All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Spunkygal · December 16, 2017

How about Nabisco, er, I mean Lavisco, who "re-found" her phone after she got a new one so she gave the re-found one to BF? But he contends the phone had some super secret James Bond spyware on it so didn't make the payments. Yeah, another desperate woman and another deadbeat ex-con.

AuntiePam · December 16, 2017

JJ might have family court experience, but I didn't care for her reasoning in the ambulance case. Plaintiff mother should be responsible for the ambulance charges because she has full custody and responsibility, not because she "owed" dad a refund on child support for the time the teenager spent with his dad.

So what if the kid is with dad for a few months? Mom still has to maintain a home, pay for utilities, insurance, etc. By JJ's reasoning, if one of the five kids is temporarily living elsewhere, mom should move to a smaller house, or turn down the thermostat by 20%, take the kid off her insurance, etc.

Dad should have used that settlement money to pay the ambulance bill, but it sounds like he might not have known about the bill when he got that money.

Brattinella · December 16, 2017

She is being more and more unreasonable lately.

galaxychaser · December 16, 2017

1 hour ago, Spunkygal said:

How about Nabisco, er, I mean Lavisco, who "re-found" her phone after she got a new one so she gave the re-found one to BF? But he contends the phone had some super secret James Bond spyware on it so didn't make the payments. Yeah, another desperate woman and another deadbeat ex-con.

Her facial expressions are hilarious. The guy is worthless.

AZChristian · December 16, 2017

11 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

JJ might have family court experience, but I didn't care for her reasoning in the ambulance case. Plaintiff mother should be responsible for the ambulance charges because she has full custody and responsibility, not because she "owed" dad a refund on child support for the time the teenager spent with his dad.

So what if the kid is with dad for a few months? Mom still has to maintain a home, pay for utilities, insurance, etc. By JJ's reasoning, if one of the five kids is temporarily living elsewhere, mom should move to a smaller house, or turn down the thermostat by 20%, take the kid off her insurance, etc.

Dad should have used that settlement money to pay the ambulance bill, but it sounds like he might not have known about the bill when he got that money.

I think this was one of those cases where JJ had more info in her file than we were privy to. I never did understand the date differences on the accident. And the ambulance bill should have been submitted to the insurance company. Even if the case was settled, late bills can be paid by the insurance company. If the insurance company refused to pay the claim, perhaps (after all the math was done), defendant should have had to pay half.

basiltherat · December 16, 2017

I think there were TWO separate accidents that Sonny Boy was involved in. They both happened in the October-November months, but one year apart. Which is probably why insurance (if there was any) didn't pay the ambulance bill.

Oh, and child support is CHILD support, not household support. JJ is extremely consistent on this point and has never failed to chastise the mother for controlling the child and "allowing" visits and such while still getting paid. JJ has always encouraged the father to go to court for custody issues -- this guy seemed rather cowed by the idea of family court, probably because he was in "arrears" with all the kids he had with Sonny's mom, and maybe some others we don't know about.

FairyDusted · December 16, 2017

So happy about Foxy the Pup. I ran downstairs to give my Dad the update. We watch separately and screen shot for discussion.

Oh, and I can't recall what case late last week the Defendant had a photo of a woman clipped to his shirt. I couldn't get a good shot of it. Anyone?

momtoall · December 16, 2017

Quote

59 minutes ago, FairyDusted said:

Oh, and I can't recall what case late last week the Defendant had a photo of a woman clipped to his shirt. I couldn't get a good shot of it. Anyone?

It was a picture of the defendant's mom who had passed away. Had no bearing on the case, just a ploy for sympathy.

FairyDusted · December 16, 2017

Thank you @momtoall! I was so distracted I couldn't listen to the case!

AngelaHunter · December 16, 2017

3 hours ago, FairyDusted said:

Defendant had a photo of a woman clipped to his shirt.

Plaintiff, Ms. Lovato (geeze, the missing tooth when you're going on TEEVEE? Stick a damned Chicklet or something in there!)wants to fight with her ex-lovah over a 21 year old Chevy. She was totally enamoured with the tiny, wizened little def. with the pic of his dearly departed Mommy pinned on the tiny little lapel of his tiny little jacket. BUT, he got another girlfriend!! The desperation of the women we see here makes me embarassed to be of the same sex. Tiny, the little wizened def, after the case was dismissed - "I feel... " Wrong choice of words, little man. He's still raving how he wants his dog as Byrd is escorting him out and the announcer is saying, "And now for the next case." Why was I not suprised that the dog is a Rottweiler. I guess a big, tough-looking dog makes a tiny little zero twerp like him feel like a Big Man. Take your pathetic new squeeze and bugger off, you silly little shit.

The Amblance bill did not keep my attention.

20 hours ago, Spunkygal said:

How about Nabisco, er, I mean Lavisco,

Now I'm confused. Is Lavisco the plaintiff who wants the def, Ernesto(?) - who can't speak, at least not in any way that might be understandable by human beings - to pay rent and damage to her car that she didn't discover for days after he used it? Lavisco just knows that damage couldn't have been caused in the parking lot of her workplace, or anywhere else. Ernesto was a "sales associate" at a Halloween store? Then Lavisco's b/f speaks and he's nearly as incoherent as def. Is that the case?

Spunkygal · December 16, 2017

@AngelaHunter, no, the Nabisco case was where desperate woman re-finds her cell after she got a new one, so gives re-found cell to ex-con BF. He paid for it for two months and then stopped. He says he found out she had a 007 type spy app to track him, but it was a Sprint locator service. Nabisco discovered that ex-con liked more cookies (i.e., ladies) than what Nabisco had to offer (see what I did there). So she sued for the service up until she either cut the service off or got the phone back (can't remember which). Boring.....

Edited December 16, 2017 by Spunkygal

FairyDusted · December 16, 2017

Sounds like I missed......nothing! Thanks for fleshing it out.

AngelaHunter · December 16, 2017

1 hour ago, Spunkygal said:

no, the Nabisco case was where desperate woman re-finds her cell after she got a new one, so gives re-found cell to ex-con BF. He paid for it for two months and then stopped. He says he found out she had a 007 type spy app to track him,

Oh, okay. Thanks! I didn't watch this one. Cell phone cases are like dog cases to me. I skip them. That does sound kind of intriguing though and I may need to learn about that 007 app even though I never had a boyfriend I distrusted so much I felt I needed to track his every move.

I got a cell phone last year and still haven't figured out just how it works, other than "texing." I'm always amazed at litigants who can't speak past a kindergarten level, can't read and can't write yet know all the ins and outs of the latest phones and social media. Interesting.

Cobalt Stargazer · December 19, 2017

Raise your hand if you thought the defendant in the vet bill case was Mama June.

December 19, 2017

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Raise your hand if you thought the defendant in the vet bill case was Mama June.

Yes, only because every time I see thumb-faced grifter June on the teevee, I want to throw shoes at the her -- like I wanted to throw my shoe at the visage of that garbage human who was prepared to let her dog die a painful death and then likely blame everyone else because they didn't "pray" hard enough for it.

Is it too much for Santa to bring me a rerun of Patricia Bean this year? Byrd approves!

Silver Raven · December 19, 2017

Rant ahead.

There was a rerun this morning about a guy suing his tenant over the condition the tenant left the house. JJ was absolutely hateful to him, and was being intentionally obtuse when he was trying to answer her questions, acting like she couldn't understand his answers when they seemed perfectly understandable to me. At one point, as they were going to commercial, they ran a clip of upcoming testimony, where she was asking him about marijuana use, and he said that he needed it because he used to have blackouts and hasn't had them since he started using marijuana. Her reply to him was "How wonderful for you." That was hateful enough, but they dared to run a laugh track over that, as if that were a funny answer, instead of being very serious. Who the hell does she think she is to condemn medical conditions or treatments and why would it be funny? She asked him, "Are you playing stupid, or is it an act?' SHE was the one being stupid.

I don't know exactly where the house is, but it's on the border with Mexico (the back fence is on the border). The house does not have drinkable water, stealing water from the property next door. The house has been condemned. And yet the owner wants the ex-tenant to pay for damages to the property. The plaintiff's father, who is the co-owner, is now living with the defendant's ex wife. The defendant has a current wife in Mexico, with two kids, and she can't cross the border so he intentionally got the house on the border so he can see his kids over the fence. If he goes to Mexico to visit with his wife and his kids, a court order requires him to notify his ex. He claimed that the ex would then tell her new boyfriend, the house's owner, when the defendant was gone, and they would then come into the house and intentionally damage it.

The defendant uses marijuana and he's on welfare, so he's automatically guilty in her eyes.

She gave the plaintiff $2500.

Total bullshit.

Brattinella · December 19, 2017

I remember that house on the border episode. Wasn't that the one who said his kids' destruction was ARTWORK?

Silver Raven · December 19, 2017

55 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I remember that house on the border episode. Wasn't that the one who said his kids' destruction was ARTWORK?

No, that was a different one. But he did admit that the kids had covered the walls with paint.

Cobalt Stargazer · December 20, 2017

WTF is the Google finger?

December 20, 2017

4 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

he said that he needed it because he used to have blackouts and hasn't had them since he started using marijuana. Her reply to him was "How wonderful for you."

I'll never not think Judge Judy watches Reefer Madness on an infinite loop and considers it the finest "documentary" ever made.

Brattinella · December 20, 2017

55 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

WTF is the Google finger?

NO idea.

badhaggis · December 20, 2017

7 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I remember that house on the border episode. Wasn't that the one who said his kids' destruction was ARTWORK?

Yes it was him!

Jamoche · December 20, 2017

Rerun: Grifter def sells "digital licensing frameworks". AKA "pyramid scheme". JJ is having so much fun mocking them both.

I think I only saw the end of it the first time it ran; I know I hadn't seen the first case, with the "it's my dog! Ignore the def saying I only showed up twice in two years! The dog licked my face!" idiot. Dogs are friendly. Getting your face licked doesn't prove anything.

Brattinella · December 20, 2017

50 minutes ago, badhaggis said:

Yes it was him!

I seem to remember he got all pissy and couldn't understand why other people didn't appreciate his kids' art.

December 21, 2017

I found an episode on my DVR yesterday that was marked "New" that, I think, aired last week, maybe? The first case involved a mother suing her sociopathic teenage son's sociopathic friend for wrecking a car. Both of the boys looked like the result of a cross breeding between members of the Aryan nation and grown up Village of the Damned kids. The sociopathic friend blamed the crash on icy road conditions and a mysterious "pizza delivery guy" who was driving around with his lights off who apparently turned the lights on in time to "blind" said sociopath and cause him to skid off the road, wrecking the car. Turns out the two future murderers were likely stoned and on their way to a munchie run.

But the more interesting case came next: A man is suing another guy for damage to his car after the guy plowed into it—because he lost control after being shot! But, it turns out, the guy did have insurance and the insurance company (Liberty Mutual) refused the man's claim for damage because they said the fault lied with the shooter and not the insured driver. The hell! JJ ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and told the Defendant to sue his insurance company since the shooter had never been found. I mean, I'm kind of torn since, yes, it was technically the shooter's fault but the Defendant was still behind the wheel of an insured car. And it was his car that hit the Plaintiff's. The shooter didn't technically damage the Plaintiff's car—the Defendant's car did. Anyway, it was pretty interesting and JJ was pretty peeved with Liberty Mutual. And a case of even if you do have insurance, it may not even cover a bizarre incident.

NYCFree · December 22, 2017

Insurance companies are the devil's work. If they can find a way to get out of paying, they will. A professor in law school once said that insurance companies are the reason for punitive damages.

Quof · December 22, 2017

Except that insurance policies don't usually cover punitive damages.

And the shooting case was discussed at the time it first aired. The insurance company was right, Judy was wrong - it wasn't the driver's fault. There was nothing he could have done to prevent the accident, and nothing he did caused it. He's not liable just because his car is on the road.

December 22, 2017

1 hour ago, Quof said:

And the shooting case was discussed at the time it first aired.

Sorry! I must have missed that discussion (or may have even participated!).

SandyToes · December 23, 2017

Warning: Vodka-infused post ahead....

Today's old rerun of the Granger gaggle: What a bunch of a$$holes that all deserved each other! "I saw him at the gas station and we became very good friends and I loaned him money and then he STOLE from me!" "I met these people through this wonderful (same) guy and we became besties, too!" "But he only has a sixth grade education and I wanted to help him and save him and he deserved a second chance and then he STOLE from us!" And served jail time. "And to help him out, I paid him in cash and didn't report it, and that's why he's never ever filed tax returns!" "I've been WRONGED!"

Can't believe Judy awarded them any money. Yeah, he stole from you. I believe that, too. But you were IDIOTS for letting him into your lives in the first place. You got what you deserved. And then Judy gave you a bunch of money. Grrrr.....

Next time I'm in need of a best friend I'm for SURE going to the gas station (and not a Shell or Exxon - think I'll try "Gizmo's Quik Stop")

In case you are interested: Lemon vodka followed by an orange wedge. Over and over and over again....

Cobalt Stargazer · December 23, 2017

16 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Can't believe Judy awarded them any money. Yeah, he stole from you. I believe that, too. But you were IDIOTS for letting him into your lives in the first place. You got what you deserved. And then Judy gave you a bunch of money. Grrrr.....

Next time I'm in need of a best friend I'm for SURE going to the gas station (and not a Shell or Exxon - think I'll try "Gizmo's Quik Stop")

Sounds like an old episode of The Golden Girls:

"Dorothy, Larry is very important to me!"
"You picked him up at a gas station!"

Spunkygal · December 25, 2017

Seasons greetings, fellow JJ posters! Wishing you a new year with fewer cases involving children, animals and cell phones and more cases involving beauty salons, wedding planners, home repairs and "lapsed" insurance!

AngelaHunter · December 25, 2017

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:15 PM, SandyToes said:

"But he only has a sixth grade education and I wanted to help him and save him and he deserved a second chance and then he STOLE from us!" And served jail time. "And to help him out, I paid him in cash and didn't report it, and that's why he's never ever filed tax returns!" "I've been WRONGED!"

Don't forget the whole bunch of women he has on the go, because he's so handsome and successful! Oh, wait - he's not. He's homely, homeless, illiterate and broke but made sure he got tinted windows on his car. I love a man who has his priorities straight!

I wish a Merry Christmas to all the lovable snarkers here (as I sit pondering how many hours I must wait until it will be socially acceptable to begin drinking). I guess it's time again to drag out that old but wise and always relevant advisory, first heard on our beloved show, and that will echo in eternity:

"Don't get drunk at Christmas parties at family members' houses that you don't belong to."

Spunkygal · December 25, 2017

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Don't forget the whole bunch of women he has on the go, because he's so handsome and successful! Oh, wait - he's not. He's homely, homeless, illiterate and broke but made sure he got tinted windows on his car. I love a man who has his priorities straight!

I wish a Merry Christmas to all the lovable snarkers here (as I sit pondering how many hours I must wait until it will be socially acceptable to begin drinking). I guess it's time again to drag out that old but wise and always relevant advisory, first heard on our beloved show, and that will echo in eternity:

"Don't get drunk at Christmas parties at family members' houses that you don't belong to."

Aw, screw it, Angela. We just popped open a bottle of bubbly. Go for it!

NYCFree · December 26, 2017

On 12/22/2017 at 2:52 PM, Quof said:

Except that insurance policies don't usually cover punitive damages.

And the shooting case was discussed at the time it first aired. The insurance company was right, Judy was wrong - it wasn't the driver's fault. There was nothing he could have done to prevent the accident, and nothing he did caused it. He's not liable just because his car is on the road.

Insurance companies definitely do not "cover" punitive damages.

What was meant by the original statement that "insurance companies are the reason for punitive damages" is that sometimes people have to sue insurance companies to pay for claims they legitimately should have covered in the first place.

If they just had to pay for the claim, the insurance companies would have an extremely strong incentive to deny as many claims as they could. The logic being that if the biggest "punishment" after a court case is just the payment of the claim, why pay any claim at all until after they are sued, and lose. Awarding punitive damages created a financial disincentive, in that they would have to pay (potentially millions) more than the original claim.

AngelaHunter · December 27, 2017

We had the repeat of the nut who says no one in her company could keep their hands off of her. She's so alluring they're always touching and rubbing and stroking her. Yikes. Anyway, someone made this uber-silly vid. Warning for very bad manipulated language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UqRVAuYYjc

December 27, 2017

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

We had the repeat of the nut who says no one in her company could keep their hands off of her. She's so alluring they're always touching and rubbing and stroking her. Yikes. Anyway, someone made this uber-silly vid. Warning for very bad manipulated language.

Brilliant!

SRTouch · December 27, 2017

Edited December 27, 2017 by SRTouch
Wrong forum

popcornchicken · December 28, 2017

So they ran a rerun today on WCBS of what I think was the Amy Schumer episode. She’s sitting in the gallery on a case involving stolen Yu-Gi-Oh! Cards and a plaintiff named Miercoles (which translates to Wednesday in English). It was funny watching JJ trying to make sense of how it worked. In my college days, the tables at the campus commons were all taken up by students playing Yu-Gi-Oh!, it became a point of contention on a Facebook group. I grew out of it after middle school.

The Judge clearly ran out of patience early on this one and called a recess because it was close to lunch. After lunch, Wednedday’s witness said that the defendant confessed to him, which wasn’t believed by JJ. Inconsistencies between Miercoles’ testimony and his police report sealed the deal. It’s time to d-d-d-d-dismiss!

Red Bridey · December 28, 2017

Was that Amy Schumer? I couldn't believe my eyes, but it sure looked like her. Has it been confirmed?

SRTouch · December 28, 2017

15 minutes ago, Red Bridey said:

Was that Amy Schumer? I couldn't believe my eyes, but it sure looked like her. Has it been confirmed?

as, once again @AngelaHunter and I are duplicating our posts

Edited December 28, 2017 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · December 28, 2017

Yeah, it was Amy Schumer. It seems these has-beens and never-weres will do anything to get just a little attention.

Quote

And Judge Judy never once acknowledged that one of the world's most famous comedians was currently in her courtroom???

"World's most famous...?" I"ve heard the name, but that's all.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephenlaconte/amy-schumer-was-randomly-in-the-audience-of-judge-judy-and?utm_term=.nmW8dGgAaN#.rf27XQxWyn

Brattinella · December 28, 2017

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

one of the world's most famous comedians

LMAO!!!

Red Bridey · December 28, 2017

That's a riot! If you're a fan of a show, why not appear in the audience? Good for Amy!

chenoa333 · December 29, 2017

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

LMAO!!!

What on earth is Amy Schumer doing in the audience!? That's some funny $hit! I'm surprised JJ didnt make Amy put a sweater on.lol!

Edited December 29, 2017 by chenoa333

flyingdi · December 29, 2017

If the defendants and plaintiffs are not allowed to drink the water, why give them the water?

Brattinella · December 29, 2017

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

LMAO!!!

You all DO know I was being facetious, right? She is only famous for being related to Chuckie, IMO.

Lyrical Lipzz · December 31, 2017

On 2/21/2017 at 5:31 PM, SandyToes said:

DVR Alert! You don't want to miss today's case! (Ep. #1 for me). Can't miss Lyrical Lipzz. Seriously.

The other case was pretty fun, too. I expect we'll see lots of screenshots!

Episode #2 - "Mr. Riddle's car was returned riddled with bullet holes." Nice job writers! And subtitles! Loved both the plaintiff and defendant in that case. A good day here in JJ land. (Makes up for the sad custody handoff case. Both of them were nuts. )

For all of you on this thread I just happened to stumble upon and seen my name.That jj episode was rigged those Janky managers as well as JJ are masons.The case was real but treated like a joke,these individuals seeked me then got all of my personal info social security number,Id number they have all of my personal info and didn't honor thier contract cause they are broke and was trying to make me pay for everything.I couldn't do it for the simple fact 2 grown men couldn't come up with$25 in 2-3months then kept having me pay for shit and saying they will pay me back but when it was time for them to pay their half since the contract was a 50\50,they could NEVER come up with any money but kept trying to control how I spent mine,If I have to fund my own projects why were they my managers?They didn't do anything but mess up my life that I'm still recovering from meeting them,On top of that I was threatened when I left the label and I went and filed a police report but jj overlooked it like it was a joke!What judge overlooks legit police reports?Why my witness who couldn't stand next to me couldn't speak but the defendant was able to have his witness stand next to him,On top of that I had 2 separate cases with both of those managers jj didn't handle my case professionally she treated it like a joke!Now I'm still tied up with these individuals whose never done anything but mess things up for me,Trust me its more to it than $20 JJ just didn't analyze the case like a real judge would this

s show is lies and entertainment ,I still have to sue the managers for defamation,and stealingy personal info as well as other issues,JJ was a waste of time and I will be sueing her also cause that episode was a total joke and I never got to explain my case the shit was edited to make me look bad I was setup!!This isn't over,Shout out to JJ for NOT BEING A REAL JUDGE AND FOR WASTING MY TIME.THIS CASE ISNT A JOKE AT ALL I SHOULD OF NEVER LET THOSE PRODUCERS TALK ME INTO BRINGING MY CASE THERE IT WAS POINTLESS!

Edited December 31, 2017 by Lyrical Lipzz

Lyrical Lipzz · December 31, 2017

Shout out to you Janky producers for telling me I was going to win cause the defendants didn't have any evidence and I had stacks of proof that JJ Never looked at!The defendant only had a sheet of paper that he gave the judge and she ended it,She's mean for no reason those dudes are Bad and so is she and the producers!Total waste and its not over this judge needs to be reported and I want to see her in court for not at least acknowledging my legit police report!

Quof · December 31, 2017

Don't post while drinking, kids.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Quof

Spunkygal · December 31, 2017

3 hours ago, Quof said:

Don't post while drinking, kids.

....and, punctuation is our friend!

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment