All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[momtoall]

Watched a rerun on Monday regarding a plaintiff suing his ex for damaging his guitar.  The case wasn't particularly noteworthy, I just thought JJ again showed how far removed she is from the real world.  The defendant stated she had earned about $20,000 the previous year.  JJ said she didn't believe she could live on that amount.  Granted, the defendant may not had been truthful but there are people who actually live on that amount or less.  I don't know why but JJ's attitude really bothered me.  I think I may need to take a break from the program for a while.  /end grumbling

[configdotsys]

8 hours ago, momtoall said:

Watched a rerun on Monday regarding a plaintiff suing his ex for damaging his guitar.  The case wasn't particularly noteworthy, I just thought JJ again showed how far removed she is from the real world.  The defendant stated she had earned about $20,000 the previous year.  JJ said she didn't believe she could live on that amount.  Granted, the defendant may not had been truthful but there are people who actually live on that amount or less.  I don't know why but JJ's attitude really bothered me.  I think I may need to take a break from the program for a while.  /end grumbling

That bothered me too. She is an IC so there was no tax taken from her pay probably. Let's say she made $20k with no taxes taken and figured she'd worry about taxes and such later. That's about $1666 a month take home. She got 200 or something from the father. She probably had bursts of work and did not get a steady 1666 per month as an IC. I think she said her rent was $950 and she even said, "Some months we make it, some we struggle." I've lived tighter than that. JJ has no clue and worse, she does not want to get a clue.

Edited July 26, 2017 by configdotsys

[Cobalt Stargazer]

"I thought that Jackson had not aten."

Aten.

ATEN

Christ.

Also, they're having to subtitle the defendant who borrowed his brother's car to go to Publix, and the car got shot up before he brought it back. I'm waiting for someone in the gallery to stand up and say, "Excuse me, Your Honor, I speak jive."

Edited July 26, 2017 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Jamoche]

Old, old rerun - plaintiff keeps trying to push her sob story about needing to sell a car to have money for her kids (she literally was starting to tear up when she got to the kids part of the story), and her friend promised to put it in a garage but parked it on the street where a tree hit it, and a long long story about how unreliable the friend is. Which may have happened, but I am getting a very strong "let's go on JJ to get some free money" vibe, except that defendant is barely playing along, eye-rolling and looking anywhere but at JJ, and plaintiff won't shut up when told to. Case dismissed, though JJ took at least five attempts to finish the sentence.

[Brattinella]

35 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

the defendant who borrowed his brother's car to go to Publix

This guy was KILLING ME! 

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, Phoebe70 said:

"Stop!  You can't talk about that.  That person is not here.  It's hearsay!"  Yet on all the Judge Alex, People's Court, Divorce Court shows, the judges allow it.

They may hear it or read it, but not accept it as proof of anything. There are too many factors - who, what, when, where and why -  to consider. I know I've seen Judge Milian read letters from people, but also noted that the person is not there for her to question. We know under questioning, something very different may come out than what is written in some note from a neighbour or girlfriend, e.g.

[Florinaldo]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

They may hear it or read it, but not accept it as proof of anything.

A judge is indeed ree to assess the probative value of second-hand info, whether in the form of a letter or a reported conversation, and ultimately decide if any weight should be given to it considering they cannot examine the purported source. JJ most often dismisses it outright.

[Mondrianyone]

2 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I'm waiting for someone in the gallery to stand up and say, "Excuse me, Your Honor, I speak jive."

Barbara Billingsley!  My absolute favorite scene (of many) in Airplane!  And don't call me Shirley.

ETA:  I'm lying, I realized.  My absolute favorite is when Lieutenant Hurwitz, the soldier in the bed next to our hero, who thinks he's Ethel Merman, throws off the covers and it really is Ethel Merman, belting out "Everything's Coming Up Roses."  Ah, memories.

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

Old, old rerun - plaintiff keeps trying to push her sob story about needing to sell a car to have money for her kids (she literally was starting to tear up when she got to the kids part of the story), and her friend promised to put it in a garage but parked it on the street where a tree hit it, and a long long story about how unreliable the friend is. Which may have happened, but I am getting a very strong "let's go on JJ to get some free money" vibe, except that defendant is barely playing along, eye-rolling and looking anywhere but at JJ, and plaintiff won't shut up when told to. Case dismissed, though JJ took at least five attempts to finish the sentence.

Those were two scary women, especially the one named Manson.  And the one whose car was destroyed was named Kokka Coleman.  Pronounced almost exactly like Coca-Cola.  I'd've loved if the cousin's name were Pepsi Manson.  But no, sadly.

Kokka introduced herself by saying she owned many properties (in Ohio?), including a beauty salon, but then she claimed she needed to sell that old beater car to afford to feed her children.  Pick a lane, Kokka.  The thing is, I thought she had a legal basis for her claim, much as I disliked her.  She entrusted the car to her cousin on the promise that it would be garaged, and it wasn't.  JJ kept saying that it'd be a reasonable claim if the car had been destroyed by the elements.  How different from a weather-related act of God is a tree falling on your car?  That's nature, too.  It might even have been caused by something weather-related--a lightning strike, say.  Her logic seemed a little flawed.

Oh, also, in the hallterview Kokka claimed that the Manson cousin could never be trusted, was always trying to hurt her.  Which seems like a pretty good reason not to have her of all people babysit your car.  Maybe it's me.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Mondrianyone

[Jamoche]

JJ: "When was the last time you spent any time with your son prior to this incident?"

Def: "Um... every time I saw him."

JJ: "That's not an answer. The incident was in October. Was it September?"

Def: "Yeah. September 31."

 

.... Yeah. Right. Uh-huh.

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Old, old rerun - plaintiff keeps trying to push her sob story about needing to sell a car to have money for her kids (she literally was starting to tear up when she got to the kids part of the story), and her friend promised to put it in a garage but parked it on the street where a tree hit it, and a long long story about how unreliable the friend is. Which may have happened, but I am getting a very strong "let's go on JJ to get some free money" vibe, except that defendant is barely playing along, eye-rolling and looking anywhere but at JJ, and plaintiff won't shut up when told to. Case dismissed, though JJ took at least five attempts to finish the sentence.

Not to mention she owned a hair salon. Plus her cousin said there was no way she was going to move her father's two $100,000 cars out of his garage for her one $1000 car.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Silver Raven

[Jamoche]

32 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Not to mention she owned a hair salon. Plus her cousin said there was no way she was going to move her father's two $100,000 cars out of his garage for her one $1000 car.

Ha! I missed that. I bet her father is rather disappointed in her overall. More evidence for the "just here for the money" case - I did think it was odd that the insurance didn't fully cover the car because it was parked on the street. I'd think a legally parked car would be covered regardless.

Quote

Those were two scary women, especially the one named Manson.  And the one whose car was destroyed was named Kokka Coleman. 

Manson or Mason? First google hit is this from 2016: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/police-bust-alleged-drug-trafficker-at-huntersville-home/475462433

Quote

 

In the past month there have been seven crimes within 1 mile of the property, according to crime stats.

Police also arrested Kokka Coleman and Brentten Mason on unrelated charges.

 

And third one down is her acting profile, where she's interested in "Reality TV Casting":

Quote

I have appeared on Judge Joe Brown as well as Judge Judy. I have a very large dominant personality.

Yep. Cash grab.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Jamoche

[Mondrianyone]

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

Manson or Mason?

The chyron said Manson and JJ said Manson (not that she ever mispronounces people's names!), so I assume it's Manson.  She gets them wrong, but the producers usually get them right.

Quote

 

First google hit is this from 2016: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/police-bust-alleged-drug-trafficker-at-huntersville-home/475462433

 

Yeah, but that might be another Kokka Coleman.  It's a pretty common name.  ;o)
 

Quote

 

And third one down is her acting profile, where she's interested in "Reality TV Casting":

 

I've gotta Google.  I only see the first link.

ETA:  Yeah, it's definitely Manson.  I Googled, and it's one of her AKAs.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Mondrianyone

[SandyToes]

14 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Also, they're having to subtitle the defendant who borrowed his brother's car to go to Publix, and the car got shot up before he brought it back. I'm waiting for someone in the gallery to stand up and say, "Excuse me, Your Honor, I speak jive."

I think the subtitles were for the benefit of our hearing-impaired viewers!  His lips never moved, so lip reading would be impossible.  My fave part of this case though was the plaintiff's name being "Riddle" and the announcer kept saying how the car was riddled with bullet holes.  Hee!

 

12 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Oh, also, in the hallterview Kokka claimed that the Manson cousin could never be trusted, was always trying to hurt her.  Which seems like a pretty good reason not to have her of all people babysit your car.  Maybe it's me.

Interesting how often people leave their prized possessions in the care of a dear, sweet loved one/neighbor/cousin/hair-dresser, and then claim they are worthless lowlifes during the case/hallterview. 

Kokka Coleman.  France has (or used to) a law whereby all baby names have to be approved by the government.  I've always thought that was ludicrous.  I'm rethinking my position...

[shksabelle]

Today's washing machine case

Def:  I didn't live rent free. I paid The cable bill that was MORE THAN the rent. 

So I (and Byrd, of course) have to pay the rent that they have enough money to pay, but need it for the cable bill!!!!

"This is a wonderful America."

[Jamoche]

Fish tales: even without the contract saying to, who just puts fish into their fishtank without isolating them for a while to make sure they're healthy?

[Brattinella]

Answer:  Nobody.

[Silver Raven]

28 minutes ago, Jamoche said:

Fish tales: even without the contract saying to, who just puts fish into their fishtank without isolating them for a while to make sure they're healthy?

Litigants.

[lovesnark]

13 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Fish tales: even without the contract saying to, who just puts fish into their fishtank without isolating them for a while to make sure they're healthy?

About 20 years ago, I was really into fancy goldfish. Had tanks all over the place and spent $$$ on fish and supplies. When the idiot plaintiffs said they lost a bunch of their established tank residents, I called them dumbasses outloud. And, they had cichlids. Some members of the cichlid family are very aggressive and don't play well with others. It's very possible that the fish they bought from the defendant weren't sick. Adding new fish to an established tank of cichlids could very well have caused the population of the tank to become aggressive and a bunch of them died as a result of the stress of chasing and beating each other up. The new arrivals were already stressed from shipping and a little fighting with the other fish in the tank is a speedy recipe for dead fish.

[Brattinella]

Dear God.  "We had went".  Just shoot me.

[Hockeymom]

Oh my gosh the plaintiff was creepy today. Fifty year old guy staying in a motel because he got evicted, takes in this homeless teen who was also staying in the motel because he's homeless. 

He then sues him because he thought they were roommates!!!

It was interesting that the first case was new, and the second case was from years ago. I guess they slapped them together.

[Brattinella]

14 minutes ago, Hockeymom said:

Oh my gosh the plaintiff was creepy today. Fifty year old guy staying in a motel because he got evicted, takes in this homeless teen who was also staying in the motel because he's homeless. 

He then sues him because he thought they were roommates!!!

It was interesting that the first case was new, and the second case was from years ago. I guess they slapped them together.

Homeless teen was not measurably less creepy than the plaintiff.  The guy paid for him to go to Urgent Care!   So, he doesn't owe him?

[Hockeymom]

14 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

29 minutes ago, Hockeymom said:

 

Homeless teen was not measurably less creepy than the plaintiff.  The guy paid for him to go to Urgent Care!   So, he doesn't owe him?

Oh, they were both creepy. But the kid is still a kid. The guy took him to the doctor, but how did he expect the boy to pay him back? He was dirty, smelly, unemployed, homeless, and literally rescued from a storm. Clearly, there were enough red flags to make a quilt. 

If you're going to do a good deed, than just do it. Don't do it, and then sue the kid.

And why is a guy living in a motel getting a kitten anyway?

[AZChristian]

Second case we had today - pretty clear-cut that the defendant was at fault, but I'm confused.  P's car was totalled for $1,250, and they had a letter from D's insurance which I THOUGHT said that their insured was at fault.  But JJ gave the P the full $1,250 KBB value.  Didn't the D's insurance pay anything?

[Schnickelfritz]

48 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Second case we had today - pretty clear-cut that the defendant was at fault, but I'm confused.  P's car was totalled for $1,250, and they had a letter from D's insurance which I THOUGHT said that their insured was at fault.  But JJ gave the P the full $1,250 KBB value.  Didn't the D's insurance pay anything?

Just watched the case and the paper said that the insurance company (hers) had paid one claim during the last 3 years and the accident listed was the plaintiff's case BUT there was no money amount listed under "amount paid" Very confusing. Both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the defendant had already paid $200 but that wasn't taken into account either. When was this case taped? The accident was in 2015.

[Spunkygal]

2 hours ago, Hockeymom said:

Oh my gosh the plaintiff was creepy today. Fifty year old guy staying in a motel because he got evicted, takes in this homeless teen who was also staying in the motel because he's homeless. 

He then sues him because he thought they were roommates!!!

It was interesting that the first case was new, and the second case was from years ago. I guess they slapped them together.

Plaintiff worried about teen Defendant out in the rain. Throw him a bar of soap and close the door. Let him suds up. No telling when the kid had last had a bath. And there was A LOT more going on in that case that I don't want to know about or I'll have to take a bath. And a shot of penicillin.

[AZChristian]

When plaintiff said, "I'm from a small town, and that's what we do,"  I looked at Mr. AZC and said, "I'm from a big city; that's the LAST thing I would do."

[AuntiePam]

36 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

Plaintiff worried about teen Defendant out in the rain. Throw him a bar of soap and close the door. Let him suds up. No telling when the kid had last had a bath. And there was A LOT more going on in that case that I don't want to know about or I'll have to take a bath. And a shot of penicillin.

Yep.  JJ could barely conceal her distaste for the plaintiff.  It wasn't so much that sexual favors were probably involved (consenting adults, or one adult and one almost-adult), but that the plaintiff was such a smarmy, mealy-mouthed phony. 

And as someone from a small midwest town, how can someone pay $500+ for a weekly stay in a motel but can't afford an apartment.  ??  Really? 

[badhaggis]

4 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Just watched the case and the paper said that the insurance company (hers) had paid one claim during the last 3 years and the accident listed was the plaintiff's case BUT there was no money amount listed under "amount paid" Very confusing. Both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the defendant had already paid $200 but that wasn't taken into account either. When was this case taped? The accident was in 2015.

The defendant claimed that the $200 wasn't for the car it was because the plaintiff claims said she needed it for her children. I still could not understand why the insurance company did not pay.

[basiltherat]

Was it because the car was driven by someone besides the owner who wasn't "additionally insured"?   (I don't drive so I don't know how these things go.)

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, basiltherat said:

Was it because the car was driven by someone besides the owner who wasn't "additionally insured"?   (I don't drive so I don't know how these things go.)

Depends on the wording in the policy.  Most of the time, anyone given permission to drive is covered ("permissive use").  Some companies require anyone living in the house to be listed on the policy, with a specific notation if any of them are excluded as drivers.  If the driver lives in the house and is not listed, the insurance company can start getting uncooperative.  And it gets REALLY tricky when the person driving is a friend of a friend's second cousin, who lifted the keys out of a purse when someone was visiting someone else.  That's NOT permissive.

[Silver Raven]

So in this morning's rerun, JJ refused to believe that a woman who was suing for her property left in the house she was living in, had a television and demanded receipts.  She said that her boyfriend had given the TV to her, and JJ told her, "Just go to the place where you bought it and ask them for a receipt.  Simple."  Really?  I can go walk into some appliance store and ask for a receipt that somebody else bought?  I doubt if they would give me a receipt for something that I bought.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Silver Raven

[Guest]

Crazy emotional lady (Lee Ann Watson) with the too-long hair is sending me over the edge.  She sure has a bushel of issues.  Cars, jeeps, titles, dead parents, car crashes, police chases and more.

I actually muted her.   She's draining.

[Brattinella]

Oh man I want to snatch A'Kali BALD!  SO annoying!  And such a liar, too.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

Oh man I want to snatch A'Kali BALD!  SO annoying!  And such a liar, too.

If she swivels her head right off her neck from shaking it so much, you won't have to.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Cobalt Stargazer

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Oh man I want to snatch A'Kali BALD!  SO annoying!

Breeders. Have two kids - why not? - and leave them alone in a car so you can discuss visiting a strip club later on. Nice. Very nice.  What an irredeemable, nasty, conniving, smirky skank. Quinton, who is understandably a sought-after prize for the ladies, was absolutely telling the truth. He doesn't have nearly enough gray matter to make up a story, although he does have what it takes to make babies.

[SandyToes]

So is Seer Rees our first palindrome-named contestant?!  Seriously?!  Haven't even made it to the case yet and this has me reeling.

[configdotsys]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Breeders. Have two kids - why not? - and leave them alone in a car so you can discuss visiting a strip club later on. Nice. Very nice.  What an irredeemable, nasty, conniving, smirky skank. Quinton, who is understandably a sought-after prize for the ladies, was absolutely telling the truth. He doesn't have nearly enough gray matter to make up a story, although he does have what it takes to make babies.

I watched that today. The smirk face on that one made me nuts. You could just tell that the defendant was 100% telling the truth. I actually saw her in my head when he said she was saying, "She here? I can't be here too?!?!?" For some reason, I had a touch of appreciation for the defendant's girlfriend's lack of an attitude face throughout the proceedings. She wasn't one of those that looked ready to get into it right there like some of the classy ladies we've seen on JJ in the past.

That being said, I cannot imagine being the new girlfriend in a situation like that.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The stupid cow defendant who was running a daycare in her house is making me want to strangle her. "Maybe the baby was having a bad day." The baby had a broken leg, you waste of carbon. And somehow CPS did an investigation and didn't shut her down? WTF?

[Brattinella]

20 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

The stupid cow defendant who was running a daycare in her house is making me want to strangle her. "Maybe the baby was having a bad day." The baby had a broken leg, you waste of carbon. And somehow CPS did an investigation and didn't shut her down? WTF?

Seriously.  What a monstrous human being!  Having a bad day.  HOW did CPS not shut her down/arrest her??

[SandyToes]

Maybe they have by now? I'm guessing her appearance on the show didn't do  much for her business.  I hope...

We've had some odious "contestants" on this show, but she ranks right up there in the top 5 in my book.

[SRTouch]

16 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

The stupid cow defendant who was running a daycare in her house is making me want to strangle her. "Maybe the baby was having a bad day." The baby had a broken leg, you waste of carbon. And somehow CPS did an investigation and didn't shut her down? WTF?

What gets me is the numbers. I've never had kids, never really been around young'ins much, but this woman single handedly (now that helper hubby has a job) manages to care for a dozen, and does such a good job strangers are willing to pay her money to watch their precious babies.

Sarcasm aside, daycare provider is bad, but nurse mommy sure didn't spend much time checking out the day care where she parked her three kids - didn't know how many people worked there nor how many kids were there every day. Really, shouldn't she have picked up on the numbers when she talked to her kids about their day. Oh, but then maybe she's one of those people who thinks child care is simply shuttling kids between TV sets.

[AZChristian]

32 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

What gets me is the numbers. I've never had kids, never really been around young'ins much, but this woman single handedly (now that helper hubby has a job) manages to care for a dozen, and does such a good job strangers are willing to pay her money to watch their precious babies.

Sarcasm aside, daycare provider is bad, but nurse mommy sure didn't spend much time checking out the day care where she parked her three kids - didn't know how many people worked there nor how many kids were there every day. Really, shouldn't she have picked up on the numbers when she talked to her kids about their day. Oh, but then maybe she's one of those people who thinks child care is simply shuttling kids between TV sets.

What's really offensive is that the State of Idaho's licensing ALLOWS one person to watch that many kids.  They operate on a point system, and there has to be one adult for each 12 points.  According to their system, one adult could conceivably be paid to watch up to 24 children, if their ages were within the range.  Here's a clip from their website.

 

[Brattinella]

So, she could legally be watching 24 FIVE YEAR OLDS by herself???

[AZChristian]

29 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

So, she could legally be watching 24 FIVE YEAR OLDS by herself???

Mind-blowing, isn't it?  Especially given what we've seen of her compassion and ability to monitor children.  "Play nicely!!!"

[SandyToes]

37 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

So, she could legally be watching 24 FIVE YEAR OLDS by herself???

Most places call this "kindergarten", but the point is well taken.  Many of these in-the-home day cares are run by well-meaning (present case excepted) moms with little to no training.  I was also surprised that the parents hadn't looked a little more closely. Maybe they were friends?  But the "bad day" comment is beyond the pale.

[Jamoche]

I used to teach karate, and if I walked in to a class of 24 six year olds (the youngest we'd usually take) I'd grab any other available middle rank or up person to assist. My preferred ratio for kids up to early teens would be 4-6 kids per adult. Granted something as physical and interactive as karate needs a lot more supervision than kindergarten activities, but daycare has got to be somewhere in between that.

[Brattinella]

"I shouldn't have to pay for ANYTHING. I'm entitled to your car, and YOU have to provide the gas and the servicing and the wear & tear, but NOT ME.  I know you are taking care of two of my children, but I'm entitled."

She needs to take him to court for enforced child support.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Brattinella

[SandyToes]

I'm impressed, @Brattinella!  Didn't know you spoke jive!  Had the closed captioning on and still couldn't make out half of what he said.

What happened with Shaquita (she of the see-through top and accompanying wardrobe malfunction and WTF shoes) and her sister?  Feed cut out before the case ended. I'm guessing Judy tossed them both out, since they were buddy-buddy enough to watch each other's hooligans a month after some hideous (not) household violence.  

I remember the days when the evening cocktail made me silly.  Now it just makes me mad.  Bummer.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Brattinella said:

  I know you are taking care of two of my children, but I'm entitled."

Are we talking about "Dalecarlean",  and wondering how the apple could fall so far from the tree? With a mother who has had a good job for her whole life, and who speaks so well (unlike most litigants here) and has this useless, slack-jawed, mumbling fool of a son, who is 32 years old, has replicated himself four times, pawned off two of the fruits of his fertile loins on his mom and another one with some baby momma, and who seems to be brain-damaged? Oh, he also can't drive a car (that Momma got him) longer than 3 weeks without crashing it. OMG. He heps wit da kids when he can. Whatchoo want him to do, nomesayin? He just makes them. No one should expect him to support them too! Maybe no one told him how babies get made.  Anyway, Mom took the kids without his permission. I guess she took them at gunpoint or kidnmapped them.  Poor mom. I truly feel for her, with this costly albatross hanging around her neck, sticking her with raising his responsibilities when she's reached a part of her life where things should be easier. Ugh. He could hardly keep his eyes open and reminded me of the sloth on "Ice Age", but without the charm.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Are we talking about "Dalecarlean",  this useless, slack-jawed, mumbling fool of a son, who is 32 years old, has replicated himself four times? 

And by my calculations (using a top-of-the-line calculator recently purchased at BJ's) I am going to conservatively estimate that he will be the happy pappy to another eight or nine little munchkins.  I do find it sad that he had his first child at 17 years of age.  Poor mom better get used to a swinging door of grandchildren parading in and out of her life.  Unfortunately her useless son will always be just a "handout away".

Nomesayin?  (Ha, I speak jive too Sandy Toes, not as well as Brattinella or June Cleaver but I know enough to just get by).