All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

They sell them at Neiman Marcus and Saks and they average $2000-$3000 apiece.  So I'm buying you all one for Xmas. 

Thanks but I don't want to wait for next Xmas. Even though I have no insurance on my house or car and I get food stamps, I really want to show off my new 2K bag. Can't you take a title loan on your car and get us those bags now?

[CrazyInAlabama]

New-

When Faulty Driver Collide!-Bicycle and car collision.      Car driver is suing bicyclist for running into her car at a stop light.     Car was turning right at turn lane, when light turned red, and light was not blinking or driver claims to have been doing a right turn on red, but didn't stop at all apparently.     Bicyclist was driving against the flow of traffic. and there is dispute over whether or not her car was moving and hit bicycle, or bicycle ran under her car.     It's a good thing he didn't dismount his bike, or the woman would have really smashed him.   There is right side damage to car, and bicycle was run over.   There is a big dent behind the SUV's front passenger wheel well, and I think the bicyclist nailed the car, but she should have been stopped, not creeping through the red light.     Bike rider claims he touched the car, and it slammed him into the side of her SUV and caused the huge dent.   

 I don't like either one of these people, and I'm glad I don't live near Boise, Idaho, where they both roam whacking into things, and running red lights.     JJ tells bike rider to pay hisr own damage, and plaintiff/driver gets $800+.   

Kitty Litter Misstep- Plaintiff brought dog clothes, and children's clothes to consignment shop, and claims shop owner defendant let stuff get ruined in the two bins, by cat's using it as a littler box.    (Fish lips/Emmet Kelly is behind the defendant again).   Defendant claims the stuff wasn't in good shape, but didn't safeguard it after she accepted it.    I know several people who used consignment shops, and they go through all of the clothes first, to make sure it's in good shape, and something they can sell, so if defendant didn't do that, she isn't a very good consignment shop owner.      Also, I totally dislike the defendant's snotty, entitled attitude.    Plaintiff was consigning them because her business failed, and took them to a consignment shop, so the value of what was left with shop owner wasn't full retail, and shop owner takes 30%, 

So in my view the plaintiff should only get 1300, or so with the consignment fee.   Plaintiff gets $1,000.     Little old lady certainly isn't so sweet when she doesn't get every penny she wants either.    

Rerun-

Irresponsible Child or Greedy Parents?-I'm already voting for Greedy Parents from the preview.    Parents (step dad, and mom) are suing defendant daughter for rent, utilities, etc., but they didn't pay her way through college either, but mom says they wanted rent because they wanted to teach daughter responsibility.     Apartment was in stepdad, and defendant's name, with mom, and the parent's 15 year old daughter.      Stepdad wants back rent, and to stick it to the stepdaughter.    The parents wanted one third rent, but there were four people living there.    Mom says daughter should pay 1/3, because she had a job.    I really want to punch Mom in the face several times, her attitude sucks.    Mom is in a wheelchair, but only gets $300+ a month.  Step dad gets Social Security, but works at two churches playing piano for money too, and I wonder if it's on the books.     The parents are still living in the apartment, and paying the full rent too.    Guess they couldn't find anyone else to leach off of.    Mom wants $3600 + rent, plus utilities.   I missed the ending, so I'm guessing the parents got zip, and deserved even less.   

Haz Mat Cleanup, Drug Use & Police-Defendant Mother and freaky son rented duplex $975 a month, and they were supposed to pay back rent in three installments, and landlord got that agreement through housing court.     The son looks like a whack job too.     Mother didn't bring proof of rent payments.    Tenants didn't pay the utilities either for a stupid reason, and claims there had to be separate meters, not split utilities.      Defendant space cadet's son's room is a drug polluted hovel, with visible drug residue and paraphernalia all over the place.       

I didn't get the son's name, but what do you want to bet he has a long history of police interactions?  

Mother and son were evicted, and in the two years space cadet lived with the mother, the police came by the house at least 10 times.    The landlord has a video of the premises on move out (eviction).    Paraphernalia all over the son's room, drug residue, all of the lights were broken out.    The son claims he works for the police, and I didn't know being a snitch was 'employed', and I hope his little friends saw this episode the first time around.   

 I feel sorry for the landlord, and the neighbors who had to live with constant police calls, and druggies running in and out of the house.     Mom needs to get a clue.    Mom says "the cleaning bills are outrageous", but they are when the guys in the haz mat suits have to clean up your used syringes, and handle drugs.     Plaintiff gets just under $3000, which is more than his cleaning bills.  

Edited January 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[edie3]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

They sell them at Neiman Marcus and Saks and they average $2000-$3000 apiece.  So I'm buying you all one for Xmas. 

I'll take a black one, please!

[CrazyInAlabama]

I want the medium one in black, a bargain at Saks for only $3700 plus tax.    However, I don't want the alligator or crocodile, because I don't want some naked, skinned animal chasing me like Moby Dick chased Ahab.  

Edited January 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Brattinella]

I would be ecstatic with any of those bags!  Thank you!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When Faulty Driver Collide!-Bicycle and car collision. 

Oh, hated the Red Light Hag. "But I stopped at the light!" But then she kept going, because a right turn on the red light is allowed. Yes, they're allowed here too, but she had no right turn! She was running a red light. Bicycle boy is way too old to be riding his bike on the sidewalk like a 12-year old and then zipping across a pedestrian crosswalk on it. How can there be so many adults who are so stupid and thick?

 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Kitty Litter Misstep

Two more incredible unlikeable litigants, although def was much worse due her smirking and wise-ass comments. "I'm not a cat." Fuck you, lady. Plaintiff should have been incredibly grateful to get 1K for her shit, since no one can say that any of that crap she put on consignment would have sold at all. But she wasn't grateful. She wanted more money.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Irresponsible Child or Greedy Parents?-I'm already voting for Greedy Parents from the preview. 

They were disgusting. They want to teach her financial responsibility? Really? Utterly shameful and Mommy seemed to find something funny about it.

5 hours ago, TresGatos said:

Pick one up for me! I'll promise to pay you back when I get my income taxes back. Pinky swear!

No need! ItsHelloPattiAgain is making gifts to us, because she's trying to buy our friendship just a really nice person.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The Red Light Hag was ridiculous, and her driving style is how pedestrians get run down in crosswalks.   

In the Idaho rules I found, bike riders on streets go with traffic, and follow the rules of the road.  However when riding on the road they are allowed to treat red lights and stop signs as yields (at least I think that's what it said). 

However, when on sidewalks or crosswalks,  they follow pedestrian rules (maybe because they run over a few pedestrians riding there?), and are expected to follow pedestrian rules when they walk their bikes.    

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, Intocats said:

They sell them at Neiman Marcus and Saks and they average $2000-$3000 apiece.  So I'm buying you all one for Xmas

It'll look silly matched with my Armani suit, but WTF. 

[Byrd is the Word]

16 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

In case anybody was wondering (like I was), I googled Nancy Gonzalez purses  pocketbooks (which JJ was mentioning a few days ago during one of the cases)

Interesting how they tape over the Under Amour logo on some clod’s wife beater but the star gets in a free plug in for her favorite designer of handbags. Ironically, the reference was an analogy to getting something for nothing and the smart money says Nancy Gonzalez’s peeps shot a free bag to JJ faster than Grant took Richmond.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the Idaho rules I found, bike riders on streets go with traffic, and follow the rules of the road.  However when riding on the road they are allowed to treat red lights and stop signs as yields (at least I think that's what it said). 

Idaho law:

"49-720.  STOPPING — TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.

(2)  A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic."

[funky-rat]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New-

When Faulty Driver Collide!-Bicycle and car collision.      Car driver is suing bicyclist for running into her car at a stop light.     Car was turning right at turn lane, when light turned red, and light was not blinking or driver claims to have been doing a right turn on red, but didn't stop at all apparently.     Bicyclist was driving against the flow of traffic. and there is dispute over whether or not her car was moving and hit bicycle, or bicycle ran under her car.     It's a good thing he didn't dismount his bike, or the woman would have really smashed him.   There is right side damage to car, and bicycle was run over.   There is a big dent behind the SUV's front passenger wheel well, and I think the bicyclist nailed the car, but she should have been stopped, not creeping through the red light.     Bike rider claims he touched the car, and it slammed him into the side of her SUV and caused the huge dent.   

 I don't like either one of these people, and I'm glad I don't live near Boise, Idaho, where they both roam whacking into things, and running red lights.     JJ tells bike rider to pay hisr own damage, and plaintiff/driver gets $800+.   

Kitty Litter Misstep- Plaintiff brought dog clothes, and children's clothes to consignment shop, and claims shop owner defendant let stuff get ruined in the two bins, by cat's using it as a littler box.    (Fish lips/Emmet Kelly is behind the defendant again).   Defendant claims the stuff wasn't in good shape, but didn't safeguard it after she accepted it.    I know several people who used consignment shops, and they go through all of the clothes first, to make sure it's in good shape, and something they can sell, so if defendant didn't do that, she isn't a very good consignment shop owner.      Also, I totally dislike the defendant's snotty, entitled attitude.    Plaintiff was consigning them because her business failed, and took them to a consignment shop, so the value of what was left with shop owner wasn't full retail, and shop owner takes 30%, 

So in my view the plaintiff should only get 1300, or so with the consignment fee.   Plaintiff gets $1,000.     Little old lady certainly isn't so sweet when she doesn't get every penny she wants either.    

 

 

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, hated the Red Light Hag. "But I stopped at the light!" But then she kept going, because a right turn on the red light is allowed. Yes, they're allowed here too, but she had no right turn! She was running a red light. Bicycle boy is way too old to be riding his bike on the sidewalk like a 12-year old and then zipping across a pedestrian crosswalk on it. How can there be so many adults who are so stupid and thick?

 

Two more incredible unlikeable litigants, although def was much worse due her smirking and wise-ass comments. "I'm not a cat." Fuck you, lady. Plaintiff should have been incredibly grateful to get 1K for her shit, since no one can say that any of that crap she put on consignment would have sold at all. But she wasn't grateful. She wanted more money.

The lady in the bike case was likely incorrect.  O don't know their state laws, but I know here, when a merge lane has a red light, you cannot proceed through if the coast is clear.  But the bike rider embodied everything I dislike about bike riders and gives good ones a bad name.  Mr. Funky rode bike for years when he was in school - he didn't have a car and his mom refused to take him anywhere, so it was a bike, or a bus pass in the winter.  He said he hit a curb once and damaged a tire like that, and combined with the dent, he believes the bike rider rode straight in to her side.

As for consignment lady, she apparently doesn't understand that sending something to consignment means not only that they'll keep a percentage, but you're essentially giving them license over pricing, to a degree, and she'd have never gotten what she thought her stuff was worth under the best case scenario.  If she had good business sense to begin with, she wouldn't have been taking things to consignment (I agree with JJ on that one).  That absolutely does NOT mean that the defendant was right at all.  Her cats are either overly territorial, or she has too many in one location, and it's 100% her fault that the cats peed on the clothes.  Those prices were outrageous as well - designer dog clothes (and they do exist) don't cost that much.

I always shake my head at people who want to gripe about thrift stores.  They whine about how they dare charge $2 for something they got for free - pure profit!!!  They're getting rich off of people's good nature!!!!  People need to get a grip.  In many instances, the money left over after rent and paying employees goes to fund some sort of program.  I know there's a meme going around about salaries - it was debunked eons ago.  You have to sell a lot of $2 items to pay the bills.

[AuntiePam]

I disagree with JJ in the Cats Peed on the Dog Clothes case.  She told plaintiff that she only consigned the clothes because she didn't have the know-how to sell on her own.  JJ apparently thinks that anyone with a product to sell should open a store (whether brick and mortar or on-line, she didn't specify), that consignment is a last resort.  Well maybe I don't want to open a store, or deal with shipping and  payments and disgruntled customers. 

Of course she shouldn't give plaintiff the full value of the items, but she didn't listen to plaintiff explain how she arrived at the amount she sued for.  Time and effort and materials count for something.  If the cats hadn't peed on the clothes, she could have taken them somewhere else, used them as gifts, whatever.

[funky-rat]

19 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I disagree with JJ in the Cats Peed on the Dog Clothes case.  She told plaintiff that she only consigned the clothes because she didn't have the know-how to sell on her own.  JJ apparently thinks that anyone with a product to sell should open a store (whether brick and mortar or on-line, she didn't specify), that consignment is a last resort.  Well maybe I don't want to open a store, or deal with shipping and  payments and disgruntled customers. 

Of course she shouldn't give plaintiff the full value of the items, but she didn't listen to plaintiff explain how she arrived at the amount she sued for.  Time and effort and materials count for something.  If the cats hadn't peed on the clothes, she could have taken them somewhere else, used them as gifts, whatever.

I thought it was said that she tried to run her own business and failed.  But I could have misunderstood.

[ButYourHonor]

Okay, someone explain to me how car accident cases are supposed to work, because I feel like JJ makes her decisions rather arbitrarily.  For example, last week with the two dumb high schoolers, the defendant drove into the school and JJ said the plaintiff had to pay for their own car because they gave the defendant permission to drive.

Today, girl supposedly told guy to put gas in the car and he crashed it.  Girl got the money.  Did JJ not think he had permission?  How would he have had the keys?  She said he should have known not to drive.

I don’t get it.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 1/17/2019 at 3:47 PM, TresGatos said:

Pick one up for me! I'll promise to pay you back when I get my income taxes back. Pinky swear!

I gotta wait until the Purse Lady shows up in her minivan. The girls in my front office will let me know (this is a real thing, y'all, a lady shows up outside our building with fake designer purses from Canal Street in NYC and sells them out of the back of her van. I always go out and look because I have one grown daughter who is a purse expert and always tells me how to spot the knock-offs - mainly because the C's in Coach look like G's. the Louis Vuitton bags come in styles LV doesn't make (and the leather is terrible and doesn't age the way good leather does), among other things. But I do love the younger girls in our front office drooling over this fake a$$ stuff while pulling wads of cash out of their bra-zzeres to pay for dem  purses 

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

No need! ItsHelloPattiAgain is making gifts to us, because she's trying to buy our friendship just a really nice person.

Gosh, guys, I'm just a giver. What can I say? Plus it gives me leverage later on for when I want you to babysit my kids for a month for 14 hours a day for $12. 

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thanks but I don't want to wait for next Xmas. Even though I have no insurance on my house or car and I get food stamps, I really want to show off my new 2K bag. Can't you take a title loan on your car and get us those bags now?

Well, I would, but I just took out a title loan to pay my sister's cousin's hairdresser's baby daddy's bail for his 32nd DWI - course he promised to pay me back so I can get that 72 inch big screen TV. Maybe I can get my auntie to get you a new Iphone and put you on her plan. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, the woman who consigned dog clothes had tried to sell them herself, and the business failed, so she took them to the consignment lady.   

[AngelaHunter]

36 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Well, I would, but I just took out a title loan to pay my sister's cousin's hairdresser's baby daddy's bail for his 32nd DWI - course he promised to pay me back so I can get that 72 inch big screen TV.

You're just a good, generous person, helping those in need who have fallen on hard times and really need giant TVs or designer bags. Well, I could buy my own, but my credit is in the toilet and you offered (and I  never say No to anything that is offered), so thanks!

5 hours ago, funky-rat said:

But the bike rider embodied everything I dislike about bike riders and gives good ones a bad name. 

Agree. I ride a bicycle and drive a car, and do not think all drivers should yield to me, no matter what I do. I hate some cyclists. Near me is a rather scenic, winding and narrow two-lane road where many bikers just have to go. They don't care if they're blocking traffic and no one can pass them as it's a solid white line the whole way. I was taken aback last year as I drove that road and traffic was stopped. As I inched nearer, I was horrified to see one of those very same cylcists, in full gear, lying on the road and I never found out if he was dead or not.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Both reruns today-

Car Wash Road Rage Powered By Disability!-Jerk defendant being sued for damage to plaintiff's car at car wash.    Defendant is disabled, and thinks he gets to go first at car wash, so when plaintiff takes his turn at car wash, defendant cuts him off, swears all kinds of filth, approaches plaintiff's car and punches car leaving door dents.     Defendant is totally guilty, (I used to live near Pueblo), and he's just lucky he hasn't pulled this garbage on someone with a gun, who will take him out.    Car wash manager got license number for plaintiff from their cameras.   Plaintiff wins.

Mechanic Destroys Harley-Plaintiff purchased new Harley, and it's now eight years old.   Plaintiff took Harley to defendant's shop for repairs, after whacking a big speed bump, hurting the battery among other things. and having the bike towed into the shop.         There was a dent on the gas tank, and mechanic is getting blamed for that too.   Motorcycle was towed in, but Michael Fiscarelli rode the bike out of the shop.    Plaintiff did have the bike fall over, but claims he caught it, so it didn't touch the ground.      There is zero proof that defendant did anything wrong.   Case dismissed.  

Man with 12 Sisters Denies Assaulting a Woman-  Two women plaintiff's are suing male defendant for $1801.     Defendant, plus five others lived in one apartment or house, and plaintiffs, and other roommates came home to find an eviction notice from the owner, because the defendant who collected rent and utilities, then was supposed to pay utility company, and rent, but instead kept the money.    Other utilities were in plaintiff's name.     The women found an eviction notice, and an envelope full of cash that defendant had collected, and not paid rent and utilities with.   Defendant gets nailed on back rent he stole.    

Trim My Tree... Or Else!-Plaintiff claims defendant neighbors agreed to pay her if she had tree with overhanging branches from the defendant's tree cut back to the property line from her side of the line.    Of course, defendants said they never agreed.    Nasty cretin of plaintiff sent all kinds of threatening texts to defendant if they didn't cut branches overhanging the property line, belonging to trees on defendants side.   Not the defendants'  problem.   Case is dismissed, because it's not the defendant's responsibility.

Judge Judy Challenges a Teenager-Plaintiff suing mother and 16 year old son defendants for car damage, when son hit pole with her car.    Plaintiff was not in car at time, and defendant son was driving.     Son claims plaintiff told him to gas her car up, and he hit a pole with it.    Defendant son has no driver's license, and drove the car because "she told me to do it".    Estimate is $1600 for a lot of damage, and plaintiff gets it.  

Edited January 19, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[NYCFree]

I loved the blue earrings the thrift shop owner defendant had. They looked like aquamarine or blue topaz? Very simple and lovely. The defendant was distinctly not lovely though.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims defendant neighbors agreed to pay her if she had tree with overhanging branches from the defendant's tree

That annoying harridan got totally busted: after she told JJ that she had texts that showed the defendants agreed to pay for this, she handed up a slew of texts that JJ read through. Surprise! Surprise! None of the texts she provided showed that, when JJ called her out on her blatant lie and chewed her out for wasting JJ's time, she backtracked and said that they agreed to pay in a conversation. What a horrible neighbor to have.

[CrazyInAlabama]

It must be awful to have neighbors like that, and it's not as if you can put your house on the market, and not mention to the potential buyers that psycho neighbor from hell lives next door.  

[AZChristian]

17 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

Okay, someone explain to me how car accident cases are supposed to work, because I feel like JJ makes her decisions rather arbitrarily.  For example, last week with the two dumb high schoolers, the defendant drove into the school and JJ said the plaintiff had to pay for their own car because they gave the defendant permission to drive.

Today, girl supposedly told guy to put gas in the car and he crashed it.  Girl got the money.  Did JJ not think he had permission?  How would he have had the keys?  She said he should have known not to drive.

I don’t get it.

I agree with you.  Did JJ even ASK the plaintiff if she had told the young man to put gas in her car?  If she did, the accident was on her, and her insurance wouldn't pay for it because he wasn't licensed.  They should have had to split the cost of the repairs.  

[Pondlass1]

I don't live in the States, but if a tree on the next door neighbour's property has branches that hang over the fence to my property I've always assumed I had the right to trim the overhanging branches.  Of course I'd speak with the neighbour first.  Good neighbours are like gold.

And we've actually done this. A huge tree on the neighbour's side was causing shade and leaves on our garden. We spoke with them.  We arranged for and paid to have the branches trimmed back by a tree trimmer.  It was done to both our satisfactions and all was well.

But I've always been of the opinion a neighbour has the right to cut back bushes or trees that hang over onto their property.  JJ said no, not the law.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, the law is that if there are overhanging branches on my property, from trees or bushes on the neighbor's property, I can cut straight up on the property line.     If a tree falls during a storm or something like that, and the tree isn't diseased, then I pay for removal on my side of the property line.    If the tree was known to be diseased, and on the neighbor's property, then whatever damage is done on their property, or the neighbor's property is paid by the tree owner's insurance.    However, it's more likely that my insurance would pay for my damages, and then go after the neighbor's insurance carrier.    That's why it's important to notify neighbors in writing about diseased trees threatening your house, and to take pictures proving that the tree is diseased.   

My former neighbors had a tree that was on their side of the property line, was dying, was less than half the original size from fallen branches, and most of the bark was gone.   I kept complaining, but they refused to admit it couldn't be saved.     One very windy day, the tree fell on their side, wiped out their electric service, and tore off the corner of their house.      It touched nothing on my side, and mentally, I kept saying "I told you so".     I bet it cost them many thousands to fix everything, and the house was for sale too, so they didn't want to claim it on their insurance.   

The only way I can see the defendants chipping in on the branch removal, is if they were having a bunch of trees pruned, or taken down, and just added the branches over the plaintiff's yard to it.     However, that wasn't what happened, and so plaintiff can stick those branches (supply your own idea of where).       I'm sure if the defendant had offered to pay, the plaintiff would have sued for damage to her fence or yard anyway, she's just that kind of nasty person.  

Edited January 20, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, Pondlass1 said:

Good neighbours are like gold.

You ain't lying.  We've got a beautiful Live Oak and Fig Tree on the property line and we take turns paying for pruning.  No drama, just a quick text.  Life doesn't have to be as hard as these fools make it.

[AngelaHunter]

The Aweful Battle at the Car Wash: This is a case where it's understandable that someone is collecting disability. Plaintiff was 59(!!) and looked at least 75, but this case had so many JJ tropes: Plaintiff has a girlfriend(double ??) who is a SSMOT of course, so she doesn't work either, of course, but the kiddy care didn't stop her from tooling around at 2:00a.m with ancient-looking plaintiff. Def - a big-mouthed, stupid, vile asshole, has been totally disabled for 42 years, but that didn't stop HIM from jumping out of his car at the car wash and punching a dent in plaintiff's car. Both of them, although unable to do any work for eons, are driving brand new, expensive vehicles. It's puzzling.

4 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

No drama, just a quick text.  Life doesn't have to be as hard as these fools make it.

No challenging to fistfight? No spitting in faces? No dumping trash in neighbour's yard? You're never going to get your 15 minutes of fame that way.

Mr. Fascinelli and his wrecked/not wrecked motorcyle: He just couldn't remember what he wrote in his complaint, so kept changing his story. It's a good thing that people this dumb don't know they're dumb or they might just off themselves. His loving wife, Notasha, appeared here just for the trip to L.A. I assume. "We porked the boike at noight." Go home, you moron.

[SRTouch]

32 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

No challenging to fistfight? No spitting in faces? No dumping trash in neighbour's yard? You're never going to get your 15 minutes of fame that way.

Wellllll... ok I guess - as long as you key their car after they slash your tires, you might still make the cut and get on the teevee

[CrazyInAlabama]

New -

Sneaky Kickback Party-Defendant(a Sainted Single Mother of Two) moves into the plaintiff's house after fighting with her mother.    Defendant paid no rent, what a shock.    The fact she paid no rent means counterclaim for wrongful eviction is dismissed.     Defendant had a huge party while plaintiff was out of town, and trashed the place.    Plaintiff's stripper pole in basement disappeared during the party too.    Party was planned same day party was held, and it was a kick back (small party, apparently when you steal a stripper pole).    Defendant claims plaintiff knew about the party in advance, but her written statement says it was the plaintiff's party, not defendant's, but planned by plaintiff while she was out of town with her daughter.   You can see the pole was ripped down from the basement ceiling mount, and clothes were stolen, and TV was broken.    Plaintiff says defendant and her two kids stayed free, because defendant was expecting a car accident settlement, and was going to pay plaintiff when she received the money.      JJ only gives money for the TV $279 to plaintiff.

Fraud and the Smelly Cat-Plaintiff wants security deposit, and prorated rent for last month.     Water bill still owed, cat left behind, and other damages.   $1200 was the security deposit.    Plaintiff would feed the stray cat, but it was in the house all of the time, and landlady/defendant says the cat was left behind in the house.   Plaintiff's explanation to landlady was 'cat started as a stray, and it can go back to being a stray'-another plaintiff I totally hate, and hope she gets nothing, and an animal cruelty charge from where ever she lives.    The plaintiff dumped the cat outside when she moved, and left cat for the new tenant.       Hope the plaintiff's landlord is watching this episode.      

Landlady/defendant says the cat was in the basement of the house, and something started smelling, and landlady lured the cat out, and took the cat.    The landlady also furnished a letter to some organization, that tenant had bedbugs, and it was so tenant could qualify for some organization money, and the statement also says that tenant paid the rent for October, which landlady says it was a lie.    Tenant/plaintiff gets prorated rent back.     Landlady has no bills from the tenant's move out, so tenant gets $1580, because landlady is a liar as proven by the letter to organization.   Landlady says, "she'll never do this again", but it must mean write phony letters to get money from organizations, because she already rerented the house.    Though I swear the landlady said 1 November is when she rerented, it.    Maybe the new tenant moved in early in October?

Rerun-

Blatant Cheater-(She caught him cheating, and took back the truck she bought him, two days after she purchased it)-This is the hysterical case where woman met man in February, and in March he needed money.   $3500 to break his apartment lease, and move for a job as an engineer at another city.   Plaintiff claims the money was just laying around the house, and she keeps a lot of money, so I'm sure every crook within a hundred miles is speeding to her house looking for all of that cash.      The job turned out to be at the Diablo power plant, and there are no houses actual at Diablo.   He claimed to have a high paying job, and in reality he was a part time janitor, not even full time.  

  She bought him a car, and she repo'd it, two days later when he turned out to be a cheater and liar, and she was charged a restocking fee by the car dealer.     The plaintiff put the car on four different credit cards in her name, for love muffin.       The defendant borrowed money to go deep sea diving for Chevron the next day, and wanted the truck on her dime, and would pay her back the next day.   Plaintiff claims it was all a lie.   

 The funny thing is the plaintiff looks like my college roommate, who was also a world class idiot. 

There are no fancy houses at Diablo (we all found that out the last time this aired).     She claims he was purchasing a million dollar house at Diablo, they don't even have any  houses there.   He's such a scammer.

      When plaintiff repo'd the car, she came with the police, and defendant claims there was some woman there, but not the one the plaintiff thought it was.      Defendant is suing for the return of the car, what a joke!      Defendant says plaintiff Karen Frolek (dental hygienist) took the car back "Because she was being a female".     I wish they would have showed Byrd's face when the jerk said that.  Defendant claims he never said there was a mortgage, but she has text messages and letters from defendant saying he qualified for a mortgage.      Plaintiff says she paid $2k cash restocking fee, and JJ is calling the auto dealer to confirm it.  Judge Judy determines that the restocking fee was $2,000, and plaintiff gets that.  Plaintiff doesn't get $3500 back, but she got the restocking fee.    Defendant wants his valuable stuff in the car paid for, and to quote a great Jurist of our time to him, "Who cares".  

Edited January 22, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sneaky Kickback Party-Defendant(a Sainted Single Mother of Two) 

So I sat down in front of my new TV with my snacks, all set to watch. Then I got Jonnica and her "kickback"(that was one of the few words out of her piehole I could understand) and her carelessly spawned children she dumped on her mother and the plaintiff who seemed to have an extreme itch on her head and I couldn't take any more. Next!

Not watching any animal eps.

So, I moved on to Sheleen, who can't speak properly -  "It should have went" - and the home deposit dispute. I didn't realize I had seen this until the grinning, idiotic Jennifer Lemme, who for some reason lives on peoples' taxes, stepped up, thinking she was oh, so cute and clever. I lasted until JJ had Byrd throw her out and she couldn't find the right door.

What a bust.:(

[howiveaddict]

Last week , during the case of the step dad and mother suing the daughter for rent, JJ couldn't believe that the step dad collected his social security at age 62.  Byrd had to explain it to her.  Another time her elitist 1 percentness doesn't know how the rest of the world functions.  I think she thought that Byrd was paying the man's social security. No, JJ it's money the man contributed his self.  You can get it at age 62, but you just get less per month.  I'm 60 and I can collect the smaller amount at age 63. Not that I can afford to retire.  Other than that, the plaintiff step dad and his wife were scum for suing their daughter for 1/3 of the rent.

[Silver Raven]

That poor cat, abandoned three times.

[Byrd is the Word]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Blatant Cheater

This scumbag’s cheating is probably his least damning offense. Clearly he trolls the internet for lonely women who are INCREDIBLY foolish so he can turn their heads with tales of adventure and a future. All I needed to rule against him was the angry, defensive body language but I kept viewing for the details. I might feel sympathy for the plaintiff here if she wasn’t so remarkably dumb. In addition to her world class poor judgment of character, who finances any car purchase with, not one but 4 credit cards? And she clearly seems dingy enough to keep sizable sums of money in envelopes around the house, in spite of consistent JJ’s disbelief of this practice.

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sneaky Kickback Party

All I could think of while watching this case was “WTF is going on in that plaintiff’s hair to require the constant scratching?” and “Maybe if that horrible defendant keeps doing that sassy, defiant thing with her head her neck just might snap and make the world a better place.”

Edited January 22, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[zillabreeze]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

You can see the pole was ripped down from the basement ceiling mount, and clothes were stolen, and TV was broken.

Did anyone catch the convo towards end (paraphrasing):

D: What about my laptop? (apparently on stolen list)

JJ: How long were you gone on your trip with your daughter?

D: Four days

JJ: And you didn't take your laptop with you????

D: No, I didn't.

JJ: I don't believe you!!!

Case Over.

What a bitch.  Unless you're a devoted gamer or having to work on vacation, who takes the damn laptop?  

Doesn't this silly old woman know that the newfangled phone machines and tablets do most anything you need?

Also, the damage to ceiling from yanking out stripper pole should have been worth something.

Other than her scalp critters, P seemed pretty legit and didn't deserve the attitude from Her Highness.

[DoctorK]

13 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Unless you're a devoted gamer or having to work on vacation, who takes the damn laptop?  

Agree with you on everything else but not on this one. I always travel with my laptop (haven't transitioned to one of the newer all-purpose tablets because I'm an old fart) because I use it for downloading and editing travel pictures, monitoring banking activities (especially when making transactions from overseas), and keeping myself entertained on long flights. It is also useful for researching new places to find interesting things to see and do. Not everybody does this, but I suspect a lot of us do.

ETA: On my flight from Paris (in business class thanks to mucho frequent flyer miles) I spent the whole flight drinking wine (unlimited in business class) and editing the pictures I took in Paris. Occupied me for the entire flight.

Edited January 23, 2019 by DoctorK
more info

[AZChristian]

I'm currently on a 4-day vacation and typing this on my laptop.  My phone is for when I'm not in the hotel room, but I enjoy the full keyboard and other amenities of the laptop.

[funky-rat]

30 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Agree with you on everything else but not on this one. I always travel with my laptop (haven't transitioned to one of the newer all-purpose tablets because I'm an old fart) because I use it for downloading and editing travel pictures, monitoring banking activities (especially when making transactions from overseas), and keeping myself entertained on long flights. It is also useful for researching new places to find interesting things to see and do. Not everybody does this, but I suspect a lot of us do.

 

19 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I'm currently on a 4-day vacation and typing this on my laptop.  My phone is for when I'm not in the hotel room, but I enjoy the full keyboard and other amenities of the laptop.

I take mine if I'm going to be gone for more than a day or two.  I have a little netbook that I've taken, but it's old, and runs slow, and it can frustrate me more than help me.  If it's just an overnight, or maybe two max, I take my tablet.

[zillabreeze]

I stand corrected on the laptop issue.  My little Kindle Fire does everything the laptop will do except the Microsoft Office Spreadsheets, etc. 

I over pack and overshop on trips, so I guess I won't give up the baggage real estate & weight for that larger "computer machine"🙃

[Byrd is the Word]

Generally, I only travel with my laptop if I'm working so I can access our network remotely.  It's also my preferred way to view and work with complicated attachments.  However, if I'm taking my kids to a water park like itchy the plaintiff, I'm leaving that beast behind.  But the point is this: there are enough people who would understandably leave their laptop behind that JJ and her "let them eat cake" attitude is 100% unreasonable.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

scalp critters

This makes me both laugh and shudder.  Bravo for testing my range of feeling!

[zillabreeze]

6 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

and her "let them eat cake" attitude is 100% unreasonable.

LOL!!!  I've been trying to think of a mashup of "Sheindlin/Antoinette" and can't think of anything fun & pithy.

[Matty]

Is Ms. Frolek a dentist? Did I read the caption correctly? She says she has large sums of cash in envelopes scattered around her house. The fact that she's a dentist would make it more plausible that she had $3,500 laying around the house instead of sitting in her bank account. It doesn't make sense but a dentist has more disposable income than 99.9% of the plaintiffs on JJ. The other crazy angle to the story is the fact that she bought a car for the defendant on four separate credit cards? Who does that? Something doesn't add up. If she is a dentist would you want her working on your teeth? The defendant was the usual unscrupulous scammer of desperate, older, single women on the internet. These types of gigolos are a dime a dozen on JJ. Nothing new under the sun.   

[zillabreeze]

8 minutes ago, Matty said:

Is Ms. Frolek a dentist? Did I read the caption correctly?

I think someone upthread said "Dental Hygienist".  

[Byrd is the Word]

2 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I think someone upthread said "Dental Hygienist".  

Correct.  She was incorrectly identified as a dentist.  Her Linkedin profile shows her to be a hygienist.  Either way, I wouldn't let that dingbat anywhere near me with a pointed instrument.

[Brattinella]

I was greatly disappointed at JJ (and the audience) for not exploding at the "Because she a female" statement.

[Florinaldo]

Habits differ from person to person. I know people who never bring their laptops on holidays and try to leave as many devices behind as they can, even phones; others cannot be separated from their laptop, as if it has been grafted to their body. I also know one person who does keep around a few thousand dollars cash at home, in case of an emergency; it's in an inconspicuous carry-on she can grab in case of a fire for example, which could destroy her means of accessing money in the short term. (I don't think she would broadcast that fact on national TV though.)

One problem with JJ is that she considers any behaviour that deviates from her own to be an absurdity or a lie.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

it's in an inconspicuous carry-on she can grab in case of a fire for example, which could destroy her means of accessing money in the short term.

I would think that a fire would be much more likely destroy a cash reserve in my home than to provide any relief from said fire. Additionally, other than a core meltdown in the banking system or an IRS seizure I can’t imagine a scenario in which I’m cut off from my cash. That said, we all have certain idiosyncrasies regarding calamities, real or imagined, and I’m hardly one to judge others.   

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I would think that a fire would be much more likely destroy a cash reserve in my home than to provide any relief from said fire.

Her reasoning is that if she ever has to flee her house, the cash reserve is on her way out and she will have no difficulty in grabbing it even if she is in a hurry, whereas trying to locate the tablet, the phone or her wallet could take too much time. As I said, different strokes...

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's New Episode-

Illegal Power Rip Off!-Defendant's are former tenants of shady landlady.    Defendants have six kids, and three freezers full of food, and when the electricity got cut off, the full freezers, and fridge food went bad.     The reason the electricity was cut off is the plaintiff/landlady's son illegally hooked up the electricity, when he was a tenant before the defendants.  At least, according to the landlady,   The electric bill was never due, because until September the electric company didn't know they had service, and the landlady claims her wonderful son hooked the power up illegally a month before he was evicted.      The tenants/defendants paid the trash bill, but son's electric bill they didn't know about was $5,000, and not the current tenant's problem.     When the power was turned off, all of the freezers, and fridge contents had to be trashed.    The tenants had to stay in a hotel for a month.     

There is another lease, stating utilities aren't the tenants' responsibility, and landlady says it's a forgery.       Landlady tried to get current tenants to sign lease saying they're going to pay all utilities, and past utilities.     Plaintiff landlady told to shove it, and to pay the electric bill herself.     Too bad the police didn't nail her son, they just arrested a woman for theft of utilities here, and I hope they convict and sentence her.     

Wage Garnishment Travesty!-Plaintiff suing partner/defendant for back rent on a former business property.    Then plaintiff gets his wages garnished, after a judgment was entered in District Court in Baltimore.  Plaintiff was only in the business for two months, and dropped out, and wants to stick defendant with the back rent.     Plaintiff knew for three years about the demand letters for the back rent, but ignored them until a year ago and started a paper trail to try to prove he was being garnished illegally.   Plaintiff was notified about the court date, and didn't go to court, so it was a default judgment, and plaintiff is a dumb ass.       They've been taking out the rent garnishment for almost two years, and only brought the court case now. 

The defendant is also a dumb ass, another tenant that thinks you don't feel like paying rent, then you don't have to.      Kyle (defendant) kept the business going for three years, and somehow plaintiff's name was still on the lease (forgeries?), and then skipped on the last three months, and that's what plaintiff's wages are being garnished for. 

$5k for the plaintiff.

Rerun-

Limo Driver Pummeled By Angry Drunk Passenger?-This is the rerun where a limo was hired to take a group of people to Vic & Anthony's Steak House, by the party hostess.    Scott Braslau, has great reviews about his limo service, and I just don't see him going nuts.       The defendants are the only two passengers that were picked up at their house (a mile from the hostess' house), by the hostess, and  my guess is they're both major drunks, and were probably already blotto.       Defendant is suing chauffeur (business owners) plaintiff for 'throwing them to the floor', and pummeling the moron defendant.     The defendant's wife won't shut up, she got bounced.     The limo with nine guests left from hostess Wellendorf's house, after the guests were drinking already.     The left for the restaurant at 7 p.m., and were to take the limo at 11 p.m., and then go to a club, with a final drop off at 3 a.m.         Drunk, belligerent, defendant demanded that the chauffeur take him and big-mouthed wife back home after dinner, instead of going to the club, which would have been another hour total round trip drive.      When chauffeur said he wouldn't take the defendants home, and desert everyone else at the club, and waste an hour of driving, and extra driving was not on the contract.  

When defendant demanded a ride home, and was screaming at chauffeur, and when driver got out to talk to defendants, defendant Donald Donica,  whacked him in the face.    Defendants claim that chauffeur drove in an unsafe manner, and threw both of them to the limo floor.      They traded punches.   Defendants took an Uber home after this.    Chauffeur did make a police report, and chauffeur talked to the woman hiring him about the drunken guests and their rudeness.   JJ calls Mrs. Wellendorf, the hostess who hired the chauffeur, and she says that she picked up the Donicas at their house, and spend the hour waiting for the limo's scheduled departure, getting plastered.      

JJ is really steamed after talking to hostess, Mrs. Wellendorf, and says they were all sitting around drinking a lot for the hour, and Donica told hostess nothing about pummelling, but Donica claimed both defendants were thrown to the floor of the car.      Breslau has medical treatment records too.   

When Donica, the defendant, was asked why he didn't file a police report about his brutal beating, he says "I wasn't raised that way".    The audience really enjoyed that remark.   Breslau receives medical bills, plus $1500 for the assault by the idiot Donica, for a total of $2751.

 

 

Warning:  tomorrow's rerun is the POS dog owner who had a dog in labor for two days.     If that's your local channel's rerun, you might want to skip it.

Edited January 23, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Wellendorf. Wellendorf, Wellendorf, Wellendorf, Wellendorf, Wellendorf. Wellendorf.

[Byrd is the Word]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There is another lease, stating utilities aren't the tenants' responsibility, and landlady says it's a forgery.

I strongly suspect that the lease the defendants presented is in fact the true lease; one in which they are not required to pay the electric. Otherwise there’s no explaining the fact that the defendants never established electric service in thier name; something even the most clueless renters know to do. The fact that the defendant/tenants were not required to pay electric suggests that the shifty plaintiff knew about the rigger electric meter and knew that if the tenants called to establish service the rigged meter would be discovered. The plaintiff is a pretty clearly thief and a liar.