All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Mindymoo]

Oh, I know that Lemonjello is an urban legend, as I said it was just a story going around the hospital and not a confirmed account or patient. Still amusing though.

[Talented Tenth]

It always rubs me the wrong way when Americans (particularly black Americans) are ridiculed for their names when they dare to not be followers and have something unique.  Should they be named Becky, Suzie, John and Dave?  

Edited October 9, 2014 by Talented Tenth

[Brattinella]

You would think people would want to avoid having to spell out their name EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

I knew lots of kids in school, every race, that had weird names.  Why anyone would cripple their children this way escapes me.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Brattinella

[Mindymoo]

I don't have a problem with unique. My family is Polish, and we have some very different and beautiful names in our family both here and in the old country. Shaniquas, Linithias, Lamartrices- they don't bother me one iota. (I'm stuck with Melinda, which is an old-fashioned name that I can't stand, but at least I can go by Mindy. That is slightly better.) It's when names become flat out baffling, like the mentioned Judge Judy plaintiff/defendants, such as Aquanetta, Velveeta, and Toshiba, that I start to shake my head.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Mindy McIndy

[2KllMckngBrd]

But why assume that all the names mentioned were for Black people? That, in and of itself, for me, is the prob.

 

I would never criticize someone simply b/c I don't like their name. We don't name ourselves. We don't decide that, anymore than we do our middle, or last names. We also don't choose what our initials may spell out, but here we are...

 

I didn't mention those names to embarrass anyone. They were all real, and spelled the same as I remember them. I didn't say if they were Black, Hispanic, White, or any other race or nationality. I didn't even specify whether male or female. And I dare anyone to guess correctly the ratio of female to male. Go ahead, I'll wait...

 

But while I'm waiting, I will just say that it was never my intention to offend anyone, and if I did I apologize. And if it happens again, and it probably will (I have been told I have perfected smart-assery, to quote my great grandmother), I will explain myself, and apologize again. 

 

Now back on topic. The middle of the night episode in my area is a rerun of peach cardigan lady cop vs old I Dream of Jeanie landlady. And you know how you know (type that 3x fast), you might be a Judy-aholic? I am debating whether to stay up to watch it again, or just tape it for later.  

[Guest]

The odd names that parents name their children is off-topic.  Let's get back to the show.

 

Thanks.

[6 MeowMeowBeenz]

Aren't ratings sweeps in November? Hopefully they're saving the good stuff for then. 

[Toaster Strudel]

Today we did have some poor fellow that was catapulted out of his car and landed hard on a tombstone, breaking it.  That's some bad juju right there with the netherworld, but not as ominous as if the impact of his flying body would have made a crater and he would have been buried alive on the spot.  That would have been worse, and I think the cemetery should waive its fee should something like this happen.

 

However, I don't care if the defendant  was stopped, going backwards, doing donuts, driving a monster truck or going 100 miles per hour blindfolded, it's the fault of the guy that was making a left turn on a red light.  I hope the ghosts know that, and are haunting the right guy.

 

Where in the world can you make a left turn on a red light anyway???  Not in my neighborhood!  But then again I live in a freezer.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Toaster Strudel

[Brattinella]

 

Where in the world can you make a left turn on a red light anyway?

 

When you are waiting for the traffic to pass, (halfway through the intersection), making a left turn and finally the last car passes and the light is red.

[Toaster Strudel]

But then the oncoming traffic is already stopped and often there is a 1-2 second delay before they get a green, so no chance of someone coming down at full speed limit and hitting you.

[Brattinella]

Yep.  Sorry, I haven't seen the episode yet, I was just giving my opinion on your question.

[Quof]

1.  You don't enter the intersection if you can't get out of the intersection. That means you don't enter to make a left turn if you have to sit in the intersection while you wait for oncoming traffic to clear, and end up turning on red.  You wait at the stop line, and if you don't get to enter while the light is still green, you wait until the next one.

 

2.  Where I live, you can turn left on a red, if it is the intersection of two one way streets.

[Brattinella]

Nope nope nope.  I immediately drive to the center of the intersection and stop.  Then, I go when it turns red, if not before.  I can just imagine the fury of the people behind me in line if I STOPPED at the line!

[AngelaHunter]

I think the only way to smash a car to smithereens when going two miles an hour is if one of the vehicles is a tank. The silly def. boy stood there and told really dumb lies with that dopey smile never leaving his face, but I can't really blame him. Once we heard Mommy - who is another of these amazing parents who know exactly what happened even though they weren't there - speak, I understood. Idiocy must be in one's genes.

 

This show does nothing for the reputation of lawyers. We had a lawyer, who has practiced for 20 years and charges by the hour, but didn't feel it was necessary to note how many hours he spent with a client, and who has no idea that verbal changes cannot modify a written contract. I'm sure the plaintiff told him to get lost for very good reason. On the postive side, it's always a nice change from cell phone whiners, car key-ers and parasitic baby daddies to have a professional person (no matter how incompetent) on this show, if only because their grammar doesn't make my ears bleed.

 

"Justice is not fair, " proclaimed said lawyer. Okay, then.

 

A rerun, but...Alicia. Poor, pathetic, terminally desperate, sadsack Alicia who earns 12.50$ per hour, is a SINGLE MOTHER of a 10 year old. She thought it was smart  to take out a loan for that smirking, light bulb headed, slimy creep who trolls dating sites for pitiful women who will pay his bills. I'm surprised he waited a whole six weeks or so to hit that fool up for money. Any women who is willing to buy HIS love needs mental health care.

I'm really sorry JJ ruled in her favour. When you're living on the edge and have a kid, taking out a loan for a POS and his hooptie is beyond outrageous.

 

 

 

 

[Quof]

Nope nope nope.  I immediately drive to the center of the intersection and stop.  Then, I go when it turns red, if not before.  I can just imagine the fury of the people behind me in line if I STOPPED at the line!

 

 

Dangerous, and illegal under the highway traffic legislation in many jurisdictions.  People honk at me often because I refuse to break the law just so I/they can get somewhere faster.

[2KllMckngBrd]

Have to agree w/those saying that people get caught all the time in the middle of the intersection, trying to make a left turn. If you have a left turn yield on green, it happens. I think what posters are saying is that the short delay between the "turn-er" getting the yellow to red, and the oncoming traffic getting the red should have prevented this accident. I think that both arguments apply, and are valid.

 

But I think that's where Judy's emphatic "that never happens was too strong". Most experienced drivers know that just because you have any light color, doesn't mean you don't have to have your head on a swivel, and drive defensively. I think we have all been the person who sees a car stuck in the intersection trying to make a left hand turn, when our light has turned yellow, or green. Meaning, I have hesitated before when I got the green to let a car complete their turn, and have stopped when I could have continued through the yellow for the same reason. Conversely, I have been caught in the intersection because I thought I had time to turn, and the oncoming traffic ran the red.

 

I think that Judy's lecture was correct, but her approach was wrong. She should have realized this accident would probably have been avoided by more experienced drivers. And although it is absolutely true that it was the young man making the turn who has to bear the legal responsibility, it still could have been a learning experience for both.

 

One last thing on that case. Why did both the Dad and son look like they were right out of central casting for a Scorsese movie? I would have been afraid of getting whacked by them, and just paid. And they Dad looked like Gotti's real fam. If I'm remembering correctly from Victoria Gotti's long forgotten AE reality show.

 

On that 1st case, why wouldn't the lawyer have done whatever was necessary to keep that off tv. It just made him look so bad, and shady. Of course he could have, like all folks on court shows, just not agreed to be on tv.

[QuelleC]

JJ's point was that you shouldn't venture into the intersection at all unless you are sure there's no oncoming traffic.  In a perfect world that would be true but if there are left turners opposite of you, the only way to see is to pull out.  Then the light turns red.  I do this as rarely as possible, even though cars will beep behind me. 

 

I don't think the other driver said he was ejected from the vehicle but he did hit a fence and the grave marker.

 

 

I think that Judy's lecture was correct, but her approach was wrong. She should have realized this accident would probably have been avoided by more experienced drivers. And although it is absolutely true that it was the young man making the turn who has to bear the legal responsibility, it still could have been a learning experience for both.

Perfect way to put it, and it points to the other young man driving pretty fast.  I've also been the car that slammed on its brakes when noticing someone trying to make a left turn in front of me. 

 

Many states have comparative negligence laws but I don't think I've ever seen JJ apply an 80/20 or a 90/10. She doesn't have to in binding arbitration (she makes up the rules) but I've seen her award 50/50 for a kid who handed his buddy mom's car keys. 

 

And yeah that dad was an arrogant piece of work wasn't he?  It was just that she was busy with the blond kid lying through his teeth so JJ didn't tell him QUIET!  Does it look like you're losing? 

Edited October 9, 2014 by QuelleC

[2KllMckngBrd]

Many states have comparative negligence laws but I don't think I've ever seen JJ apply an 80/20 or a 90/10. She doesn't have to in binding arbitration (she makes up the rules) but I've seen her award 50/50 for a kid who handed his buddy mom's car keys. 

 

And yeah that dad was an arrogant piece of work wasn't he?  It was just that she was busy with the blond kid lying through his teeth so JJ didn't tell him QUIET!  Does it look like you're losing? 

Thank you for bringing that up. If you are the insurance company for Gotti jr, then of course you would fight to make the other kid 100% liable. And to protect my rates from shooting up sky high, I would whoo-yay them doing it. But as Judy never hesitates to tell anyone w/in earshot, "it's her playpen". This case was tailor-made for Judy to do a 90/10 split just so Gotti jr and sr got the message that even when it's not legally your fault, a lot of accidents can be avoided by everyone driving defensively.

 

And in both new cases today basically only 1 side was required to do all the talking, and/or lying.

[teebax]

Nope nope nope.  I immediately drive to the center of the intersection and stop.  Then, I go when it turns red, if not before.  I can just imagine the fury of the people behind me in line if I STOPPED at the line!

I haven't seen the episode yet, but I do the same thing you do and would piss off everyone behind me if I didn't. Where I live (Tucson) you are pretty much expected to pull forward into the intersection. In fact, some of our intersections have lines telling you where to pull forward to. The lines are marked "Wait."  Also, we have mostly trailing left turn lights (traffic going straight gets the green light first), so if you don't pull forward, there are two to three cars behind you that won't have a chance to make the light. 

[Brattinella]

See, I still don't understand how that would work.  If you remain behind the crosswalk to wait,  do you wait until:

 

a) Rush hour is over

 

b) The people behind you finally pull you out of your car

Edited October 9, 2014 by Brattinella

[AngelaHunter]

There is no way that kid was sitting in the intersection waiting. How could he have smashed plaintiff's car so severely if he hit him from a standstill a few feet away? Momma believed that, but I don't. He HAD to have gunned the car at the corner to try and beat the light.

 

And they Dad looked like Gotti's real fam.

 

Wade IV certainly didn't look anything like Dad, Wade "Gotti" III. Must be a prestigious lineage.

[QuelleC]

 

This case was tailor-made for Judy to do a 90/10 split just so Gotti jr and sr got the message that even when it's not legally your fault, a lot of accidents can be avoided by everyone driving defensively.

Thanks 2Kll  I used to handle accident claims and comparative negligence is done all the time.  My son was in a similar accident, he was the left turner and took complete responsibility.  The kid cleaned out his entire bank account of $1,500 for the guy and totaled his own $500 car.  Tough lesson. I was smart enough to find a DMV release, he signed it then his ins co tried to sue me for him having to take a whaaambulance.  I never heard anything after I mailed the release.  In a stroke of weirdness the guy showed up on tv for being put back in jail after his 11th DWI, he'd only been out 6 mos. 

 

More on point, JJ never asked the questions I would have.  What was your speed?  What was the speed limit?  Were there any cars in front of you? Any obstructions to your view?  (If so, slow the hell down.)  How many carlengths away when you first saw the other vehicle?  Did you try to warn the other driver or brake to attempt to avoid the collision? 

In our case DWI bum fully admitted to seeing my son before entering the intersection but thought he would stop.  He had what we'd call a last clear chance to avoid the collision. To this day I can't convince my son he wasn't 100% at fault. Reasonable people have a reasonable expectation to avoid an accident. 

Edited October 9, 2014 by QuelleC

[Rick Kitchen]

1.  You don't enter the intersection if you can't get out of the intersection. That means you don't enter to make a left turn if you have to sit in the intersection while you wait for oncoming traffic to clear, and end up turning on red.  You wait at the stop line, and if you don't get to enter while the light is still green, you wait until the next one.

 

2.  Where I live, you can turn left on a red, if it is the intersection of two one way streets.

 

So I'm not allowed to enter an intersection while the light is green, if traffic is coming?  I would never be able to make a left turn.

 

I wonder if Judy ever actually drives, or does she have a driver?  She clearly doesn't understand the law.

[2KllMckngBrd]

See, I still don't understand how that would work.  If you remain behind the crosswalk to wait,  do you wait until:

 

a) Rush hour is over

 

b) The people behind you finally pull you out of your car

This made me laugh out freaking loud. I had visions of commercials for the local news saying "woman pulled out of her car, car pulled over to the side by the driver waiting behind her, and driver told not to resume driving until rush hour is over".

 

And then on Judy the next week the case of the interrupted driver suing all of rush hour for pain and suffering. Case immediately dismissed b/c Judy doesn't play that pain and suffering nonsense. Not unless a dog also bit you while you were waiting.

[Meushell]

So I'm not allowed to enter an intersection while the light is green, if traffic is coming? I would never be able to make a left turn.

I wonder if Judy ever actually drives, or does she have a driver? She clearly doesn't understand the law.

Seriously, the way she was laughing at the kid was so idiotic. Maybe is done differently in different places, and that I can accept. Where I am, you pull into the intersection. If you don't, there are many times your going to end up with a huge line of cars behind you and it would be impossible to ever move. If it is different in other areas that's fine, but that is something Judge Judy needs to know before laughing at people. I feel sorry for that kid because she was telling them complete nonsense.

Given the damage and the stories, I also have no doubt that the other kid was at least halfway responsible. He was probably one of those idiots who sees a yellow light when he's a block away, so he guns the engine making sure he gets through, and gee, he lost control of the car. What a shocker.

[Florinaldo]

There is no way that kid was sitting in the intersection waiting. How could he have smashed plaintiff's car so severely if he hit him from a standstill a few feet away? Momma believed that, but I don't. He HAD to have gunned the car at the corner to try and beat the light.

In a collision, the total force of impact depends on the moving speeds of both cars or objects involved; that is why you can demolish your car hitting an unmoving wall or car for example.  JJ focused on only one of the two drivers, forgetting the contribution that would come from the other car being in motion. I think this is because of a general misunderstanding of basic physics on her part, and also in part because the similing blond guy was exactly the type she hates on sight.

 

Otherwise, she should have discussed all of the data and circumstances involved, like the speed of both cars, the speed limit, etc., all of which may have been in the police report. The blond guy was likely very much in the wrong, but we never got the chance to explore the other guy's possible partial responsibility.

 

So I'm not allowed to enter an intersection while the light is green, if traffic is coming?  I would never be able to make a left turn.

 

I wonder if Judy ever actually drives, or does she have a driver?  She clearly doesn't understand the law.

The driving behaviour he described is exactly how driving schools teach you to approach an intersection over here. I suppose the law can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but JJ was obviously spouting nonsense because of her assumption that driving practices everywhere coincide with her limited knowledge.

 

She once again was speaking with the absolute authority that only ignorance can confer on people.

[Guest]

I hereby dub today's inept lawyer, Lionel Putz.

In fact, the whole case could have easily been a scene right out of the Simpsons:

Homer: "Didn't you get my message? I told your to never contact me again!"

Lionel: "But Mr. Simpson, I thought you said to never have contact with pee again. Now pay me to use your bathroom...it might be awhile."

What a moron.

ETA: Oh, I got a rerun case today featuring a woman with a ginormous neck tat. I don't know what it said, but hopefully it was "Mistake."

Edited October 10, 2014 by Guest

[AngelaHunter]

In a collision, the total force of impact depends on the moving speeds of both cars or objects involved; that is why you can demolish your car hitting an unmoving wall or car for example....

 

Yes, but the plaintiff's car was hit on the side and the def. car was smashed squarely in the front. If he was turning the only way that could happen was for him to hit Wade IV and he must have been going at a good rate of speed, even though his clairvoyant mommy argued that he "wasn't even moving." If that were true, the plaintiff's car would have to have been travelling sideways to hit def. in the front.

 

I think JJ didn't like def. because he's a cool liar and not for any other reason.

[Lillybee]

In California it is illegal to get caught in an interesection against the light, so sometimes I will wait until I can cross legally. When I drove in Manhattan, there were no turn signals and to avoid making a left, I would  drive past where I needed a left turn and wind up making three rights.

[Milz]

In California it is illegal to get caught in an interesection against the light, so sometimes I will wait until I can cross legally. When I drove in Manhattan, there were no turn signals and to avoid making a left, I would  drive past where I needed a left turn and wind up making three rights.

 

i used to drive in the Bronx and if you didn't move into the intersection to make a left, you would never get to where you need to go. But the cars traveling in the opposite direction have right of way and you need to yield to them before you can make the turn.

 

About 2 months ago, I was in an eastbound lane at an intersection 4 cars behind the lead car. A car traveling south was in the intersection to make a left. It was stopped and was moving to make the left. I looked down and heard a thud-creak. When I looked up my light had turned green and the the southbound car was now facing westbound with half of its front end smashed in and the driver of the of the north bound car was out of his car and screaming "What the F----!" at the other driver.  Drivers from the lead cars in the eastbound and westbound lanes were getting out of their cars with their cellphones to their ears. And I was stuck for a 10 or so minutes because no one was moving their cars (the other drivers were out trying to keep the angry northbound guy away from the left-turner driver who was still in his car.) My guess is that the light was yellow and the guy in the intersection was making the turn, thinking the other car would stop at the yellow light, who didn't stop but sped up. I think that's what happened in this case too. It was a yellow light and both drivers thought the other would stop.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

The silly def. boy stood there and told really dumb lies with that dopey smile never leaving his face, but I can't really blame him

I kept looking at him thinking he must have had a mullet but then there was no "party in the back" as if somebody chopped it off before the show. 

[Florinaldo]

Yes, but the plaintiff's car was hit on the side and the def. car was smashed squarely in the front. If he was turning the only way that could happen was for him to hit Wade IV and he must have been going at a good rate of speed, even though his clairvoyant mommy argued that he "wasn't even moving." If that were true, the plaintiff's car would have to have been travelling sideways to hit def. in the front.

 

I think JJ didn't like def. because he's a cool liar and not for any other reason.

Not quite. There would still only need to be one car in motion as it was turning and thus was going along a curved path; no need to move sideways to acquire kinetic energy and transfer it to the other car's front. Of course, to inflict such damage he would probably have needed to go very fast while the blong guy was stopped and the latter's car would have been displaced by the impact. Which is why I think it is more probable that they were both in movement and misjudged while turning. Again, such info might be in the police report but it was not shared with us.

 

JJ showed her dislike even before he started to talk; he was trying to put up a cocky and confident front by smiling, a basic mistake in that courtroom.

 

My guess is that the light was yellow and the guy in the intersection was making the turn, thinking the other car would stop at the yellow light, who didn't stop but sped up. I think that's what happened in this case too. It was a yellow light and both drivers thought the other would stop.

I think that scenario is at least as plausible as the one JJ embraced and probably more from the facts we have. Both drivers' inexperience may also have played a role.

 

I hereby dub today's inept lawyer, Lionel Putz.

I could not follow his incoherent reasoning at all. When he mentioned that he had left a draft invoice on his computer at home and did not bring it to the courtroom, I think he demonstrated his incompetence. Even a draft document would have been better than no written proof.

[AZChristian]

I've always understood that if you can clear the intersection on the yellow light without speeding up, you have the right of way.  It sounds to me like Plaintiff was going straight (let's use 45 MPH as the legal limit there), saw the yellow light, felt he could make it, and continued at a legal speed.  Defendant was waiting to turn yellow (and I think it's perfectly acceptable for him to have been waiting IN the intersection).  Unfortunately, when the light turned yellow, Defendant assumed Plaintiff was going to stop, and started into the Plaintiff's line of travel.

 

In that scenario, no one was speeding or gunning engines, but Plaintiff was going fast enough to go "airborne" into the cemetery.  But Defendant was still at fault.  You can't move into an oncoming vehicle's line of travel if that vehicle is still moving.  Unless Plaintiff stopped, Defendant had no business cutting in front of him.

 

In all reality in this case, a little experience will help both of them to be better drivers.  The most important thing to remember about right of way is that you should never insist on it.  Better to yield than to crash.

[Rick Kitchen]

I had to laugh at a rerun today where a woman was suing her ex roommate for months worth of "loans" which she couldn't prove.  She accused the ex roommate of being a sponge.  And yet she herself had said in court that she was living with her father *and* drawing rental assistance from the county at the same time.  Of course, she wasn't all that swift.  JJ asked her how long she had been living with the ex roommate, and she said, "August, September, January, February, March.  Six months."  Also when JJ asked her about drawing assistance while living with her father, she said, "Yes, I am.  Wait, what?"

[teebax]

 

In all reality in this case, a little experience will help both of them to be better drivers.  The most important thing to remember about right of way is that you should never insist on it.  Better to yield than to crash.

Absolutely. Where I live we a huge problem with red-light runners, despite the myriad of red light cameras the city has installed (for our safety, of course). I've learned, even when I'm in the intersection waiting for my turning arrow, to wait to make sure the traffic going straight actually stops. Sometimes I get a jackass behind me throwing up his hands in frustration, but I'm not going to get hit just to prove I had the right of way!

 

Switching gears for a second, I have a question about a rerun I watched this week. JJ found the plaintiff to be in the right but refused to award any money because the defendant didn't have, as she put it, "two nickels to rub together."

 

So my question is, are they seriously trying to convince us that the litigants pay the judgments? I thought this particular ruling was ridiculous. Isn't one of the benefits of going on a TV court show that if you lose it doesn't cost you anything? Why in the world would a judge - any judge - dismiss a case just because a litigant is indigent? Even if this were a real court, judgments are good for a while, are they not? Who's to say someone's circumstances won't change down the road? JJ often leaves me scratching my head, but this ruling had me screaming at my TV.

[Milz]

 

 

In that scenario, no one was speeding or gunning engines, but Plaintiff was going fast enough to go "airborne" into the cemetery.  But Defendant was still at fault.  You can't move into an oncoming vehicle's line of travel if that vehicle is still moving.  Unless Plaintiff stopped, Defendant had no business cutting in front of him.

 

 

The Plaintiff had 'right of way'.

 

I wonder if the cemetery will sue the Plaintiff/Defendant for tombstone replacement?

 

BTW, did anyone else think it was freaky that the Plaintiff landed in a cemetery as a result of the accident? *Cue spooky music*

[Brattinella]

 

 

JJ found the plaintiff to be in the right but refused to award any money because the defendant didn't have, as she put it, "two nickels to rub together."

 

So my question is, are they seriously trying to convince us that the litigants pay the judgments?

I know.  I was screaming at the TV as well, teebax.  They are paid from a fund, right?  You can't just dismiss because the guy is a pauper.

[DoctorK]

 

BTW, did anyone else think it was freaky that the Plaintiff landed in a cemetery as a result of the accident? *Cue spooky music*

Personally, I would take that as a sign that I should be a better driver.

[seacliffsal]

I was so dumbfounded today.  A mother had her two daughters sue one of their friends because she had borrowed clothes from them and forgotten to return them.  The mother was irate that the defendant told one of her daughters that she did not have her bathing suit and then wore it when the two of them were together.  The daughter then used a key she had for 'emergencies' to go into the defendant's house and look for other clothing items.  They found a couple of pairs of leggings and a sweater.  To top it off, the mother called the police on the defendant.  I just could not believe this case.  Teenage girls totally borrow and wear each others' clothes.  The daughter even stated that she would borrow the defendant's clothes.  The mother was just so strident in how bad the defendant was.  This case bothered me so much-Judy pointed out that the plaintiff's own daughter had committed a crime in entering the defendant's house.  Although Judy only awarded a dollar to the plaintiff, I wish she had given an award to the defendant due to the illegal search of her house.

[califred]

How do you ask someone to pay for a dog that got put down bc it bit them? I didn't think they did that for one incident either so I wonder if it's bitten before.

I was so bored by the clothing case that I fast forwarded, I missed that they went in her house.

[Toaster Strudel]

The whole Strudel household gathered at suppertime to watch JJ today.  After we watched yesterday's spoiler about defendants counter-suing for having to put down their aggressive pitbull, we were practically shaking with anticipation.  The defendants did not disappoint!

 

(1) The heinous pitbull was called 'Charity.'  Quite a sardonic name for a violent cur.

(2) They tried to blame the attack on the women taunting and tormenting the obnoxious animal, even though exactly no one saw any of this.

(3) In the hallterview, the defendant complained that the women running away screaming provoked the dangerous bitch to protect her home, even though he was not a witness to any of it.

(4) No way that kid ever leaves a kitchen without his pockets and his jowls bursting with snacks.

(5) The dog owner only cared about the dog.  He had no concern about the pain and suffering of these young women.

(6) $1500 for a vicious, biting pitbull rescue?  You gotta be kidding me.   You can get a murderous, child-eating pitbull at any shelter at any time, shelters are full of those because so many people try get rid of them after a few stitches on their delicate skin.  The world is a safer place now that this unpredictable monster has been put down. 

 

When JJ awarded the women 5K, we did the wave.  Wheeee!

 

After this triumph, we expected to be let down by the second case, but au contraire!  Our outrage was even greater!  At first we wondered why this was a case at all.  A hundred bucks of cheap worn rags got misplaced, so what?  And the woman called the goddam police for leggings and a bathing suit?  They must still be chuckling at the station, months later.  All eyes at the Strudels' were rolling at this epitome of a first world problem.  The defendant dared to wear the bathing suit she said she didn't have in front of the plaintiffs!  Well duh, if she had stolen it she wouldn't trot it in front of her theft victims.  And the silly sisters were the ones with the heavier "crime" of B&E in this case.

 

But then.  The plaintiffs showed that the sweater had fuzzballs, FUZZBALLS! And loose threads!  She had put the leggings in the wash when you're not supposed to!  The Spandex was ruined, ruined!  I clutched my pearls.  OMG of all the tragedies we have seen on JJ, drug addicts that have lost their children, rent-to-own rims courtesy of your stepdaugther's scholarship, printouts of cell phones being sold on ebay, this is the one that brought the most tears to my eyes.  If this didn't break your heart, it's because you don't have one.

[Florinaldo]

Switching gears for a second, I have a question about a rerun I watched this week. JJ found the plaintiff to be in the right but refused to award any money because the defendant didn't have, as she put it, "two nickels to rub together."

 

So my question is, are they seriously trying to convince us that the litigants pay the judgments? I thought this particular ruling was ridiculous. Isn't one of the benefits of going on a TV court show that if you lose it doesn't cost you anything? Why in the world would a judge - any judge - dismiss a case just because a litigant is indigent? Even if this were a real court, judgments are good for a while, are they not? Who's to say someone's circumstances won't change down the road? JJ often leaves me scratching my head, but this ruling had me screaming at my TV.

I thought that was particularly mean-spirited on the part of JJ; I don't think ability to pay is usually a factor in deciding financial awards in court. If the person who has a decision go against them does not have the money to pay, well it's too bad for the other party when they try to collect, but the judges still decide according to the law or their best judgement. It's especially disconcerting in a "court" where the money comes from a producer's fund.

 

Then again, JJ seems to have been taking Precious pills in the past week or so, with wonkier than usual reasonings and rulings.

 

 

But then.  The plaintiffs showed that the sweater had fuzzballs, FUZZBALLS! And loose threads!  She had put the leggings in the wash when you're not supposed to!  The Spandex was ruined, ruined!  I clutched my pearls.  OMG of all the tragedies we have seen on JJ, drug addicts that have lost their children, rent-to-own rims courtesy of your stepdaugther's scholarship, printouts of cell phones being sold on ebay, this is the one that brought the most tears to my eyes.  If this didn't break your heart, it's because you don't have one.

I thought that the best part was when the plaintiffs came walking into the courtroom in perfect lockstep, like a Stepford Mom and Offspring team joined at the hip. An impression that got reinforced when the other daughter came to stand besides her equally idiotic sibling.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Florinaldo

[zillabreeze]

Oh My, Toaster!  Your post totally earned my "Keyboard/Beverage Snottage" award!  I think ya'll were on my couch, too!  Funny this, 'cause I am a "dog-adorer" and you of course, not so much!  But damn, we were in lock sync step on this one!  BTW, I do hate pits on principal.

 

Switching gears for a second, I have a question about a rerun I watched this week. JJ found the plaintiff to be in the right but refused to award any money because the defendant didn't have, as she put it, "two nickels to rub together."

Teebax- I am in the Amen Corner with you on this one!  The one and only time I sued someone in small claims - I won.  Did not see a plug damn nickel out of the deal. Our beloved trashy court shows ARE the reason to hang our dirty laundry out for public view.  At least, you know if you win, you get some coin as opposed to real life where you can't get blood out of turnip.

 

Sometimes, JJ acts like awards come out of her own pocket.  (Like she would miss a couple of grand)

[Ouisch]

I had to rewind and freeze on some of the subtitles they were putting beneath Charity's junior owner:  "Claims he went to kitchen for a snack" and then later - "Found no food in kitchen." I think this is the first time I saw something other than the usual "Medical Assistant, Billings, Montana"-type description. Speaking of rewinding and re-playing, Mr. Ouisch had me do just that when the fuzzy sweater owner bounced down the aisle. Plaintiff looked a few sizes larger than the defendant, so I'm thinking that her borrowed VICTORIA'S SECRET swimsuit was a little baggy on her.

[teebax]

I would have gotten more amusement from the clothing exchange case had the plaintiff not called the police. Does she not understand the ramifications an arrest could have had on her daughter's no-longer best friend? I hate that we have become a society that calls police for even the silliest of offense, and we see this shit on court shows too much.

Someone hurt your little feelings? Call the police. Landlord won't return your deposit? Call the police. Someone calls you a bad word? Call the police. When did we become a nation of whiney little bitches? I have called the police three times in my life: once when a crazy ex stabbed me (yes, I'm stab-worthy); once when i was in a rollover car accident; and once when I witnessed a car accident from my office window. That's it. Where do these people live that it's appropriate to waste the police's time on this silly shit? No wonder there's never a cop around when you need one. They're too busy investigating borrowed leggings!

[Guest]

The mother was irate that the defendant told one of her daughters that she did not have her bathing suit and then wore it when the two of them were together. The daughter then used a key she had for 'emergencies' to go into the defendant's house and look for other clothing items. They found a couple of pairs of leggings and a sweater. To top it off, the mother called the police on the defendant.

If ever a case called for a, "You are a-outrageous, madam...out-RA-geous!" this was surely it. And yet another shining example of over-enabling parents who will go to any length to solidify the special snowflake status of their ordinary, ugly children. I mean, this woman seriously called the cops because a girl didnt return her kids' cheap-ass Forever 21 garments?! Bitch, please.

I had to rewind and freeze on some of the subtitles they were putting beneath Charity's junior owner: "Claims he went to kitchen for a snack" and then later - "Found no food in kitchen

Loved that!

The "I made love to Gregory" (after I wrecked his car) lady was priceless.

[DebbieW]

I have a pretty severe case of IBS (TMI?), and in order to use my FSA card for the probiotics and fiber I go through like candy I have to submit a letter from my doctor saying they are medically necessary every time I submit the receipts.

 

So, I'd love to know how the lavender haired, tatted up, full time student living off of child support and student loans, mother of the year in the case I saw this morning (not sure if it was a rerun or a new episode because my DVR is made by Satan) was able to use her exhusband's Cigna FSA card at McDonalds and Sonic.

Edited October 11, 2014 by DebbieW

[2KllMckngBrd]

Oh My, Toaster!  Your post totally earned my "Keyboard/Beverage Snottage" award!  I think ya'll were on my couch, too!  Funny this, 'cause I am a "dog-adorer" and you of course, not so much!  But damn, we were in lock sync step on this one!  BTW, I do hate pits on principal.

I completely second this, or third...whatever... Hi-lar-i-ous!

 

The dad of always hungry, can't find any food in the kitchen kid, just what? What? When my son was that age, he could have MacGyver-ed together a 5 course meal, just out of scraps actually meant for the dog. Teenagers are usually dumbasses, until their stomachs need filling, and then they are Mario Batali.

 

Yesterday we had fam that looked like cast of Godfather, and today pitbull Dad looked like an extra from Spike Lee's Malcom X (comment on his attire, not the Nation of Islam). I kept looking to see if he had a wallet on a chain, a pocket watch, something... And this jerk had the nerve to look wronged by that girl just putting her limbs in his innocent pitbulls mouth. WTH?

 

As for "clothing switched since birth"-my friends and I, when we were teens, would have stayed going back and forth to jail. How did the mother think calling the police was helpful? Or going on Judge Judy? That is what teen girls do. They have done it since we all left the caves, and they will still be doing it when we all look like Judy Jetson. I am w/the posters that were ok w/awarding a $1, but wishing Judy could have given the defendant a truckload of cash, b/c that was complete bullshit. That could have haunted that young girl for the rest of her life.

 

As a matter of fact, I just remembered, my bestie from high school still has my Esprit sweater, and my Keds. God dammit. Off to call the police, FBI, Homeland security, something...

Edited October 11, 2014 by 2KllMckngBrd

[teebax]

I have a pretty severe case of IBS (TMI?), and in order to use my FSA card for the probiotics and fiber I go through like candy I have to submit a letter from my doctor saying they are medically necessary every time I submit the receipts.

 

So, I'd love to know how the lavender haired, tatted up, full time student living off of child support and student loans, mother of the year in the case I saw this morning (not sure if it was a rerun or a new episode because my DVR is made by Satan) was able to use her exhusband's Cigna FSA card at McDonalds and Sonic.

I had one of those cards when I had an FSA, and it wasn't supposed to work for non-approved purchases. For instance, if I went to Walgreens and used it, I had to swipe that card first, and then the cashier would ask me for alternate payment for the non-covered items.

Then, all of a sudden, it started working for everything. I only found that out when I purchased some items at Walgreens that were covered (I think it was contact lens solution and aspirin) and some that definitely weren't. I swiped my FSA debit card first, as I'd always done, and the cashier thanked me for my business. I asked about the remaining balance, and the cashier said there wasn't one.

After having this happen a few times, I finally just started having them ring up my covered purchases separately because, clearly, something was off. And I had no interest in getting in trouble for misusing my benefit.

I assumed I'd have to settle up at some point and reimburse my FSA account later on for the items that shouldn't have been covered. They never asked me to.

[WhoaWhoKnew]

In the "stolen" clothes case, I kept waiting for the real reason they fell out to come to light. There had to be something else going on. I can't imagine getting so worked up over a bathing suit (btw GROSS @ sharing a bathing suit), a cheap sweater, and leggings that a mother would call the cops on a teenager and sue her rather than call up the defendant's mom and tell her the girls can't share clothes anymore.