All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AngelaHunter]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant was a 'friend' and wanted to get a housekeeping job to pay for breast implants. 

Oh, stahp it! 🤣🤣🤣

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm always amazed at how litigants all know just how to get title loans on old cars, payday loans, how to work the system, live rent-free, find bail bondsman and where to go to get restraining orders.

As well as how to get free babysitting AND pay your sister-in-law through the state (Thanks Byrd) and get free stuff in exchange for allowing your hairdresser's cousin's baby mama declaring your unrelated child as her dependent in exchange for free hair for the past year. 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I feel so sorry for the plaintiff, just a lonely old man.

***sings*** All the loonneeely peeeeople - where do they all come from?" 

Answer: The Judge Judy Pitiful Shaking My Head Hour 

I have a co-worker who is 50 and divorced. She's pretty and smart and owns her own condo and has a decent job. She has been "talking" with a fella she met on Plenty of Fish who supposedly owns a house, yet is recovering from a bankruptcy (RUN!!! RUN!!!! **makes oo-gah sound like sinking ship***) who won't allow her to come over his house - want to get a hotel room after some event.  Something smells terrible in this situation - yet she a big girl and she do what she wanna do. 

[Byrd is the Word]

Tanner Davis of Sparks, Nevada, you wanted a confrontation with an old woman and you got one.  From one big strong guy to another, you should be ashamed of yourself because not only are you an asshole for doing so, but you also got your ass kicked by a woman at least twice your age with 10 times the courage.  Pick on someone your own size next time so you can get the real beating that you deserve. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tooth Knocked Out in Dog Fight?!

Plaintiff was an asshole, but I fully believe that the old hellishly unpleasant biddy  did strike him in the face with her flashlight, which may have been heavier than the one she brought to court.

46 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Something smells terrible in this situation - yet she a big girl and she do what she wanna do. 

Yes, sometimes you must let adults make the most predictable mistakes on their own, since that it the cost of exercising free will.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

She has been "talking" with a fella she met on Plenty of Fish who supposedly owns a house, yet is recovering from a bankruptcy (RUN!!! RUN!!!! **makes oo-gah sound like sinking ship***) who won't allow her to come over his house - want to get a hotel room after some event.

If a 50-year old woman who does well in other aspects of her life can't figure out why a man won't let her come to his house, and that he may be using a dating site to supplement his income, nothing you say can stop her. We might see her on this show. 

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Plaintiff was an asshole, but I fully believe that the old hellishly unpleasant biddy  did strike him in the face with her flashlight, which may have been heavier than the one she brought to court.

By his own admission, he approached her and used profanity strongly suggesting he was raging and aggressive. If the woman were my daughter, wife or mother I’d be proud of her for defending herself. There are places in this country (right or wrong) where she could “stand her ground” and shoot him and possibly be justified. The plaintiff was so in the wrong from start to finish I can’t fathom that he had the balls to show up in front of a national audience with that bullshit. Even his lies didn’t help mitigate his actions. This fuc*er got less than he deserved. If he got in my face like that and under similar circumstances his chipped tooth would be the least of his problems. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Brattinella]

The def woman clearly demonstrated KICKING THE DOG.  How JJ missed that, I will never know.  ANYONE kicks my dog, gets what they get.  And it was a tiny little french bulldog.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Brattinella

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

The def woman clearly demonstrated KICKING THE DOG.  How JJ missed that, I will never know.  ANYONE kicks my dog, gets what they get.  And it was a tiny little french bulldog.

Personally, I doubt that a woman who knows the birthdates of her two dogs would actually kick a dog. My feeling is that she used her leg, since her hands were full, to nudge the approaching dog away from hers. The little dog wasn’t hurt. She gets the benefit of the doubt from me. I despised that guy. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

The def woman clearly demonstrated KICKING THE DOG.  How JJ missed that, I will never know.

Because JJ decided from the get-go that she hated the plaintiff and would side with the defendant at all costs. Never mind that she was an agressive and despicable harridan (I am talking about the defendant not JJ. Although come to think of it...).

She professed to be a dog lover, but is probably a hypocrite who has no qualms about kicking other people's dogs.

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Puppy From Hell?!

The only thing remotely interesting about this case is the fact the censors let us hear all kinds of awful stories told by awful people but they’re afraid of offending us with the use of the word “poop”. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The only thing remotely interesting about this case is the fact the censors let us hear all kinds of awful stories told by awful people but they’re afraid of offending us with the use of the word “poop”. 

Isn't it amazing, those bizarre sensibilities? I am offended all the time by this show (to the point where there are few cases I can stomach) like hearing about women prostituting themselves for a new sofa, dirty old men with pockets full of Viagra trying to buy a little shtupping from young skanks, women popping out babies like gumball machines, tearing each other to pieces on the street over some worthless POS, about dead babies(carcass!!),  atrocities committed against children and animals and on and on.  All that is pretty bad but I can take it, as long as I don't have to hear words like "poop". I do have limits.

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Personally, I doubt that a woman who knows the birthdates of her two dogs would actually kick a dog.

I didn't see this, so don't know if she did or not, but people exaggerate. I was at an adoption event for the cat rescue I was with, and a woman approached with her large Airedale and was allowing him to stick his nose to the cage which held a mother cat and her kitten. I didn't comment on her stupidity, I just gently nudged the dog's head aside to protect both him and the cat, who naturally was freaking out. This woman later called the head of the rescue and complained that I had SLAPPED her dog across the face. Utterly ridiculous of course. 

[AZChristian]

26 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't see this, so don't know if she did or not, but people exaggerate. I was at an adoption event for the cat rescue I was with, and a woman approached with her large Airedale and was allowing him to stick his nose to the cage which held a mother cat and her kitten. I didn't comment on her stupidity, I just gently nudged the dog's head aside to protect both him and the cat, who naturally was freaking out. This woman later called the head of the rescue and complained that I had SLAPPED her dog across the face. Utterly ridiculous of course. 

And think of it this way.  The woman has two large dogs ON LEASHES, and an unleashed (probably yapping) dog comes running up towards her and/or her dogs.  She had nothing BUT a foot to block the dog.  Blocking is different from kicking.  And the plaintiff admitted to swearing at her.  As an senior citizen myself, if someone was that close to me, screaming and swearing and accusing me of something I hadn't done, I'd have let him have it with the flashlight, too.

And she alluded to something that made me think . . . hmmmm . . . how long has that tooth been broken?  Maybe he was just hoping to have someone else pay for a pre-existing problem.

[funky-rat]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mobile Home Scam?!-Plaintiff claims mobile home they purchased from defendants couldn't be registered or titled (many states, mobile homes have license plates and registration).     Plaintiff and girlfriend needed housing, bought a mobile home from defendant (Facebook ad).    Defendant sold for $4500, that was being sold for back park rent.   Plaintiff's gave defendant $4k cash to buy mobile home owned by someone else.   Defendant claims Robert Brown (mobile home owner) is in the hospital, but he's the defendant's witness.     Robert Brown claims the mobile home was resold, and he didn't do that either.   The defendant resold the mobile home after he sold it to the plaintiffs.  

Plaintiffs filed police report on defendant, with no action.   Plaintiffs get $4k

Our mobile is considered a vehicle in our state - our "deed" is a title from our DOT, but we don't have to keep license plates on it.  It only needs to be plated if it's being moved, and then the moving people plate it.

18 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I have a co-worker who is 50 and divorced. She's pretty and smart and owns her own condo and has a decent job. She has been "talking" with a fella she met on Plenty of Fish who supposedly owns a house, yet is recovering from a bankruptcy (RUN!!! RUN!!!! **makes oo-gah sound like sinking ship***) who won't allow her to come over his house - want to get a hotel room after some event.  Something smells terrible in this situation - yet she a big girl and she do what she wanna do. 

Mr. Funky's widowed 50-something aunt met a dude on a Christian site (can't recall which one) and she was going on and on about how he was British, and an art dealer, and other stuff.  Sounded like a lot of puffing (thank you JJ) to me, but didn't raise red flags until she said that he could only call her at like 3am, and how he was on a business trip to Nigeria.  Then I found out he had her buy things for herself, and said he'd reimburse her when he came to visit her (soon - when he's done in Nigeria).  I told her that if she got a message saying he got stranded there, DO NOT send him money.  Eventually she married someone from Virginia - I hope the "art dealer" didn't take her for a lot, because she didn't have spare money she didn't need.

[AZChristian]

15 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

Our mobile is considered a vehicle in our state - our "deed" is a title from our DOT, but we don't have to keep license plates on it.  It only needs to be plated if it's being moved, and then the moving people plate it.

Ours is as well.  And since we have a double-wide, we actually have TWO titles, one for each half.  So I guess if we just wanted to sell half of it, we could.  LOL.  

[SRTouch]

35 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

Our mobile is considered a vehicle in our state - our "deed" is a title from our DOT, but we don't have to keep license plates on it.  It only needs to be plated if it's being moved, and then the moving people plate it.

Same here - don't need a plate, but get the sticker that goes on the plate to keep with the paperwork to prove we paid the required vehicle taxes if we're ever asked....

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

The woman has two large dogs ON LEASHES, and an unleashed (probably yapping) dog comes running up towards her and/or her dogs.  She had nothing BUT a foot to block the dog.  Blocking is different from kicking.

My point exactly.  His dog was clearly uninjured and there wasn't even testimony that the little dog reacted with a yelp or demonstrated even the most remote sign of distress.  His claim that the woman kicked his dog is nonsense.  He may have thought so, but his reaction, absent of the truth, paints him even more as a mindless, raging fool. The plaintiff admitted to swearing at her immediately, meaning he was already clearly threatening and intimidating.  He boxed her in and she defended herself.  He wasn't 10' away as he lied or she never would have connected with him unless her flashlight was 7' feet long.  If his tooth did indeed get broken than it's the price he paid for his temper tantrum.  As a grown man man myself, there's no excuse to confront a woman like that given the circumstances. Zero.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Family Drama Fallout!-Plaintiff and girlfriend, and one kid moved in with his sister, everything went bad, and wanted them out on 1 October.     Plaintiff and girlfriend claim they paid rent, and were waiting for SSI to start.    Defendant and girlfriend paid part of rent for September (the two couples were alternating paying rent each month).      Defendant gave plaintiff rent money for July and August, for man to give the rent to the landlord.    Defendant also claims the plaintiffs moved in during June.    

Plaintiff brother works for Directv now, but before that he and girlfriend ran a non-emergency medical transport service.   Defendant called CPS, in October because plaintiffs were living in a van in the parking lot, with their child.     Plaintiff said CPS never came out to see them, but they claim the gf got a call from saying someone complained.      JJ will not give the defendant utility bills, an iPad loaned to the nephew.    Nothing for anyone, and that's exactly what they deserve.     

Taxi-Company Start-Up Mom- Plaintiff woman suing her children's father (two daughter) (man has two other, younger kids) for reneging on an offer to invest in her Taxi Company business.   Plaintiff proposed to start a taxi company, and a company wanted to invest in her, and claimed she needed $1,000, and for him to co-sign on car.      Defendant claims the daughters were going to school, and didn't want to join mom in the taxi company.    Defendant didn't give plaintiff the $1k downpayment, refused to co-sign on car.    Twist is plaintiff has seizures, and that's why she wanted daughters to do the taxi service (I think it's more like Uber or Lyft, since it's a regular car), and daughters are still in high school (they're 18 and 19).   Plaintiff also claims she can't work, because she has to take care of her adult daughters (18 and 19).    

My guess is mommy would have been driving a lot, and didn't they say seizures?    Plaintiff claims she would be working for three companies, $35 an hour, plus have her own taxi company.     Plaintiff doesn't have a car.    Plaintiff has SSI and SSDI, but still is going to do medical non-emergency transport, back to school (drop offs for after school or something?) or day cares, and all kinds of pie in the sky plans.    Plaintiff mentions that she supported the man through almost 10 years of prison.  

Nothing for the plaintiff, and I really hope this taxi business with her behind the wheel never happened.  

Deadbeat Gambling Baby Daddy?!-Plaintiff mother accuses ex of gambling away money intended for their food and medication.    Plaintiff claims ex lost the money at the poker table, but claims even though he's bad financially, he's still a good father, so she had another kid with him.      Defendant is a plumber, files tax returns, and has a checking account.    Defendant was living with plaintiff for almost 10 years, and have two kids together.     

Plaintiff is a nurse on maternity leave (with the two month old), and also has a five year old.    She claims she only got $80 of child support, has a court order of child support, but gets no money, didn't get support in 2013 and 2014, and now gets government assistance.      

Plaintiff says the defendant agreed to move into an apartment together, and claims defendant didn't pay his half of the rent, and utilities.       The two had a written agreement, and she had another kid with him, in spite of the fighting.  

Plaintiff is told by JJ to get a child support order, and garnish his wages.   Plaintiff gets nothing for back rent, etc.  

Detained by Immigration-Defendant claims he was wrongfully detained for two months by immigration authorities.   Defendant claims the plaintiff sent nasty videos to his girlfriend, and when asked if the girlfriend is there to testify, he says "which one"?   Multiple girlfriends?   

Defendant was taken into custody for two months (legal resident), but plaintiff covered some bills for the defendant.  

Defendant's harassment claim is ridiculous.   Plaintiff gets over $200 for back utilities.   

5 p.m. reruns-

Dog Owner Laughs at Woman's Bloody Injuries?!-Plaintiff was viciously attacked by neighbor's dog (chained to porch, and she had been a dog sitter for the animal on many occasions).      Defendant and fiance (homeowner) were sued by plaintiff for injuries.      Defendant was picking up her wedding dress, and wanted to show it to the plaintiff, and told her to go see it inside (to keep dress clean), when the dog attacked plaintiff.    

Defendant keeps laughing at the description of the plaintiff's horrific bite injuries, including four bites on her thigh, three on her arm, and went toward her throat.      Defendant's mother and daughter were in the driveway, went in the house, and invited plaintiff to see the wedding dress, but inside the house.     Defendant blames the attack on the plaintiff going on the porch with the mother and daughter inside triggering the dog's protective instincts.     

Dog was put down later, because fiance/homeowner demanded it.   Fiance of defendant had no homeowner's insurance before this attack.     Defendant admits the dog had bitten before too.  Defendant claims the injuries were faked by the plaintiff.    I hope the homeowner/fiance defendant wised up after seeing the defendant's horrible behavior in court, and in the hallterview after.  

Plaintiff gets $5k.    

Malicious Harley Tow?!-Plaintiff's troubled son is incarcerated, leaving Mom's Harley behind, lots of property damages, and trash.   Plaintiff says she'll pay landlord for damages, and cleaning, but lied.   Plaintiff claims the man was threatening, and had her motorcycled towed maliciously.    Plaintiff says she had to get the motorcycle back.     Defendant is counter suing for damages, false police report, and storage fees.   

Plaintiff did nothing to fix the damages she agreed to pay for, and didn't.     Defendant had the motorcycle towed to a remote location.   I like the defendant a lot.    Defendant gives nothing to the plaintiff, and defendant gets nothing, and towing her motorcycle far away is justice enough for JJ.

Shady Supervised Child Visits?-Defendant claims he has to have supervised visits with his child because of a suspended driver's license (don't pull that story on a family court judge, like JJ).    

Plaintiff runs a supervised visitation company, with no qualifications.   Plaintiff monitors court ordered visitation.    The daughter is in guardianship of the daughters mother (adopted mother/guardian), and has the child's mother in her home too (I think).     Defendant has all kinds of excuses for not going to visitation with his child.    Plaintiff, a child supervision monitor, is suing defendant for non payment.    

Plaintiff is suing for defendant making an appointment for visitation, but not showing up.     Defendant only texted 30 minutes before appointment.  $115 per session.    Defendant claims he was working moving, and only was called into move someone 30 minutes before visitation started (bull hockey).      Plaintiff claims he went to pick up child for three appointments, and cancelled the appointments.      Plaintiff's witness, the child's guardian, says the defendant has a drug history, and in the hallterview the defendant finally owns up to that.  

Plaintiff gets $115 

Bromance Party Fail!-Plaintiff suing former friend for tickets to Hawaii, and says defendant should pay $1890 for airline ticket, and housing, minus $150 already paid.    The plaintiff, and his friend wanted to have a destination 40th birthday party in Hawaii.    Defendant is the only one who didn't pay.     

Plaintiff claims the defendant was sending $150, instead of $1500 via some financial app.  Defendant admits that there have been other trips for birthdays in the group, and everyone paid their own way, including the plaintiff.     I bet defendant shouldn't plan on being invited to any more destination celebrations.    Plaintiff gets $1,354.

(Tomorrow is supposed to be the woman who had a lamb in her house, husband/partner said lamb had to go, and the plaintiff is suing the people she gave the lamb to for the lamb back to live in her house with a companion). 

Edited April 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff brother works for Directv now, but before that he and girlfriend ran a non-emergency medical transport service. 

I missed this one but fun fact - Medicare/Medicaid have cracked down on medical transport services seriously. My DD years ago worked for a private ambulance company that would, for instance, pick up a patient from assisted living and take them to the ER (non-emergency cases). She moved on to nursing school but her old company ended up closing because they stopped getting reimbursed for those transports (and several other companies consolidated with other companies). Down here in South FL, many of the medical clinics have their own transportation solutions and I see vans full of patients going to clinics and offices on my way to work ( I work next to a large hospital). 

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I missed this one but fun fact - Medicare/Medicaid have cracked down on medical transport services seriously.

Considering in this case that she claimed to be physically disabled and he certainly seemed mentally disabled, they probably did get cracked down on.

[Byrd is the Word]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff's troubled son is incarcerated

I can’t read this without hearing it my head spoken in that think Massachusetts accent. “Incaaaacerated”

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

defendant has a drug history, and in the hallterview the defendant finally owns up to that.  

One look at those eyes and the mumbly double talk answers to JJ’s questions tells us that every denial of a drug problem was a lie. The plintiff’s witness with no dog in the fight told the true story with her quite head shaking and nods that contradicted his false testimony. One look at the boozy witness mom that spawned him indicated that substance abuse is probably in their DNA. This guy isn’t ready to be near most adults, let alone children  

PS, what’s with the spate of grown men showing up in court with their mommies lately?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

PS, what’s with the spate of grown men showing up in court with their mommies lately?

It's nothing new, although it never ceases to be pathetic.  IIRC,  one of the "boys" was at least 60 and dragged his very elderly mommy here. 

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiff also claims she can't work, because she has to take care of her adult daughters (18 and 19).    

Ha - I remember that. Wild. A stay-at-home-mom to two women. I wonder what she has to do all day to care for them, that they can't do for themselves? I wish we could have found out. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ha - I remember that. Wild. A stay-at-home-mom to two women. I wonder what she has to do all day to care for them, that they can't do for themselves? I wish we could have found out. 

hhhmmm.... Babysit the next generation?

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Shock Collar Ambush?!-Plaintiff wants to be paid for a false police report, and vet bills , after a dog fight at the dog park.    Plaintiff has a Blue Nosed Pit Bull, and defendant has an English Mastiff .     Plaintiff took her dog to the big dog dog park, and her so-called fiance is a 'witness', that was nearby.      Plaintiff pit was at the park, and claims the defendant entered the dog park, and the dog body bumped, and growled at her dog.    Plaintiff claims defendant said his dog would be OK, and plaintiff started playing ball with her dog, and the two dogs started fighting, she started to stick her hand between the dogs, but two other dog owners threw water on the dogs, and broke the fight up.   Then, plaintiff claims defendant took his dog, and left, and she didn't see the man until eight months later, when she blocked his car in at the parking lot.    If a Mastiff really wanted to take a chunk out of the Pit, then the Pit would be ripped to shreds.    

The defendant shouldn't have entered the dog park, since he claims the pit was barking and charging at the gate, and plaintiff was ignoring her dog.     Defendant claims the woman got her dog away, and then pit was released, and the pit attacked again.     The shock collar on the Mastiff is for an invisible fence, and defendant claims his Mastiff just dodged the pit.    Defendant claims the pit owner was ignoring everything going on.     My guess is the invisible fence collar has a controller, but no one carries them at a dog park.

JJ says plaintiff has no case for vet bills, because the dogs were being dogs. 

Eight months later defendant claims he went to another dog park, and the plaintiff blocked his truck in, and refused to move, to get the man to pay the vet bills for her dog.    Defendant was in his truck, with the dog, and plaintiff blocked his truck in and refused to move, and there is a police report.       False imprisonment is not a big joke, but the plaintiff thinks it is.  

Plaintiff says her dog is an innocent snowflake, but defendant says he personally knows of four incidents with her dog, however, it's hearsay, but personally I believe him.  

Faulty Fiance?! - Police report says drivers claim to have green arrow, and the other claims a green light.    Plaintiff suing for damages to her car.    Car was being driven by her fiance (2003 Lexus 300) with no insurance, but she was going to get insurance reinstated that afternoon, and it had lapsed for three days at most.    This accident was over a year ago, plaintiff has his insurance information, and plaintiff submitted a claim, and insurance company denied it.    Denied because plaintiff claims defendant gave mis-information to GEICO, and the police.  Defendant was making a left turn with a green arrow, but plaintiff claims he had a green light, and but it's an arrow left turn, with the plaintiff fiance having a red light.  Plaintiff claims light was turning yellow, and my guess is he ran the red light.     Plaintiff  claims she has a letter from the police officer saying that defendant was charged with running a red light, but it was some email, and nothing official.    Defendant was given a citation for running a red light, and he got a prayer for judgment (a North Carolina plea), and paid nothing.  

Prayer for Judgement is unique to North Carolina, for traffic charges or misdemeanors, it is a guilty plea, but then can ask for the Prayer for Judgement, and there will be no penalty, or license points, and each household can only do this twice every five years.      

Plaintiff gets $5k , because the defendant was a wise ass.  Plaintiff still owed $9k on car.

Lovers' Playpen Party Pooper-Plaintiff claims he loaned $580 to defendant girlfriend for items he bought for her grandchildren.  A whole lot of nothing, from both litigants.  Plaintiff told to resell playpen.     

Edited April 4, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Brattinella]

WHAT in the name of all that's holy, is up with that woman's HAIR??

[Byrd is the Word]

If I filter out all of the super irritating valley girl affectations from both parties in the mattress case I’m left with the conclusion that the defendant is an irresponsible idiot and the plaintiff got a mattress full of dog shit and an even shittier judgment from her royal highness.  A likely daddy’s girl like this who can casually claim to pay thousands in rent for an unoccupied apartment probably sleeps on a high end mattress.  And $600 goes nowhere in a mattress store.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

I Need You To Love My Lamb!-This is the story of the plaintiff who adopted a lamb off of craigslist, was raising a lamb in her house, and finally the husband told her it had to go.   Lambs do poop in the house, I wonder if she considered diapers?   Plaintiff says she was going to eventually put the three to four month lamb outside, but that never happened.    

She gave it to some people who treat animals, like animals, but the farm looks great, and the herd look like they're in great shape.    Plaintiff wants defendants to give the lamb (now a grown sheep), back because they let the lamb/sheep live outside with the flock, live in a barn, and plaintiff has changed her house around so the sheep will be happy living inside with her again, and apparently arranged for a companion.   

Defendants offered to buy the lamb for $150, but plaintiff didn't want the money.    Plaintiff changed her mind, a few days later, and wants the lamb, now a grown sheep back.         Plaintiff proposed that the defendants should keep the lamb, while the plaintiff found a companion for the sheep, and prepared her house.     Defendant shows a video of their hobby farm.   The lambs and goats look great. and their farm looks lovely.     Plaintiff claims her husband pushed her to get rid of lamb, and she wasn't in her right mind when she gave the lamb away.

Plaintiff gets nothing, including the lamb, and case is dismissed.        

Playing the Ride Share Game-Plaintiff Ride Share rental owner suing defendant Uber driver for car rental fees, insurance refunds, and car damage, They had no contracts, but JJ says their car payment constitutes a contract.   Defendant needed the car because his previous cars were repossessed.     The plot thickens when the defendant had an accident with the rental car, 

Car costs $55 a day, plus $2.    Car accident happened, and there is a police report too.    Defendant is filing for bankruptcy too.     JJ is right, collision on car should cover the damages, and plaintiff needs to file a claim.     Plaintiff claims defendant owes $413 rent for a few days unpaid.    Plaintiff paid the insurance, and there was a $20 refund, and defendant got the refund, and didn't pay that to the plaintiff either.   $406 for the plaintiff.

Intimately Transmitted Disease Drama!-Plaintiff woman suing ex boyfriend defendant because in the breakup he told her he had a sexually transmitted disease, but plaintiff tested negative.      Plaintiff also suing for unpaid loan, threats, and defamation.      Plaintiff and defendant only met three times, loan was to cover Mercedes key fob replacement.   Defendant borrowed $361 from plaintiff.    Defendant admits he accepted the money.     

Defendant has a lot of reasons why he was too busy to pay the plaintiff back.  When plaintiff pressed the defendant about repayment, he sent a text to woman that he had gonorrhea, and said he would post that on Facebook about her.   Plaintiff tested negative.  Plaintiff gets her key fob fees back, and I think some other money also. 

Dog Destroys $3,000 Mattress!-Plaintiff and ex-roommate defendant were a bad match.   Plaintiff claims defendant's Sheltie ruined her mattress, and she had to throw it out.    Plaintiff claims the mattress damage happened when she and her French Bulldog were out of town, and she tried to clean the mattress, but mattress was ruined.      

Plaintiff says she lives with her boyfriend, but is going to pay the lease every month until it ends.   Plaintiff also says that if they can come to an agreement, that she may move back into the apartment, but only if the mattress is replaced.      Mattress was a gift, so no receipt.     Defendant claims plaintiff's dog ruined some of her clothes.    Plaintiff gets $600 for a new mattress, and is not moving in with former roommate, but will pay the lease out.   It may not seem like very much, but the previous mattress was a gift, and she's not using it anyway (she's apparently living with the boyfriend).    

(Warning, a repeat case tomorrow is a dog bite case, and there is a previous bite to a face, that plaintiff tries to deny even with a Sheriff's office report).    

Edited April 4, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

7 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant has a lot of reasons why he was too busy to pay the plaintiff back.

Oddly, the reason being he is a degenerate scumbag was not proffered. That is one reason I might accept.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Truck Deal Backfire?-Plaintiff bought a truck at auction for former friend defendant, and defendant never paid, and the plaintiff resold it through the auction at a great loss.  Defendant agreed to the vehicle purchase, and then backed out.  There was also a $200 fee to attend the auction.     Plaintiff offered another vehicle, but that was refused also.    $1550 for plaintiff.

Party Disaster or Cover-Up?-Defendant denies trashing the plaintiff's house (his cousin) while she was away.   While SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) plaintiff went out of town, with her two kids.    Cousin defendant's birthday was coming, and his friend wanted to give a big party, and since his apartment is tiny, then he asked to use the plaintiff's house.   All of the guests were related to both litigants.       There are a lot of damages alleged, including a trashed sofa (stained with puke), a giant hole in the living room wall, smaller holes in the wall (smaller compared to a foot across).     

Plaintiff got home Sunday afternoon, and after getting over the shock of her trashed house, took pictures.      Cousin/defendant denied anything happened.    Landlord is threatening to evict plaintiff and her two kids, over damages.

Plaintiff gets $4k, and I hope says bye-bye to her cousin, and his lies. 

The Pit Bull and the Burglar!-When a pit bull attacks a boy and his pet, its owner blames a burglar for letting it out.   No police report of a burglary, but just the dog being let out, and that was from the defendant's lying lips.    Plaintiff is suing for vet bills, and medical bills after her son, and her dog were attacked.     Plaintiff's dog is a 50 lb Lab/German Shepherd mix, and on a leash, when the pit approached, off leash, and attacked the plaintiff's dog.    Kid's hand was bitten by the pit trying to break up the attack.     The attack happened at the bus stop, and the police and animal control were called.    Plaintiff dropped the dog off, and then went to the people hospital.   Vet bills are $3204, and son's bills were nothing.   

Defendant's dog is a pit from a rescue, and claims he's only got into a dog fight with a neighbor's dog.   

Plaintiff has three reports from animal control about previous bites by the same dog, and most were off leash.    One report is pit mauling small dog, then there's another one with a Rottweiler mix, and at least one other.    Defendant's idiot boyfriend let the dog out, off leash to go potty, and the fight happened.     

Burglary report is hysterical.   The dog was inside the house when defendant got home, she left, and claims the burglar struck then, and then the dog fight happened, and nothing was taken.   Defendant claims a neighbor closed the front door, before the police got there.    

To quote Judge Marilyn "I wouldn't believe the defendants if their tongues were notarized".     

Plaintiff gets $5k.     Pit Bull was rehomed to a 'loving home".    

Chicken Massacre?-Plaintiff's suing neighbor defendant for her dog killing their chickens.     It's  a rural, unincorporated area, where chickens are allowed.    There is a quarter acre, and a fenced yard (90% fenced, but 100% now).     First incident was when the plaintiff got home, there were two dead, ripped apart and the defendant's dog was right there.     (Chickens are named, Katniss, Buffy, Laurel, etc., so obviously pets not dinner).     Defendant's dog got out through the gate, and she wrote the plaintiff's a check, $461 for vet bills.     

Second incident, 16 days later, plaintiff wife heard a noise, and the same dog (she got a picture) of the dog standing over a dead chicken.   It was a repeat of the first incident, dead and dying chickens, and one dog standing in the yard.    Plaintiff has seen the same dog out repeatedly in the following months too.    

 Chickens are $35 each, one chicken got stitched up, and the day she was put back in the yard she was slaughtered by the same dog.  

Plaintiffs didn't have additional vet bills, because they couldn't afford it, and euthanized the two seriously injured chickens. 

First check for $461 from defendant bounced, because she forged her father's name on the check, and it bounced.     Defendant needs a retouch on her hair, and daughter needs dye work too.   

Defendant daughter is totally out of control, and gets sent back to her chair by JJ.   Daughter was saying some garbage about the plaintiffs.  

Plaintiffs get $1223 for the check, and damages.  

5 p.m. reruns-

Cheated Out of $20K?!-Plaintiff was selling home to defendant, rent to own arrangement for $135,000.     Two years later plaintiff inspected house, defendant made changes  to house, (new sliders in garage, damaged grass, damaged hot tub, three trees gone).    So plaintiff was going to raise rent/purchase to $1200 a month, and raising the price to $175,000.     Total contract violation, by the plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims defendant's agreement expired in June, the purchase of the house was put off until August of that year.   Instead of buying the plaintiff's house, with the price increase, the defendants went out house hunting, put in an offer two weeks later, for $235,000. 

House is for sale for $135,000, plaintiff blames the price on the former renters.   However, no listing available saying that.  Plaintiff's house sold for $135,500.    Plaintiff gets nothing, and sold house for $500 more than original price.   

Cyclists Don't Own the Road!-Plaintiff claims an enraged motorist threatened him, and stole his lunch.   If I remember correctly, the lunch was never mentioned during the case.    Plaintiff suing bicyclist for car hit by bike in parking lot.   Plaintiff can barely walk or breathe, so I doubt he was that scary after the accident.      Bicyclist didn't really stop after accident (bike ran into plaintiff's car), left the accident, and went home. 

Defendant claims the plaintiff tried to break into his house, and then he called the police.     Unless the plaintiff deteriorated a lot after the accident, he is barely able to walk or breathe.     Narrator is really having fun with defendant's introduction, about the plaintiff stole the defendant's lunch.   

Defendant tried to charge the bench, and Byrd was not amused.    Plaintiff gets nothing, but neither does the defendant who is a whiny little man baby.  

$10 for plaintiff for damage.    Defendant told to stuff his counter claim, and I am interested in the "he stole my lunch" incident. 

Man's Face Caught in Blacklisted Dog's Mouth!-Plaintiff was walking near his back yard fence, neighbor's Rottweiler attacks him over the fence.   Defendant adopted out one Rottweiler, and kept another one.    Defendant wife says plaintiff threatened to sue them if they kept the dog there, so they adopted him out (I wonder if the new owner knows the dog is dangerous?)

  He has three small kids, part time custody with the Rottweiler.  Defendant wife was in the back yard, after dogs started barking.    Woman left the garage to the back yard, and saw the plaintiff opening the gate (by her fence), and the dogs attacked the man, and gashed his face.    Plaintiff is suing $1k +, for bite, but not getting anything for his subsequent back surgery.   Plaintiff has the ER bill (his part is $75), and police incident report. 

Defendant dog owner claims this is the first bite for the dog, but plaintiff has the Sheriff's report of a previous bite that was never reported.    Previous bite was also on the plaintiff earlier.     Claim was made to homeowner's insurance by plaintiff, and insurance company had already declined to cover the pit cross/Rottweilers, so the bite wasn't covered.   Bite pictures are awful.    Defendant counter sue for fence costs, and false restraining order.  Defendant admits he knew dogs weren't covered by insurance.

Plaintiff gets $500.

Bengal Cat Breeding Debacle!-(Did the plaintiff and defendant coordinate their tops?   They match perfectly.   Also, top matches defendant's hair dye).     Plaintiff suing defendant for money owed for Bengal cat.    Defendant bought one Bengal from plaintiff, and then wanted another one, so she could breed Bengals.     Defendant picked up second cat, and then reversed charges for $1400 on Pay Pal.    Plaintiff sold a neutered male to defendant, and then sold an unspayed female for $2,000, but $1400 was reversed.    

Defendant claims the plaintiff would take $600, and pick of litter, but plaintiff said no she didn't.  

Plaintiff says the defendant made payments through Pay Pal for the cat.  Defendant paid in full for the cat, $2k through Pay Pal.   Then, defendant disputed charges for $1400.  Male cat escaped, and was squashed by a car.   We can never know the answer, but if the female wasn't spayed, and the male was neutered, what was the defendant going to breed the female to for a litter?   

$1400 for plaintiff.   

Edited April 6, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Cementhead]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Male cat escaped, and was squashed by a car. 

"It got ranned over" said the defendant after the case.  Yes, really.  She actually said that.  😨

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Cementhead

[Cementhead]

duplicate post

Edited April 5, 2019 by Cementhead

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

House is for sale for $135,000, plaintiff blames the price on the former renters.   However, no listing available saying that.  Plaintiff's house sold for $135,500.

That horrible little munchkin claims that the value of the jumped 30% in two years and that the defendant’s handiwork reduced the value by $40,000.  Nonsense. Show me some evidence of that. The house sold for what the market said it was always worth. Are we supposed to believe that the defendant’s damage reduced the value by exactly the difference between her fantasy value and the market value? Oh, and nice hissy fit at the end.  The Mayor of Munchkin Land would be ashamed of you.

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bengal Cat Breeding Debacle!

Yikes. Perhaps the trashiest litigant ever. What a contrast of class between plaintiff and litigant. Anyone what to convince me that the defendant didn’t simply withdraw payment because she didn’t want to pay for a dead cat? It got runned over, remember. I couldn’t help thinking that for the sake of mankind, cats are the only thing this defendant pig will breed. But that ship probably sailed before she left her teens. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

That horrible little munchkin

Squinting, ill-tempered little troll and her many expressions (all of them unpleasant) was quite entertaining, as long as you don't have to deal with her in real life. I was expecting her to start growling and snapping at imaginary flies.

[Mondrianyone]

Oh, what a lovely stroll down Memory Lane yesterday, brightened by the sunshine of Starlina Todd's radiant smile.

JJ said something in another case that I want to have printed on a T-shirt, but I can't remember the exact wording, and it should be correct.  I was FF-ing through the case, so I don't know what the issues were.  But the part I heard was "It's never a good idea to lie to the sheriff, Todd."  Is that right?  TIA.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Mondrianyone said:

OBut the part I heard was "It's never a good idea to lie to the sheriff, Todd."  Is that right?  TIA.

I could be wrong, but I thought she said, "It's never a good idea to lie ABOUT the sheriff, Todd."

[AngelaHunter]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Truck Deal Backfire?

That amoral Mona, the Minnesota Moron with her stupid smirk, was sickening. She needs to buy her boyfriend an old truck, but after seeing him, I can understand why. He's worth it, I'm sure. Mona thought she was just soooo classy and impressive with her lockjaw muttering, but her "What if he DON'T like it?" text says otherwise. Nasty, stupid bitch. Go buy your boyfriend a truck yourself, Mona, and if he don't like that, tell him to buy one himself. Good luck with that. 

I don't remember Ms. Troisi, here suing def with whom her son (now incarcerated OF COURSE) lived, for a motorcycle she got for her 26-year old baby because, OF COURSE, he can't get his own, and which def had towed, causing poor Ms. Troisi great inconvenience to retrieve it. The only remarkable part was the janky party gown Ms. Troisi, lowdown, crude old hag, was wearing which may have looked pretty cute on a 16-year old girl. On her? Oh, my eyes.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think JJ said to the Rottweiler owner, "So the Sheriff's office is lying" is from the Sheriff's report that talked about the plaintiff's horrific dog bite injuries on his face, and mentioned that the dogs had also bitten him a while before, but that wasn't reported.     I'm hoping Badger Mutual Insurance canceled the defendant's homeowner's insurance after this case aired.   I'm sure his agent and the company were ticked about the national publicity for their company.     I thought it was funny that the plaintiff managed to get the insurance company name on the air, and get the fact that the dogs weren't covered by insurance, and the defendants knew that in the record.     

I wonder if the new owner of the Rottweiler knows exactly why the dog needed a new home?  

Edited April 7, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Ms. Troisi, lowdown, crude old hag, was wearing which may have looked pretty cute on a 16-year old girl.

She also made the remark that she’d look great on a Harley. Bitch, please. 

[Byrd is the Word]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm hoping Badger Mutual Insurance canceled the defendant's homeowner's insurance after this case aired.

I don’t think the policy forbids the ownership of these dogs, and simply excludes them from coverage and thus the owner assumes all of the risk. If Todd’s dog had bitten me on the face to that degree I think I’d have skipped TV court and the $5,000 limit and gone to real court. I’d own that guy’s house before we were done. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

 I think I’d have skipped TV court and the $5,000 limit and gone to real court. I’d own that guy’s house before we were done. 

A lot of people would certainly get higher judgments in courts other than small claims, but most likely would never collect a dime if suing private parties. 100% of 5,000$ is better than 0% of a million dollars (especially when a defendant doesn't have a nickel to his/her name) and at least here they are guaranteed to get the money. Also, in a higher court, you'd have to hire a lawyer and considering the parade of incompetent nitwits we've seen here, that's taking a big risk.  

[Byrd is the Word]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

100% of 5,000$ is better than 0% of a million dollars (especially when a defendant doesn't have a nickel to his/her name) and at least here they are guaranteed to get the money.

Since I have medical insurance and the resources to cover my deductible and other out of pocket expenses I wouldn’t need the cash. I would win a large judgement against him and encumber everything he owns until that judgement was satisfied. He wouldn’t be able to sell his car without me releasing a lien. I could tie him up for years. So, depending on Todd’s reaction to my injuries and my trauma of being attacked by his dog, I may or may not sue.   If the dog had no history of biting and Todd addressed my concerns to my satisfaction I might pass on a lawsuit. However, if he were a douche and blew me off I’d tie him up for for as long as possible. I’ve heard for years that whether or not one likes a doctor has a ton of weight as to whether or not a patient sues for malpractice. I don’t know for sure if it’s true, but I don’t have much trouble believing it. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Since I have medical insurance and the resources to cover my deductible and other out of pocket expenses I wouldn’t need the cash

Yes, but we're not talking about reasonable, responsible people like us. We're talking about JJ litigants, who are out taking title loans on their 1998 uninsured Ford Tempos and who use pawn shops as banks and borrow money for breast implants. They don't work (or work part-time at the most menial jobs and are either paid in cash or get min. wage - jobs they would quit in case of a judgment) so you can't garnish their wages and they never own anything in their own names so no liens.

I didn't watch this case, so maybe Todd has some assets. I'm speaking of the common garden-variety litigants here. 

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I’ve heard for years that whether or not one likes a doctor has a ton of weight as to whether or not a patient she’s for malpractice. I don’t know for sure if it’s true, but I can’t have much trouble believing it. 

I'm sure that's true. An apology and a show of concern can go a long way.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Since the dogs actually belonged to the girlfriend, and the man was the homeowner, that would give a litigant two people to sue.       I wonder if there were results from this case when it aired?    For the  kids he had partial custody of in the home with the two dogs (later one dog), that he apparently had zero problem having them around the kids, and if the girlfriend had kids too?     

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

5 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Since I have medical insurance and the resources to cover my deductible and other out of pocket expenses I wouldn’t need the cash. I would win a large judgement against him and encumber everything he owns until that judgement was satisfied. He wouldn’t be able to sell his car without me releasing a lien. I could tie him up for years. So, depending on Todd’s reaction to my injuries and my trauma of being attacked by his dog, I may or may not sue. 

Oh, sweetie, please forgive my frankness, but you got a lot to learn about the judicial system. I sued somebody on my own and won a judgement.  He refused to pay. Took him back to court and attached his job. He quit the job. Tried to attach his bank account but lo and behold, he closed it. Didn't own a car. Let his house go into foreclosure where I was right behind the bank (he also owed me a settlement upon sale of the house). The bank is now chasing him for their money. And I was tied up for years, getting gray hairs and getting a lot of stomachaches trying to chase this person around (who moved away to a state that didn't allow transfer of judgments so I couldn't attach his wages there, even though I found out where he worked).  I lost around 50 grand in the proposition. I could have continued to pursue him, but it was costing me money every time I filed to attach something of his, only to be shot down. If somebody doesn't want to pay you, you're getting a big fat zero if they decide they wanna screw you over. 

My dad used to say you can sue anybody for anything, but it doesn't mean you're going to win and if you win, doesn't mean you're going to collect. Wise man.

[AngelaHunter]

52 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I sued somebody on my own and won a judgement.  He refused to pay. Took him back to court and attached his job. He quit the job. Tried to attach his bank account but lo and behold, he closed it.

Yup. I feel I was ripped off by a landscape contractor who just threw down his shovel and walked away from the job,  but I let it go since I knew taking him to small claims court would be futile, a waste of time and money. I know I would have won, but won what? He'd never pay a dime. I could have put a lien on his house, and maybe he'd move in the next 15 or 20 years and I could collect. Maybe. I swallowed the 900$ loss and learned a lesson.

[Byrd is the Word]

3 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Oh, sweetie, please forgive my frankness, but you got a lot to learn about the judicial system.

I’ve had slightly better luck. On a personal case I won a judgement and was able put a lien on the car of a man who hit my car and ran. Sometime later I was able to recover about 1/3 of the judgement when he wanted the lien released so he could sell the car. Professionally I had a much larger judgement for a company that defrauded my business for about $7,000. I never recovered a dollar but I manage to cause him (along with others) a lot of trouble. Both cases were slam dunk s and in neither did I have to go to court as my attorney handled it. But you and your dad are mostly right. I’ve walked away from several other cases where I felt wronged because there’s no percentage in it except for the attorneys. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Teenage Loan Sharks?!-Plaintiffs are suing son's friend for jewelry, and car insurance bills.   Defendant says that the plaintiff's son (the real plaintiff, not Mommy, or stepdad) took the three payments in advance on car insurance from defendant (car was insured for defendant to drive, but on plaintiff son's policy), in lieu of paying for a ring that he owed the plaintiff for. 

JJ is making a call to the plaintiff son, Kyle.       Kyle doesn't agree with defendant's tale of payments.   

Stepdad /plaintiff agreed to pay for car repairs for defendant's car, and defendant made very minimal payments.   Plaintiffs get $581 for two loans, for car repairs, and a ring

Sub-letters from Hell!-Plaintiff suing two former subletters for damages, including a bunch of large holes in the drywall.    The plaintiff is the lease holder at the apartment, and rented a room to the defendants.    Defendants say they saw a notice for non-payment by the plaintiff, so they stopped paying the plaintiff their rent.    Rent is $1300, room rent is $200 a week.    Defendants didn't pay for 1 week in December, and 4 weeks in January for $1,000 already owed.   

Counterclaim for harassment, all rent they paid, totaling $3k, and they're not getting a penny of that.   

Former tenants broke a dresser that was furnished in the room, there is a giant hole in the bedroom wall, and a calendar was hiding the hole.     

Plaintiff gets $1,000, plus $337     equals $1337.   

Creepy Gardening- (A wonderful escription on the cable guide for this episode: "A landlord says he evicted his tenants due to nighttime tree trimming, vegetable vandalism, and loud fighting".)   Smartaleck landlord rented the basement downstairs for man, woman, and two kids. (at first he said it was his trailer basement, JJ was not amused) 

Plaintiff /landlord says the tenants were constantly fighting, left the children at home alone, damaged his property, and filed a false restraining order.     Defendant man moved out, but left junk behind.      No security deposit was given.    Rent was $1200 a month, paid $600 for the first two weeks, and owed last month's for security.     

Plaintiff doesn't have a clue about anything financial.   Landlord says woman leaves the the two kids alone constantly, woman trimmed the trees in the middle of the night, pulled his garden out, claims woman stole his mail.     

Defendant man left the home, and took his two kids with him.   However, the woman stayed in the house after man left.      In her sworn court statement woman says she stayed behind because she's stubborn, and wanted to stick it to the landlord, and she also moved her mother and an older son into the house.     Woman filed for a restraining order after boyfriend, and kids left.    She wanted a restraining order with all kinds of nasty allegations, and never showed up in court for the extension of the order.    She claims landlord locked her out, broke a window banging on it, claims landlord cut off electricity, claims landlord broke her Xbox, put bleach on clothes.    Woman also claims landlord has an entire shed of their children's mementos.    

I hear banjos playing all through this case.      Landlord gets $0.   That's why you should have contracts, receipts, move in and move out pictures.  

5 p.m. reruns-

Heartbreaking Dog Custody Verdict-Plaintiff wants dog back from ex-boyfriend, they moved in right after meeting.    Plaintiff brought older cat previous to relationship.    Litigants got the dog in February, and woman moved out in January 2018.     Dog lived with the defendant for seven months, now the plaintiff has a place that allows pets.  When the woman moved out, she left the dog and cat behind, and came back in April to get the cat.  

Defendant owns his own house, and is fully employed.   Plaintiff worked for a non-profit, and then managed a couple of stores.   Dog was purchased by plaintiff's account, and defendant picked up the dog.   After living together for four years, they could have split up better than this.     

JJ is right, the dog has lived with the man his whole life, and plaintiff is hysterical, and crying over the dog.   Nothing for anyone, defendant keeps the dog. 

Mutilated Flower Fiasco?!-Plaintiff is suing defendant neighbor for mutilating his bouganvillea (spelling?), and trespassing.   This is the memorable case in Beverly Hills  where the defendant butchered the bouganvillea plants on the neighbor's property.   

Plaintiff says defendant had tree branches removed that weren't overhanging his property, and a huge bougainvillea.    The plaintiff claims the plants were not near the defendant's property, but totally on the plaintiff's property, and over the sidewalk.    However, the pictures show the plants were definitely overhanging the defendant's property.     

I don't think the gardeners did have to trespass, but could easily have used a saw to chop the plants overhanging the defendant's property.     I would hate living next to the plaintiff.    

Zero for anyone, and my sympathies to the defendant having to live next to this person.

Fresh Mouth Dismissed From the Courtroom?-Plaintiff is suing for a loan, moving costs, and a destroyed phone.   Defendant is also suing for a destroyed phone.     Defendant owes $900+ for the first month's rent.   Plaintiff says "Bulls%&^", and both litigants are dismissed.   

Toddler Day Care Injury-Plaintiff suing day care provider defendant for injuring his 3 year old.    Defendant sat for the little boy for 18 months.      Little boy had his finger smashed in the door, and defendant takes care of 8 kids, with two part time assistants only, and one assistant is another day care mom.      Defendant says there were no medical bills because Dad and child are covered by Medicare.     

Little boys finger was smashed, and has no feeling, then plaintiff says finger was ripped off (no it wasn't, just has nerve damage in the tip of the finger).   Sadly, eight kids with one day care provider is legal where this case happened.     Plaintiff consulted an attorney about pain and suffering, and the provider has no insurance, and the attorney said no case.     Plaintiff is 48 years old, and in school.     Plaintiff has no medical bills, and case is dismissed.  

Pit Bull Chews Up House!-Plaintiff rented a home to the defendants for five years, with husband, and wife, and two kids.    When defendants moved out, landlady says they had damages amounting to $4800.     $800 security deposit.        Defendant disassembled the toilet to unclog it, and never put it back.   

Defendant also want money for 'improvements' and broken items that they fixed instead of landlady.   Landlady has an estimate, but it's a total amount, not itemized.    The outside door frame, siding, and door are thoroughly chewed.     At least the landlady has pictures of the damage, $1805, minus security, so $1,000. 

This is the 'heart warming' case where the pit bull became inconvenient, so they dumped him at the animal shelter.    

(Tomorrow's rerun at 5 p.m. is the truck that the high school student borrowed, and crashed into the school on video).  

Edited April 8, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

plaintiff is hysterical, and crying over the dog.

Wait for it, wait for it...and THERE’S the meltdown that we all know was coming. 

Litigants, once again, don’t refer to the animals that you’ve abused and abandoned as your babies. It only shows you to be the irresponsible, sometimes abusive fool that you really are. It also makes me want to reach through my television and smack you. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[badhaggis]

And her hallterview was unbelievable! The dog loved her first. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by badhaggis
not allergies hallterview

[Florinaldo]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

where the defendant butchered the bouganvillea plants on the neighbor's property. 

If the plantiff was reading your entry, he would correct that part by interjecting that the plants were "muuutilated" as he did several times during the case.