All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[SnarkyTart]

(I work in the legal system and sometimes cover court proceedings. People who mouth off to the judges in the courtroom have been known to leave said courtroom through the side door in handcuffs.

That was one of the things I always enjoyed about Judge Joe Brown.  It wasn't unusual for him to announce to a disrespectful litigant, "I'm charging you with contempt.  Bailiff, remove him from the courtroom and detain him." 

[augmentedfourth]

After watching a number of videos (and a million eps of JJ) i can't help but wonder what people think it will accomplish to mouth off at a judge or disobey police officers. Do they feel the judge or cop will say, "Oh well, if that's the way you feel, you're free to go. Sorry to put you on the spot."? Maybe it makes them feel triumphant as they have the cuffs slapped on or get wrestled to the ground and tazed?

My years of watching JJ and my time spent working in the legal system (primarily the civil side of things/litigation, though as I mentioned above, I occasionally do court work) has taught me that some people spend their entire lives on an eternal quest to be RIGHT, consequences be damned. For example, when I do matrimonial or estate cases, sometimes it boils down to people paying their attorneys $100 to fight over $50, just to be RIGHT. Likewise, when people agree to appear on JJ or any of the courtroom shows, by this point they've got to know that the possibility of public humiliation for the sake of entertainment is very high, but hey, the judge might rule in their favor and deem them RIGHT. (Never mind if all their dirty laundry was just aired to millions of people, they got that validation and they can forever claim that they were RIGHT.)

 

So I guess my assumption is that those who openly disrespect law enforcement officials have that same urge. Never mind that they just got cuffed or tazed or slapped with contempt fines, they have that satisfaction that they really told that officer/judge what's what (in their own minds, anyway). I mean, let's face it, we all know that there are litigants who have appeared before JJ, got a thorough reaming out before millions of people (accompanied by the snickering of the audience behind them), and still went home to watch their episodes and are proud of their "badass" tendencies and think they came off well. There's no reasoning with those people once they're convinced they're RIGHT.

[designing1]

Question of the day re today's middle-aged couple fighting over a variety of things: If your last name is 'Stiff', why in the world would you name your son Richard?

[27bored]

Right, because JJ absolutely wouldn't have you thrown out of either her real courtroom or her fake TV set once you started giving her "the business". As VioletMarx said so perfectly, "That's cute."

 

(I work in the legal system and sometimes cover court proceedings. People who mouth off to the judges in the courtroom have been known to leave said courtroom through the side door in handcuffs. But hey, if you think you can out-"intimidate" a judge, I certainly won't stop you from trying!)

 

 

We're moving the goalposts a bit. I said I would've smarted off to JJ if I had been on her show as a teen and she asked me something, I responded, and she called me a liar, trying to "embarrass" me. The person who said I probably wouldn't have done that said she's seen and heard it all, which I believe, but I said she'd hear it again because I wouldn't give a fuck at a certain point. If you're going to tell me what I think and what happened, what do you need me to testify for in the first place? It wouldn't be about "out-intimidating" her; it would be about showing her she can't "out-intimidate" me.

 

If this were her courtroom when she was sitting judge, I probably would've tried to keep quiet a bit more, understanding that smarting off to a judge could land me in a jail cell. Two different things.

 

Of course, all of this is in the context of me being a dumb teenager, full of piss and vinegar, not giving a fuck. I'm an adult now and don't hastily engage is such nonsense.

[AngelaHunter]

has taught me that some people spend their entire lives on an eternal quest to be RIGHT, consequences be damned.

 

That's so true. I have an ex-friend like that. She had to always get in the last word and be "right". This earned her umpteen trips to the unemployment and welfare offices, but she had the pleasure of "speaking my mind" to her bosses.

 

Watching today's "Stiffs",who seemed to be possessed of least normal intelligence,  left me shaking my head in bafflement. Not sure where to start, but maybe with the notion that a couple who are incompatible to the point of getting a divorce decides that living together after the divorce is a really neat idea.

 

Mr. Stiff, a man in his mid-to-late 50s, thinks that cashing in his retirement funds to buy a half million dollar house is also a good idea. He can't afford to maintain it, so invites his disabled ex-wife (who already blew her 90k inheritance), her boyfriend, his non-working 23 year old daughter (who does "chores" in lieu of contributing to household expenses) and HER boyfriend to live there and sees harmony in his future? There was other WTF-ery here, but the above was enough for me.

[Florinaldo]

(I work in the legal system and sometimes cover court proceedings. People who mouth off to the judges in the courtroom have been known to leave said courtroom through the side door in handcuffs. But hey, if you think you can out-"intimidate" a judge, I certainly won't stop you from trying!)

I don't think that is the real point of the matter. It's not a question of mouthing off to JJ or of trying to be "cute", but simply being able to argue your case and respond to some of her more dubious points. She does not let litigants do it and they are only allowed to selectively answer her pre-ordained questions (that's what filing papers and pre-hearings research by her staff is for). She leaves no opportunity for people to bring forward relevant points, unless possibly on some occasions when they will serve her interpretation of the case. Letting people put forward a well-reasoned argument could undermine that goal and highlight how capricious and inconsistent some of ther rulings can be.

 

Of course, those are the rules of this particular game since this is not a real court of law. It is a pseudo-judicial venue trumped up for entertainment purposes. People who appear on the show must be ready to live by those rules; if they expect a fair decision in accordance with the strict spirit and letter of the law, they are deluding themselves.

 

That being said, from their performance on the show I think that at least 95 % of litigants who appear before JJ don't have together enough brain cells to be able to build a rational and well-structured argument, much less to verbalise it without getting lost in their general inarticulateness.

 

some people spend their entire lives on an eternal quest to be RIGHT, consequences be damned.

I have also seen people behave like that, in a labour relations context. They are one of the reasons why courts are so busy with trivial matters. They are so thoroughly convinced of the correctness of their position and of the need for the universe to acknowledge how right they are, against all other opinions, that they engage in every procedure they can sniff out of legal texts. I think you call them "vexatious litigants" in English.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Florinaldo

[One Tough Cookie]

Question of the day re today's middle-aged couple fighting over a variety of things: If your last name is 'Stiff', why in the world would you name your son Richard?

 

 

 

 

OMG--warn a girl before you post something like that, will ya??????

[Brattinella]

That's some mean parents right there.

[WhoaWhoKnew]

Another instance of JJ not knowing and refusing to know what's happening in the world in today's rerun of the school fight. I graduated high school in 2006 and the rule was absolutely both kids get suspended if there's a fight and it doesn't matter who the instigator was.

[One Tough Cookie]

some people spend their entire lives on an eternal quest to be RIGHT, consequences be damned

 

 

My sister is like that.  She had the divorce from hell and had three, not one but THREE lawyers actually dump her because she just had to be right.  She obviously doesn't have many friends and we don't stay in touch because talking to her is an exercise in listening to how everyone is wrong and she is right about everything....

Edited October 23, 2014 by One More Time

[AngelaHunter]

If your last name is 'Stiff', why in the world would you name your son Richard?

 

"Dick Stiff". Obviously I was wrong when I said Mr. & Mrs. Stiff seemed to have at least normal intelligence.

[designing1]

The defendant's name was "Dick Stiff", so his parents are the ones whose intelligence is sketchy. Though for all we know, Mr. & Mrs. Stiff -- the litigants -- named their kids Scared, Worried, and Frozen.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

She does not let litigants do it and they are only allowed to selectively answer her pre-ordained questions (that's what filing papers and pre-hearings research by her staff is for). She leaves no opportunity for people to bring forward relevant points, unless possibly on some occasions when they will serve her interpretation of the case.

I'd never had any experience with the court system except watching it on TV until about 8 years ago when I was involved in a very messy divorce and various unsavory untanglings- and I was shocked to realize the court system "ain't got time for dat". It's wham bam thank you ma'am. They don't want to hear your rants about how unfair somebody is or how they drink or how they screwed you over. You can't stand up and make a speech. Your lawyer is not your therapist (unless you want to pay them out the nose to commiserate with you - and every email or phone call costs money) It was shockingly cut and dry. In all the various situations I was in (including restraining orders), the judge read the info, asked a few questions and made a ruling. So I often see Judge Judy giving MORE time than the average judge for some of the cases. 

[Florinaldo]

I'd never had any experience with the court system except watching it on TV until about 8 years ago when I was involved in a very messy divorce and various unsavory untanglings- and I was shocked to realize the court system "ain't got time for dat". It's wham bam thank you ma'am. They don't want to hear your rants about how unfair somebody is or how they drink or how they screwed you over.

That's not what I was not talking about; I did not describe anything that could be assimilated to ranting or going through a public exercise in mental therapy. I clearly mentioned bringing forward relevant points to build a rational and well-structured argument, something courts allow either through a lawyer or through the litigants themselves in the case of courts where self-representation is the norm (small claims for example). Granted, one must be to the point and not waste time, something most JJ litigants would be incapable of doing.

[Milz]

The defendant's name was "Dick Stiff", so his parents are the ones whose intelligence is sketchy. Though for all we know, Mr. & Mrs. Stiff -- the litigants -- named their kids Scared, Worried, and Frozen.

 

Now that I've cleared my airway of the English Breakfast Tea I just choked on after reading your delightful comment.............

 

That living situation was odd, but I could see it workable IF they weren't flaky.

[DoughGirl]

High school kids fight mother sueing for 5000.00 over two boys basically rolling around on the floor and then "I can't watch it" when they were going to play the video. I thought I was going to see blood, guts, or an eye poked out, maybe a broken bone. Please lady. Did you think you were going to get your hands on that 5K by pretending to be traumatised by that?

[One Tough Cookie]

and I was shocked to realize the court system "ain't got time for dat". It's wham bam thank you ma'am. They don't want to hear your rants about how unfair somebody is or how they drink or how they screwed you over. You can't stand up and make a speech. Your lawyer is not your therapist (unless you want to pay them out the nose to commiserate with you - and every email or phone call costs money) It was shockingly cut and dry.

 

 

Same way the hospitals just want to get you out their doors whether you are well or not.  I remember going in the hospital with severe stomach cramps and a high fever only to be released three days later with a high fever and stomach cramps.  They released me because I hadn't gotten any worse.  Honestly, no one is out for the "little guy" any more".

[Oinky Boinky]

High school kids fight mother sueing for 5000.00 over two boys basically rolling around on the floor and then "I can't watch it" when they were going to play the video. I thought I was going to see blood, guts, or an eye poked out, maybe a broken bone. Please lady. Did you think you were going to get your hands on that 5K by pretending to be traumatised by that?

You must agree if she refused to watch the video she wouldn't know it was not bad at all.  All she ever saw was the injury which looked gory but could have just been broken blood vessels.

[DoughGirl]

You must agree if she refused to watch the video she wouldn't know it was not bad at all.  All she ever saw was the injury which looked gory but could have just been broken blood vessels.

I guess.

[QuelleC]

I thought it was the defendant's mother who walked out.

[AngelaHunter]

Plaintiff's momma just coudn't bear to see her little snowflake lose the fight Gee, you would think he'd been water boarded or something. I remember in my high school days, back in the Bronze Age. Boys - and even some girls -  got into fights all the time. Someone might have a black eye or a bloody nose but once ever did any parents dream of calling the police or going to court about it. Suck it up, kid.

 

Though for all we know, Mr. & Mrs. Stiff -- the litigants -- named their kids Scared, Worried, and Frozen.

 

Bwhahahhahhaa!!!!!!

[Rick Kitchen]

JJ must be intentionally obtuse.  I can't believe some of the questions she asks.  There was a rerun case today where a girl had arranged a trip for herself and three friends, and two of the friends didn't show up for the flight.  JJ couldn't understand why the girl had put the entire trip on her credit card, instead of everybody doing it individually.  Vacation deals don't work like that.

[Brattinella]

She is so out of touch with the real world.  She needs to go.

[AngelaHunter]

JJ couldn't understand why the girl had put the entire trip on her credit card, instead of everybody doing it individually.

 

As Judge Milian would say, "We have a name for people like you. We call them "litigants".  I guess no one ever thinks about collecting the money BEFORE putting the cost all on one credit card.

[califred]

The man who loves his son very much, anyone else think he might not be there mentally? Hopefully Grandma keeps custody.

[Intocats]

Another instance of JJ not knowing and refusing to know what's happening in the world in today's rerun of the school fight. I graduated high school in 2006 and the rule was absolutely both kids get suspended if there's a fight and it doesn't matter who the instigator was.

I graduated in 1976 and it was the rule then, too.

The defendant's name was "Dick Stiff", so his parents are the ones whose intelligence is sketchy. Though for all we know, Mr. & Mrs. Stiff -- the litigants -- named their kids Scared, Worried, and Frozen.

Not to mention their cousins Working and Lucky Stiff.

[Florinaldo]

JJ couldn't understand why the girl had put the entire trip on her credit card, instead of everybody doing it individually.  Vacation deals don't work like that.

In JJ's America, one pays one's purchases by having one's suppliers show up at the servants' door and one's own butler will provide them with shiny gold sovereigns to settle one's acount.

 

Not to mention their cousins Working and Lucky Stiff.

Imagine if one of them marries into the Hazabord family and decides to use the compound form of both family names.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

The man who loves his son very much, anyone else think he might not be there mentally?

 

Ya think? 53 year man with his 23 year old squeeze - and mother of two -  who is likewise not there mentally? Poor kids.

 

But that paled in comparison to the first case, in which the trailer-trashiest mom ever sends her two daughters to live with a complete stranger since she's "in the process" of moving for six months. One daughter gets knocked up and step-mommy is also there to sue defendant, who took in said daughters.

 

Neither "moms" saw any reason to send money to support the daughters, yet are suing the defendant for..something or other, of which of course they had no proof of any kind. Distasteful in the extreme. UGH.

[Brattinella]

"He brang hell, your honor."

[Toaster Strudel]

Today:

 

What loser mother "between places" (jail? rehab?) leaves her two teens, one of them a preggo 17 yr old, with a stranger she meets on the day she dumps them?  That nice lady with the plunging neckline showing off her silicone implants covered in raisin leather was extraordinarily generous housing and feeding them for 5 months in exchange for a fistful of county charity dollars.  How do these losers repay her?  By suing her for booting out the oldest one who was already shopping for a stepdaddy for the unborn baby.  She was willing the keep the youngest one still, that's how reasonable she was!  Oh, and the teen's father was, surprise!  In jail.
 

Landlady counter-suing the tenants for $5000 worth of paint and carpet sure had a mouth on her, but the worst thing about her was her nerve demanding 5 grand for normal fixing up an apartment after tenants leave.  The tenant should stay away from plastering anything, I'll say that, he sucked at it.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Toaster Strudel

[SandyToes]

What was the step mom suing for anyway?? Even IF the woman with whom the girls lived DID collect state/county money, it was for the care of the girls while in her care. What claim do the other people have? More entitlement - "I have kids and they earn me money, so I should get the money." Did I miss something else there?  And correct me if I'm wrong, but kudos to the "foster mom" for not counter-suing for support. I think she'd have been entitled to it, but blood from a turnip and all that. Poor girls. Looks like the older one is learning how the system works.  Younger one looked so sad. Maybe there is hope for her. Fingers crossed.

 

Anyone from the drinking game still standing? Holy smokes. We hit them ALL today, didn't we?! Cracked up at "I borrowed her my laptop."  (and yes, I agree about the dad and the spacy mom. Hope Grandma gets full and sole custody after JJ sends family court the tape.)

 

And as landlords, if ONLY it was possible to have a 24-hour eviction!  We recently had our first case where we had to have the constable get his movers to come and clear the house (a good four weeks after we'd told her to move), and idiot tenant was all, "Well, if you'd only told me you wanted me to move, I'd have moved!" Guess the repeated letters and postings, the court case (which she chose not to attend), the constable's posting and constable's phone calls didn't clue her in. Huh. These folks may have, in fact, had 24 hours to get out, but I guarantee they knew it was coming long before. (I think in our case, the constable posted a last-ditch notice that stated the movers were arriving at 8:00 the next day, or something. Also ignored.)

 

Where's the wine?

[teebax]

 

JJ must be intentionally obtuse.  I can't believe some of the questions she asks.

I saw a case recently that involved former roommates. One of the litigants was explaining that he moved into this particular apartment because he wasn't getting along with his roommates at his last place. So JJ, in a tone even more snide than usual, demanded to know why he didn't just live alone. The litigant explained that he can't afford to live alone. She let it go, but I thought that was one her more obtuse moments. Does she think all these people living in shared space are just doing it because they like the company? Or maybe she thinks the idea of living alone never crossed their minds?

[WhoaWhoKnew]

She also doesn't realize that most people, especially young people, have no idea what anyone's phone number is because they are stored in cell phones. She yelled at a girl and called her liar because she said she didn't know how to call her roommate from jail because she didn't know the roommate's number by heart.

Edited October 24, 2014 by WhoaWhoKnew

[AngelaHunter]

Oh, and the teen's father was, surprise!  In jail.

 

I'm sure everyone was just as surprised as I to hear that. *snerk*

 

Yeah, I was ready to rag on defendant for displaying her expensive breasts, but after hearing what those brain-dead cretins put her through I had second thoughts.

[Rick Kitchen]

I don't even know *my own* cell phone number, because I never call it.  I keep the number on a slip of paper in my wallet.

[Brattinella]

That woman wanted $5000 for the carpet.  That's what she had a hundred photos of; the carpet.  She could not understand why she couldn't get reimbursed for that which she had not paid.  She was pretty despicable.

 

The woman who took care of those 2 daughters deserves a least a thank you; she probably should have counter-sued for support. 

 

And mouth-breathing dorko with his junkie-ex, GOOD GOD.  I'm so sorry they saw fit to breed, what a poor child!

[QuelleC]

It used to be that if someone lived near you all you'd have to remember is the last 4.  I got my son's phone along with mine and we only share an area code.  I have to look it up on my phone if someone asks for an emergency contact. 

 

 

Yeah, I was ready to rag on defendant for displaying her expensive breasts, but after hearing what those brain-dead cretins put her through I had second thoughts.

Like JJ said, no good deed goes unpunished.  I'll bet she was getting an extra $204 a month, not for the entire 5-6 months, but good for her. 

 

Plaintiff said the girls moved in in April or the end of March and moved out Aug 2.  So JJ counts on her fingers 5 mos to include March and I'm all wtf?  That's ok though because the defendant maintained the girls had been there 6 mos so 5 seems fair.

 

Trashy mother sues because why? Because she expected the defendant to keep her kid forever? She still doesn't support the eldest.  In fact I kept wondering if the lady on the right was the other kid and they looked nothing alike.  Glad JJ asked who is this?

[Rick Kitchen]

And mouth-breathing dorko with his junkie-ex, GOOD GOD.  I'm so sorry they saw fit to breed, what a poor child!

 

I'm hoping that the apparently reasonable uncle has a hand in raising that child.

[SandyToes]

 

In fact I kept wondering if the lady on the right was the other kid and they looked nothing alike.  Glad JJ asked who is this?

So I wasn't the only one!  Just weird.

[One Tough Cookie]

The defendant's name was "Dick Stiff", so his parents are the ones whose intelligence is sketchy. Though for all we know, Mr. & Mrs. Stiff -- the litigants -- named their kids Scared, Worried, and Frozen.

Not to mention their cousins Working and Lucky Stiff.

 

STOP--you guys are KILLING ME

[Florinaldo]

Trashy mother sues because why? Because she expected the defendant to keep her kid forever? She still doesn't support the eldest.  In fact I kept wondering if the lady on the right was the other kid and they looked nothing alike.  Glad JJ asked who is this?

That stepmother was at least as bad as the mother herself and she is the one who filed the suit. She seemed to argue that because the seventeen-year old was pregnant, she was due some special consideration despite the problems in the foster home. Entitlement by proxy I call it.

 

The foster mother did not make the girl pregnant, nor did society at large; her bad choices did, and if she and her jailbird husband were causing problems as a bonus, then she deserved to be kicked out even earlier. The foster mother may not have been the most endearing litigant at first glance, but at least she tried to do some good; feeding and housing two teenage girls certainly cost her more than 204 $, whether it was the monthly payment or the total for the whole 6 months.

 

That landlady must have attended a workshop on "Ten Surefire Ways to Antagonise Judge Judy and Make the Viewers Dislike You"; she hit the mark on every one of them. On top of her claims being based on an overinflated view of the value of her precious carpet and an apparent disregard of her obligations as a landlord.

 

As Judge Milian would say, "We have a name for people like you. We call them "litigants". 

Doesn't "litigant" simply mean someone being a party in a legal case?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

That woman wanted $5000 for the carpet.

 

She was an absolute bitch on wheels, landlord from Hell. "And show this picture to Judge Judy, and  show this picture to Judge Judy" and on and on. I bet Byrd felt like back-handing her. I would have cheered had he done it.

 

Doesn't "litigant" simply mean someone being a party in a legal case?

 

Yes, and people who get involved these "I'll gladly pay you Thursday for a hamburger today" (tm Wimpy) deals usually do end up being a parties in a legal case.

Edited October 24, 2014 by AngelaHunter

[califred]

I had forgotten about the between places mother. The nerve they had.

And that landlord, ugh.

[27bored]

I don't even know *my own* cell phone number, because I never call it.  I keep the number on a slip of paper in my wallet.

 

Oh! I thought I was the only one! I've had my cell phone like four months and I still don't know my number. I had to have some work done on my car the other week and the dude was like, "give me your number so we can call you back when we're finished" and I was like "uh, yeeeeah. I don't exactly know it, so like, could I call the line here and get it off the caller ID?" and he just laughed a bit pityingly and was like, "here just call my cell phone". He gave me the number...and I promptly forgot it again.

[Zahdii]

Gotta story that tells you something about how some of these litigants think:

 

A friend's husband was driving long haul and wanted to stay the night at his sister's house, so he called ahead and asked it she'd be OK with that and if there was a spot where he could park his semi.  She lived on the same property as her landlord and checked with him, and was given the green light.

 

Trucker pulls up a few hours later and the landlord runs out and says that he has to park in a certain spot next to a rock 4' high retaining wall.  It would require him to back in, and the spot was narrow, so the landlord was in the rear yelling instructions.  "More to the left!  Keep coming.  A bit more to the left!"

 

Trucker has driven for over ten years and can back in just fine on his own, but he humored the landlord until he realized that if he kept following the landlords directions he'd hit the wall.  So he pulled forward, got lined up right and backed correctly, plenty of room on both sides of the trailer.

 

The next day, after he'd left, the landlord went to the retaining wall and used a pry bar to pry out several of the stones, used a sledge hammer to beat up part of the remaining wall, and then because the earth didn't fall out onto the ground due to roots holding the earth in place, he used a shovel to dig out the earth so it would fall out onto the ground below.

 

The neighbor across the street saw this and called the trucker's sister at work.  Sister tried to call the landlord to ask what was happening, but he didn't answer.  So she texted him to ask why he was tearing up her retaining wall, and he didn't answer that either.  Seems landlord was one of those people who likes to sue. 

 

Neighbor helpfully took a lot of pictures of the landlord messing up the retaining wall.

 

Landlord refused to talk to the sister, but a couple of weeks later the trucker gets notice that he's being sued in the county court because he wrecked a retaining wall by backing his trailer into it and he's being sued for $5000.  When the trucker contacts the landlord about the lawsuit, the landlord says that they should go on JJ to get the case heard, and if he loses, the JJ show will pay his fees.

 

The trucker wasn't about to have his driving record ruined, and emails the photos of the landlord tearing up the wall, and he'd be countersuing.  The suit was dropped, and the truckers sister had to live there for another six months before her taxes came in and she could move.  (She had her pastor and a sheriff's deputy there when they did the final walk through, and took pictures of everything she could think of in case he tried to sue her too.)

 

I kind of wish that the trucker would have agreed to go on JJ and present the evidence in court, it would have been a pretty good time.

[Blue Plastic]

The man who loves his son very much, anyone else think he might not be there mentally? Hopefully Grandma keeps custody.

Something had to be wrong with him, more than just a crushed foot.  I don't hold out too much hope for Grandma, though, since apparently she doesn't keep very close watch on what her sullen and joyless daughter is doing with the baby.

[ZoloftBlob]

So JJ, in a tone even more snide than usual, demanded to know why he didn't just live alone. The litigant explained that he can't afford to live alone. She let it go, but I thought that was one her more obtuse moments. Does she think all these people living in shared space are just doing it because they like the company? Or maybe she thinks the idea of living alone never crossed their minds?

 

Yeah, but I actually think its a fair question to someone who has had multiple issues with multiple roommates in different living situations. If you're constantly leaving places because you can't get along with others, to where you're in lawsuits with the ex's... maybe it's time to consider sacrificing something to afford to live alone.

[EtheltoTillie]

Friday late-night repeat from 2009.  Moroney v. Castro.  Moroney lent money to Mrs. Castro, an aging, overweight fortune teller and consignment-store owner with stunning cherry-red hair.  Too bad Mr. Castro decided to sleep with Moroney when he went over to deliver lamps.  Oh, yeah, don't you know he took a licking from JJ because he was on disability for back injury and working as a furniture delivery man for his wife. . .

 

One of the most obtuse defendants ever:  JJ had to tell her to put on her listening ears about five times, as she kept interrupting with hilarious

 

JJ:  Just because your husband decided to sleep with your friend, you can't . . . (decided to stop repaying the loan)

Castro:  She's not my friend.  She's a pig. 

 

Good times! 

[teebax]

Yeah, but I actually think its a fair question to someone who has had multiple issues with multiple roommates in different living situations. If you're constantly leaving places because you can't get along with others, to where you're in lawsuits with the ex's... maybe it's time to consider sacrificing something to afford to live alone.

Not everyone who is poor has a fancy phone, expensive clothes, a big TV, or even a car. I know there's a faction out there that wants you to believe that everyone who is poor is sitting around with their hand out, waiting for more entitlements. They want us mad at poor people who get welfare so we don't see all the welfare corporations are given.

When I was poor, I had nothing, working for minimum wage in a place that wouldn't give me more than 30 hours because they didn't want to pay benefits. But I also didn't have a regular schedule, so getting a second job was out of the question. I lived in shared space because it's the only kind of space I could have afforded. Hell, I didn't even have a car. What should I have sacrificed in order to live alone?

JJ seems to think everyone who is poor is poor because of bad decisions. The last time I suggested where that mindset comes from, I got my hand slapped. So I'll just say I disagree vehemently. And until I hear her bitching about corporate welfare, I don't want to hear her bitching about poor folks on welfare. There's a wonderful book out right now called "Hand to Mouth." It's written by someone who was poor and is trying to dispel many of the untruths told about poor people.

Unfortunately, when the book came out the author was attacked in an effort to discredit her. I read the book, and what she said rings true to me and tracks with my experience. Sadly, someone like JJ would never read the book. She already knows everything about the poor.

Edited October 26, 2014 by teebax

[ZoloftBlob]

Well, here's the thing.

 

I know people in my life who have money problems because of situations out of their control. And I know people in my life who have money problems because they continue to make bad choices with the money they have. I actually sat down with a friend who makes the same wage I do and tried to help her budget because she couldn't understand why she is living paycheck to paycheck while I have money saved.

 

I went thru her spending, I pointed out numerous things she could be doing to cut her budget down - lowering her cable and phone packages, considering trading in her car for something less expensive - and she simply wouldn't budge. She can't move out of her parents home because she doesn't have enough money coming in to live alone... but she won't give up ANYTHING.

 

And I see this mindset a lot - I write a blog about personal finance on the side and it astounds me how people don't understand the simple reality that you can't save if you spend more than you have coming in. If someone is in a situation where they have already parred the budget down to the bone and they still need a roommate to make it, then they have to be a lot more careful about vetting the roommate... if only because it actually costs money to move out/break leases/provide first and last etc etc- and the majority of the roommate problems we see on this show aren't people in section 8 with their budgets parred down to the bone, they're usually young kids who have been making stupid decisions or who don't understand that either you learn to give and take in a roommate situation, or you make the decision to live alone. In this situation  - we are talking about someone who is involved in a lawsuit after having multiple roommate issues. It's fair to say it might not entirely be a poverty issue when someone has had multiple roommate issues and since it does cost more money to have these lawsuits filed, they probably aren't abjectly poor.