All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[SuburbanHangSuite]

JJ and the "moldy blueberry" analogy just made my day.  I think I want to start a band and we will call ourselves, "The Moldy Blueberries."

[funky-rat]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I agree!  Even though they mute it out for the 10,000,000 viewers, there are about 70 people sitting in that room.  And we here often talk about how weird some of the audience regulars look, so I'm not about to give any of them my SSN.

We recently moved into a senior adult community and were asked to fill out a form for the HOA.  I can understand their wanting to know what our hobbies are, so they could inform us of appropriate activities we might like to join.  But there was a space for our drivers license numbers.  Hey, I'm NOT driving one of their vehicles, so THAT is none of their business.  "Decline to provide" is what we put in that space.

I have a feeling that was all for TV.  I doubt the whole number came out, or that he said his real number.

[WaitForMe]

9 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

I have a feeling that was all for TV.  I doubt the whole number came out, or that he said his real number.

That's what I was thinking too. 

[Angeltoes]

I, too, love the idea of a band called the Moldy Blueberries.  It's catchy.

The bad car parker was an arrogant asshat and in the wrong (along with his buds) but I'm guessing the plantiff isn't above stirring up the shit herself. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Angeltoes

[WhoaWhoKnew]

The apartment parking "Yes, Miss" defendant was scary. Like serial killer scary. 

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, Quof said:

The legal principle is condonation.  Yes, it's a thing.

Right. It's not JJ moralizing, as if she gives a rat's ass about who's banging who. This week there was an hilarious repeat which I haven't gotten around to watching yet. IIRC, nutty woman corrects JJ and informs her that her betrothed kicked her in the butt only once, not twice, and therefore she had no qualms about continuing their relationship and marrying him. She keeps cohabiting with him after he booted her in the ass, that definitely means she forgave and condoned his actions and can't sue for an assault now if they've broken up.

[chenoa333]

1 hour ago, Angeltoes said:

I, too, love the idea of a band called the Moldy Blueberries.  It's catchy.

The bad car parker was an arrogant asshat and in the wrong (along with his buds) but I'm guessing the plantiff isn't above stirring up the shit herself. 

Was that " moldy blueberries" episode the one involving the 19 year old "farmhand" from Oklahoma? I must say, that young man and his "witness" were two of the most incredibly handsome young men I  have ever seen. And the defendant was so articulate and well spoken I wonder why he's happy being a "farmhand". But I digress, I'm not from Oklahoma nor am a reliable source of what a handsome 19 year old looks like. But I will forever remember the moldy blueberries analogy! I hope JJ lives another 20 years. I can't imagine life without her.

[Tunia]

Plaintiff to JJ:  "You have an emergency account.  You KNOW you have an emergency account."

LOL @Judge Judy's "I have a BIG emergency account, and it's ALL mine."

No kidding!

[Silver Raven]

I had to laugh at JJ talking about "I have children who were married.  I have children who were divorced"  Er, so were you, lady.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

The apartment parking "Yes, Miss" defendant was scary. Like serial killer scary. 

Maybe why JJ only corrected his "Miss" once. I mean she started right in correcting him, either a "that would be yes not yeah" (could have been "no not nope," don't remember). But then she gives up trying to correct him and lets a lot of stuff slide. Just think how long the case would have lasted if she had corrected every repetition of  "Yes, Miss"... we would have had another two parter

[NYGirl]

OMG the two guys with the "he cut me" case today gave me such a headache!!  It was so painful to watch.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Right. It's not JJ moralizing, as if she gives a rat's ass about who's banging who. This week there was an hilarious repeat which I haven't gotten around to watching yet. IIRC, nutty woman corrects JJ and informs her that her betrothed kicked her in the butt only once, not twice, and therefore she had no qualms about continuing their relationship and marrying him. She keeps cohabiting with him after he booted her in the ass, that definitely means she forgave and condoned his actions and can't sue for an assault now if they've broken up.

And two more "legal" points Judge Judy has mentioned more than once...

"I'm the boss, applesauce" and "This is my playpen and I make the rules".

Case closed.

[Brattinella]

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Maybe why JJ only corrected his "Miss" once. I mean she started right in correcting him, either a "that would be yes not yeah" (could have been "no not nope," don't remember). But then she gives up trying to correct him and lets a lot of stuff slide. Just think how long the case would have lasted if she had corrected every repetition of  "Yes, Miss"... we would have had another two parter

See, this kind of behavior is not just rude, it is very disrespectful, and it was on PURPOSE.  Not a repeated mistake.  She should have torn him up.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

It's not JJ moralizing, as if she gives a rat's ass about who's banging who.

The principle of "condonation" does exist in the common law tradition applied in the US (except for Louisiana) as I found out by doing a little research, but it is essentially retrograde and is subject to much criticism from what I saw. The way JJ embraces it and the breadth with which she applies it is I think revealing of her moralizing outlook.

That being said, it is obvious that her courtroom does not run on a cohesive case law basis and that she picks and chooses what suits her whims and her notion of how the legal system should be; how many times has she dismissed arguments about what the law says in the state litigants are from, while once in a while accepting it? No one should watch her show with the expectation of getting a demonstration of real-world law in action.

[NYGirl]

Don't forget she's ruling as an arbitrator and not a judge.  I'm not sure they have to play by the same rules.  Maybe somebody with more knowledge can enlighten us.

[Quof]

The contestants, er, litigants have all signed an agreement to appear on her show and to have her arbitrate their cases by her rules. They expressly forfeit their right to have their cases determined in accordance with their local law, including forfeiting any part of their claim over $5,000, even if their local small claims jurisdiction is higher, because that's the most the show will award.  

They do it because (1) they know they will get paid, and (2) they want to be on tv.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

And two more "legal" points Judge Judy has mentioned more than once...

"I'm the boss, applesauce" and "This is my playpen and I make the rules".

Pretty much, yeah. Everyone appearing on this show has agreed to that in advance (even though I know most litigants we see here sign papers without ever reading them - it was too much trouble, it was raining, I was in a hurry, he forced me) because as Quof says, they know they'll get paid if they deserve it. I cannot imagine that JJ, after the true, mind-boggling horrors she must have heard in family court really cares about people screwing without benefit of marriage. In fact I can't imagine anyone on the planet caring about that, unless they're in some kind of super-strict religious cult. .

[Spunkygal]

2 hours ago, Tunia said:

Plaintiff to JJ:  "You have an emergency account.  You KNOW you have an emergency account."

LOL @Judge Judy's "I have a BIG emergency account, and it's ALL mine."

No kidding!

I wonder who the "confidant" was who was sitting on the idiot defendant's side. That defendant has a long, rough road of life ahead of her if she is truly this stupid. Also, how did she get mom's emergency fund account information? Too many unanswered questions which make me also wonder about mom's involvement.

[Florinaldo]

35 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

Don't forget she's ruling as an arbitrator and not a judge.  I'm not sure they have to play by the same rules.  Maybe somebody with more knowledge can enlighten us.

I am not sure how it works everywhere in the US, but up here in Canada arbitrators in bodies or processes formally created by law must conform to applicable laws; they cannot create their own rules. I was part of an arbitrating panel twice in the labour relations field and we had to decide within the relevant law or regulations, just as when I acted as mediator. But as others pointed out, JJ's court is made-up and litigants agree to substitute her authority to rules applicable in the real world; the same goes for other TV court shows. They all exist and function outside of the regular judicial context. I would think that she cannot stray too far from the social or legal norm because she would then risk irritating her audience, but she has a lot of leeway.

 

25 minutes ago, Quof said:

They do it because (1) they know they will get paid, and (2) they want to be on tv.

They also get a free trip to California and are housed and fed at the show's expense for a few days. They do run the risk of not getting any part of the show's award kitty if the other party wins the whole 5 000 $, but at least they do not have to pay it themselves.

 

5 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

I wonder who the "confidant" was who was sitting on the idiot defendant's side.

That was the component glaringly missing in this case; I wanted her testimony to perhaps shed light on whether the defendant was indeed an idiot, just gullible as the mother says, or part of the scam.

[Quof]

Quote

but up here in Canada arbitrators in bodies or processes formally created by law must conform to applicable laws; they cannot create their own rules

Canadian lawyer here.  Agencies can create any rules they want as long as the parties knowingly, willingly submit to them.  Parties can waive their rights to be governed by any particular law as long as all parties agree.  

Edited November 2, 2017 by Quof

[SuburbanHangSuite]

29 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

I wonder who the "confidant" was who was sitting on the idiot defendant's side. That defendant has a long, rough road of life ahead of her if she is truly this stupid. Also, how did she get mom's emergency fund account information? Too many unanswered questions which make me also wonder about mom's involvement.

Oh, I didn't think mom was involved at all.  I think she was mortified that her daughter was that gullible OR even worse, her daughter was complicit.  And this is what I think happened with the money.  Mom is on a joint account with Daughter so she can see her daughter's spending activities.  (Or she opened the account for her daughter when she was a minor and she's still jointly on it.). That account only had 62.00 or so in it but Daughter deposited those fake checks and immediately withdrew the cash.  I think Mom had her "secret account" at the same banking institution and when the fraudulent checks were discovered, they dipped into Mom's other account to recoup the funds.  

  Now, I'm intrigued about that "confidant" too.  She said a few words in the hallway interview about the young lady being embarrassed.  She deserves every bit of that embarrassment.  

[Florinaldo]

28 minutes ago, Quof said:

Agencies can create any rules they want as long as the parties knowingly, willingly submit to them. 

There is indeed some discretion, but they cannot go outside the limits imposed by existing laws and the framework within which the arbitration process is created. Agencies or other bodies cannot create rules that go beyond the authority invested in them by law, or else their decisions could be declared ultra vires on their very face, even if parties agreed to them. Discretion must be exercised within applicable legal limits.

Cases involving privates parties in civil cases may provide a wider margin of maneuver, but I do not think they can decide anything that is illegal.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Florinaldo

[DoctorK]

Quote

without ever reading them - it was too much trouble, it was raining, I was in a hurry, he forced me

Don't overlook the sad fact that many of the litigants we see can neither read nor write. Whether this is ignorance or sheer stupidity is hard to tell.

[AngelaHunter]

Just watched Mr. Cox, a mature "student" who gets gov. grants and lots of money from mom to further his education yet says things like "I had fligured it out" and "I had took" ( I don't think the schooling is working)suing his ex-squeeze, the heavily tatted druggie, Ms. Grover. Too bad people can't pawn their extensive and expensive tats. Then maybe they wouldn't have to squat with their mommies as Ms. Grover did. I should be used to it by now, but the way so many people choose to live still amazes me. It was quite cute the way plaintiff and def. seemed to have coordinated their outfits by colour. Cute indeed.

13 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Whether this is ignorance or sheer stupidity is hard to tell.

In most of such cases? I bank on the latter. I've even seen litigants get indignant when asked if they read a document before signing it.  Well, of course not! You really expect me to read all that boring crap before I sign it? Get real.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

Oh, I didn't think mom was involved at all.

I didn't either. And I didn't happen to catch that lady's name but she's definitely in my top five litigants to appear on this show. Her line about the secret account that "you know you have, too, JJ" gave me a much needed giggle fit. 

[funky-rat]

I wondered about the "confidant" too, as she looked to be closer to the mom's age.  Not sure where her daughter goes to school, but I went to college at a state run school that was in an economically depressed area, and as such, took on a lot of non-traditional students through state programs (about 50/50 on displaced older worker who needs new skills, and single moms who are on the welfare-to-work program).  Some of them were nice people, and some were weird.  Some wanted to hang out with us "younger people" and being cynical in nature, I often wondered why (unfortunately, usually the weird ones).  Some wanted us to do their work for them (one was a woman who worked at a factory and they closed up when she was in her late 50's, and she was being forced back to school - she'd refuse to do the work and she'd sit and cry sometimes).  Some constantly wanted to bum rides or cigarettes (and occasionally, money - usually for lunch).  So I'm not sure what their relationship is, but if I were her mother, I'd be concerned.  Her "confidant" making those sassy noises also concerned me and made me wonder what she says about the girl's mom behind her back.

[basiltherat]

I LOVED the Mom!  Her daughter had told her 27,000 different stories, and she knew the only way to get the truth out would be public embarrassment and tough love.  Daughter pretended dumb, but jumped at the chance to pocket $2,000 in case, but too stoopid to realize she would be left holding the bag by her study buddies (which she perhaps was "talkin'" to) AND have to deal with her own mother!

Also, if you call our band "Moldy Blueberries" you MUST spell it the English way "Mouldy Blueberries" -- much more eclectic!

[SuburbanHangSuite]

3 hours ago, basiltherat said:

Daughter pretended dumb, but jumped at the chance to pocket $2,000 in case, but too stoopid to realize she would be left holding the bag by her study buddies (which she perhaps was "talkin'" to) AND have to deal with her own mother!

I thought the same thing!  When she said something like, "I didn't think he would do that to me" I just shook my head.  Another young woman who has to learn the hard way that you can't be a fool for love.  You just know she was crushing on this scam artist who set her up--and he knew it too.

I absolutely LOVE The "Mouldy" Blueberries.  We must make this happen.

[patty1h]

One thing I don't understand and I've been wanting to get an answer to this for a while, so I bring it to all the experts here.

Why so many people on court shows sue for compensation after they've been served with what is termed a 'false restraining order'.  I guess the idea is that one person serves the other to keep them physically at a distance, but the "wronged" party feels that they did nothing to deserve a restraining order.  The part I don't understand is the suing for that action.  Example:  someone files a restraining order against me, I would assume I should just stay away from them and go about my life - I wouldn't then get on my high horse and think I have to retaliate and I'm owed compensation for putting me in this position.  Am I missing something?  Does having a restraining order on cause some other legal problem/gives you a criminal record/has to be reported to your employer, etc? 

[AZChristian]

27 minutes ago, patty1h said:

One thing I don't understand and I've been wanting to get an answer to this for a while, so I bring it to all the experts here.

Why so many people on court shows sue for compensation after they've been served with what is termed a 'false restraining order'.  I guess the idea is that one person serves the other to keep them physically at a distance, but the "wronged" party feels that they did nothing to deserve a restraining order.  The part I don't understand is the suing for that action.  Example:  someone files a restraining order against me, I would assume I should just stay away from them and go about my life - I wouldn't then get on my high horse and think I have to retaliate and I'm owed compensation for putting me in this position.  Am I missing something?  Does having a restraining order on cause some other legal problem/gives you a criminal record/has to be reported to your employer, etc? 

There are some job applications that specifically ask about restraining orders, and if you lie . . . you are subject to immediate termination if you were hired.

Another request for compensation comes when someone who is served gets a lawyer and goes to court to answer the charge.  If the RO is not granted by the judge, it's not fair for a person to have to pay for a lawyer to defend themselves against something they didn't do.  Judge Judy is a BIG believer in making those who abuse the system pay any expenses that the innocent party may incur.  Filing for a RO without true reason is an abuse of the system.  

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Just watched Mr. Cox, a mature "student" who gets gov. grants and lots of money from mom to further his education yet says things like "I had fligured it out" and "I had took" ( I don't think the schooling is working)

Same thought here, AngelaHunter. I feel like it's gotten ridiculously easy to get a college degree and IIRC he was attending a "real" college, not South Northeast West Hampshire Polytechnic. 

[funky-rat]

16 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

Same thought here, AngelaHunter. I feel like it's gotten ridiculously easy to get a college degree and IIRC he was attending a "real" college, not South Northeast West Hampshire Polytechnic. 

Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.

[popcornchicken]

I tuned in late today, but I caught this sage advice from a fee-male litigant:

”Don’t trust nobody in jail.”

”Don’t date nobody in jail.”

[TresGatos]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"I had took"

When everyone knows the correct is "I had tooken." 

[Brattinella]

A consequence of a restraining order, at least in California, is that you are barred from buying a gun. (or even owning one)

[SandyToes]

2 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

Same thought here, AngelaHunter. I feel like it's gotten ridiculously easy to get a college degree and IIRC he was attending a "real" college, not South Northeast West Hampshire Polytechnic. 

But see, they don't actually get the degrees. They just enroll, collect the student loans/grants, then "withdraw."  Some of 'em.  Some really do a great job, get a good degree, and make use of their opportunities. Not so much the students we see on this program, however.

I thought yesterday's "massage therapists" were a bizarre bunch. Not sure what the madam  massage shop owner with the flaming hair was countersuing for, but would have liked to hear what all she had to say.

Missing all of today's eps.  We are having a parade in our town!  Go Astros! 

[Quof]

Raggedy Ann Masseuse has "patients".  FFS.  

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, Quof said:

Raggedy Ann Masseuse has "patients".  FFS.  

That was EXACTLY my first impression!  Kind of a scary look, really.

[galaxychaser]

3 hours ago, popcornchicken said:

I tuned in late today, but I caught this sage advice from a fee-male litigant:

”Don’t trust nobody in jail.”

”Don’t date nobody in jail.”

that lady gave $1500 to a guy she barely knew . He was hot. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by galaxychaser

[Brattinella]

56 minutes ago, galaxychaser said:

He was hot. 

HUH???  I must have been watching something else.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

HUH???  I must have been watching something else.

I didn't watch tonight, but you probably just weren't wearing your tequila goggles.

[Brattinella]

44 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I didn't watch tonight, but you probably just weren't wearing your tequila goggles.

I haven't worn tequila goggles (or any other kind) in many years.  I'm just old and crochety.

[SRTouch]

8 hours ago, popcornchicken said:

I tuned in late today, but I caught this sage advice from a fee-male litigant:

”Don’t trust nobody in jail.”

”Don’t date nobody in jail.”

Another bit of sage advice... don't wire money out of state to bail out some dude you met in person one time - just long enough to exchange phone numbers while at the grocery store.

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, patty1h said:

Why so many people on court shows sue for compensation after they've been served with what is termed a 'false restraining order'.

I think when people are barred from entering their own home because a roommate/landlord doesn't want to go to housing court and uses a restraining order to get them out instantly, a girlfriend wants her boyfriend out, so accuses him of abusing her when it's not true, or, as we see often here, a woman filing for one  to give her an advantage in a custody battle ("See what a brute he is? I had to get a restraining order tooken out. He shouldn't have the kids!") in family court. People have to then spend money on hotels, sleep in cars, or hire lawyers in the case of the baby daddies.  That's how it seems to me, anyway.

[quarkuud]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:38 PM, AZChristian said:

There are some job applications that specifically ask about restraining orders, and if you lie . . . you are subject to immediate termination if you were hired.

Another request for compensation comes when someone who is served gets a lawyer and goes to court to answer the charge.  If the RO is not granted by the judge, it's not fair for a person to have to pay for a lawyer to defend themselves against something they didn't do.  Judge Judy is a BIG believer in making those who abuse the system pay any expenses that the innocent party may incur.  Filing for a RO without true reason is an abuse of the system.  

I don't agree that not getting a requested restraining order means you were abusing the system.  The RO requester is usually acting pro se and is at a significant disadvantage should the defendant bring an attorney.  In my jurisdiction, the district court judges are truly hit-or-miss in terms of competence, which doesn't help the situation.

I know of several cases where a person was found guilty of assault in a criminal trial, but the victim could not get an RO against the assailant.  Normally, the RO hearing is before the criminal trial.  In these cases, the prosecutor will normally request a stay-away as part of either the plea agreement or the sentence, which is functionally equivalent to a restraining order except for the couple months between the RO hearing and the criminal trial.

[AZChristian]

45 minutes ago, quarkuud said:

I don't agree that not getting a requested restraining order means you were abusing the system.  The RO requester is usually acting pro se and is at a significant disadvantage should the defendant bring an attorney.  In my jurisdiction, the district court judges are truly hit-or-miss in terms of competence, which doesn't help the situation.

I know of several cases where a person was found guilty of assault in a criminal trial, but the victim could not get an RO against the assailant.  Normally, the RO hearing is before the criminal trial.  In these cases, the prosecutor will normally request a stay-away as part of either the plea agreement or the sentence, which is functionally equivalent to a restraining order except for the couple months between the RO hearing and the criminal trial.

We do not disagree.  I know that judges/magistrates, etc., sometimes do not grant an RO, even if it is warranted.  Please note an important phrase in my post:  Filing for a RO without true reason is an abuse of the system.  

[quarkuud]

1 minute ago, AZChristian said:

We do not disagree.  I know that judges/magistrates, etc., sometimes do not grant an RO, even if it is warranted.  Please note an important phrase in my post:  Filing for a RO without true reason is an abuse of the system.  

I was responding to: "If the RO is not granted by the judge, it's not fair for a person to have to pay for a lawyer to defend themselves against something they didn't do."

[AZChristian]

Just now, quarkuud said:

I was responding to: "If the RO is not granted by the judge, it's not fair for a person to have to pay for a lawyer to defend themselves against something they didn't do."

OK.  Thanks.  I don't think there's an easy fix for the situation where the victim goes in pro se and the abuser has an attorney.  The system isn't perfect, but it's the only one we have.  I wonder what percentage of abusers then sue their victims for attorney fees in cases like that.  That would be just one more level of abuse.  

[quarkuud]

Just now, AZChristian said:

OK.  Thanks.  I don't think there's an easy fix for the situation where the victim goes in pro se and the abuser has an attorney.  The system isn't perfect, but it's the only one we have.  I wonder what percentage of abusers then sue their victims for attorney fees in cases like that.  That would be just one more level of abuse.  

 In my jurisdiction, it's pretty uncommon for either side to be represented in a restraining order hearing, so honestly I don't think it would be all that common.  At least I hope not.  Though maybe the really savvy abusers, who are the best at hiding it, would also be the most likely to get an attorney and then try to recoup costs so maybe it's more of a problem than I think.

Definitely don't think there's any better way to do it, we are in agreement there.

[AngelaHunter]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 4:39 PM, popcornchicken said:

I tuned in late today, but I caught this sage advice from a fee-male litigant:

”Don’t trust nobody in jail.”

”Don’t date nobody in jail.”

Just watched this. This woman is a paralegal. I was expecting some raggedy little pathetic slag, not an educated woman with a good job. I guess there's no cure for stupidity and desperation. That guy is an irredeemable piece of shit. He has two children, yet stands there grinning over getting arrested twice, having drugs in his car, suspended license and taking money from the idiotic plaintiff, as though all that is something to be proud of. Wow. There really should be some penalty to her as well for her mind-boggling behavior. I would rather lose the money than show up here announcing to the world that I gave money to this garbage loser when I have a child, since of course she's a single mother. Are there any other kind of this show? Are there any woman these days not picking any old dirtbag to father their children and shower money on? Oh, well - "It is what it is." Depressing is what it is.