All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Brattinella]

Wow there is really a THING called "Cannabis University of Florida"!

[Rick Kitchen]

Here's a discussion of vocal fry -

 

 

Cannabis University of Florida has a website - http://www.cannabisuniversityfl.com/

[BubblingKettle]

I don't know who Karnak is, either.  They Karnak Temple complex in Egypt?  The comic book marital artist?

 

Oh, the Johnny Carson skit?  They were pretty funny.

Oh gosh, I guess I am showing my age by knowing Karnak...I'm 39 but often act/feel like I am 79.  

 

Your last guess is correct -- the Johnny Carson skit.  Oh wait, I think he spelled it Carnac...oops.  Anyway, he'd wear this funny cape and turban (like a fortune teller's costume), and he'd play like he was using psychic powers to find answers to questions.  I'm not doing it justice with this explanation.  :)

[Brattinella]

Is Sophie Bush (on Chicago PD) an example of vocal fry?

[Toaster Strudel]

Enjoy more vocal fry fuckerbitches (hey old times!)

 

[Toaster Strudel]

Cannabis University of Florida is for real?  I thought the closed captioning was high...

[Brattinella]

Drunk-Drivin' Buddies were KILLING me!  That was the best laugh I've had in a long time (glad JJ had fun with it, too) "So, you want your $900 deductible AND $4000 to go towards a new car?" HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  "And YOU want $2000 for your DUI costs?"  God Almighty!  My sides are hurting!

[Rick Kitchen]

Another case where JJ clearly never drives, this morning's reruns.  A young girl was driving and made a left turn out of a parking lot across a highway with a median strip.  It was 11:30 at night.  The guy behind her got upset because she crossed the first half of the highway and then stopped at the median even though, according to him, there was no traffic coming.  JJ said, "Well, that's what you're supposed to do.  Stop even if there's no traffic."  Sounds a lot like her proclamation earlier in a previous show that you cannot enter an intersection on a green light to make a left turn unless there is no traffic coming through.

[Quof]

 

Sounds a lot like her proclamation earlier in a previous show that you cannot enter an intersection on a green light to make a left turn unless there is no traffic coming through.

 

I drive.  And I'm a lawyer.  And I agree with her on this point.

[Brattinella]

We did this already.

[27bored]

Terresa Terry, Insurance Scammer - teebax will love this.  If you're going to need someone to lie to the insurance company, you have to give them a cut!  Even JJ agrees and granted the cut to the plaintiff.  What, no talk of clean hands?  Doesn't matter!  I felt sorry for the kid, but he did get $5K for a pile of blankets and a few laundry baskets of clothes.

 

I'm glad he was able to turn it around and make JJ see what she was doing. If she was going to get paid that much money for the house and the contents therein, she should've given him what he asked for to keep him quiet.

[Intocats]

Cannabis University of Florida is for real?  I thought the closed captioning was high...

I heard that and I thought I was high! But no, there IS a Cannabis University of Florida!

 

 

(edited because I posted the link, then saw Rick Kitchen beat me to it!)

Edited November 18, 2014 by Intocats

[Intocats]

Even The Lord Is Uninsured! - Pasty faced Mary Magdalen defendant crashes Jesus' motorcycle.  Our Savior had forgotten to insure his bike with the Holy Ghost.  Too bad!  The sinner woman was lying when she said Jesus rode with her, in the hallterview she admitted that he didn't.  She betrayed him in front of Pilatus Judy!

 

OMG....literally! I kept visualizing his caption as, "JESUS CHRIST, Heaven, FL" and just about lost it.

Is Sophie Bush (on Chicago PD) an example of vocal fry?

I'm not sure, but Chelsea of 90-Day Fiance on TLC (a trainwreck of a show if ever there was one) has vocal cords so fried they crackle.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Intocats

[EtheltoTillie]

Back to Friday. The three guys case. Why did the defendant have a disgusting crust on his mouth?

Home insurance case: wow, that was really snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Even JJ acknowledged that she had reversed position.

[Trini]

Well finally an interesting case! At first, I side-eyed the guy for suing his aunt when her house burned down; but then... insurance fraud! What a 180!

[teebax]

Terresa Terry, Insurance Scammer - teebax will love this.  If you're going to need someone to lie to the insurance company, you have to give them a cut!  Even JJ agrees and granted the cut to the plaintiff.  What, no talk of clean hands?  Doesn't matter!  I felt sorry for the kid, but he did get $5K for a pile of blankets and a few laundry baskets of clothes.

This case was interesting because I wasn't paying much attention to it since it seemed like a typical, boring JJ case involving a renter too stupid to buy renters' insurance (seriously, that coverage is very inexpensive and there's no excuse for a renter not to have it). But then, the twist. And oh what a twist it was!  

 

I was chopping up veggies for my evening green juice after a long day of car shopping. (Unlike JJ's litigants, car shopping for me does not involve a trip to a buy-here pay-here car dealership, a payday loan facility, an auction house, or even a Craigslist search, but it's a pain the neck of a process nonetheless.) So I was tired and uninterested in the case until that epic twist. That lady is a straight-up moron. The smartest thing she did was clam up and not say anything more incriminating once she realized she was busted. Sticking to her story about the nephew only being a visitor and her actually living in the house was the smartest thing she could do at that point. Being made a fool of on JJ is one thing; being arrested for insurance fraud is another. She'd better hope her agent or adjuster wasn't watching. It would have cost her a fraction of what she scammed to keep her nephew quiet, and she was just too greedy to do it. She's not too bright, is she?

 

JJ laughing her way through the other case was so fun to watch. More idiots on parade.

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

I'm not sure, but Chelsea of 90-Day Fiance on TLC (a trainwreck of a show if ever there was one) has vocal cords so fried they crackle.

Wow I'm probably dating myself but vocal fry sounds like being a Valley Girl back in the day. My daughter had a friend who used to talk like that probably 13-14 years ago and at the end she gave an odd hum ("So let's go to the movies and see if the cute guys are there, mmmmm") that reminded me of Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade ("biscuits and mustard, mmm hmmmm")

 

JJ must have had feathers in her underpants during the Drunk Driving Buddies case. Even Byrd looked like he couldn't figure it out. DDBs are perfect examples of our entitlement society where people are "forced" to make poor decisions by others and take no personal responsibility. Wonder if it was sushi-for-lunch day. 

[AngelaHunter]

For anyone curious about JJ's Carnac references:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFQFf_Vb0Hw

 

 

Unlike JJ's litigants, car shopping for me does not involve a trip to a buy-here pay-here car dealership, a payday loan facility, an auction house, or even a Craigslist search, but it's a pain the neck of a process nonetheless.)

 

So I guess that means you don't have to spend six months "working on" getting insurance either? How hoity-toity of you!

Edited November 18, 2014 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

So I guess that means you don't have to spend six months "working on" getting insurance either? How hoity-toity of you!

I know! I'm such a snob!

[QuinnM]

 

So I guess that means you don't have to spend six months "working on" getting insurance either? How hoity-toity of you!

 

Lucky for me because I won't need to pay my insurance since you'll be getting some.

[PopTart16]

Teebax, question for you. I rent, and my sisters live with me, we make up our household and my renters insurance would cover any possessions in our apartment should it go up in flames, but let's say things were different and I lived in an apartment with 3 other roommates, how would that work? Would my renters insurance cover only my things? I don't think I'd be able to get insurance on things that don't belong to me, correct? What happens in a case where you have multiple people living under the same home? Would a renters insurance policy cover everyone?

[Brattinella]

When I was a renter, I think renter's insurance (added to my car ins.) was about $5.

[teebax]

Teebax, question for you. I rent, and my sisters live with me, we make up our household and my renters insurance would cover any possessions in our apartment should it go up in flames, but let's say things were different and I lived in an apartment with 3 other roommates, how would that work? Would my renters insurance cover only my things? I don't think I'd be able to get insurance on things that don't belong to me, correct? What happens in a case where you have multiple people living under the same home? Would a renters insurance policy cover everyone?

You have to have an insurable interest in something in order to insure it. At least, that's what the rules say. We all know JJ litigants think differently! The best way to do it would be for each tenant to have his/her own renter's policy that covers their possessions. If something happens to your stuff, you file a claim. Incidentally, renters also covers your possessions off premises. For example: If someone breaks into your car and steals your laptop, your auto policy isn't going to cover the laptop, but a renters policy would. Another example: If you have a piece of jewelry stolen from you while out and about, it would cover that. And so on and so forth. (I know that's not what you asked, but I like to educate where possible, and many people don't understand how broad renters coverage really is.)

 

It is possible to get one policy with multiple named insureds so that two unrelated renters could cover their property together. I'd never recommend that because of the arguments that could ensue about the money if there's a claim. 

Edited November 18, 2014 by teebax

[PopTart16]

Thank you, I've always wondered how renters would work when you have a situation with multiple unrelated people living in the same home!

[Toaster Strudel]

Tire Slashing Pit Bull:  I just looked at the plaintiff's face when he denied slashing the raging, biting pitbull owner's tires and I knew he did it.  The pitbull owner was another one of the type in denial that their spawn of Satan does serious damage.  "He was only trying to protect his little brother" - oh give me a break, they're dogs not brothers.  The defendant and his lying roommate are probably bronies and they can go clop themselves for all I care.  Someone should slash their tires everyday.

 

Routine Breast Pump Case: Yeah yeah, another breast pump case, so many this year!  But this one has a twist... a used, second hand breast pump!  It's not everyday that your mother-in-law lends you a cheesy 14-yr machine that drained her tits, so that you can use the same to vacuum your own tits... and then the mother-in-law wants it back!  It's probably encrusted with human Parmesan by now.  Perhaps she wanted to get the last drop from her own shriveled, post-menopausal mammaries?  JJ smelled the custody dispute from afar, and I agree that the defendant was super-generous in letting the old cow see the grandchild, since she seemed to feel so entitled about it.

 

Formerly VP of [bleep] Mutual: The defendant was surprisingly together despite being a liar, having a blind-breaking son, and another one that extinguished his cigarette butts on every available surface of the house and brought pitbull after pitbull after pitbull for her to "keep."  However... the plaintiff said twice, and I paraphrase, that the defendant "doesn't have her car with us" totally supporting the theory that she did indeed snoop into her bank records.  Another epic "but there was no ear piece" moment!  JJ only charged her $100 for the misdeed, but I hope she lost her job.  I bet she snoops on a lot of people, a lot of the tine.

 

Yawn: some dumb car case.

[Zahdii]

Am I wrong or did the Great Carnak also say this:

 

Answer: The buck stops here.

 

Question: 

What does the tattoo on Bambi's butt say?

Edited November 18, 2014 by Zahdii

[Brattinella]

 

Tire Slashing Pit Bull:  I just looked at the plaintiff's face when he denied slashing the raging, biting pitbull owner's tires and I knew he did it.  The pitbull owner was another one of the type in denial that their spawn of Satan does serious damage.  "He was only trying to protect his little brother" - oh give me a break, they're dogs not brothers.  The defendant and his lying roommate are probably bronies and they can go clop themselves for all I care.  Someone should slash their tires everyday.

This had me laughing out loud, and I haven't even seen it yet!

 

Also: Human Parmesan. HAHAHA!!!

[teebax]

 

Routine Breast Pump Case: Yeah yeah, another breast pump case, so many this year!  But this one has a twist... a used, second hand breast pump!  It's not everyday that your mother-in-law lends you a cheesy 14-yr machine that drained her tits, so that you can use the same to vacuum your own tits... and then the mother-in-law wants it back!  It's probably encrusted with human Parmesan by now.  Perhaps she wanted to get the last drop from her own shriveled, post-menopausal mammaries?  JJ smelled the custody dispute from afar, and I agree that the defendant was super-generous in letting the old cow see the grandchild, since she seemed to feel so entitled about it.

I really shouldn't have decided to read this thread while I eat lunch in my office. Gross.

[Puffaroo]

Another case where JJ clearly never drives, this morning's reruns.  ...  Sounds a lot like her proclamation earlier in a previous show that you cannot enter an intersection on a green light to make a left turn unless there is no traffic coming through.

 

I drive, and I'm retired from the local police department.  I agree with Judy on this one.  You keep your butt behind the line until it's clear, lest you get caught in the middle of the intersection when the light changes.

[BubblingKettle]

The Dog Whisperer, Mr. Chandler slurred like he was heavily sedated.  Judge Judy hated him from the get-go.  WHY do some dog owners think that it's okay to make dogs "say hello?"  My dog is the sweetest guy around, but he has no interest in making dog friends.  When I see neighbors with that goofy look on their face like, "C'mon Fido, let's go meet that lady and her dogs," I end up hollering, "This one's not friendly!!!"  Not true -- he's friendly....but I have no time for any attitude or other shit the neighbor may have if my dog doesn't think their obnoxious pooch is terrific.  

 

Borrowed breast pump??  Maybe I'm making a big deal about this (maybe my germaphobe tendencies are akin to JJ's and her reaction to sharing a bottle of JD), but I find the idea of sharing a pump to be very disgusting.  Yes, I'm sure one could sterilize the components and blahblahblah.  There are just some things that you don't need to share.  And that bitch had the nerve to say, "And you're going to hear me out" to Judge Judy??!!  Such sass.  How very dare her.  The pregnant defendant had a resting sad face...  and then in the Hallterview, she said she was taken by force over to the plaintiff's house so they could talk about the breast pump?!  

 

I have a really horrible feeling about what happened to those puppies in the Dana Turner case.  First, Turner tried to lie about the breed of two of the dogs and she, initially, didn't cop to the puppies.  WTF - under the shed??  Sure, maybe she and her son sold them for money....but I fear that it was something sickening like dog fighting, bait, or the son did something bad to them (as she said, "I dunno, he got ridda dem.")  And these sons of hers were certainly made into the sole villains...one wrecked the blinds, the other was blamed for smoking and making burn marks.  Yeah right, Dana Turner.  And the older son is "away" (aka: jail).  She Yes, Ma'amed JJ with a "Don't Give a F" face on.  I don't think Betty Eileen monitored her bank account.  Turner was probably late on rent before and blamed the car payment...so B. E. asked her if she could swing the rent payment along with her upcoming car payment, which caused an issue in the past.    

 

Rock that Member's Only jacket, Grant Childers.  

[Brattinella]

I do think that the bank employee said exactly that.  "ImaCutYouBitch" could not have come up with that off the top of her head.  But the nerve of her having NINE dogs when the lease said NO DOGS.  She had negotiated for a 2-lb dog only. what colossal nerve.  And cigarettes left to burn on the windowsills and the bathtub spells 'junkie' to me.

[SoapDoc]

 

Borrowed breast pump??

 

You can rent breast pumps -- from the hospital after you have the baby or from a variety of shops or even the La Leche league. Breast pumps can be expensive on top of everything else baby. Add that to not knowing if the pumping is going to work for you, and you might not want to buy one right away.  I bought mine (for my son, it was a waste but I could use when I had my daughter).

 

Did the MIL have other daughters-in-law that she might have planned to loan it to? Judge Judy must have been looking for her sushi lunch - she seemed to be in a hurry. For me, the return seemed implied and I think the new mom thought so too. She just says she doesn't have it any more. Oh well.

[AngelaHunter]

I have a really horrible feeling about what happened to those puppies in the Dana Turner case.

 

JFC, I need brain bleach. Disgusting people, breeding dogs with mange under sheds and letting Raleek (?) do God-knows-what with tiny puppies. Made me feel physically ill. Hey Dana, instead of abusing animals, grab that weed whacker again and lop off the other side of your cheap wig so it'll be even. And WTF was she smiling about?  Plantiff was just as distasteful and repulsive. I'm sorry I tuned in today.

[Brattinella]

She was smiling because she knew she won.  You are so right, I'm sorry I tuned in today too.

ETA: I don't even want to think about the puppies.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Brattinella

[ZoloftBlob]

See, I thought that the breast pump case was one of those ones that would have been a lot more entertaining if we'd been allowed to hear the story the plaintiff so desperately wanted to rant about.

[Quof]



 



So I guess that means you don't have to spend six months "working on" getting insurance either?

 

In my part of the world, people say there are "just fixin' to".  I was Just Fixin' to get insurance when I borrowed him my car.  I was Just Fixin' to get a job when my Baby Daddy got out of jail and wouldn't let me work. 

[AngelaHunter]

Kind of like when JJ asks people how they support themselves and gets some convoluted shit like:

 

"I'm fixin' to start thinking about maybe proceeding to look for work.", as though that pays the rent.

[Bazinga]

 

She Yes, Ma'amed JJ with a "Don't Give a F" face on.

Hated her.  With the smug look and attitude.  She lied to Judge Judy and was caught in said lie.  She kept talking over JJ and argued directly with the Plaintiff and Judge Judy just allowed it and even smiled as she was doing it, because Dana was out arguing the plaintiff because she had a big mouth and the plaintiff was never allowed to explain her side.  The plaintiff got a pittance for the damage to the apartment which clearly occurred (nine dogs cause no damage makes no sense in my world) though JJ barely looked at her pictures and just ignored the other damage, which the defendant basically admitted to as she was just going to contest the amounts before JJ just ignored everything but the shades and burns.  The defendant's evidence, her video was unfocused, too quick and only showed what she wanted shown.  As Judge Judy should have said, ridiculous.

 

I am not one that believes that because a story doesn't seem like something someone would make up, in Judge Judy's opinion, then it must be true.  Meaning the whole exchange about the car payment is not something the defendant would just make up, so it must have happened.  Why couldn't the defendant, being paranoid, have decided that because the landlord worked at the credit union in a position higher then the defendant initially thought, she must be looking at my account because she can?  The plaintiff only said she does have access to such information (obviously) and that she doesn't have a car finance account through the credit union, so she wouldn't even be able to know whether her car payment was made as a person could pay with other accounts or money orders.  That makes sense to me but Judy just assumed the accusation must be true because the accuser, who already lied, wouldn't just dream it up.  The plaintiff was clear that she didn't force the defendant to bank at the CU as the defendant was trying to portray, but just wanted her to use direct deposit and that she would be eligible to have an account there if she wanted.  This makes sense from a  bank vice president but Judy never bothered to hear her out.  Ridiculous!  I would have found out when this supposed conversation took place.  Then asked the defendant if she still has an account at the Credit Union?  If yes, then she is making this up as she would have immediately closed the account if she really believed the plaintiff was violating her privacy.  If no, I would ask when she closed the account?  It should have been immediately after the conversation. 

 

Dana was manipulative and incomplete in her testimony about the dogs and the damage and is only suing about this invasion of privacy AFTER the plaintiff sued her for damage.  So not a big deal until the plaintiff came after her.  Seems like a way of saying, you want money from me what about this complaint that she could have made up whole cloth.

 

I hate when certain people with attitudes get away with it because Judge Judy knows they won't be intimidated by her.  Dana totally had an attitude throughout in the way she spoke and acted and won because of it.

 

Very much hate when Judge Judy already decides a case before she comes out and is just looking for something she can pin on the expected loser to show how smart she is.  She was planning on deciding against the plaintiff in the Aunt-insurance-fire case before she came out and most of the way during testimony, until she actually started to listen to the plaintiff who was about to lose but kept speaking. 

 

She is such a know-it-all and of course she is right about everything because it is her court and she decides she is right.  

 

The breast pump lady lost before the case started because JJ thought the motivation for the suit was the custody battle.  That might be true but it still was a loan of something that should be returned.  The plaintiff seemed the type to want the pump back to loan out to someone else in the future; the defendant admitted she just didn't know where it was in the halterview   The defendant never even had to give her side that it was a gift, as JJ had already decided the motivation for the suit and really that nobody would expect or want a breast pump back.  This lady did.  The same reason she had it to loan, is why she would want it back: to loan to someone else.  JJ just thought wanting a breast pump back was stupid and therefore could not be the actual motivation for the suit.

 

Also hate when she shushes people or starts banging her stupid pen before they even speak or nastily motions for someone to stand who is sitting, like they should have known that is what she wants without being told.  More hate: the totally unnecessary cupping of her hands around her mouth to make a bullhorn.

 

I have also noticed that whichever party she questions first is going to end up losing.

 

Rants over!

Edited November 19, 2014 by Bazinga

[teebax]

Hated her.  With the smug look and attitude.  She lied to Judge Judy and was caught in said lie.  She kept talking over JJ and argued directly with the Plaintiff and Judge Judy just allowed it and even smiled as she was doing it, because Dana was out arguing the plaintiff because she had a big mouth and the plaintiff was never allowed to explain her side.  The plaintiff got a pittance for the damage to the apartment which clearly occurred (nine dogs cause no damage makes no sense in my world) though JJ barely looked at her pictures and just ignored the other damage, which the defendant basically admitted to as she was just going to contest the amounts before JJ just ignored everything but the shades and burns.  The defendant's evidence, her video was unfocused, too quick and only showed what she wanted shown.  As Judge Judy should have said, ridiculous.

 

I am not one that believes that because a story doesn't seem like something someone would make up in Judge Judy's opinion, then it must be true.  Meaning the whole exchange about the car payment is not something the defendant would just make up, so it must have happened.  Why couldn't the defendant, being paranoid, have decided that because the landlord worked at the credit union in a position higher then the defendant initially thought, she must be looking at my account because she can?  The plaintiff only said she does have access to such information (obviously) and that she doesn't have a car finance account through the credit union, so she wouldn't even be able to know whether her car payment was made as a person could pay with other accounts or money orders.  That makes sense to me but Judy just assumed the accusation must be true because the accuser, who already lied, wouldn't just dream it up.  The plaintiff was clear that she didn't force the defendant to bank at the CU as the defendant was trying to portray, but just wanted her to use direct deposit and that she would be eligible to have an account there if she wanted.  This makes sense from a  bank vice president but Judy never bothered to hear her out.  Ridiculous!  I would have found out when this supposed conversation took place.  Then asked the defendant if she still has an account at the Credit Union?  If yes, then she is making this up as she would have immediately closed the account if she really believed the plaintiff was violating her privacy.  If no, I would ask when she closed the account?  It should have been immediately after the conversation. 

 

Very much hate when Judge Judy already decides a case before she comes out and is just looking for something she can pin on the expected loser to show how smart she is.  She was planning on deciding against the plaintiff int eh Aunt insurance fire case before she came out and most of the way during testimony until she actually started to listen to the plaintiff who was about to lose but kept speaking.  She is such a know-it-all and of course she is right about everything because it is her court and she decides she is right.

You made a really good point. Had JJ asked if the defendant closed the account immediately after the alleged privacy breach, she'd have had better evidence of whether or not the breach occurred than just relying on the hairs on the back of her neck. I also find it hard to believe that the only damage caused were a couple of blinds and cigarette burns. It seems to me like the defendant and her family lived like pigs. Who the heck keeps all those dogs? And I do believe she lied to the plaintiff about being afraid of big dogs so she only has the small lap dog.

I also agree with you that in life there are often things that happen that don't make sense. People do unpredictable, stupid things all the time. Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's not true.

[Toaster Strudel]

The plaintiff twice admitted that she knew things about the defendant's account right in front of JJ.  "She doesn't have her car with us!"  Twice.  She was snooping.  No doubt.

[EtheltoTillie]

Breast pump: JJ would have ordered only a minuscule depreciated value even if P had won.

She referenced the value quickly, and P said "no they don't depreciate.". I think P really wanted it back, maybe to lend to others, but the way she told her story made her facts seem different. But she really took the hit when she told JJ "you will hear me out.". Hasn't she watched the show before?

[Watermelon]

The plaintiff twice admitted that she knew things about the defendant's account right in front of JJ.  "She doesn't have her car with us!"  Twice.  She was snooping.  No doubt.

Absolutely she was! 

Besides, who she had the car loan with(lets say Wachovia) has nothing to do with where the money came from to pay back the loan(Plaintiff's bank). The way the Plaintiff kept harping on "The financing's not with us" seemed like her trying to hid the truth:that she can, and has, looked up the defendant's banking history.

[Oinky Boinky]

I forgot to remember which case it was but one defendant yesterday huffed out so fast that Byrd didn't have time to make them drop their paperwork. 

 

While Byrd was then shuffling over to the plaintiff they left with their papers also. 

 

Is this a first?

 

I was ... wait a minute, wait a minute 'THE PAPERS, WTF!! BYRD THEY'VE STILL GOT THE PAPERS!!'

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

 

You can rent breast pumps -- from the hospital after you have the baby or from a variety of shops or even the La Leche league. Breast pumps can be expensive on top of everything else baby.

Nowadays many insurance companies will provide new moms with a breast pump if the doctor writes them a prescription for it before the baby is born. However, the breast pumps of today are light years away from the milking machines from years back. (source: my daughter had a baby ten months ago, baby was premature, had to pump and tube feed baby for a while in hospital and pump barely made any noise - also I was a La Leche League leader back in the day). My inkling was that the mother-in-law was just asking for the return of the breast pump for spite - what was she planning on doing, having another kid? I also got the idea that the son was somewhat abusive and the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Plus it's really REALLY stooooopid to piss off the soon-to-be ex daughter in law that was letting you see your grandkid without a court order. Not worth the $300 or so she spent on the pump (which I'm pretty sure they cost way less than that these days- I googled breast pumps and you can buy the electric ones at Walmart for $169 and the Medela for $249 brand new, totally uncrusted lol) 

[Bazinga]

 

The plaintiff twice admitted that she knew things about the defendant's account right in front of JJ.  "She doesn't have her car with us!"  Twice.  She was snooping.  No doubt.

We don't know how the plaintiff knew that, as it wasn't asked.  Perhaps the defendant told her.  The fact that she knew, on its own, is not evidence of anything conclusively.  How would she even know the defendant had a financed car?  The defendant could have told her that, too.  Also needs to be asked and submitted in the form of a prior statement, what the payment looked like if it came directly from the account.  How did she pay?  What does the defendant think the plaintiff was seeing by looking?  To what purpose was she looking at the defendant's account?  To be helpful and remind the defendant that her car payment to another company was late?  To find out whether defendant had the money to pay her rent?  Maybe, but money can come from other sources, like cash or borrowing, without getting to the bank account.  Seemed like JJ just concluded it must be so because they defendant's version was plausible, because she wouldn't make something up with such explicit detail, if it were not true.  That is what I object to.  Dana is a proven liar and I don't believe something just because she says it and it passes Judge Judy's "must be true" rule

Edited November 19, 2014 by Bazinga

[Guest]

It's my understanding that the plaintiff files a written Complaint and the defendant files a written Answer to that Compliant.  The defendant may also add a Counter-claim in their Answer.

 

My guess?  If the Complaint and Answer are thorough, she doesn't have to ask too may questions to make her decision.

 

What I'd like to see is a place to read the Complaints and Answers provided by the parties involved.  I did a quick google search and nothing popped up, what a shame.

[AngelaHunter]

Dana is a proven liar and I don't believe something just because she says it and it passes Judge Judy's "must be true" rule

 

I think they were both mealy-mouthed liars and nasty people, but plaintiff did something illegal in accessing the bank account, which is worse.

 

High spot of the day: Ms. Rosenberg's "You WILL hear me out."

[teebax]

The plaintiff twice admitted that she knew things about the defendant's account right in front of JJ.  "She doesn't have her car with us!"  Twice.  She was snooping.  No doubt.

You could be right. You could also argue that since the plaintiff is the one who helped the defendant open the account at the CU, she knew the defendant didn't have her car loan there. Of course, that doesn't mean she didn't snoop. I just don't think that knowing the defendant didn't have a car loan through the CU is proof that the plaintiff snooped.

[Bazinga]

 

I think they were both mealy-mouthed liars and nasty people, but plaintiff did something illegal in accessing the bank account, which is worse.

But, we don't really know she did something illegal.  JJ assumed she did based on the accusation that plaintiff never countered beyond saying she didn't have a car financed with them, which is an inconclusive response.  Did the defendant ever file a complaint with the credit union?  The credit union could research if there was a record of whether the plaintiff accessed the defendant's account.  Just like with an assault, JJ asks if you sought medical attention or made a police report?  If not, didn't happen or wasn't that big a deal.  Same with a robbery, did you make a report?  Did this defendant make a report to the CU if she was so violated?  That is better proof then it must be true because she would not make that up.  The last part is where I have issue here.  JJ should have asked more questions before deciding this happened.  I have thought of various lines of questioning, why didn't JJ?

 

One of the tellers at my bank referred business my way by calling my home number that she would not know unless she looked up my personal information.  I was not bothered as it benefited me but I realized that the teller looked at my account for personal reasons.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

But, we don't really know she did something illegal.  JJ assumed she did based on the accusation that plaintiff never countered beyond saying she didn't have a car financed with them, which is an inconclusive response.

 

IIRC, def said plaintiff called her and asked how she was going to pay her rent when she had a car payment due. Maybe I'm wrong but to me that sounded like plaintiff knew what was in the account and how much the car payment was.

 

JJ said def didn't have enough of an imagination to make up something so specific and I think she was right.