All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[teebax]

I think the law should protect people against scammers, but I also think people need to use a little common sense. I think JJ's rulings, though sometimes contradictory to her previous rulings, use a combination of law and common sense. It's one thing to loan someone money on the promise that they'll pay back when they receive money that's owed them. I wouldn't do it, especially with someone I'd been dating only for a month, but it happens. It's a whole other thing to continue to throw good money after bad money. People need to adopt a rule that the first time they loan someone money and it's not returned should be the last time they loan that person money.

 

What was particularly stupid about the plaintiff in that case was that she was taking out payday loans. Payday loans! Seriously? She was lending money she didn't even have. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever  heard of a person doing. Usually on these court shows, we see people who received a settlement or tax refund and then "loaned" all their money out to the sharks that were circling. 

 

These people need to adopt two rules. One:  Don't loan people money. Ever. If you want to gift someone money that's fine, but don't expect to get it back. The few times I've made loans to friends I've always been the bad guy when I expect to be paid back. So I just stopped doing it. I even had a so-called friend tell me I had some nerve asking her to pay me money she owned me because I'm better off than she is! Two: Never tell anyone about a financial windfall. Just don't do it. It's amazing how many friends you have when you have money as opposed to how many friends you have when you're broke. In fact, it's best not to tell people about your financial situation anyway. 

[DebbieW]

Absolutely - I'm not saying that the plaintiff isn't responsible for her own actions and that people don't need to be smart, but it just seems to open a Pandora's Box where it's ok to lie about a source of money coming in so that someone will loan you money that you have no intention of paying back.  Let's face it, not all scammers are as obvious and not all people are as willing to part with money as the litigants on JJ or TPC, but scams happen to good, honest people and this just seems to grant the scammers license to carry on.

[teebax]

Absolutely - I'm not saying that the plaintiff isn't responsible for her own actions and that people don't need to be smart, but it just seems to open a Pandora's Box where it's ok to lie about a source of money coming in so that someone will loan you money that you have no intention of paying back.  Let's face it, not all scammers are as obvious and not all people are as willing to part with money as the litigants on JJ or TPC, but scams happen to good, honest people and this just seems to grant the scammers license to carry on.

I see what you're saying. I don't think JJ follows the letter of the law, though. I think if someone owes you money and you have proof that it was a loan, your chances are better in a real small claims court than they are on a court TV show. JJ is just too all over the map when it comes to how she rules. But I think a lot of what fuels her rulings is the behavior of the party supposedly owed the money. Continuing to lend money after not being paid the first time is a big problem for JJ. As is continuing to sleep with someone who's done you wrong. 

[designing1]

Today's rerun brought us the curious case of the Orthodox Jew, the old-timey prospector, and the Mennonite. I continue to wonder in what circle these three guys became friends -- and I'm talking about a circle other than central casting.

[Intocats]

Today's rerun brought us the curious case of the Orthodox Jew, the old-timey prospector, and the Mennonite. I continue to wonder in what circle these three guys became friends -- and I'm talking about a circle other than central casting.

Word to this!

Also today in JJ rerun-land: the smarmy Brent Zapf, who siphoned thousands from his ex-GF's checking account while she was working on a cruise ship. Watching JJ toy with Zapf was like watching a cat play with a three-legged fly.

And then, Demi Moore and Robert Redford (eh, I mean Mr. And Mrs. Schwartz), of the purported "indecent proposal". The look of bitchy contempt that Mrs. Schwartz shot the ex, after he loaned her a bunch of money that she didn't repay. Heck, honey, YOU found him attractive enough to marry!

[Milz]

Today's rerun brought us the curious case of the Orthodox Jew, the old-timey prospector, and the Mennonite. I continue to wonder in what circle these three guys became friends -- and I'm talking about a circle other than central casting.

I keep missing this case!

[teebax]

And then, Demi Moore and Robert Redford (eh, I mean Mr. And Mrs. Schwartz), of the purported "indecent proposal". The look of bitchy contempt that Mrs. Schwartz shot the ex, after he loaned her a bunch of money that she didn't repay. Heck, honey, YOU found him attractive enough to marry!

She was so indignant about the prospect of having been with him. I didn't understand that, considering she'd been married to him. 

 

The cruise ship case had me begging for a JJ follow-up show. I'd seriously love to know if the plaintiff did file a police report. I'm sure she had to since she'd not receive her $5,000 verdict without doing so. I find I keep comparing JJ to the People's Court, which I only do because it's the only other court show I watch. However, one thing I like about TPC is that Harvey usually gives us an update after a case airs. Why, oh why, can't JJ do the same? 

 

I saw another old case that angered me. It had to do with a couple finding a woman's dog and, instead of locating its owner, they added it to their puppy mill. The plaintiff even accused them of mating the dog with its mother or some such. Crazy. Who finds a dog that obviously belongs to someone else and thinks, "Hey, this here dog will make beautiful puppies; let me breed it!" Of course, the dog's original owner should have had a tag and chipped it, which she claimed she didn't know she had to do.  

 

My beagle got away from its dogsitter's house. She had removed his tags when she gave him a bath and then lost them (it's why she's no longer my dogsitter.) Anyway, someone brought him to the Humane Society and they helpfully offered to let me get my dog back for a $95 donation. That's right; they were holding my dog hostage for $95. They said it was to cover their fees. Because apparently it costs $95 for them to read a chip, call me, and wait for me to pick him up ten minutes later. It was only when I threatened to come over with the police that they offered to waive the donation fee.  My point of telling this story is that if I hadn't have had him microchipped, I'd have never seen my dog again.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

Today's rerun brought us the curious case of the Orthodox Jew, the old-timey prospector, and the Mennonite. I continue to wonder in what circle these three guys became friends -- and I'm talking about a circle other than central casting.

This case always reminds me of a joke. . . "An Orthodox Jew, a prospector and a Mennonite walk into a bar. . . "

[Milz]

I saw another old case that angered me. It had to do with a couple finding a woman's dog and, instead of locating its owner, they added it to their puppy mill. The plaintiff even accused them of mating the dog with its mother or some such. Crazy. Who finds a dog that obviously belongs to someone else and thinks, "Hey, this here dog will make beautiful puppies; let me breed it!" Of course, the dog's original owner should have had a tag and chipped it, which she claimed she didn't know she had to do.  

 

 

 

They so knew that dog was the plaintiff's because they refused to have her DNA tested (which the plaintiff was going to pay for.)

 

Awful people.

[Rick Kitchen]

There was a rerun case this morning that I missed most of, but it involved shih tzus, I don't know the deal, but after JJ ruled in favor of the dog owners, the defendant said he was going to sue JJ for defamation because she had called him a charlatan.  I'd love to find out if he ever actually followed through.

[zillabreeze]

Rick you missed a classic!  Defendant started right off the bat by DRINKING THE WATER!  The dogs were advertised as free to good home, to be kept together.  Soon thereafter plaintiff saw them advertised for sale.  When she asked for dags back defendant wanted $500.00 to return.

Suing JJ for something she said on the show hahahaha!!

[teebax]

Suing JJ for something she said on the show hahahaha!!

I'm surprised that it's never happened, if it hasn't. Not that it'd be a valid suit, but we see frivolous lawsuits in the news all the time. And JJ loves to hurl insults and allegations at litigants. Outside of curse words, I can't think of anything she hasn't called a litigant at some point! Also, we've seen her accuse litigants of every type of fraud there is. I really am surprised no one ever sued her after being humiliated on national TV. The show must have some sort of disclaimer that protects her.

[MrMattyMatt]

 The show must have some sort of disclaimer that protects her.

 

I am sure they sign something and are clearly told that JJ may and will humiliate them.

[Patrizio]

I thought that JJ calling that POS a charlatan was rather charitable of her. He was just the worst type of person, to say they're going to give the dogs a home; then turn around and try to sell them. Also watched the one yesterday with the black, lesbian with a mohawk who would not STFU! Kept waiting for JJ to go ballistic on her but she must have had a big sushi lunch that day and was in a good mood. I am tired of these rental cases, I guess since she won't hear cell phone bill disputes anymore, this is what's left.

[ZoloftBlob]

.) Anyway, someone brought him to the Humane Society and they helpfully offered to let me get my dog back for a $95 donation. That's right; they were holding my dog hostage for $95. They said it was to cover their fees. Because apparently it costs $95 for them to read a chip, call me, and wait for me to pick him up ten minutes later. It was only when I threatened to come over with the police that they offered to waive the donation fee.

 

I'm not a dog lover at all, but I would have called the cops and the news media if available so everyone would know that the local Humane Society won't give a chipped dog back to their owner without a sizeable payment.

[zillabreeze]

The few times I've made loans to friends I've always been the bad guy when I expect to be paid back. So I just stopped doing it.

teebax - I've had the exact same experience. 

It's always a Hallterview Classic when the asshole that borrowed and won't repay calls the loaner "greedy or money hungry" !!!  I've heard it on both loan and landlord cases.  Aaargh. 

[DoctorK]

I have loaned money to friends a few times. I have almost always been repaid eventually. For the people who didn't pay me back, I wrote it off but never lent them anything after that. It didn't occur to me to sue them. I guess I don't fit into the court show environment.

[Jamoche]

Consumerist has been tracking for-profit colleges getting shut down, and every time they do, I wonder what the JJ litigants are going to do once they're gone.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Jamoche

[zillabreeze]

If the for profit colleges shut down, I wonder who will pay JJ's insane salary. In the Dallas market, all of the commercials are either "colleges", payday loan places or lawyers to help you get the most out of social security or your most recent fender bender. Go figure.

[DebbieW]

One of our Saturday reruns was a girl suing her former live in boyfriend.  Sorry, I know that doesn't really narrow it down.  She was suing him for rent and money she had loaned him to buy a car.  JJ gave her the speech about "living like a married couple," yada, yada.  The girl stated that for most of the life of the lease they had been broken up and living like "roommates".  JJ yelled at her about that not making sense and not being true.  She never asked the BF about it.  In the hallterview, the BF said that they had found out they worked together much better as roommates than as a couple.  The girl got nothing in rent because JJ thought she was lying.  Another instance of someone getting screwed because what they said didn't make sense in JJ's world. 

Edited July 19, 2014 by DebbieW

[zillabreeze]

Debbie, I thought the same thing about that case. JJ is really getting out of touch with the Ah-move thing!

In my younger days, I actually lived as roommates with someone that started out romantically- Twice!

When you live paycheck to paycheck, you can't just Ah-move when the mood strikes. As teebax pointed out unthread, you have one landlord sitting on your last deposit, finding first & last months rent, and then a whole slew of utility deposits and start up fees. Even someone making an honest, yet modest living is hard pressed to put that much cash together.

I guess in JJ world, "Ah-move" means to shuffle from your Manhattan penthouse to your place in The Hamptons.

Edited July 19, 2014 by zillabreeze

[MrMattyMatt]

I agree with JJ's quick "Ah-move" as it's getting old.  There have been some cases however where the people lived in places up to a year under supposedly horrible conditions.  In these cases, I would agree.  I can certainly relate to the financial burden moving causes.

[Ouisch]

Today's rerun brought us the curious case of the Orthodox Jew, the old-timey prospector, and the Mennonite. I continue to wonder in what circle these three guys became friends -- and I'm talking about a circle other than central casting.

 

 

The Rabbi-cum-Attorney-at-Large has a weird and somewhat scary criminal history, including convictions for "sexual battery involving a restrained person." How in the world he happened to stumble upon Prospector Pete who was pimping his Amish friend's abandoned truck would probably make for a good screenplay.

[Guest]

the defendant said he was going to sue JJ for defamation because she had called him a charlatan.

Or, in his words, a "Charlotte."

They so knew that dog was the plaintiff's because they refused to have her DNA tested (which the plaintiff was going to pay for.)

Awful people.

EVERYONE on that case was awful! The plaintiff could have had her dog returned (like she wanted) and then resorted to her fake crying/anguish over "trying" to make a decision whether to take the dog or the cash. What a surprise...the cash wins! Now, if someone stole my dog and I had the chance to get him back, there is no way I'd be taking $1000 instead. Hell, I wouldn't take a million.

As for the inbreeding breeders, good lord. I guess they have some familiarity with that since they seemed inbred themselves. Exhibit A: the child. Eesh. They also both seemed mentally deficient, so I wasn't surprised they were backyard breeders. That seems to be the go-to career for mental midgets.

[teebax]

I agree with JJ's quick "Ah-move" as it's getting old.  There have been some cases however where the people lived in places up to a year under supposedly horrible conditions.  In these cases, I would agree.  I can certainly relate to the financial burden moving causes.

I agree. We've seen cases in which the tenant didn't pay rent because of deplorable conditions. If you haven't paid rent in months, you should be saving up your money to a-move.

There was a case recently in which a brother was suing his sister for stealing his settlement money while he was in jail. The sister was charging him something like $1500 a month in rent for a place where section 8 was paying all but $75 a month of her rent. She was a real POS.

[AZChristian]

I agree. We've seen cases in which the tenant didn't pay rent because of deplorable conditions. If you haven't paid rent in months, you should be saving up your money to a-move.

There was a case recently in which a brother was suing his sister for stealing his settlement money while he was in jail. The sister was charging him something like $1500 a month in rent for a place where section 8 was paying all but $75 a month of her rent. She was a real POS.

 

And call me silly, but when a person shows up (like the sister in the case referenced here), saying they have no income at all, it's probably better not to show up in court in what looks like fairly expensive new clothing with a matching head doo-dad.  Especially if you're being accused of stealing almost $4,000 from your brother.

[BellaLugosi]

 

And call me silly, but when a person shows up (like the sister in the case referenced here), saying they have no income at all, it's probably better not to show up in court in what looks like fairly expensive new clothing with a matching head doo-dad.  Especially if you're being accused of stealing almost $4,000 from your brother.

 

They are too dumb to figure that out.  You don't even need the lawyer to explain how to dress for court, just watch a few law shows and you know that. 

[MrMattyMatt]

JJ always calls out the guys that wear shorts to court, but never says a word to the ladies who look like they are dressed to go out clubbing..  

[BellaLugosi]

She calls out women too. My favorite is the woman who claimed she bought her minidress in the business apparel section. JJ jumped on her before the case even got started, and she was just a witness.

[Ouisch]

JJ always calls out the guys that wear shorts to court, but never says a word to the ladies who look like they are dressed to go out clubbing..

 

I do remember a few instances where JJ told the defendant something along the lines of "if you spent less money on eye liner" and "if you took time out from styling your hair". And also there was one case where I JJ spoke what I'd been thinking since the defendant first hit her podium - "Get that hair out of your eyes!" (I'd been blowing upward to get imaginary bangs out of my eyes the entire time.)

[teebax]

I don't know if it was JJ or a different court show, but I saw a case not long ago in which a guy was suing his friend for having stolen his gold iPhone. Mind you, the iPhone was not currently working, as the coverage had been shut off for non-payment. I don't know how much those things cost, but it seems to me he'd have more money to pay for phone service if he'd spent less money on the actual phone. 

 

It's astonishing to me how bad some people are with money. We all know people who make plenty of money but are always broke. I think no matter how much money some folks have or make, they're always going to be broke. Because they're always going to be stupid with it.

[ZoloftBlob]

It's astonishing to me how bad some people are with money. We all know people who make plenty of money but are always broke. I think no matter how much money some folks have or make, they're always going to be broke. Because they're always going to be stupid with it.

 

<gets on soapbox> This is actually one reason why I tend to give JJ a pass on some of her more belligerent comments.

 

People in the US are routinely incented  by various policies and trends to behave like infants about money and you can see it in the litigants on this show. If you're smart enough to attend college, then you're smart enough to understand that your student loan money a)isn't supposed to be spent on fun things for other people and b) it will need to be paid back because its a loan. If you are an adult, over 18, and you sign a contract, you are held to it, even if you didn't read it, even if there is a verbal agreement to disregard it.  Any time you cosign a loan, you are assuming responsibility for the loan.

 

But, if you whine and moan and caterwail long enough, and act stupid, and insist you were tricked and mistreated, sometimes you get to wiggle off the hook. And it happens often enough that its worth trying and a lot of these litigants clearly don't mind the shame of being the dumbass who proudly states they signed a contract they didn't read and they need to be treated like an idiot child who can't protect themselves.

[JBC344]

Lol, the gold IPhone was from the People's Court.  I also remember the witness who got her outfit from the business apparel store.  I'm no prude but it looked like the woman was wearing a mini-slip that should of went under her business appropriate dress.  You know in a movie when a girlfriend shows up at her boyfriend's door in a long or short coat that she opens to eventually reveal she is wearing lingerie to spice up the night.  That was the scenario except in Judge Judy's court.

[Rick Kitchen]

The two guys where one of them put a car in his name for the other guy, are still friends on Facebook.  I wonder if they made up or if it was a fake case, anyway.

[Talented Tenth]

Rick Kitchen, my first instinct is that they were/are lovers as soon as the defendant said, "We bought the car".  How do you know they're still friends.  Only one Giancarlo shows up and there's nobody named Dustin in his friend's list.  No facebook page comes up for Dustin.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Talented Tenth

[Rick Kitchen]

Dustin Pestano's Facebook page is gone since I checked earlier today.  His said "I'm a chef, bitch", but it's gone now.  But Giancarlo Eiras - https://www.facebook.com/giancarlo.eiras?fref=ts I guess if Dustin Pestano is gone, he won't show up in Giancarlo's list of friends, but he was there earlier today.

 

If you look for "Dustin Pestano" in facebook, there are a LOT of pages where his name is referenced, but the name doesn't have a link attached any more.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Rick Kitchen

[teebax]

Nice research, guys. That's one of the many reasons you'd never see me on JJ. I look up litigants online, too. I'd have to go on TPC where at least they'd let me use an assumed name or only use my first name!

[Rick Kitchen]

JJ must be reading the boards.  Today she told a guy to a-move, and that's her America, and if people don't like it, they can change the channel.

[Brattinella]

God, she was just AWFUL in that episode!  Poor guy, how does a landlord get away with not fixing a busted toilet for 5 months?  Bad decision, JJ.

[Taffy]

The toilet worked. The sewer pipe to the street was allegedly broken. He didn't pay for five months. He should have had enough for a deposit and first month's rent after two months, three at most. He was a scammer. Purple Hair Lady was lucky to get him tossed in just five months.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Taffy

[Brattinella]

Still.  His toilet was emptying into the YARD?  Isn't that a health code violation and isn't the landlady beholden to fix it?

[zillabreeze]

 

Nice research, guys. That's one of the many reasons you'd never see me on JJ. I look up litigants online, too. I'd have to go on TPC where at least they'd let me use an assumed name or only use my first name!

LOL.  I'm not even on Facebook.  It's bad enough that my dogs know about my occaisional lapses in judgement.

My BFF (JJ fan) and I do play the "let's dream up a case and get a free trip game".  At the end of the day, we have decided we are waay too askeered of the JJ to follow through.

ETA- wonder how deeply the background checks are run on the participants?

Edited July 23, 2014 by zillabreeze

[teebax]

Still.  His toilet was emptying into the YARD?  Isn't that a health code violation and isn't the landlady beholden to fix it?

I think there were better ways to approach the situation. It couldn't have been that bad if he chose to stay. As discussed earlier, if he didn't pay rent for five freaking months, he should have had more than enough money to a-move. Quite frankly, two months should have been enough time, assuming the next place would require a deposit and first month's rent.

 

If he wanted to stay because he liked the place otherwise, he should have reported purple-haired landlady to the appropriate city agency and put the rent in an escrow account until the problem was rectified. Instead he took that as an excuse no to pay rent. Total scam artist.

[Brattinella]

I see your point, teebax.  I don't know why I assumed the guy HAD alerted the authorities (I guess I just think the best of people).

 

Yep, Scam artist.

 

By the way, I ADORED that shade of purple in her hair!

[teebax]

I'm assuming he didn't report it to the city because I can't think of a city that would let that occur over a long period of time. This is not because cities care about their residents but because cities love collecting fines. They would have fined her until she rectified the problem.

[Milz]

One of the repeat cases last night was Delight Wright suing her ex-lover who parked a 'tore up' 2002 Jaguar he was buying from a friend in her garage.

 

And the other was the father suing his daughter for the return of child support he paid.

[iwasish]

I'm not too ashamed to admit I did this to former boss--I got such passive-aggressive delight in hearing him bitch about the onslaught of magazines which were never ordered!

OMG my friend and I did this to a hated boss!!!! And sent "adult only" books from all kinds of book clubs to his house.

I answered the phone in the office and his wife was calling every day crying about all the stuff that was coming and they couldn't get the companies to stop sending the Book of the Month, and billing them. Not sure if he suspected me, I was pretty good at faking liking him, but he had corporate security "working on it" nothing ever happened. Eventually he quit.

I was just reaching for the remote to turn the TV off and go to sleep and I hear the announcer say:

"The plaintiff KoKo Coleman"

I chuckled my way to sleep

Edited July 25, 2014 by iwasish

[One Tough Cookie]

"The plaintiff KoKo Coleman"

Yes--that got double take from me also. I was hoping she was suing Dr. Pepper!

[Ouisch]

The plaintiff who was suing her cousin for parking her car on the street and allowing a tree to fall on it was driving me batty!! How many times did JJ need to tell her "I don't want to hear about your family history, her parole, your beauty salon...!" Plaintiff would acknowledge that she understood, then proceeded to start all over again with her long life story. She was bound and determined to let the world know that she owned a hair salon and that her cousin was a no-good parolee who was responsible for everything from the Lindbergh kidnapping to parking her car on the street.

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

I loved the fact that she talked about having several pieces of property, a beauty salon, the need for a "business manager"...yet breaks into tears at the loss of a $1000 POS car that she needed to sell to feed her family. 

 

Yup, you're a playa, you are.