All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Only because it has been bastardized in the vernacular.  Pretty soon we will all be abbreviating words and eliminating consonants in daily speaking.

SMDH.

My husband and I were conversating and I said the exact same thing.

[Silver Raven]

8 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Only because it has been bastardized in the vernacular.  Pretty soon we will all be abbreviating words and eliminating consonants in daily speaking.

SMDH.

Dictionary.com says the noun version comes from the 1250s.

[Brattinella]

Yeah, I saw that.  I just don't believe it, and common usage is NEVER as a noun.

[AngelaHunter]

Slow catching up here. Just watched the plumber suing the defendant for the price of a car he wanted. I just can't believe that a mature man like the plaintiff would hand over thousands of dollars in cash (that he had to borrow from his landlord!!) to some goofball neighbour he's known for a few months. That does not compute. Are people getting dumber, or were they always this dumb but we just didn't know it?

[SRTouch]

57 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Slow catching up here. Just watched the plumber suing the defendant for the price of a car he wanted. I just can't believe that a mature man like the plaintiff would hand over thousands of dollars in cash (that he had to borrow from his landlord!!) to some goofball neighbour he's known for a few months. That does not compute. Are people getting dumber, or were they always this dumb but we just didn't know it?

I just wonder how the defendant gets these people, the plaintiff, his witness and the others he supposedly scammed, to trust him. From his appearance and demeanor in court I sure wouldn't trust him with money. And, what qualifications does this unemployed tow truck driver on disability have to pick out vehicles at an auction. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

And, what qualifications does this unemployed tow truck driver on disability have to pick out vehicles at an auction. 

None! But that didn't matter to plaintiff, who obviously trusts and believes every word of some guy on his street. Plaintiff's witness may have at least the excuse of a language barrier (or not) but still it seems many people are just begging to be scammed. Def. used plaintiff's money to pay bills. And why not? There's more where that came from.

[AuntiePam]

The HSA case pissed me off.  Dad gives ex-wife a medical card to use for their 17-year-old daughter's medical expenses.  He sued the Ex, claiming that she used the card to pay for their 28-year-old daughter's bill.  Daughter says that dad gave her the 3-digit security code for the card, so she used it. 

Dad says no, he never gave her that code.  Daughter had no proof -- says she got the code in a text and she doesn't have the text.  JJ tells dad he has to sue the daughter, since she's the one who fraudulently used the card. 

I suppose that's the right decision, but the Ex is getting off scot-free and the dad is never going to sue the daughter.

And didn't JJ say that the daughter had to sign her mother's name to get the bill paid?  So if mom's signature is on the forms, then mom is the one who needed to be sued.

Edited December 5, 2016 by AuntiePam

[configdotsys]

Did anyone else get a new person doing the voiceover describing what the case was about today? There was a different voice and then the "You are about to enter the courtroom..." was obviously the standard recording of the original voice. 

[Spunkygal]

British Sideshow Bob made an appearance today!

[configdotsys]

3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

The HSA case pissed me off.  Dad gives ex-wife a medical card to use for their 17-year-old daughter's medical expenses.  He sued the Ex, claiming that she used the card to pay for their 28-year-old daughter's bill.  Daughter says that dad gave her the 3-digit security code for the card, so she used it. 

Dad says no, he never gave her that code.  Daughter had no proof -- says she got the code in a text and she doesn't have the text.  JJ tells dad he has to sue the daughter, since she's the one who fraudulently used the card. 

I suppose that's the right decision, but the Ex is getting off scot-free and the dad is never going to sue the daughter.

And didn't JJ say that the daughter had to sign her mother's name to get the bill paid?  So if mom's signature is on the forms, then mom is the one who needed to be sued.

I just watched that case today and it pissed me off too. JJ seemed hostile to the plaintiff for some reason. I wondered if there was something we were not shown. I found it quite bizarre when JJ shot down anything the plaintiff said. He showed her a receipt or something with mom's email address and name and JJ said something like, "If your daughter used the card, she would have signed your wife's name because she was the one able to use the card" as if that is why mom's name was on the receipt. What? And then she just took the daughter at her word about the texts when she was unable to produce them. Very not-JJ. The father kept saying something about having given the daughter $6k that month. He seemed very sincere and I thought he was trying to show that it was not a matter of not wanting to give money to his kids, but he did not want to get in any hot water by using HSA funds in his account for unauthorized use, which is exactly what it was if his 28 year old daughter used them.

[configdotsys]

59 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

British Sideshow Bob made an appearance today!

JJ treated that guy like she treated a couple once who said a tenant trashed their house. She seems to have it in for well off landlords that sue long time tenants for damages. In the couple case, she made a big thing about how much profit they made over the lifetime of the tenancy. In this case, she just had no tolerance for the plaintiff at all. Oddly, we were not shown the pictures or bills and were just supposed to take her word for the fact that the "damage" was really just normal wear and tear. Then why not let us see the pictures?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Ya'll, the 'MEE-MEE' lady is on right now.  "This is a MEE-MEE. I did not start this MEE-MEE, I did not make this MEE-MEE." I'm pretty sure I'm older than she is, and I'm aware that the word is meme. FFS.

[AuntiePam]

10 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

JJ treated that guy like she treated a couple once who said a tenant trashed their house. She seems to have it in for well off landlords that sue long time tenants for damages. In the couple case, she made a big thing about how much profit they made over the lifetime of the tenancy. In this case, she just had no tolerance for the plaintiff at all. Oddly, we were not shown the pictures or bills and were just supposed to take her word for the fact that the "damage" was really just normal wear and tear. Then why not let us see the pictures?

Exactly.  The owner explained that the house was on the historic register, and AFAIK, when repairs are made to those houses, the repairs are supposed to be done with materials from that time period.  The rent on the place was what? $3850?  So it's not a dump, and the reason for the $5,500 security was because of the high cost of standard repairs. 

Now maybe the rest of the stuff on the landlord's list was minor, like the fireplace brick, but we'll never know.  He had a list and he had receipts for the repairs, and those may have been over and above the $5,500 security deposit, but we'll never know.

The guy had his shit together and I don't think JJ liked it.

[BubblingKettle]

9 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

JJ treated that guy like she treated a couple once who said a tenant trashed their house. She seems to have it in for well off landlords that sue long time tenants for damages. In the couple case, she made a big thing about how much profit they made over the lifetime of the tenancy. In this case, she just had no tolerance for the plaintiff at all. Oddly, we were not shown the pictures or bills and were just supposed to take her word for the fact that the "damage" was really just normal wear and tear. Then why not let us see the pictures?

I thought it was ridiculous when she waved off the plaintiff's claim that the door was ruined by someone who "shouldered" it open. She said that he had no idea, and it was probably just regular wear and tear. He said the photos backed up his statement, and she shut him up quickly. Meanwhile, we didn't see any of the photos. I'm pretty confident that I'd be able to tell the difference between a doorframe that has been forced open and a doorframe that is showing normal wear and tear. I don't think the plaintiff was trying to scam for money to renovate the whole apartment -- I think he just wanted his tiles and his door replaced!

[Rosemadder]

I also thought the HSA gentleman was poorly treated all the way around...and even after he gave the ungrateful 28-year old daughter $6,000, she said in halterview he just wasn't the father he should be.  She & her mom should be prosecuted for insurance fraud. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Spunkygal said:

British Sideshow Bob made an appearance today!

And looking as though he had to battle his way through a wind tunnel to get there! Bob - there are these things called "combs."

4 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"This is a MEE-MEE. I did not start this MEE-MEE, I did not make this MEE-MEE." I'm pretty sure I'm older than she is, and I'm aware that the word is meme.

Oh, I remember the first time I saw that and was baffled, wondering what in hell a "meemee" is. IIRC, what she showed wasn't a "meemee" at all, but just a poster/ad type thing. Not only she can't pronounce it, she doesn't even know what it is.  I fell asleep this time and missed that part. Is this the little Minnie Mouse who "don't work?" (as def. said) She sponges off her mommy, who does work, and lives on her child's disability money. That one?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Is this the little Minnie Mouse who "don't work?" (as def. said) She sponges off her mommy, who does work, and lives on her child's disability money. That one?

No, this was a different woman. She was suing the defendant because he was supposed to help her with some charity thing, like a GoFundMe for her son, who was sick. I think. I know that she looked about three and a half feet tall, but I got so distracted by MEE-MEE that I lost the plot of her case.

On that note, how often do they air reruns? Because I know from reading here that MEE-MEE Woman has been on at least once, but shouldn't they be having all new episodes?

[califred]

This was my first go with Me Me woman.  I do believe she said her Mom supports her and her kid gets disability.  Fundraiser was for a family members kid.

 

its too bad we didn't get to see the pictures in the rental case.  I always wonder how much of the cases they edit out.

[Sarcastico]

Quote

I will be haunted by tomorrow's face-tat lady! What was that shit going on on the right side of her face? Did she have someone tattoo a beard on her cheek?!

I thought that it might have been a rather unfortunate birthmark.  Perhaps it was so large it couldn't be safely removed?  Maybe her piercings and tats were an attempt to deflect attention from it.

[AZChristian]

The new episodes were in November - sweeps month.  Now we're back to the land of reruns because nobody official is watching.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

I also thought the HSA gentleman was poorly treated all the way around...and even after he gave the ungrateful 28-year old daughter $6,000, she said in halterview he just wasn't the father he should be.  She & her mom should be prosecuted for insurance fraud. 

And I'm just going to say it. . . nobody who is 28 years old should expect her daddy to pay her medical expenses with her HSA card. Get a job, get a loan, given up your Iphone. . . act like an adult. She's not a kid in college.  Ms. Special Snowflake could have gotten herself a plan under the ACA and paid her own insurance. I was particularly irritated because she was insinuating that her father wasn't a good father (after he loaned her $6000) saying he could "be the father he should be (I'm paraphasing, but it was some nonsense like that).  If your dad was a crummy dad, then don't borrow money from him.

Quote

I thought that it might have been a rather unfortunate birthmark.  Perhaps it was so large it couldn't be safely removed?  

There's apparently make-up that covers big old birthmarks completely - I've seen it on those infomercials while flipping the channels. 

Quote

British Sideshow Bob made an appearance today!

Was this the landlord that looked like a well aged Garth? (from Wayne and Garth). I pegged him as an ex-rocker right off the bat. Still apparently making music. http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/automatics1

[SandyToes]

Oh, good heavens!!  Anyone else getting the rerun with the "heart attack can't work but only makes more and more babies" case??  Goofy wife (another certified nursing assistant. Sigh.) won't let him sell car to pay child support (which he didn't know he owed?!) because it is tied to a murder?? Hit the record button because I'm going to have to go back and rewatch this.  Man.  You can't make this stuff up. I can't even think how to recap it for those of you who didn't see it, because it was just too flipping crazy. 

[califred]

I remember the murder car from last time.  It's only 10 am here so I have many hours until JJ

[vibeology]

2 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

And I'm just going to say it. . . nobody who is 28 years old should expect her daddy to pay her medical expenses with her HSA card. Get a job, get a loan, given up your Iphone. . . act like an adult. She's not a kid in college.  Ms. Special Snowflake could have gotten herself a plan under the ACA and paid her own insurance. I was particularly irritated because she was insinuating that her father wasn't a good father (after he loaned her $6000) saying he could "be the father he should be (I'm paraphasing, but it was some nonsense like that).  If your dad was a crummy dad, then don't borrow money from him.

At 28, there should be options for her in terms of health insurance and expecting a parent to pay is pretty petty considering the way the daughter went about it could have gotten her dad in quite a bit of trouble. Still, JJ was right. She's 28 so if it was her medical expenses that were paid, she's the person who should be sued. Those bills wouldn't have gotten paid without the daughter playing along at the very least. The daughter was the one who sent her dad the text. The daughter could just as easily taken the card as had it given to her. There was no reason to sue the mom and I would imagine that was where some of the animosity came from on the daughter's side.

I also think if a parent wants to help a young adult pay for medical expenses, that's also not a bad thing, but obviously that wasn't the father's intention. Even with insurance, medical expenses can be pretty steep so a parent who wants to help, all the power to them. A parent forced to help because their child commits insurance fraud. That's a serious problem.

[Mondrianyone]

He should sue her.  But he probably won't.

Also, I don't think that $6K was a loan.  He repeatedly said, "I gave her six thousand dollars," and she never contradicted him or objected to the word "gave."

JJ dropped the ball big time on this one.  She took a lot for granted with very little proof.

[AuntiePam]

I don't believe the daughter sent dad the text..  Why would dad give her the code, knowing that she can't use the benefits? 

Two rational possibilities:   Mom filed the claim.  She admitted that she had a copy of the card, and she would have had the 3-digit code from previous claims.

Or daughter had the code from the time when she was eligible and she forged mom's name. 

[Jamoche]

Feuding former roomies - one got caught trying to pass bad checks, defendant countersues because she got arrested too. Oh, but they both pled guilty. Oops! Goodbye countersuit! They're both a couple of grifting idiots.

[Intocats]

17 hours ago, califred said:

This was my first go with Me Me woman.  I do believe she said her Mom supports her and her kid gets disability.  Fundraiser was for a family members kid.

 

its too bad we didn't get to see the pictures in the rental case.  I always wonder how much of the cases they edit out.

How did the Me Me case end? It was pre-empted here due to a press conference regarding that horrific Oakland warehouse fire.

Why does MM accept notarized letters, but JJ doesn't?

Edited December 6, 2016 by Intocats
Because pre-empted isn't "pre-emptied"! Darn autocorrect!

[califred]

He had to pay but to the Go fund me the kids Dad had set up not to her

[Guest]

9 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

And I'm just going to say it. . . nobody who is 28 years old should expect her daddy to pay her medical expenses with her HSA card. Get a job, get a loan, given up your Iphone. . . act like an adult. She's not a kid in college.  Ms. Special Snowflake could have gotten herself a plan under the ACA and paid her own insurance. I was particularly irritated because she was insinuating that her father wasn't a good father (after he loaned her $6000) saying he could "be the father he should be (I'm paraphasing, but it was some nonsense like that).  If your dad was a crummy dad, then don't borrow money from him.

THANK YOU. I was out on my own and working full time at 20 years old and have never been without health insurance coverage since -- because it was either work full time or not have insurance. My parents weren't going to shed a dime for me -- unlike Ms Special Snowflake who had coverage from her father until she was 26 and a $6,000 gift to cover her medical expenses at age 28. If she couldn't afford it, she could, as you suggested, get ACA coverage for pretty much tens of dollars a month with a subsidy. He was not a crummy parent as someone who actually had crummy parents can attest. 

Maybe I'm just super hopped up because I just got done watching that case and it was flat-out bullshit. Judge Judy has lost her ever-loving mind. All she has is the daughter's word that she got a text from the father. A text that was conveniently "lost." In any other case, she'd be all over that as some kind of missing evidence that she couldn't consider. NOT IN THIS CASE! The father wasn't some deadbeat looking for a quick handout -- he was legit concerned about getting in trouble with the IRS for using those funds for an ineligible adult child. But there's old JJ -- who didn't even know what a health savings account was -- giving him a beatdown normally reserved for scammers and schemers. I totally believe the only person who had access to that card was the ex and she gave it to the daughter to use. The whole case was disgusting and I felt bad for that poor man who can now get in trouble with the IRS AND have to deal with his shitty, ungrateful brat of a grown-ass daughter who won't secure health insurance for herself. 

GAH! 

I equally felt bad for the former 80s rocker (I thought he was cute!) who JJ also screwed over. I've pretty much had it with her. They should change the name of the show to "Judge Judy Yells at People ... Just 'Cause."

[califred]

Today I got the crazy guy all pissed Bc the neighbors trimmed his tree.  His atttde was unreal.  

 

And a renTAL  case ive never seen where Judy wasn't happy Bc she insisted the landlords kicked the tenants out.  

[Brattinella]

36 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I've pretty much had it with her. They should change the name of the show to "Judge Judy Yells at People ... Just 'Cause."

Time to retire, Judy; you just aren't earning your keep anymore.  Go live in your ivory tower and look down on us little people.

[Albino]

2 hours ago, califred said:

Today I got the crazy guy all pissed Bc the neighbors trimmed his tree.  His atttde was unreal.  

I agree that Mr. Chinese Elm Karate Chop was a dick, but JJ told him that 'your tree was interfering with their enjoyment of their property' but how would he know this?  There was no testimony from either side that the neighbors informed him of this, and asked him to trim the tree or offered to do it themselves.  Seems like the first thing a neighbor would do.  

It was nice to see Hilde the gardener again, though!

Edited December 7, 2016 by Albino

[califred]

If I had a neighbor with that attitude I wouldn't bother asking him if he'd do it either, I'd just do it.

[AZChristian]

Mr. AZC had a good question.  If the plaintiff was a black belt, why didn't he just karate chop the rake before the gardener had a chance to hit him with it?

[Bazinga]

10 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

Maybe I'm just super hopped up because I just got done watching that case and it was flat-out bullshit. Judge Judy has lost her ever-loving mind. All she has is the daughter's word that she got a text from the father. A text that was conveniently "lost." In any other case, she'd be all over that as some kind of missing evidence that she couldn't consider. NOT IN THIS CASE! The father wasn't some deadbeat looking for a quick handout -- he was legit concerned about getting in trouble with the IRS for using those funds for an ineligible adult child. But there's old JJ -- who didn't even know what a health savings account was -- giving him a beatdown normally reserved for scammers and schemers. I totally believe the only person who had access to that card was the ex and she gave it to the daughter to use. The whole case was disgusting and I felt bad for that poor man who can now get in trouble with the IRS AND have to deal with his shitty, ungrateful brat of a grown-ass daughter who won't secure health insurance for herself. 

I think that JJ assumed the father was pulling an insurance scam and got found out and was now shifting the blame for the scam he was in on, to the ex-wife.  This is purely conjecture on her part.  Why was daughter viewed as honest sans proof of the text (conveniently unavailable, as JJ always points out)?  Also dad giving the information to the daughter doesn't make sense, as her mother already had the information.  Daughter, based on appearing as mom's witness, appears closer to mom (bolstered by hallterview description of her feelings about father), wouldn't she just get the information from mom? 

In addition, daughter getting the information from dad makes him a co-conspirator and not the victim.  If daughter just said "I used the information not mom," she is solely to blame. With this version, if dad does sue daughter, he is in the wrong along with the daughter.  So even if he wanted to sue daughter her version sets him up as someone with unclean hands who can't prevail against her.  He is screwed.

JJ should have asked the plaintiff how this developed?  Did he get in trouble thus necessitating blaming the ex-wife?  If he wasn't found out, but is just worried that he will get in trouble for the insurance fraud, then he would not have given the daughter the information in the first place.  In other words, if he was essentially self-reporting the situation, he would not be the scammer. 

Why JJ totally believed the daughter is beyond me.  This opens up the situation where defendant brings someone to court as a witness who takes the blame, thus the case against the defendant is dismissed, as the plaintiff is suing the wrong person.  Plaintiff is then instructed to sue witness who confessed.  Sue witness and original defendant jumps in to say, on second thought, it was me.  Case dismissed, sue witness/original defendant. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Bazinga

[NYCFree]

18 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

I think that JJ assumed the father was pulling an insurance scam and got found out and was now shifting the blame for the scam he was in on, to the ex-wife.  This is purely conjecture on her part.  Why was daughter viewed as honest sans proof of the text (conveniently unavailable, as JJ always points out)?  Also dad giving the information to the daughter doesn't make sense, as her mother already had the information.  Daughter, based on appearing as mom's witness, appears closer to mom (bolstered by hallterview description of her feelings about father), wouldn't she just get the information from mom? 

In addition, daughter getting the information from dad makes him a co-conspirator and not the victim.  If daughter just said "I used the information not mom," she is solely to blame. With this version, if dad does sue daughter, he is in the wrong along with the daughter.  So even if he wanted to sue daughter her version sets him up as someone with unclean hands who can't prevail against her.  He is screwed.

JJ should have asked the plaintiff how this developed?  Did he get in trouble thus necessitating blaming the wife?  If he wasn't found out, but is just worried that he will get in trouble for the insurance fraud, then he would not have given the daughter the information in the first place.  In other words, if he was self-reporting the problem, he would not be the scammer. 

Why JJ totally believed the daughter is beyond me.  This opens up the situation where defendant brings someone to court as a witness who takes the blame, thus the case against the defendant is dismissed, as the plaintiff is suing the wrong person.  Plaintiff is then instructed to sue witness who confessed.  Sue witness and original defendant jumps in to say, on second thought, it was me.  Case dismissed, sue witness/original defendant. 

Theoretically this would lead to prosecutions for perjury.  The daughter specifically stated she was the one who used the card, if she were to later state she didn't, her prior testimony would Ben used to impeach her.  Same with the mother, she is currently stating she did not use the card, she can't testify later she did without committing perjury at least once.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

Why JJ totally believed the daughter is beyond me.  

Absolutely! I think there was a point where JJ said, "Well, she said you sent her the information in a text" -- appearing to scold the father like he was a crazy person who didn't remember. (Is that what they define as "gaslighting" these days?)  I think that might have been the first time JJ accepted something into evidence without there actually being any evidence to suggest it ever existed.

I don't know about anyone else either, but I never delete any of my text messages. It's part laziness, part OCD.

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

JJ should have asked the plaintiff how this developed?  Did he get in trouble thus necessitating blaming the ex-wife?  If he wasn't found out, but is just worried that he will get in trouble for the insurance fraud, then he would not have given the daughter the information in the first place.  In other words, if he was essentially self-reporting the situation, he would not be the scammer. 

 Exactly! The guy was opening himself up to one of JJ's favorite threats -- getting reported to the IRS. I mean, that man didn't strike me as someone who was in for the long con, "Hey, honey -- let me give you the CCV # to the HSA and then I'll sue you on JJ, say terrible things about you, exonerate myself somewhat, and I'll get the money back from the producers." That's nonsense. It was pretty clear the man was telling the truth and was quite urgent to prove his case but sushi lunch, peeing on my leg, who shot John, yadda yadda yadda...we're done here, case dismissed. 

[Bazinga]

1 hour ago, NYCFree said:

Theoretically this would lead to prosecutions for perjury.

Yes, perjury, true.  I didn't say someone should but someone could.  We often hear perjured testimony on JJ without any thought or effect.  Even JJ doesn't threaten litigants or witnesses with perjury prosecutions after she catches them in lies.  Would a district attorney bring a criminal case based on perjury in a small claims case?  Can, but probably wont.  Can the aggrieved party sue the perjuror?  Yes, but probably wont get much relief since the damages would be minimal (go sue the right person and recover).   

[vibeology]

I think the problem for the dad (and the reason I think JJ was right, though I do agree that she did a poor job of articulating it) is that the dad has to prove the mom did it. It seems like the mom and daughter are very close and I even got the sense the daughter still lived at home. It would have been very easy for the daughter to take the card and the code (because I'm sure the mom has it written down somewhere rather than memorized) and use the card without the mother being involved at all even if the text story was a lie. Its also possible the daughter texted the father under the guise of needing the code for the 17 year old. Who knows if the parents directly communicate or use their children to talk? The dad can't prove the mother was responsible; the only thing he had was "she had the card." JJ normally demands more than that as proof.

Its like roommate cases where one roommate blames the other for stealing something because they were the only other person living there. For JJ that isn't enough proof and this is much like that. The daughter committed fraud. Even if the mom was on board, its not like the daughter isn't responsible. She had the medical bill and she knows that she didn't pay it. No one wants to see a dad sue his kid, but the daughter was absolutely the fraudster since she got the financial gain.

[Quof]

Quote

Would a district attorney bring a criminal case based on perjury in a small claims case?  Can, but probably wont.  

No. Because this is not real court, and they are not really under oath. That spiel Byrd does at the beginning when he "swears all the witnesses" en masse?  Not real, for a number of reasons, only one of which is that Byrd has no legal standing in California to administer an oath.   

And even in real Small Claims Court, it wouldn't happen.   Prosecutors have bigger fish to fry, even if they ever became aware of the perjury. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Quof said:

No. Because this is not real court, and they are not really under oath. That spiel Byrd does at the beginning when he "swears all the witnesses" en masse?  Not real, for a number of reasons, only one of which is that Byrd has no legal standing in California to administer an oath.   

And even in real Small Claims Court, it wouldn't happen.   Prosecutors have bigger fish to fry, even if they ever became aware of the perjury. 

Wow.  I just swallowed part of my tuna fish sandwich wrong because I didn't know this. 

So in addition to not really doing anything while the cases are being heard (except of course, for completing crossword puzzles and occasionally thumbing through the already-yellow-highlighted Kelly's Blue Book) the one tiny thing he does at the beginning is essentially meaningless?  And he still takes home a hefty paycheck? 

God love him. 

[bad things are bad]

Quote

JJ told him that 'your tree was interfering with their enjoyment of their property' 

This case bugged me this time too. I have a huge maple tree on my property and the leaves don't respect the property lines, and many of them end up on my neighbors' lawns. Even if the branches were trimmed to exactly the property line, the leaves are gonna go where they go. Does that mean the neighbors have some right to trim the branches back further so they can "enjoy" their property? Leaves are just part of the price of living around trees IMO. 

I would have loved to see something showing (a side view?) where the branches ended and the property line began. 

Although the Karate Dude was a goof, he may have had a good point here. 

[jww]

Actually the Karate Dude  should have been arrested for battery  if he first touched the gardener on the shoulder without permission and was  so close to the gardener as to be threatening which could be consider assault

[Brattinella]

What?  Touching someone on the shoulder to get their attention is assault?  GAH.

[Jamoche]

15 hours ago, califred said:

Today I got the crazy guy all pissed Bc the neighbors trimmed his tree.  His atttde was unreal.  

I'm also a black belt, and we learn things like how to keep situations from escalating, how to use the right amount of force (so the whole "I'm a black belt, if I'd really hit him he wouldn't even be here" - so much eyeroll) and how to read body language. And he had the body language of someone who'd go off at the drop of a hat - or tree branch.

[jww]

The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim.

From

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

[SRTouch]

51 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

I'm also a black belt, and we learn things like how to keep situations from escalating, how to use the right amount of force (so the whole "I'm a black belt, if I'd really hit him he wouldn't even be here" - so much eyeroll) and how to read body language. And he had the body language of someone who'd go off at the drop of a hat - or tree branch.

Well, I've never been into martial arts. However, I had a couple friends who were really into them while we were stationed in Germany. I used to travel around with them to various kasernes for their tournaments and demonstration - as much to get out the the barracks and see the country as anything. Anyway, I saw enough to see that, while most of the teachers (maybe I should call them sensei) tried to teach a balanced program, there are always a few who were willing to promote students who really shouldn't be promoted. Guess what I'm saying is, someone who really shouldn't even be in martial arts can probably shop around and get awarded a black belt even though they may not really deserve it.

[ElleMo]

never mind

Edited December 7, 2016 by ElleMo

[BubblingKettle]

Lately, I have been thinking that "I don't care" has become a verbal tic for JJ. It's really getting on my last nerve. Sometimes, she delivers the line flatly and other times, she almost seems to lose control of herself while screaming it. Along with being a very juvenile and rude comment, her "I don't care" is often misplaced. For example, in today's case about the car auction, the defendant said the car broke down on the way home, and he had it towed to his mechanic's shop. The defendant then added, "But my mechanic doesn't fix BMWs," and JJ doled out her usual "I don't care." But here's the thing -- if the defendant hadn't shared that, who's to say JJ wouldn't have asked him WHY his mechanic didn't fix the car or why additional towing costs (to get the car from one shop to another) were included in the complaint? She needs to find a different way to curtail litigants' responses.