly she majored in Shit Stirring.

[FairyDusted]

The only reason I knew off that 'app' is because Kathy G talked about it on her last special. Loved the look on everyones face while JJ explained that one. Also loved that Bird snatched that Geico paper straight out his hand. Bird ain't got time for that shit!

[teebax]

I just cannot get this awful Angel McDaniel off my mind. I love how she was all to the manor born with her speaking affect and "regal" personal presentation, including the faux-hair bun on the back of her shrunken head and those tacky nail tips. At least the "just a receptionist" woman didn't speak in grammatically incorrect sentences while trying to present herself as the standard bearer for refinement and elegance.

Also, dear Angel McDaniel, honey you didn't get a degree from Harvard Law. You are a dental hygienist with a two-year community college education. Shove another donut in your mouth and call me when YOU get to decide who is and isn't beneath you on society's ladder.

She was a freaking piece of work. She didn't bother to talk to the other woman because she was "just" the receptionist. I have no doubt she made that office a living hell while she was working there. I can't stand people like her. Whatever her level of education and experience is, she's not better than anyone else and is in no position to look down upon someone. By her example, the hygienist should not have spoken to her, and the dentist shouldn't have spoken to anyone else in the office.

 

Being a receptionist is a valuable asset to an organization. We currently don't have one at my company, and it drives me crazy. We all have offices, so if someone comes in, there's no one to greet them unless one of us hears the door. And don't get me started on the phone ringing off the hook. The reason we don't currently have one is because it's so hard to find a good receptionist: someone who's pleasant on the phone who can also type letters, certificates, etc. Speaking of which, Miss Angel McDaniel could not work in my office. Her terrible grammar would make none of us trust her to type our letters! I'm sure her spelling is equally atrocious. 

 

Thanks to those who explained the end of that case to me. Knowing that makes me love that JJ did that.

[poeticlicensed]

I don't think JJ is wrong about that. I'm an insurance agent and have been for many years. You have to have an insurable interest in something in order to insure it. I think the problem is that some agents and direct writers don't do their due diligence.

 

ITA. Especially companies like Geico who don't have local agents. I used Geico for many years, then switched a few years back to another company. I almost switched back a few months ago to get a better rate, albeit with different cars, but changed my mind at the last minute. Not once in the process was I asked to prove that I owned my cars. And frankly, if anyone who gets a policy under false pretenses tries to make a claim, Geico would deny it based on lack of an insurable interest, so they win either way. THey collect money and have legal grounds to deny a claim. I would think that "network engineer with too many kids" would be financialy literate enough to figure that out. But someone whose finances are so in the ditch where they can only get a loan at 14% (going rate for god credit is 0-3%) and have to rent out their car on the weekends for extra money is not on top of their finances anyway

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

You CAN by liability insurance that protects you when you drive someone else's vehicle, in case you cause an accident and have liability to a third person(not the owner of the car you are driving.). What you can't buy is collision insurance on a vehicle you don't own.

One questionably useful thing I've learned watching Judge Judy is how to circumvent the "system". Don't have a driver's license? Put the car in your friend's name. Can't get insurance? Get added to Mom and Pop's insurance (or your auntie or your cousin or your dogwalker's babysitter's stepbrother's insurance). Somebody owe you money? Use their kid as your dependent on your tax return. I could name a dozen more easily. It's always amusing to me how people can be so creative in their ways to "stick it to the system" and get their own personal ways. . . too bad they don't use it to do good instead of evil/wrong. 

[teebax]

One questionably useful thing I've learned watching Judge Judy is how to circumvent the "system". Don't have a driver's license? Put the car in your friend's name. Can't get insurance? Get added to Mom and Pop's insurance (or your auntie or your cousin or your dogwalker's babysitter's stepbrother's insurance). Somebody owe you money? Use their kid as your dependent on your tax return. I could name a dozen more easily. It's always amusing to me how people can be so creative in their ways to "stick it to the system" and get their own personal ways. . . too bad they don't use it to do good instead of evil/wrong. 

I agree. If people put as much energy into working as they put into not working and gaming the system, they'd no doubt be millionaires. 

 

(Disclaimer: I don't think that everyone who doesn't work is gaming the system, but JJ seems to have a lot of system-scammers on her show.)

[howiveaddict]

Ok, there is no page for Judge Mathis and I had to tell this somewhere.  I was watching his show last week.  A son had been bullied at school and later committed suicide.  Mother was suing father for part of funeral expenses.  Mother was sobbing.  Judge Mathis is so upset but what happened that he said that he would pay the funeral expenses hisself!  Oh, and son had tried to contact his dad to talk before he committed suicide. Dad was busy with new wife.  New wife had a bitch face on the whole trial.    This is what I like about Judge Mathis.  He really seems to  care about people.  He's also not afraid to poke fun, but in a friendly way.  Of course, many of the litigants seem even trashier than those on JJ.

 

Saw a rerun of JJ today.  Dad wanted  exwife to pay part of son's drug rehab/ psych.  JJ would not rule in his favor because he did not ask the wife to in advance.  Dad said he did not because he did not want the son to find out what was going to occur and leave.  JJ said ex wife did not have to pay because she did not have a say in the place of therapy.  Sometimes I just can't with JJ.

[Patrizio]

Just saw the one with the guy suing the woman for false arrest,(yeah, I know; which one?). Well, the one who's boyfriend is in jail for beating her 5 y/o so badly that he lacerated a testicle and said TESTICLE WAS EXPOSED. JJ kept saying to the Mom, "there's something wrong with you". On one hand I'm glad this woman was on JJ b/c all her manipulative, poor me BS is documented for posterity. On the other hand, why is this incredibly tragic (For the 5 y/o only), episode on tv in the first place? I think that this type of case does not belong on a show that's main aim is to entertain.

[Milz]

Patrizio, that was a terrible case.

 

I think cases like that one and the rape case a few years ago, are there to serve as a "Wake up" for viewers who are in similar situations or who know people in similar situations. Regarding the rape case, I can't remember the details, but the woman was beaten and submitted medical records that documented bruising of her inner thighs.

[Brattinella]

I am SO glad I missed that episode.

[BellaLugosi]

Judge Mathis will also send people to rehab if they want to accept the help. 

[Milz]

Like JJ has said she's not Dr. Phil.

 

But if that case was upsetting, don't watch Paternity Court------they drag in calendars marked with the days the mom had sex with the potential fathers.

[MrMattyMatt]

I like JJ because the cases are pretty to the point and fit my attention span.

 

On Mathis, they tend to spend 10-15 minutes talking about their sordid sex lives and all they are there for is a missing $20 bill.  He can be a softy at times, that's for sure.

[teebax]

I like JJ because the cases are pretty to the point and fit my attention span.

 

On Mathis, they tend to spend 10-15 minutes talking about their sordid sex lives and all they are there for is a missing $20 bill.  He can be a softy at times, that's for sure.

I also like that JJ gets to the point, although I think she gives a lot of cases the short shrift in her effort to be efficient. Even if she knows all the background of a case before she comes out to "hear" it, she needs to understand that we the public do not have this information. In those cases, she ends up coming off as judgmental (ha!) and rude. There have been a few cases where I'd like a little more detail, but JJ is just not interested. And I absolutely hate when dismisses counter-claims without even hearing them or giving a reason for doing so.

 

We've also seen her be nasty to litigants for no apparent reason. Sure, a lot of her litigants are gaming the system, but JJ seems to have decided that everyone is. It seems if you have the audacity to be disabled or collecting unemployment you are automatically discredited. So I take my JJ in bits in pieces. Sometimes I have to take a few months' break from her. I much prefer MM over at People's  Court. She gets through three cases in an hour fairly efficiently and rarely feels the need to berate a litigant.

 

Short version: I like JJ too, but sometimes she gets on my nerves.

[howiveaddict]

Today was case with a German? litigant.   JJ refused to use his witness testimony on  the police report saying it was hearsay.  Witness was not in the courtroom.  

Any other time she acts like a police report is the word of God.  Like police do not make mistakes.  Plaintiff lost.  He accused two girls of keying his car.  The girls practically admitted in the hallterview afterwards that they did key his car.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

We've also seen her be nasty to litigants for no apparent reason. Sure, a lot of her litigants are gaming the system, but JJ seems to have decided that everyone is.

One thing I find really interesting is that JJ is watching the litigants on camera before she comes in. (perhaps while she's reading through their files?). Not to defend her totally but there are times where I think she's been off base but she's been a judge for so long that I may not see what she does. (and of course, there's the 60 minutes doc where she was just as bitchy before her show)

[teebax]

One thing I find really interesting is that JJ is watching the litigants on camera before she comes in. (perhaps while she's reading through their files?). Not to defend her totally but there are times where I think she's been off base but she's been a judge for so long that I may not see what she does. (and of course, there's the 60 minutes doc where she was just as bitchy before her show)

I agree with you, which is why I'm still watching. It's just not as viewer-friendly when we don't know why she's doing what she does. Case in point, my post a few days ago when I didn't understand the ruling in the dental office alleged assault. Would it have killed her to say, I just realized that you DO in fact have a reason to make up this story; you're suing the dentist? That's when she frustrates me; when she doesn't explain her ruling or her hostility toward a litigant. 

[Rick Kitchen]

Today was case with a German? litigant.   JJ refused to use his witness testimony on  the police report saying it was hearsay.  Witness was not in the courtroom.  

Any other time she acts like a police report is the word of God.  Like police do not make mistakes.  Plaintiff lost.  He accused two girls of keying his car.  The girls practically admitted in the hallterview afterwards that they did key his car.

 

I don't think that's true.  She always says a police report is just the word of the person reporting to the police.

[EtheltoTillie]

Sometimes police reports are hearsay exceptions, but that's not what she's interested in.  She's interested in how the two litigants, who are in her courtroom and can be cross examined, presented their stories at the time of the incident or altercation.  In the heat of the moment, it is more likely that people will blurt out the truth, and when they have had time to reflect, they may change their stories.  So she looks to see how their courtroom story lines up with the police report. 

 

In the case discussed above, she wasn't interested in getting the statement of the out-of-court witness. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

She's interested in how the two litigants, who are in her courtroom and can be cross examined, presented their stories at the time of the incident or altercation.  In the heat of the moment, it is more likely that people will blurt out the truth, and when they have had time to reflect, they may change their stories.  So she looks to see how their courtroom story lines up with the police report.

And I do find it interesting when she calls them on changing their story since their initial statement to the show. She's not impressed for those who embellish after the fact (or just plain make up a new story). 

[Milz]

And I do find it interesting when she calls them on changing their story since their initial statement to the show. She's not impressed for those who embellish after the fact (or just plain make up a new story). 

 

As exemplified in the Kiddie kiddie car Thieves repeated last night in my area: two 12 or 13 year old boys took a kiddie car from the back porch of a neighbor. They rang the door bell and when no one answered, they "borrowed" the car, played with it, wrecked it, told their mothers they borrowed it and were going to return it, told their mothers they bought it at a garage sale. One of the moms was countersuing the plaintiff for keying her (mom's) car, as witnessed by one of the boys.

[lucindabelle]

I felt kind of bad for the guy who had a counterclaim about being made to move too soon but then I thought, you know what? Go to a real court. You accepted money to come on TV and deal with the result, you knew this was a possibility,

I used to watch people's court bc the plaintiffs are more normal but the car bender turned too son corner things bore me to tears and it seemed like there was one per episode.

[Guest]

As exemplified in the Kiddie kiddie car Thieves repeated last night in my area:

Ahhhh....one of my favorites. I was glad the poor kid on the right was exonerated by the Plaintiff in the hallterview, "He's a good kid...just fell in with the wrong crowd." He genuinely seemed to be remorseful and his mother wasn't making excuses for his behavior -- as opposed to the hateful shrew of the other future criminal she's enabling. Loved how she got all vengeful and was all, "No one's using our trampoline now!" at the end.

Oh no! No trampolining! Who will fill up your local ER now?!

[teebax]

I used to watch people's court bc the plaintiffs are more normal but the car bender turned too son corner things bore me to tears and it seemed like there was one per episode.

Ok - I'm dying to know what you meant by that sentence. I agree that TPC sometimes has boring cases. I like the auto accidents because of my profession. I'm fascinated with how different people act immediately after a car accident as opposed to later on. For the record, not a single one of my clients has ever been at-fault for an accident, in their opinions! Just like with my corporate clients who think anytime one of their employees files a comp claim it's a scam. My least favorite cases are boyfriend/girlfriend, loan/gift. I don't like those cases, regardless of which show I'm watching. But I digress.

 

The mothers in that stolen toy car case both needed some sense slapped into them. They were both insisting that neither of their children did anything wrong. Of course, they were much more emphatic about it in the hallway than they were in front of JJ. These parents are raising monsters that they've already unleashed on society. I was trying to think about how my parents would have reacted had a stolen something from a neighbor, and I couldn't even imagine because it never crossed my mind to do that. Not because I was a great kid but because I had a healthy fear of the wrath that would've come down on me from Mom and Dad if I stole. Instead of appropriately punishing their children, these two nitwits were making excuses for them. They're not doing the kids any favors. 

 

Also, I got at least six cases (in a three episode span) yesterday involving broken leases and security deposits. Did anyone else get those cases? I wondered if that was the theme of the day.

 

ETA based on the post above, it may have only been one mother that was making excuses. For some reason I thought it was both.

Edited July 10, 2014 by teebax

[lucindabelle]

I mean the cases with the little maps and the cars. He backed into me? It was his fault! No it was hers! Those cases are boring onJJ too but where are fewer of them.

JJ was wildly wrong about the branding/logo case today. So the woman did a logo, so what? It's as if I hired someone to paint my house and they left after doing the primer, am I to pay them for the primer? Uh not they didn't finish the job. I really felt bad for that poor business owner. She hired someone who did not do the job, it wasn't a question of her liking the results or not. The woman left parts of it blank.

[augmentedfourth]

Yeah, I was torn on the logo/branding case, as I was the first time it aired. I did see the woman's point about the defendant not doing EVERYTHING that was outlined in their agreement (I was only half paying attention today and I don't remember if they had a written contract or not), and I don't think JJ was really grasping everything that was going on. And the more frustrated the plaintiff got (which, again, understandable), the worse she came off. On the flip side, I wonder if there was more information in the complaint and such that we weren't privy to, because the defendant didn't seem like an incompetent lunatic and I thought there might have been a grain of truth the claim that the plaintiff was impossible to work with. I also agree that if the defendant did SOME work she should have been paid SOME money. But yeah, not JJ's finest moment. 

[Milz]

Ahhhh....one of my favorites. I was glad the poor kid on the right was exonerated by the Plaintiff in the hallterview, "He's a good kid...just fell in with the wrong crowd." He genuinely seemed to be remorseful and his mother wasn't making excuses for his behavior -- as opposed to the hateful shrew of the other future criminal she's enabling. Loved how she got all vengeful and was all, "No one's using our trampoline now!" at the end.

Oh no! No trampolining! Who will fill up your local ER now?!

He did look scared throughout the case. I hope he was "scared straight". The other one seemed to be enjoying/proud of himself too much, imo.

 

Something tells me, the only kids who use that trampoline are her own kids.

[teebax]

Yeah, I was torn on the logo/branding case, as I was the first time it aired. I did see the woman's point about the defendant not doing EVERYTHING that was outlined in their agreement (I was only half paying attention today and I don't remember if they had a written contract or not), and I don't think JJ was really grasping everything that was going on. And the more frustrated the plaintiff got (which, again, understandable), the worse she came off. On the flip side, I wonder if there was more information in the complaint and such that we weren't privy to, because the defendant didn't seem like an incompetent lunatic and I thought there might have been a grain of truth the claim that the plaintiff was impossible to work with. I also agree that if the defendant did SOME work she should have been paid SOME money. But yeah, not JJ's finest moment. 

The plaintiff did herself no favors during her testimony. JJ likes litigants to get to the point and leave their emotions at the door. I thought if she's presented her case more calmly and less like a crazy person, she might have at least gotten a portion of her money returned.

 

It's like some of these people don't even bother to watch the show before they go on.

[MrMattyMatt]

I definitely think there were more details involved in the branding logo case on the defendants side that we didn't hear.  JJ should have started with the defendant and we probably would have had a clearer picture on why JJ was acting the way she was

[pagooey]

With the logo design case, I still long to know what the random "story about an elephant" was, that the plaintiff claimed she'd received in lieu of/as part of...whatever the heck she'd ordered.

[Ouisch]

With the logo design case, I still long to know what the random "story about an elephant" was, that the plaintiff claimed she'd received in lieu of/as part of...whatever the heck she'd ordered.

I wonder about that too! It made me think that maybe the designer mentioned something about "the elephant in the room" or some such metaphor. Plaintiff perhaps took it too literally...?

[BellaLugosi]

Last night's rerun had. it. all.  The first case was a guy suing his former friend who threw a glass at his face for getting the bathmat wet. He was claiming medical bills.  JJ let him go on and on with his story. Then she asked for the doctor's report. She claimed she didn't have it. Not true. I think she did that for dramatic effect. Turns out he went to the doctor for lesions on his groin! I just wish they hadn't given away JJ yelling that in the preview. 

 

The next case is a guy who wouldn't pay back some dumb girl who gave him bail money. Except he's even dumber than her, because he and his live-in girlfriend are cheating the state of New Jersey out of welfare money. At the end he claimed that she thought they'd date, that's why she gave him the money. Then she basically agreed. Then she said her lesson was don't date any beatdead dads. BEATDEAD.

[DebbieW]

One of our Saturday morning reruns featured the woman who kept loaning her girlfriend gobs of money after being together for a month (huge down payment for a car, furniture, etc).  The defendant kept asserting that the plaintiff's spending tons of money was her "patteren" of behavior.  Plaintiff said that defendant was supposed to pay her back when she received a $5,000 check from her mother, which, of course, never came.  JJ said that the plaintiff wasn't entitled to be paid back because their contract was based on payment coming from that check and since it never came the defendant wasn't obliged to pay her back.

 

JJ says that's contract law and I would never think to argue with her about it (or drink any water), but that means that people legally get away with promising payment from their tax return, money from mom, etc, that they know is never coming and there's nothing that can be done about it.  So much of the law seems to be designed to protect the scammers.