All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Guest]

7 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Confidentiality agreement" has a different definition than it used to. I'm pretty sure it didn't mean "make it public across the globe with every dirty detail spelled out." How times change.

I think the confidentiality agreement only relates to her settlement amount. (I'm sure she got a lot with the dirtbag preacher getting to claim no wrongdoing. That's typically how those things work out.)

Did anyone else get the process server case today? Goldmine from the hallterview:

"I should have been compusated [for my work]."

[AngelaHunter]

Jesus Arellano! You smooth-talker, you Lothario, you. It's not his fault women will do anything for his favours. I was nearly licking my TV screen and fully understand why Ms. Lopez couldn't wait to bail him out to the tune of thousands of dollars after his flabby ass got arrested for "warrants." Warrants for beating up another woman who also finds him so irresistible she had 3 kids with him. So mesmerized, so engrossed was Ms.Lopez she even bought his Viagra. JJ asked her what was so compelling about this Valentino. I listened with bated breath, thinking that finally we'll get an answer. Alas, she had none other than that he's a good talker. Okay, then. I'm sure he's a dazzling conversationalist. Now we've reached a point where women will do anything to hang on to a repulsive loser/abuser who, among all the other sterling qualities, can't even get it up. I need a professional to explain this to me.

44 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

"I should have been compusated [for my work]."

Yeah, I caught that, but how often do we see anyone here who speak one complete sentence correctly?

45 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I think the confidentiality agreement only relates to her settlement amount.

Thanks to all who answered this for me. I don't understand that either. To tell the world in minute detail how he sexually abused her, groped her and "ejacuated" on her (Ew) is fine, but the amount he paid is hushed up? I guess there's a good reason for that. That she bought a house for cash and presumably kept enough to be able to live in that house is a good indicator of the amount.

Speaking of annoying little douchebags... not really, but I suddenly thought of the idiot who backed into plaintiff's car, while annoying little douchebag was driving someone else's car without permission and without insurance (of course): That he calls himself "Teddy" is just too twee. Impressive that he never misses doing his calesthenics and didn't even skip them for his 15 minutes of fame here. Gotta keep that beefcake body in tiptop form!

[SandyToes]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

That he calls himself "Teddy" is just too twee. Impressive that he never misses doing his calesthenics and didn't even skip them for his 15 minutes of fame here. Gotta keep that beefcake body in tiptop form!

That was hysterical!  "Go to Jack LaLane!"  Absolutely sure he had no idea who or what that was.  (I do, and remember when the color TV could finally showcase that fabulous blue jumpsuit!)

And then the case somewhere (new? old?) today where Byrd had to correct Judy's mispronunciation of the plaintiff's name. Glad Judy, Byrd and the guy were so good natured about it.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

God, JJ is such a relentless bitch.

Seriously.

[ButYourHonor]

Yeah, about the kid vs car case...

I wouldn’t have sued either, but if I had, my story would have been a lot more air-tight.  I absolutely believe that the plaintiff didn’t see the girl and couldn’t have avoided the accident.  What she should have said was that the girl ran out from beside and BEHIND her line of vision, which is likely what happened.    That is why she didn’t see her dart out... clearly she had already basically passed her, which is why the girl hit the middle of her car.  This ain’t rocket science here.

I also hate when JJ doesn’t let a witness speak fully.  Answering her questions is fine, but she asks leading questions and doesn’t allow the witness to present all the information available.

I’m sure that JJ just thought it was a petty and vindictive case just on the face of it, and was irritated because of that, and because she probably HAS seen cases where the child died and some scumbag still sued, back when she was in family court.  She didn’t let the defendant win on the counter-claim, so I think it’s clear she didn’t think the girl was blameless.

All in all, just uncomfortable to watch because I felt like the plaintiff was just repeating herself badly instead of giving more complete information.  It wasn’t enough that it was a side impact, she needed to stress how it wasn’t that she DIDN’T see the girl, but that she NEVER COULD HAVE seen her.

[augmentedfourth]

4 minutes ago, ButYourHonor said:

I’m sure that JJ just thought it was a petty and vindictive case just on the face of it, and was irritated because of that, and because she probably HAS seen cases where the child died and some scumbag still sued, back when she was in family court.  She didn’t let the defendant win on the counter-claim, so I think it’s clear she didn’t think the girl was blameless.

This is where I come down. I honestly didn't even really mind JJ's dressing down of the plaintiff because it just seemed so petty. Sometimes you can be right, but the optics are terrible.* And anyone who's ever been involved in any sort of school drop off/pick up can tell you there's PLENTY of shitty driving going on.

 

*Last year, I did a case with a Teenage Pedestrian vs. Driver. Teenage Pedestrian was fooling around with her friends, as teenagers do, and I believe there were multiple eyewitnesses that said she jumped out into the street between parked cars, and obviously not at a crosswalk. I did the deposition of the driver, a middle-aged woman, and it came out during the course of her testimony that 1) she had her two unrestrained dogs with her in the car, 2) she has MS and takes a lot of medications for it, and 3) she'd had cataract surgery within the year before the accident. Even I was thinking, "Oh. Oh, honey. Be thankful that the vast majority of these settle before trial."

[iwasish]

Car vs kid... I think it was the plaintiffs demeanor that bugged JJ. She didn’t seem to convey any kind of awareness that the child could have been killed or hurt way worse, she was so fixated on the fact that she was in the right and the kid was wrong  that she came across as uncaring and lacking in basic humanity.   I gather she didnt face any kind of charges but maybe there was some nasty stuff from the kids parents at the scene or after so she felt defensive. I don’t think I would have sued but I do know people who would have. In the after show the little girl said the driver kept hugging her and saying she was sorry, so I don’t think she was heartless. She just came across that way.

Models case... oddly the plaintiff said it was a spring summer photo shoot for some clothing line, yet the defendant said they used her apartment cause she had a velvet couch that would be fitting for the New Years  theme. Makes me suspect this was not a high class kind of shoot.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, ButYourHonor said:

she probably HAS seen cases where the child died and some scumbag still sued, back when she was in family court.

We saw a case like that on this show - a child dying and a woman suing her grieving mother for the cost of the old car in which the girl died.

[Florinaldo]

9 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

I’m sure that JJ just thought it was a petty and vindictive case just on the face of it, and was irritated because of that, and because she probably HAS seen cases where the child died and some scumbag still sued, back when she was in family court.

She probably did, but these cases presented entirely different sets of circumstances if a child died. It just seemed petty and needlessly manipulative on the part of JJ to dangle the possibility of a child's death when nothing of the sort remotely happened here.

You are right that the plaintiff should have better presented the facts and she could have, if the judge did not interrupt her each time she deviated form the answer JJ wanted to hear to her leading questions.

12 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Oh, and we never made it to estimates for damages, but Google tells me prices run from $75 up to $1500 for high end vehicles. This looked like a crossover - didn't catch what type.... But when you start adding all the available options - heated mirrors, turn signal on mirror, etc - the old wind wing mirror can get kind of pricey these days.

I thought it was said or implied that it was just a couple of hundred dollars, but I may be confusing it with another case.

[Zahdii]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

We saw a case like that on this show - a child dying and a woman suing her grieving mother for the cost of the old car in which the girl died.

That case is from 2005, the accident was on October 3, 2004.  Since then, the boy, Derrick has grown up and is currently serving a 38 year sentence for attempted rape, murder, and burglery.  As a three strikes offender he must serve all of his sentence and register as a sex offender.

This article is about the trial, that at that time was still to come:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/crime/article140701993.html

This article is after the trial and sentencing, and the effects on the victim.  It also gives more information on how D Moore chose his victims, how he stalked this one before attacking her, and her life today:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article151151872.html

Derrick Moore's mother, Wendy, raised a right little monster.  I think her attitude on Judge Judy showed where little Derrick learned to be so callous.  His own mother seemed to think that taking other people's feelings into consideration was an alien concept.  How else could she proudly go on TV to sue the mother of the girl who died, when Ms. Moore had a larger role in the accident than she seemed to realize? 

It's getting more difficult to find information online about the accident, but the first time I looked it up a few years ago, I remember finding some information that fleshed out the situation.  Ms. Moore liked to throw parties, the kind where a few people would show up early and after drinking all day, everyone would usually be passed out well before midnight.  Party goers understood that they were unlikely to be able to drive home, and were used to finding a bed, couch, or a corner to pass the night in when maximum inebriation had been achieved. 

In the midst of this lifestyle, Ms. Moore had already raised an older son (and wouldn't I love to know how he turned out!), and was still raising Derrick.  Ms. Moore's relaxed parenting standards allowed her to party hearty in front of her son and thought nothing of letting him tool around in her car as long as he stayed on the property.  Seven acres might seem like a lot to children running and playing, but for a young teen behind the wheel of a car, that's not a lot of room to roam.  I'm certain that young Derrick 'accidentally' left the property many times. 

Perri-Ann probably ended up there with her aunt when auntie wanted to go to the local party house and instead of finding somewhere else to put her niece, she figured that Perri-Anne could hang out with Derrick and they could keep each other company.  Having drunk adults tell them to go out to the car and listen to the radio would lead most people to realize that a couple of bored teens would eventually decide to take the car out for a spin, especially when there were no sober adults (or maybe not even any conscious adults) around to put a stop to the fun and games.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Zahdii

[nora1992]

14 hours ago, Brattinella said:

You have covered exactly all my talking points about this case.  I also think suing for the mirror was a bad choice.  But JJ needs to stop fantasizing about theoretical cases and pretending that is what happened.  Lady could have been parked there, and if little girl ran full tilt into a parked car, it would have ended the same way.

But in MY America, people can be made whole when they suffer damages due to the actions of people without clean hands.  Maybe that mother can't afford $700 out of pocket because lil Emy wants to take a shortcut.  There are policies with $1000 deductibles, so all the money could have been out of pocket.  The plaintiff deserved to be made whole; and in MY America, she would have been.

[AZChristian]

I was cheering for the plaintiff when she first refused to answer JJ's speculative question.  I was very disappointed in JJ on the child-running-into-a-car case.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Zahdii said:

His own mother seemed to think that taking other people's feelings into consideration was an alien concept. 

To her, empathy is an alien concept. It's just not there. Sociopath, psychopath - whatever she is, her affect said it all. Perianne's death meant absolutely nothing to her, when even total strangers would think the death of a young girl tragic. But not her.  No wonder her son is a violent lunatic.

[momtoall]

I read the posts on this forum because you folks are insightful as well as amusing.  Still not watching the episodes because I often find Judge Judy hard to take.  

[Brattinella]

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

You are right that the plaintiff should have better presented the facts and she could have, if the judge did not interrupt her each time she deviated form the answer JJ wanted to hear to her leading questions.

This, I think, is my biggest gripe with JJ.  She just KEEPS ON interrupting!  Maybe if she gave the plaintiff a SECOND to take a breath, she might have remembered a little more, like she "never could have seen" the little girl.   I want her to retire so bad; she has more money than God now, how much more does she need?

[TresGatos]

3 hours ago, Zahdii said:

That case is from 2005, the accident was on October 3, 2004.  Since then, the boy, Derrick has grown up and is currently serving a 38 year sentence for attempted rape, murder, and burglery.  As a three strikes offender he must serve all of his sentence and register as a sex offender.

Thank you for posting this. That poor Cal Poly student! About to graduate with her whole life ahead of her only to have something like that happen. Right little monster, indeed!

[SRTouch]

24 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

This, I think, is my biggest gripe with JJ.  She just KEEPS ON interrupting!  Maybe if she gave the plaintiff a SECOND to take a breath, she might have remembered a little more, like she "never could have seen" the little girl.   I want her to retire so bad; she has more money than God now, how much more does she need?

Another thing I hate...  Don't think about your answer - you're not smart enough to know where I'm going.

[KittyMom4]

4 hours ago, nora1992 said:

But in MY America, people can be made whole when they suffer damages due to the actions of people without clean hands.  Maybe that mother can't afford $700 out of pocket because lil Emy wants to take a shortcut.  There are policies with $1000 deductibles, so all the money could have been out of pocket.  The plaintiff deserved to be made whole; and in MY America, she would have bee

I'm not going to say that I totally agree with how JJ handled this case, but IMO there are far too many people who look to litigation to settle the score for every little thing. There are also too many people who never take the blame for their mistakes. In this case it was both, a driver who may or may not have been aware of her surroundings and a child who was clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would have been the fairest decision for JJ to order mom of the little girl to pay half the damages, and let the driver suck it on the other half since they were both partly to blame. I felt JJ was pointing out to the driver that it could have been way worse and she should have never brought this to court, and the quick glimpse of the vehicle she was driving makes me think she could afford the $700. Heck, I drive a 2009 Hyndai Sonata (totally paid for!) and knocked a side view mirror off at a drive-thru ATM, cost me $300 out of pocket, I did not make a claim to my insurance since it was under my $500 deductible. If she's able to drive what looked to be an higher end vehicle, she can afford the cost of the new side view mirror, instead of coming on national TV to whine about a 6 year old girl running into it. 

[nora1992]

36 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said:

I'm not going to say that I totally agree with how JJ handled this case, but IMO there are far too many people who look to litigation to settle the score for every little thing. There are also too many people who never take the blame for their mistakes. In this case it was both, a driver who may or may not have been aware of her surroundings and a child who was clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would have been the fairest decision for JJ to order mom of the little girl to pay half the damages, and let the driver suck it on the other half since they were both partly to blame. I felt JJ was pointing out to the driver that it could have been way worse and she should have never brought this to court, and the quick glimpse of the vehicle she was driving makes me think she could afford the $700. Heck, I drive a 2009 Hyndai Sonata (totally paid for!) and knocked a side view mirror off at a drive-thru ATM, cost me $300 out of pocket, I did not make a claim to my insurance since it was under my $500 deductible. If she's able to drive what looked to be an higher end vehicle, she can afford the cost of the new side view mirror, instead of coming on national TV to whine about a 6 year old girl running into it. 

I don't have insights into the budget of the plaintiff; I only know that I don't have an extra $700 that I can kiss goodbye because my car is in someone's way.

When is someone old enough to take responsibility/suffer the consequences of her actions?  She was 9; not 5.  It is a painful lesson, but hopefully next time, she won't disregard the crossing guard.  As long as we're using hypotheticals, next time, she might run into a semi.  If she is spared the consequences of thoughtless action as a pedestrian, heaven help us all when she's a driver. 

[KittyMom4]

12 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

When is someone old enough to take responsibility/suffer the consequences of her actions?  She was 9; not 5.  It is a painful lesson, but hopefully next time, she won't disregard the crossing guard.  As long as we're using hypotheticals, next time, she might run into a semi.  If she is spared the consequences of thoughtless action as a pedestrian, heaven help us all when she's a driver.

Let us hope that having a broken clavicle will make her rethink running into traffic again. I see your point, I was just saying that dragging this to court seemed petty to me. Just the fact that the mom of the little girl only counter-sued for the medical bills after she was served makes me think that the driver was lucky. Again, I don't agree with how it was handled, and no one came out looking good here. 

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, nora1992 said:

When is someone old enough to take responsibility/suffer the consequences of her actions?  She was 9; not 5.  It is a painful lesson, but hopefully next time, she won't disregard the crossing guard.  As long as we're using hypotheticals, next time, she might run into a semi.  If she is spared the consequences of thoughtless action as a pedestrian, heaven help us all when she's a driver. 

 I was thinking about this last night.  If it was a thirteen-year old. would she have been responsible then?  Or, what if she was riding her bicycle, would that be okay to assign consequences?

[Florinaldo]

Since when is it "petty" to claim being reimbursed for property that was willfully ruined by a crazy ex? A memory foam mattress, plus bamboo sheets, can be expensive, so the plaintiff deserved to be made whole because he cannot enjoy the benefit of that property anymore.

Of course JJ probably has her people throw out and replace her own memory foam mattresses each time a little bump forms in them.

[Brattinella]

32 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Since when is it "petty" to claim being reimbursed for property that was willfully ruined by a crazy ex? A memory foam mattress, plus bamboo sheets, can be expensive, so the plaintiff deserved to be made whole because he cannot enjoy the benefit of that property anymore.

Of course JJ probably has her people throw out and replace her own memory foam mattresses each time a little bump forms in them.

A 1300 dollar mattress is not petty.  I wanted to pull that cutie-pie's lips off while she was attempting to inject testimony piecemeal in between JJ's words.  Is this how teenagers are these days?

[Toaster Strudel]

BBQ Wild Wings Servers case was not funny. Red headed plaintiff who is shooting guns daily with the local police force, terrifying all his co-workers, harassing a woman in whom he might have sensed vulnerability, obsessively threatening to slash her tires and damage her car, returning to the work place while off-duty to make her life miserable some more, WILL KILL SOMEONE one day, very soon, and might very well get away with it because of his popo friends (who may be like-minded individuals). I've been watching this show forever and I've never seen a defendant exuding raw fear like this poor woman did. The plaintiff's alleged motive for the harassment was some BS about "side chores" or whatever they called them. I think it was just a pretext. He found someone to toy with. He reveled in frightening her. He probably looked forward to it every day, so much so, that once he lost his job at Wild Wings, he continued to harass her through the courts. Five very sad gavels.

Archie vs. Veronica I liked this case because Archie becoming a bespectacled accountant was unexpected, but we all saw Veronica slashing his mattress coming! The slashed mattress is probably still good. Turn it around, patch up the fabric, or even have the mattress recovered. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Toaster Strudel

[Spunkygal]

Ugh. The heroin addict guy's brain is so fried that he doesn't know how often he's been arrested or how much time he's spent in jail. Thank God the kids got taken away, even the three that plaintiff had with other losers. She is an irresponsible dingbat. My head hurts from watching this case. And fried egg brain guy took the glass of water with him! 

[DoctorK]

25 minutes ago, Spunkygal said:

fried egg brain guy took the glass of water with him! 

I loved that!

[AngelaHunter]

58 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

I liked this case because Archie becoming a bespectacled accountant was unexpected, but we all saw Veronica slashing his mattress coming! The slashed mattress is probably still good

I've slashed plenty of mattresses. Isn't that how one settles disputes with a loved one? And give me a minute to think and I'll tell you how many times I've been arrested because, yeah, sure - of course I've been arrested. Who hasn't? Going to watch this now, but I think FF will come in handy. I'm on "Ridiculous scumbag overload."

[augmentedfourth]

Lesson of the day: Never work at Buffalo Wild Wings. I get that they have to cover their own ass, but it sounded like they did nothing to help that poor girl defend herself against Captain Redbeard (and his guns, plural), and may have even hindered her case. At a quick, first glance, both of them seemed reasonable enough, especially considering some of the litigants we've seen on this show, but it didn't take very long for the plaintiff to ping every alarm I have. If I were the defendant, I'd still be sleeping with one eye open, and would definitely consider moving far away.

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

BBQ Wild Wings Servers case was not funny.

Not funny at all. What official entity thought giving Ichabod Stoneking, with the bad temper and the creepy murderous hillbilly/serial killer vibe, guns was a stellar idea? He's a tough guy too, able to terrorize poor def and no doubt a lot of other people. Having that backup of guns makes him a big man, I guess, which is why he would do anything to avoid being without them for two whole years. How would skinny, frail looking freak intimidate anyone if they knew he didn't have weapons? Unarmed, he couldn't even bully a school kid out of his lunch money. Even young girls wouldn't fear him. He needs his guns! Nice he spends his off time being a good ol' boy shooting guns with his buddies, the cops - the same cops his victims have to ask for help when he harasses and threatens them. He probably told them, "Bitch is just mad because she can't have me!" and maybe they agreed. He was suing her for "deformation." What the hell kind of place would let him have guns?

Only light moment was hearing JJ say the word, "Dumbass."

[AZChristian]

I wonder if Mr. Buffalo Wild Wings Redbeard had come on to the defendant and she shot him down (unfortunately, not with a real gun)?  That may have triggered (see what I did there?) his vendetta.  He has escalated his stalking to national television.

Major creep.

[SandyToes]

The gavel reviews have returned! (I hope!) Thanks, @Toaster Strudel!!  Archie and Veronica! Hee!! Perfect.  I didn't even finish watching today's cases, and completely ignored the later ones. Too much shrieking from JJ, and too many stupid humans.  I get that she doesn't get into litigation for spatulas and dish towels, but am in agreement major furniture replacement costs.  Not as if they both had used it for years and years.

Buffalo wild wings case was really weird. And Mr. Cole, he of the heroin/multiple arrests lifestyle, was just too awful to watch.

This show used to be my "gee I'm not the horrible person/parent I thought I was because these folks are waaaaay worse" fix but lately, it makes me crazIER for realizing Byrd and I (and all the rest of y'all) are going to be responsible for ALL THESE PEOPLE and their children, and for the stupid, stupid decisions they make.

I miss Andy Griffith.  

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

The slashed mattress is probably still good. Turn it around, patch up the fabric, or even have the mattress recovered.

But in the normal course of things he should not be forced into a position where he has to do that; he should be able to use his property without making adjustments because of the actions of his bitter resentful ex's actions. She seemed so nasty I would not be surprised if she punctured all sides of the mattress and the covering. Besides, your solution does not apply to the bedsheets, which she also slashed (bamboo ones can be expensive as can be found online). But JJ would probably find my opinion "petty".

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Car vs kid... I think it was the plaintiffs demeanor that bugged JJ. She didn’t seem to convey any kind of awareness that the child could have been killed or hurt way worse, she was so fixated on the fact that she was in the right and the kid was wrong  that she came across as uncaring and lacking in basic humanity.   I gather she didnt face any kind of charges but maybe there was some nasty stuff from the kids parents at the scene or after so she felt defensive.

I used to work in a children's orthopaedic clinic and do the histories of how the kids get injured. I cannot even tell you the weird things that happen to kids. The mirror was probably at the perfect height to catch that little girl's clavicle (collarbone). 

The litigants in that case were from around my area so I did a little googling. Ironically both the plaintiff and the defendant are real estate agents in a highly saturated competitive market here in South Florida so I wonder if there was some competitive animosity to start with. Also, we take school zones and areas around schools VERRRRY seriously here. I've been driving 45 MPH down a four lane road and when that blinking school zone light comes on, people practically stop dead in traffic. Nobody in their right mind goes more than 10-15 mph and God forbid if you go a MPH over before you get past that sign - it's a ticket for $150-300. No mercy. 

Was anybody else weirded out by the seemingly cute but insistent brace-faced defendant in the mattress-slashing case? She acted like she was all sweetness and light but she tore the plaintiff's stuff all up and didn't she get arrested? Then she got a restraining order so he got kicked out of his own house. She was like a chihuahua that wiggles her tail and then bites the crap outta you if you get too close. 

[Florinaldo]

The Buffalo Wild Wings plaintiff should have caused warning bells to ring in his employer's mind; if his demeanor in real life or at work was anything like what he displayed on TV, they should have realised immediately that he was a clear source of potential trouble. Unless this is the type of stellar work environment that is expected that establishement.

On the other hand, the defendant should also cause them some worry. She reminds me of a male employee we once had; always ready to feel attacked and provoked while playing the mousey victim who is the perpetual target of some mean co-worker, to the point of seeking out such situations when they do not happen on their own. Those two together were a disastrous combination.

 

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Was anybody else weirded out by the seemingly cute but insistent brace-faced defendant in the mattress-slashing case? She acted like she was all sweetness and light but she tore the plaintiff's stuff all up and didn't she get arrested? Then she got a restraining order so he got kicked out of his own house. She was like a chihuahua that wiggles her tail and then bites the crap outta you if you get too close. 

Excellent summary of her odious personality.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Florinaldo

[poeticlicensed]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

20 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

The slashed mattress is probably still good. Turn it around, patch up the fabric, or even have the mattress recovered.

But in the normal course of things he should not be forced into a position where he has to do that; he should be able to use his property without making adjustments because of the actions of his bitter resentful ex's actions. She seemed so nasty I would not be surprised if she punctured all sides of the mattress and the covering. Besides, your solution does not apply to the bedsheets, which she also slashed (bamboo ones can be expensive as can be found online). But JJ would probably find my opinion "petty".

Yes, she seemed a bit off. I get that having a sick pet is distressing, but it does no good to have two people up watching all night. She was acting like he shouldn't go anywhere because her dog was sick. Then she messed up his stuff. JJ just doesn't like it when people live together then want the court to untangle the relationship. But in this case, he should have been compensated for the mattress. 

 

Buffalo Wild Wings guy was a major creeper. And the manager did not control the situation before it got out of hand. 

[Schnickelfritz]

I was so excited to see new episodes of JJ, but after viewing them in the past couple of weeks, I am mentally exhausted. JJ's unnecessary anger, poor snap judgments, elitism, resting bitch face. All tiring. My take on this whole situation is that JJ is burned out (or is the stupidity producer driven?) In either case, she really needs to take her multi-million dollar marbles and go home. The time has come. And for good measure, she should be forced to volunteer for the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders or any other volunteer organization that involves others in need. She can then go and tell those being helped that she doesn't care about their "pots and pans" when they don't have much more.

And I have an idea. CBS can offer up the massive catalog of back episodes of the show (that they just overpaid for) for daily viewing. Start at episode 1. They're so old, most of us (okay, at least I) wouldn't remember them. She was much more watchable then!

Heck, the same goes for TPC, except I want to see the Wapner episodes. JM can just go bask in the Florida sun.

***End of rant***

[SRTouch]

9 minutes ago, Schnickelfritz said:

I was so excited to see new episodes of JJ, but after viewing them in the past couple of weeks, I am mentally exhausted. JJ's unnecessary anger, poor snap judgments, elitism, resting bitch face. All tiring. My take on this whole situation is that JJ is burned out (or is the stupidity producer driven?) In either case, she really needs to take her multi-million dollar marbles and go home. The time has come. And for good measure, she should be forced to volunteer for the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders or any other volunteer organization that involves others in need. She can then go and tell those being helped that she doesn't care about their "pots and pans" when they don't have much more.

And I have an idea. CBS can offer up the massive catalog of back episodes of the show (that they just overpaid for) for daily viewing. Start at episode 1. They're so old, most of us (okay, at least I) wouldn't remember them. She was much more watchable then!

Heck, the same goes for TPC, except I want to see the Wapner episodes. JM can just go bask in the Florida sun.

***End of rant***

Yep, sometimes I agree with the sentiment. And that would make it pre cell phone. ?

[bearlnr1]

Ok. I religiously follow everyone's comments on here and rarely post but I need to question something.  I started watching the case with the wrinkly old lady renting part of her condo. I had to pause it to post because I couldn't focus on the case. Over the plaintiff's right shoulder there is a woman who looks very odd to me.  I can't figure her out. Is that a bad wig? She looks really pale with a headband and looks a little freakish to me.  Is it just me?

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

My take on this whole situation is that JJ is burned out (or is the stupidity producer driven?)

Maybe. I am now burned out with the stupidity. Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, we get "I wanted to see Grandpa's Fake Eye." A woman puts 15+thousand dollars in a home safe (I guess she doesn't like them there banks) when she knows her 13 year old grandson has the friggin' combination! WTF?? And def's moronic parents, when their kid comes home with 2K in hundred dollars bills and tells them he earned it, don't ask, "How the hell did you make thousands of dollars, dear, darling son of ours, at your tender age of TWELVE?" No, it never occurs to them to ask that. They are all, "Oh, cool. Spending spree!" I just... I can't anymore. Had I come home at that age with just 50$, or even 25$ my mother would have grilled me like a police sargeant. OMG. Nope. I can't. The stupidity is giving me an ulcer. No wonder kids are growing up dumb. Look at their parental units!

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe. I am now burned out with the stupidity. Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, we get "I wanted to see Grandpa's Fake Eye."

I think I would want to see Grandpa's Fake eye myself, but I wouldn't think to steal a buttload of money. If I had an extra DOLLAR my mother would have been all over me. And why would she give a kid the combination? She deserves to have all her money stolen and thrown out the window for that smooth move. 

[Florinaldo]

That mother was indeed stupid. Not for (allegedly) not asking her son about where the money came from, but from thinking that she could send him on a spending spree without the chance that someone would eventually inquire about the missing loot, from whatever unknown source it may have come.

She came across as having no regret that they were able to profit from that unexpected and undeserved bonanza.

Not that grandma was not stupid herself for not changing the combination once her husband died, since she knew he had revelaed it to the boy.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Florinaldo

[Brattinella]

I just couldn't get over the fact that the boy had the GALL to just dip in every week for a GRAND.  How does a 12 yr-old have the mindset to do that?

[AngelaHunter]

11 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That mother was indeed stupid. Not for (allegedly) not asking her son about where the money came from, but from thinking that she could send him on a spending spree without the chance that someone would eventually inquire about the missing loot, from whatever unknown source it may have come.

She did ask him when he came home with pockets bulging with 100$ bills. He told her he earned it, and her precious snowflake would never tell a lie, so why ask anything else. It must be true. The only question now is on what to spend the loot. Goofy-looking Daddy seemed to find something amusing about all this. And Grandma... oh, I don't know, I can't absorb this "DUH-ness" that makes me wonder how on earth these people have lived as long as they have. Just luck, I guess. They really need to be protected from themselves.

[ButYourHonor]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

The Buffalo Wild Wings plaintiff should have caused warning bells to ring in his employer's mind; if his demeanor in real life or at work was anything like what he displayed on TV, they should have realised immediately that he was a clear source of potential trouble. Unless this is the type of stellar work environment that is expected that establishement.

On the other hand, the defendant should also cause them some worry. She reminds me of a male employee we once had; always ready to feel attacked and provoked while playing the mousey victim who is the perpetual target of some mean co-worker, to the point of seeking out such situations when they do not happen on their own. Those two together were a disastrous combination.

 

 

Yeah, I’d agree with all of this.  I mean technically it seems that SHE was the one who started the whole kerfuffle by complaining/yelling at him about not finishing his “side work” (whoop dee doo, lady) and if he was that scary, why would she have wanted to provoke him?  We have only her say that he told her anything about her car or otherwise harassing her while working, though going there after work was clearly an intimidation move.  I’m not saying he deserved to win - not one bit - but I also think the whole thing could have been avoided if either one of them had just let their initial petty difference drop.

I didn’t get a serial killer vibe off him, just an entitled asshat vibe.  I got a whiney complainer vibe off her, and am not surprised the business didn’t want to get involved or have any other employees involved.  The other thing that makes me slightly doubt the extent of any harassment is the fact that the managers continued to put them on the same shifts.  Granted I haven’t worked retail since my early twenties, but I’m pretty sure I remember the managers scheduling things so that possible conflicts could be avoided.

Edited May 3, 2018 by ButYourHonor

[augmentedfourth]

41 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I just couldn't get over the fact that the boy had the GALL to just dip in every week for a GRAND.  How does a 12 yr-old have the mindset to do that?

I KNOW! I could see maybe, just maybe, a 12-year-old thinking something like "I want [shiny new game console or whatever], maybe I'll just take out the amount to buy it and hope no one notices" (which would still be stupid, but maybe not as...is malicious the right word?), but going back week after week, taking a thousand dollars each time? Damn. How many clothes could they buy, really? And what 12-year-old boy cares that much about fancy clothes?

 

No comments yet on the other case, with the videotape of the utter trash fighting over their almost 1-year-old at 11:00 at night? I wanted to reach through the screen and rescue that poor baby, and I already have enough kids of my own.

[iwasish]

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I think I would want to see Grandpa's Fake eye myself, but I wouldn't think to steal a buttload of money. If I had an extra DOLLAR my mother would have been all over me. And why would she give a kid the combination? She deserves to have all her money stolen and thrown out the window for that smooth move. 

My mother would have had the spotlight on and gone all Joe Friday on my ass if she ever caught me with even a dollar I couldn’t account for the origin of. I would have been dragged by my hair over to that ladies house and made to apologize .... but that wouldn’t have been till I was able to actually walk and talk again.  

[Spunkygal]

I am so tired of this in all the cases (I'm using plaintiff but feel free to substitute defendant):

JJ: how long did you live together?

P: well, uh...

JJ: Uh is not an answer! HOW LONG DID YOU LIVE TOGETHER?

P: for about three...

JJ: SHHHHH! (Pounds on desk) just answer my question!

P: we lived together for....

JJ: SHHHHHH!  Do you see where I'm going? huh? SHHHHHH!

She drives me crazy with all the shushing. Yeah, I get it that she sees the turds of society but she also gets paid mega big bucks to sit up there and listen.

[jilliannatalia]

2 hours ago, bearlnr1 said:

Ok. I religiously follow everyone's comments on here and rarely post but I need to question something.  I started watching the case with the wrinkly old lady renting part of her condo. I had to pause it to post because I couldn't focus on the case. Over the plaintiff's right shoulder there is a woman who looks very odd to me.  I can't figure her out. Is that a bad wig? She looks really pale with a headband and looks a little freakish to me.  Is it just me?

It's not just you.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, stewedsquash said:

I haven't watched that case yet but I will be on the look out and report back to you!

You haven't seen Cruella DeVille of 1001 Pink Poodles yet? You're in for a treat. Routine question: "Have you ever been arrested?" Cruella: "Yes." Guess that shouldn't really have come as a surprise.

[ButYourHonor]

Almost forgot about the 12yr old safe crackers!

Yeah, that’s some kind of early sociopathic behavior right there.  I mean the kid knows the money is from his grandpa who just died.  Knows it’s being saved for a house.  But still feels free to take THOUSANDS out and give half to a friend?  And friend doesn’t even question it??  CLOTHES?  WTH kind of clothes cost three thousand dollars out in Sticksville?  “The Buckle”??  Is that like fancy riding/cowboy clothes or something?  Because that’s about the only clothes I can see 12yr olds being interested in.  Would have made more sense if they’d said they bought iPads and xBox systems.

The parents of the other boy clearly owed the money and the only reason I can see for coming on JJ is that they don’t actually have to give it back (and might not even have the ability if it’s been spent and the objects used) so this way the grandma can get her money faster.  Oh, and also because grandma seemed to be thinking they owed more, so that might have been in dispute.

 

edited to add:  Okay I found The Buckle online and it looks like a standard department store, with standard department store prices.  Not exactly Neiman Marcus with $200 jeans, so I don’t know how they managed to spend 3k, but. I’d certainly be asking and making sure it wasn’t used for drugs - which is sad, considering their ages.

Edited May 3, 2018 by ButYourHonor