All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Incidentally, did anyone else’s flesh crawl when that creepy jailbird talked about potty training the plaintiff’s little girl? Between the mom allowing her little girl to weekend with a bunch of teenagers and this one allowing that sketchy dirt bag without 50 feet of her child, we have two candidates for Mother of the Year. 

YES!  (See my earlier post about Icky contestigants!! Blech!)

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The entire home situation was bizarre, and the fact that the man was in charge of a five year old confirms that the plaintiff is stupid.   

I think beyond stupid, the plaintiff is impaired.  Now, a lot of the folks we see here ACT impaired, but I'm willing to bet that she has some sort of issues, and being duped into feeling sorry for this guy is just one more manifestation of this.  One thing to be thankful for, is that someone had the sense to get those 5 (possibly) 6 kids out of his hands for good.  Of course, having been through the adoptive parenting process,  we learned that when older kids are available to new families, they often come with LOTS of baggage.  I fear these 5/6 will carry life-long burdens of some kind.  

 @AngelaHunter I'm hittin' the wine.  Mr. Toes had a half bottle of a nice chianti (!) on the floorboard of his truck for a couple of days (don't ask.)  Nice and warm now.  I think it may taste better, but I'm slammin' it so fast it's hard to tell.

Hey, @PennyPie18!  Grab the cheeseballs and a glass of vino (or stronger!) and join us here on the sofa.  We are all happy to scooch over for another JJ fan! Welcome!

In the absence of rainbows and unicorns, I'm heading over to the ID network and watching The Night that Didn't End to boost my mood.

Edited April 27, 2019 by SandyToes
Because even when drinking, I should be correct.

[AuntiePam]

The bartender blackmail case -- her hair extensions were so obvious.  And I know this, because I can never tell real hair from fake hair, and I could tell.  She might as well have hung some raccoon tails on her head.  Bad job.

[SandyToes]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Not PC at all, but all of them need to be forcibly sterilized asap. They can all screw what little brains they have out, but stop having helpless infants. 

I used to say I'd HAPPILY hand over my tax dollars, if I could use for things like this. The child may well be special needs  - again, I'd bet money the parent(s) are.  🙁

And in our Education portion of our forum, we use the phrase "Placed for adoption."   I think JJ or someone used the term "adopted out."  Nope.  Please and thank you!  😍

Edited April 27, 2019 by SandyToes

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, SandyToes said:

I'm hittin' the wine. 

I already hit the wine (a very nice Chilean cabernet), and the Drambuie, but it's not helping. 😟

Never ever do I watch anything like Springer, or the Quack Dr. Phil, or that Wilkos, so why are we getting that sordid, disgusting, sick-making crap on this show? What's wrong with the producers that they vomit up the scum of the earth for us? I don't want to see this stuff. 

Remember Judge Wapner? Tons of interesting and entertaining cases without this plunging into the cesspool.

[SandyToes]

"Fished out of a drain" indeed.  Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

[PennyPie18]

32 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

YES!  (See my earlier post about Icky contestigants!! Blech!)

I think beyond stupid, the plaintiff is impaired.  Now, a lot of the folks we see here ACT impaired, but I'm willing to bet that she has some sort of issues, and being duped into feeling sorry for this guy is just one more manifestation of this.  One thing to be thankful for, is that someone had the sense to get those 5 (possibly) 6 kids out of his hands for good.  Of course, having been through the adoptive parenting process,  we learned that when older kids are available to new families, they often come with LOTS of baggage.  I fear these 5/6 will carry life-long burdens of some kind.  

 @AngelaHunter I'm hittin' the wine.  Mr. Toes had a half bottle of a nice chianti (!) on the floorboard of his truck for a couple of days (don't ask.)  Nice and warm now.  I think it may taste better, but I'm slammin' it so fast it's hard to tell.

Hey, @PennyPie18!  Grab the cheeseballs and a glass of vino (or stronger!) and join us here on the sofa.  We are all happy to scooch over for another JJ fan! Welcome!

In the absence of rainbows and unicorns, I'm heading over to the ID network and watching The Night that Didn't End to boost my mood.

Thanks for the welcome! I'm ahead of you! I already had a glass of Southern Comfort🥃, and yet, the sight of those wackos is still embedded in my mind!!! Help!😣😠

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, PennyPie18 said:

I'm ahead of you! I already had a glass of Southern Comfort

Ooh, Southern Comfort! I still have no idea what it actually is, but I recall I liked it quite a bit.

You all know - the only thing that could possibly make this forum better (and I do love it as is) would be a chat room. 😀

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

You all know - the only thing that could possibly make this forum better (and I do love it as is) would be a chat room. 😀

Only because it's Saturday night and we don't have anything else better to do.....  Sad....  I'm trying to avoid grading exams.  Big bottle of Southern Comfort in the pantry at the Toes household!  Mr. T's bev of choice!

Show? Anywhere? Um... (yes, I know, not an answer).... thinking....  I hate the new hairdo.  Maybe once it's a bit longer.  A little to RBG for my taste. But with a little length, it might work.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

Only because it's Saturday night and we don't have anything else better to do.....  Sad.... 

So we're a bunch of dreary wallflowers. That's better than being out busting someone's windows, getting high on meth, making booty calls to revolting losers or brawling in the street, right? 🤔

Edited April 28, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Schnickelfritz]

11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So we're a bunch of dreary wallflowers. That's better than being out busting someone's windows, getting high on meth, making booty calls to revolting losers or brawling in the street, right? 🤔

No JJ appearance for you then.

[zillabreeze]

On 4/26/2019 at 6:01 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why was a five year old still being potty trained?    And what idiot would trust that man with a child, when his were all taken by the state, and his parental right severed so they could be adopted? 

These issues were driving me bonkers!!!!   Five is really old for potty training and nothing was ever said about developmental issues, which are always worn as a badge of honor by our litigants.

You hand off a five year old child to an unrelated, 38 year old male convict???? Not just for babysitting, but bathing and potty training??? What the ever loving fuq is wrong with your mother meter???  I have no idea why JJ didn't call her out.  MM would have.

Edited April 28, 2019 by zillabreeze

[AngelaHunter]

52 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I have no idea why JJ didn't call her out.  MM would have.

You're right and I wouldn't dream of letting that scumbag care for my fish, never mind my helpless child. JJ would have given her a severe spanking at one time too, but I think the cast of characters have become so lowlife and so beyond any comprehension that trying to make them see reason is an exercise in futility. How many times can a person repeat the same things, knowing they'll never sink into these cement heads? What's the use?

"You're  a bad mother."

"I'm not a bad mother."

[PennyPie18]

I hope someone in Social Services was watching that depraved group and made plans to, at the very least, remove that little girl from that disgusting environment. But, they often overlook the obvious, and kids get hurt or worse. Has JJ ever intervened in a case like this?  I need more Southern comfort! 

[AngelaHunter]

Hey, any of the ladies here have a "significant other" who is a criminal and presently "incarcerated"? That's perfectly normal, right? Maybe we can take a road trip together to visit our felonious lover-boys in the cooler, but you have to promise you won't smash up my car. Dibs on the conjugal visit trailer!

2 hours ago, PennyPie18 said:

But, they often overlook the obvious, and kids get hurt or worse. Has JJ ever intervened in a case like this?

Child protective services seem to be kind of a bad joke, with kids being given back to parents who have previously mentally/physically/sexually abused, neglected and starved them which has ended up in the death of the child more than once, but hey - if for some unusual reason they don't get those kids back they can just have more. It's a disgrace and an outrage. The SPCA does a better job of protecting those who cannot speak for themselves. I know JJ has said before she would provide tapes from a case for a parent litigant to use during a custody case.  Most of the careless breeders we see here shouldn't be allowed to have a gerbil. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 4/26/2019 at 7:01 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why was a five year old still being potty trained?    And what idiot would trust that man with a child, when his were all taken by the state, and his parental right severed so they could be adopted? 

If I have a five year old that was still having bathroom issues, I sure as hell wouldn't want some weirdo ex-con with creepy eyes assisting her. I wouldn't have ANY adult male assisting her other than her father and that would be if he wasn't a creepy-eyed weirdo ex-con. 

On 4/26/2019 at 7:01 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Sadly, ItsHelloPattiagain is right.   I was on a Grand Jury years ago, and at least 95% of the sexual abuse of children was by a boyfriend or husband of an older sister, when one or more younger children were left with the sibling by the mother.     In all cases, the mother was going off for a rendezvous, or moving in with the new boyfriend.        Out of a lot of cases, only a couple were a stranger to the family, and a few were relatives in the original home.

I don't know why more single moms don't realize this. It seems like every week on my local news we have some deadbeat boyfriend watching the kids while the mom is at work and there's some kind of awful mishap. Last week the BF decided to "discipline" a four year old who wet himself by pouring boiling water on him (the kid also had broken bones and a traumatic brain injury - unfortunately the child passed away and now the guy is looking at murder charges). 

[funky-rat]

On 4/27/2019 at 4:59 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Even more astonishing, although I don't know why I'm surprised after seeing countless examples of the depths to which they will sink, is that women are more than willing to take off their clothes and have disgusting sex with this repulsive - in every way it's possible to be repulsive; physically, mentally and intellectually - sack of garbage and reproduce with him. 

There's someone out there for just about everyone, shocking as that may be.  I worked with a guy who was just flat-out gross.  He smelled SO BADLY of body odor that people would leave him deodorant.  He was with someone equally gross, and a few crayons short of a box.  They had 2 kids together, then a set of twins.  After the twins came, someone sent CPS their way, and the kids were taken away (I can't recall what the allegations were anymore - I'm thinking the house being dirty, or the kids sitting in diapers, or similar).  CPS took all 4 kids, and he briefly went to jail (can't recall what for).  While he was in, she terminated rights to all 4 kids, and ran off with another woman.  I don't recall if his name wasn't on the birth certificate, or what happened, but he didn't know.  While that was all kinds of shady, I think the kids are better off.  So he gets out of prison, and had no problem hooking up with someone else.  She was better looking, and a little smarter, but had a penchant for threatening to beat people up.  She came to work looking for another co-worker, wanting to beat her up because she heard they were fooling around.  The cops were called, and the other co-worker was all like "Seriously??? I wouldn't go within 10 feet of him!".  Trashy.....

On 4/27/2019 at 7:24 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Never ever do I watch anything like Springer, or the Quack Dr. Phil, or that Wilkos, so why are we getting that sordid, disgusting, sick-making crap on this show? What's wrong with the producers that they vomit up the scum of the earth for us? I don't want to see this stuff. 

Remember Judge Wapner? Tons of interesting and entertaining cases without this plunging into the cesspool.

Times are different.  I remember complaints about The People's Court being "scandalous" when it first came out.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I don't know why more single moms don't realize this.

A lot of them do know but are willing to sacrifice their children in order to keep some ghoul around. Happens all the time. In those cases, I feel that the parent is even more guilty than the POS abusing the kids. To know abuse is going on and do nothing to protect your own kids is one of the worst crimes there is, and should be an automatic life sentence.

Around here, two breeders shook their infant to death. Damned brat wouldn't stop crying and interrupted their enjoyment of their porn movie, drug use and snacks. They virtually got away with it. Killing babies isn't a terrible crime if you didn't really mean for them to die. I learned long ago to avoid most news articles. Better for my health. 

Imagine the kind of stuff JJ listened to in all her years in family court?

[zillabreeze]

29 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

In those cases, I feel that the parent is even more guilty than the POS abusing the kids. To know abuse is going on and do nothing to protect your own kids is one of the worst crimes there is, and should be an automatic life sentence.

In the news ALL THE TIME.   Birth parent is gone or asleep and the current squeeze does something horrible.  Court time comes along and birth parent gets a lighter or no sentence.   TOTAL BS.  Exact same punishment for both, IMO.

If a bank guard is killed in a robbery and the get away driver can also "catch" a murder charge, then I don't see the difference.  If your kid dies playing second fiddle to your nasty bits, you "pulled the trigger."

[AngelaHunter]

I remember a case we saw on this show, detailing such a horrific attack on a small child everyone was reeling in horror. JJ wasn't even shocked. I'm sure she's heard way worse.

How I wish I were in charge of these cases.

[SandyToes]

Looks like two more new eps today, and not a mention of a dog or cell phone!  One is a disgruntled employee who comes back a'thievin' .  Cool!!  Of course, this also means the new hairdo...

Edited April 29, 2019 by SandyToes

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

The Truck That Got Away!-After 12 days in a relationship, the defendant made a bad decision about the custody of a truck.     Defendant claims plaintiff said he can store his truck on her grandfather's property, and of course, the plaintiff claims the truck was given to her because it needed an engine.   Plaintiff was separating from husband, and moving to grandfather's house, met defendant, and dated for three months.    Plaintiff has two kids with ex, and they stay with the father.   

Defendant was separated from wife, and getting a divorce too.   Truck was towed, by plaintiff's boyfriend, to the grandfather's property.     Plaintiff claims she got to keep the truck if she got it up and running, but she hasn't paid for anything but the tow.    Police will retrieve the truck from the lying ho, and give it back to the defendant so he can register, and fix it.   Nothing for the plaintiff.  

Convicted Felon Takes on Lawyer!-Plaintiff is a lawyer, suing the former client, an armed robber, and for assault, and something with a cell phone,  for non-payment of the bills.      Defendant plead guilty, and got a less than adequate sentence, and didn't pay the attorney because he thought he shouldn't have any jail time.    Priors are one other arrest 5 years ago, and found guilty.     He hadn't completed probation on the first case, when arrested for the second.   Home invasion second degree, a felony, and for the first case.

Fee was $5000, and he paid only $500.    Attorney got a great agreement for the loser defendant.    He was facing a lot of time in prison, got probation again, and reduced some charges, and the plead guilty to one count.      Defendant wants sympathy because his main witness was his cousin, and cousin died, so he thinks he should have been let go.   Nothing for the idiot defendant, and attorney gets her well deserved money.    

Single Woman Snafu!-Boyfriend/plaintiff, and girlfriend/plaintiff are suing the ex-girlfriend defendant, and let her use a joint debit card to use a car, for rental fees, towing fees, and a false restraining order.     Plaintiff man claims the defendant is a friend of many years, not a girl friend.         Plaintiff gf wasn't happy about lending the defendant their car.    

Plaintiff says defendant has spare vehicles, and felt sorry for the defendant, and wanted the car out his name.   The car was loaned to defendant in July, for four weeks, and then it was traded in by the plaintiff gf, for another car.   When the plaintiffs broke up, they had joint cars, individual cars, and she wanted it cleared up.     The credit card for the rental car was a joint plaintiff car, and man paid for the rental car, and he didn't discuss paying for the rental car, or loaning the other car to defendant.     Plaintiff girlfriend was really ticked about defendant/not a girlfriend's car use, and credit use.  

Rental car fees included toll fees, $442 in collection, plus almost $300 not in collections, plus $90 from Hertz, rental car fees outstanding($840).    False restraining order claim by defendant is denied by JJ.    

Defendant filed for restraining orders against both plaintiffs.     Defendant is a realtor, so the burglary, and theft charges hurt her career.     There are Facebook messages acknowledging the debt for the car, and tows, etc.     $2038 to the plaintiffs.    

My Sister the Moocher!-Plaintiff sister, and her man bun wearing boyfriend are suing her sister for mooching.    Of course, sister claims it was all a gift.  defendant moved in with sister, and agreed to pay rent for $500 a month, stayed for 11 months.     Defendant moved out after a verbal altercation with man bun.   Plaintiff girlfriend bought a gun membership for man bun, and they want money for a mini fridge for the defendant.     Nothing for either set of litigants.    

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

Vigilante Boutique Thief Caught on Tape?!-Plaintiff, boutique owner is accusing former employee defendant of stealing merchandise from the boutique.   Police report was made, and defendant hired an attorney because her truck was taken and inventoried by the police, but claims she wasn't arrested.   Defendant counter suing for attorney fees, and other garbage.     Defendant was hired part time, for $10 per hour, and two outfits per month, according to plaintiff.    Defendant claims she worked a lot of days in September, and October.    Boutique owner should have paid about $400 for wages.   

Plaintiff paid the defendant nothing.   Defendant is Sainted Single Mother of Two (SSMOT), and claims she never turned down the $400, the way the plaintiff says.    Plaintiff claims she would give proceeds from special sale, and then pay her the next Friday for the rest of the money.    Defendant owed $608, in unpaid wages.     Plaintiff claims the defendant got into the boutique, and stole merchandise, and there's a video.  ON the video, defendant grabs two armloads of clothing, and then leaves, and it's at least 10 jackets, and skirts.   Plaintiff claims her witness, the landlady, accidentally deleted another stealing spree by the defendant.    Police failed to arrest and prosecute the defendant.     Defendant's claims are dismissed.      Unless the merchandise was extremely cheap, the defendant made a lot more than $400 or $608 owed to the defendant.   

Case is recalled for receipts for what defendant stole on video.   Defendant is a thief, and still claims she isn't, and claims the police found her innocent.     Someone needs to watch a lot more Law & Order.     Plaintiff gets $1,000, and defendant is still a thief, and gets nothing. 

Landlord's Legal Troubles-Plaintiff, former tenant says she told defendant/property manager that she had been assaulted by another tenant in the building, and didn't feel safe in the apartment building after that.    This happened in 2012, and the woman and her child moved to a women's shelter for two months.     

The other tenant was convicted of assaulting her, and sent to prison, and before that the plaintiff was evicted, and it went on her credit history.   The other tenant had a previous history of violence, and convictions.    Property manager claims the plaintiff only wanted to get out of her lease, and not because of the assault.     Six years later the property manager put an eviction notice on her credit record.    In January 2019, the property manager's company put the eviction on the plaintiff's credit report, which is now affecting her.    

The attorney the defendant's soon-to-be ex wife is using is connected to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff's son's father is using the attorney for a current custody case.    Plaintiff's ex boyfriend is using the same attorney the property manager uses, and suddenly the credit report surfaces.   The defendant also doesn't believe the assault happened, even though there is a conviction of the other tenant, a protective order, and police reports.

Plaintiff filed a case against the property manager, (in small claims), and claims he was boinking the attorney that filed the credit report. 

 I wonder if the ex wife knows about the purported relationship between her attorney, and the soon to be ex husband.     Since this 'relationship' was never mentioned by the plaintiff in the JJ court filing, if the fool defendant would have kept his mouth shut, then 10 million people wouldn't know about the allegations.     

Plaintiff gets $5k.     I feel sorry for anyone subjected to the property manager, and his idiot attitudes.   

I wonder if the tenant that assaulted the plaintiff is a relative of the property manager too?   

(Warning: tomorrow's second new episode is a dog attack case with another "my dog is an angel" defense, and an out of control defendant).  

Edited April 29, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[SandyToes]

Great recaps!  The boutique thief - WHY does JJ not turn off the mics, as she so often threatens! "The police said I was innocent!"  Over and over and over again....

I think Plaintiff was owed more than what she got, but didn't quite have her ducks in a row.

The other case didn't do much for me. 

And I really don't like single-case episodes.  Too much repeating the same sound bites. YMMV

[Hagosaurus]

On 4/27/2019 at 8:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

So we're a bunch of dreary wallflowers. That's better than being out busting someone's windows, getting high on meth, making booty calls to revolting losers or brawling in the street, right? 🤔

Hey! Speak for yourself.

[zillabreeze]

41 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

! "The police said I was innocent!"  Over and over and over again....

JJ kept trying to explain the difference between "no charges filed" and "being innocent", but stupid cow wouldn't shut up and learn something.  That's why stupid cow and the other big mouth litigants will go to their graves as SSMs that I have to help Byrd support.  These yammering loud, screechy bitches truly think they are the smartest things to ever shit between two shoes.  It never crosses their minds that perhaps their sucky lives are not exactly shining proof of their vast knowledge of the world.

I guess at every opportunity to learn something useful, like birth control, finances or the law, it's much better to jerk around squawking like a banshee.  It clearly is THE key to a fulfilling and successful life.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Vigilante Boutique Thief Caught on Tape?!

That was not bad, in a way. Def. a SS(of course)MOT had not a single iota of shame at being viewed by millions of people as she lumbered around like a T-Rex stealing shit. Not a shred. I'm sure she sets a fine example for her offspring. Both litigants sounded like idiots (we even got a quick "tooken" from plainitff) but def is an amoral, nasty heffalump. She stands there, yapping non-stop that the police found her innocent. Did the police include a judge and jury to try her on the spot?

I'm pretty sure that boutique exists no longer with that nitwit running it. "I'm not a thief! That video of me being a thief doesn't count! The cops found me innocent!" Shut up, you bigmouthed liar. 

The silly little property manager, Mr. Schneckleburger: "I did not have relations with that woman." I just bet he's been dying for the right time to say that ever since he heard Bill Clinton say it. So anxious was he to get that brilliant statement out he aired some more dirty laundry no one watching would have known if he had kept his grub flap shut. Normally I would think, "Who the hell would want relations of any kind with that annoying white mouse, but alas, I know better. There's probably a line of sad, lonely women who are even more pathetic than he is just waiting for their big opportunity to grab this prize. 

Or maybe they're like the Russian dating scammers polluting my inbox: "Oh, Mr Schneckleburger! I love you. Miss you. Kiss you. Gimme 500$"

[zillabreeze]

23 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"I did not have relations with that woman."

Way to be topical, you pasty little worm.

[BusyOctober]

I must have become as addled as most of JJ's parade of clowns because I could not follow the assaulted tenant case at all.  What did Plaintiff's soon to be ex-wife's attorney have to do with making trouble for the poor woman who was (I'm guessing) sexually assaulted in her apartment?  I even rewound and rewatched & I cannot make heads or tails out of what the little weasel's divorce case had to do with filing an eviction notice years after the incident in the Defendant's unit.  

The other case of (Not) Innocent Boutique Burglar was boring.  Both of these women are too stupid to breath let alone be involved in a business.  If the clothing shop owner wasn't making enough money to pay her employee, how does getting a second job help the situation?  Whatever she made at the part time gig was (supposedly) going to the Defendant.  She's spending more time away from her failing business and more money on commuting to a 2nd job!  If ever a person was deserving of a Byrd-assisted eviction, it was dummy DEfendant who doesn't know the difference between "charges dropped" and "innocent".  JJ let her ramble on way too long.

[Byrd is the Word]

27 minutes ago, BusyOctober said:

I must have become as addled as most of JJ's parade of clowns because I could not follow the assaulted tenant case at all.  What did Plaintiff's soon to be ex-wife's attorney have to do with making trouble for the poor woman who was (I'm guessing) sexually assaulted in her apartment?  I even rewound and rewatched & I cannot make heads or tails out of what the little weasel's divorce case had to do with filing an eviction notice years after the incident in the Defendant's unit. 

I'm not quite clear on the nexus (JJ vocabulary building word for the day) between the attorney, the defendant and plaintiff but it's seems clear to me that the credit reporting was done more out of spite than the ordinary course of business.  If I understand the facts correctly, the plaintiff was a tenet in good standing for years.  In November of 2013 or '14 she was seriously assaulted in her apartment by another of the building's tenets.  She immediately fled the apartment and sought shelter, along with her daughter, in a woman's shelter where she remained for two months.  The beady eyed property owned initiated eviction proceedings two weeks later.  My guess is that she left immediately but it took her couple of weeks to get her stuff out and didn't pay rent in December. There was 0 evidence that the plaintiff ever returned to the apartment after she claims to have left and there's 0 use of the word squatter.  She wasn't living there and wasn't paying rent.  Sometime later, after some marital strife between the landlord and his wife (who almost certainly was familiar with the plaintiff and involved in the property management business as the plaintiff testified) the defendant landlord reported a credit claim of unpaid rent and an eviction against the plaintiff mucking up her credit and her ability to rent property.  The murky details of this case have me believing that the reporting was spiteful and retaliatory. The bottom line for me is that the plaintiff seemed very truthful and sympathetic and the landlord is a dishonest, bitter little creep.  I also wonder if the plaintiff had any cause of action against the defendant for any possible negligence leading to the assault.

[nora1992]

Regarding the unlawful eviction case: would a woman's shelter have room for the contents of the apartment?  I thought there was a moment when JJ was going to trot out the old standby - "if your x was in the apartment, then you still owed rent" - but perhaps that has been retired.  I think the plaintiff fled for her safety, and the landlord should have sucked up the rent owed as a quid pro quo for not getting sued over the assault.  But there was so much left unexplained.  It felt like JJ knew how she was going to rule before anyone said anything, and she just gave the defendant a chance to use enough rope.....

[Byrd is the Word]

1 minute ago, nora1992 said:

"if your x was in the apartment, then you still owed rent" - but perhaps that has been retired.  I think the plaintiff fled for her safety, and the landlord should have sucked up the rent owed as a quid pro quo for not getting sued over the assault.

I agree 100%. The woman literally ran for her life.  She didn't leave because the wallpaper was out of style of the closet door didn't lock as the frequent rent deadbeat often claims.  This was a responsible tenet who left under extraordinary circumstances.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

The main crux of the eviction charges on the woman's credit bureau reports is that the assault happened in 2013, or 2014, and the eviction happened, but the attorney (the attorney of the soon to be ex wife of defendant) put the charges on the credit bureau in 2019, in January.   

 The initial small claims case by the plaintiff apparently said that she thought it was retaliatory, by the defendant and attorney, because the attorney is the same one who is handling the current custody case over the child, for the ex-boyfriend of the plaintiff.   The eviction, and unpaid charges will be made to look like the plaintiff doesn't pay her bills, or support her child properly.       The custody case is on-going, and as defendant testified, they're living in a city of a million people, and it's sheer coincidence that the same attorney handling the divorce, custody case, and filed the eviction notice are the same person, and it is alleged that the defendant is having a physical relationship with her.     I wonder if the soon to be ex-wife of the defendant was interested when she heard about the first local filing, and then this case aired?    

My understanding was the assault happened in late November, the tenant told the property manager, and then the next month, after tenant took her child and moved to the women's shelter, the eviction happened.    That's why the defendant kept saying tenant was still living in the apartment, when she was served by the sheriff's deputy, but there was no proof she was in that location. 

My personal guess is that the tenant who assaulted the woman had a history, and it was ignored, or there were other complaints that were never acted on about him.      I also wonder what the relationship of the criminal tenant was to the property manager?    

Edited April 30, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

51 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

This was a responsible tenet who left under extraordinary circumstances.  

The assailant must have done something pretty terrible to be put away for a year. That's considered hard time these days.  Yes, when a tenant leaves under dire circumstances - flood, fire, the roof caves in or some scuzzbucket attacks -  they wouldn't have to keep paying rent even if some of their stuff was still there.

There was obviously a lot more to this case and much more in the little pissant's answer than we heard, but since it had nothing to do with plaintiff's case, all we know about it is what that fool blurted out. I'm sure he even put "I did not have relations with that woman" in his answer. In large font.

[Florinaldo]

I was angry at the defendant in the non-payment of rent case, because he caved in so easily to JJ's badgering, She rewrote his testimony and made it appear as if the landlord knew without a shadow of a doubt that an assault had indeed taken place, whereas the police investigation was not finished and no resolution had been reached. JJ then made it sound as if because of the conclusions of the investigation, the landlord  should have known retrospectively that a criminal act had taken place. She rewrote causality and inverted the arrow of time; if she were a character on The Big Bang Theory, she would qualify for a Nobel. 

Arguably, there were many muddy details on both sides of the case. I am far from convinced that the tenant was entirely blameless and did not use those circumstances to conveniently get out of the lease. She also made allegations in her original court filing which she did not repeat in the JJ filing, perhaps because she was advised that it was better not to allege an improper relationship between him and the lawyer. 

As for the credit report, it was mentioned in passing that the company was contacted recently as part of verification  because she had applied for another apartment elsewhere, but JJ ignored it and it got lost in the confusion. When a credit company contacts you, it is best to tell the truth and report charges you did not previously.

Apparently JJ recently learned the word "serendipitously" recenly and decided to use it as often as possible that day, not always in quite the correct meaning. Although the involvement of the lawyer in both cases was indeed surprising, coincidences do happen sometimes in real life, however low the probability may be.

Finally, she reproached him for his precise memory. Is it too far-fetched for her to consider that he simply reviewed  the file before coming to court? That's what I would do.

11 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

JJ kept trying to explain the difference between "no charges filed" and "being innocent"

And she made a very bad job of it, not really explaining and simply stating from authority. Not that it would have penetrated the defendant's skull anyway.

2 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

Both of these women are too stupid to breath let alone be involved in a business.

Indeed. That thole-in -the wall boutique appears destined for failure.

[Byrd is the Word]

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I am far from convinced that the tenant was entirely blameless and did not use those circumstances to conveniently get out of the lease.

I thought the exact same thing! I don't doubt that there was an incident, but my hinky meter was pinging on the timing.  It sounded as if she was already skating around the eviction ring and this happened. The timing may have been "fortuitous" (you're welcome, JJ).

If plaintiff did indeed have other evictions, that should have been allowed as to pattern.   She did try to play the SSM card.

The refiling on the credit report did come across as an asshole move by the mealworm landlord.

Edited April 30, 2019 by zillabreeze

[littlebennysmom]

37 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I thought the exact same thing! I don't doubt that there was an incident, but my hinky meter was pinging on the timing.  It sounded as if she was already skating around the eviction ring and this happened. The timing may have been "fortuitous" (you're welcome, JJ).

Thank you, the word she needs to be using in that situation is fortuitous!!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

I thought the exact same thing!

Who knows? We only know she was assaulted in some way and left the next day and that def, with his "Did not have relations" pegged himself as a complete jerk and asshole, whatever else he may be.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

The refiling on the credit report did come across as an asshole move by the mealworm landlord.

I heard that it was done after an inquiry from a credit check company or some similar business, in which case I think they have to be truthful about past credit problems, even if they did not bother to write them up initially.

Since the plaintiff was the one who initiated the "relationship with that woman" allegation and then conveniently dropped it, she was at least as suspicious as the defendant and probably more. She also came across as an utterly unpleasant harridan, with very bad taste in hair colouring (perhaps she is auditioning for some Red Priestess role on some fantasy epic).

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Who knows? We only know she was assaulted in some way and left the next day and that def, with his "Did not have relations" pegged himself as a complete jerk and asshole, whatever else he may be.

You'd never know that I used to be a sweet trusting person.... adulthood and 1000's of court shows later, I can count on one hand how many people I trust without question...two of them are dogs.🙄

[funky-rat]

5 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I was angry at the defendant in the non-payment of rent case, because he caved in so easily to JJ's badgering, She rewrote his testimony and made it appear as if the landlord knew without a shadow of a doubt that an assault had indeed taken place, whereas the police investigation was not finished and no resolution had been reached. JJ then made it sound as if because of the conclusions of the investigation, the landlord  should have known retrospectively that a criminal act had taken place. She rewrote causality and inverted the arrow of time; if she were a character on The Big Bang Theory, she would qualify for a Nobel. 

Arguably, there were many muddy details on both sides of the case. I am far from convinced that the tenant was entirely blameless and did not use those circumstances to conveniently get out of the lease. She also made allegations in her original court filing which she did not repeat in the JJ filing, perhaps because she was advised that it was better not to allege an improper relationship between him and the lawyer. 

As for the credit report, it was mentioned in passing that the company was contacted recently as part of verification  because she had applied for another apartment elsewhere, but JJ ignored it and it got lost in the confusion. When a credit company contacts you, it is best to tell the truth and report charges you did not previously.

Apparently JJ recently learned the word "serendipitously" recenly and decided to use it as often as possible that day, not always in quite the correct meaning. Although the involvement of the lawyer in both cases was indeed surprising, coincidences do happen sometimes in real life, however low the probability may be.

Finally, she reproached him for his precise memory. Is it too far-fetched for her to consider that he simply reviewed  the file before coming to court? That's what I would do.

And she made a very bad job of it, not really explaining and simply stating from authority. Not that it would have penetrated the defendant's skull anyway.

Indeed. That thole-in -the wall boutique appears destined for failure.

Yes, my sympathy for her began to fade after a bit, especially after it came to light she has a pattern of evictions.  Also, you can only put something on someone's credit report for 7 years after the date of service (which in this case would be the eviction) so their time to hit her for it was running out.  I agree that she likely got "lost in the shuffle" and when someone called to verify, they saw a pattern of eviction, saw they never reported her, and reported it now.  The whole "So and so is sleeping with his ex, and her ex knows him" stuff was too convoluted.  Not at all dismissing her assault allegations, but I think some of her case was hyped up.
 

As for the clothes stealing woman, it would tick me off too to be working for someone with no pay, but you can't help yourself to rectify the situation.  They probably declined to prosecute because the boutique owner didn't have clean hands - she didn't pay the defendant.

Edited April 30, 2019 by funky-rat

[27bored]

Uh, I have a question:

Who at CBS approved of JJ’s haircut? Because, um, girl? I’m not sure if I’m feeling the Ruth Bader Sheindlin realness that she’s serving us. 

My stomach started hurting for no reason today and I was wondering why. Now I see. Somebody stole her Aquanet and bitch and it unsettled me. 

[patty1h]

I know a number of regular JJ watchers skip the dog cases, and the one presented today is particularly nasty.  However, you will miss a fine specimen of ratchetness in defendant and pit bull owner Ms Angela Zamora.  Angela lives with her dad and hasn't worked in the last 2 years.  In her 37 years of life, she lost half of her teeth somewhere (Meth Land?) and half of those are broken.  She looks like a reincarnated witch who woke up in a hobo camp, stopped by the cut-rate tattoo parlor and got the special, which includes chest and sleeve tats. 

When it became clear that she was losing the case, she turned on the fake tears and rambled for a few minutes about her pooch being a sweetheart before JJ kicked her out.

Edited April 30, 2019 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Children Fight Deceased Father's Soulmate!-Plaintiffs adult brother and sister are suing their late father's ex-partner of years.  Plaintiffs are suing the late father's girlfriend for taxes, attorney fees, and the return of belongings.    Father died in May, provided a life estate for the girlfriend in their home, and instead the defendant moved out, and gave up the house.  On the day of the funeral sister took a lot of property from the house.    Plaintiffs wanted everything in the house, pay the taxes, and everything on the house, and so defendant gave up, and moved.  

Plaintiffs have a copy of the will, and the amendment that mentions the life estate, made in 2008.     The defendant and late partner were together six years, when they moved in together she sold her house, and they lived in the man's house.     Much of the furniture in the joint house, was the defendant's.     The defendant managed to last six months against the harassment of the adult children, bought a condo and moved.     Defendant's name was on the title, so plaintiff daughter had to buy it from the defendant ($12k).     

The pathetic, money-grubbing plaintiffs wanted the patio furniture for 'sentimental reasons', and then sold it when the summer selling season came around.      The plaintiffs demanded a lot of furniture, and other possession.   

Plaintiffs case is dismissed.     

Email Scam and Slander?-Plaintiff suing defendant for writing a bad check for a car.   The defendant had a bad cashier's check, and gave the defendant the title to.    Defendant entered a contest, and won, this produced the bad check.     Defendant claims she gave the keys, and turned it over to plaintiffs.   However, the plaintiffs say they never got the car or money back.    Supposedly the car is titled in the defendant's name.   

However, the defendant lies about everything, and thinks because others fell for the fake check scheme, that she's not responsible.   $2775 for the plaintiffs.     Defendant is a jerk, and a hustler.   Defendant claims the harassment was when the male plaintiff came to her hotel near the Mayo Clinic, he told the motel clerk that the defendant stole his children-does Mayo have a psych ward?  

Let's Do the Bad Math!-Plaintiff wants $7k for an $800 car, emotional distress, return of down payment.     The car in question is a 1998 Lincoln Town Car.  Defendant sold a car to plaintiff for $300 cash, bartered $445, equaling $745 on the $4500 purchase price.   The car defendant sold to plaintiff was actually sold to the nephew (defendant's witness) for $1098.   $1098 from nephew, plus $745, plus $25 from the plaintiff.    Title is in defendant's name.    Nephew went to jail, and when plaintiff bought it he had to repo it from the nephew.    

Defendant wants $5k for car damage, lost wages, and return of the car, for a KBB value of $825.     He wants $7k for a $825 car.    Defendant gets nothing, because he already has received $1900 or so from both parties.    Defendant and nephew have the brains of a turnip.    Title is in defendant nephew's name, and is signed over to plaintiff.  JJ advises nephew to sue uncle for $1098 that he's owed.    Defendant gets the $800+, from the plaintiff.    The nephew is one of the dumbest people I ever saw on this show. 

Contractor Scam?!-Plaintiff is suing defendant contractor in Orlando, Florida to redo a really big shed into living quarters.  Plaintiff paid contractor/defendant $3400, plus labor.    

Some of the work was performed, but the job wasn't finished.     You can't have a written contract, and a verbal one in addition to that.   Defendant contractor didn't bring any receipts for materials to court.    $3400 for plaintiff.

[AngelaHunter]

50 minutes ago, 27bored said:

Uh, I have a question: 

Who at CBS approved of JJ’s haircut? Because, um, girl?

Hey, awesome to see you back! Your comments have been missed. 🤣

I have no idea why the tight ponytail. That's a look that usually is only flattering on someone under 30, IMO.

[Dakisela]

33 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I know a number of regular JJ watchers skip the dog cases, and the one presented today is particularly nasty.  However, you will miss a fine specimen of ratchetness in defendant and pit bull owner Ms Angela Zamora.  Angela lives with her dad and hasn't worked in the last 2 years.  In her 37 years of life, she lost half of her teeth somewhere (Meth Land?) and half of those are broken.  She looks like a reincarnated witch who woke up in a hobo camp, stopped by the cut-rate tattoo parlor and got the special, which includes chest and sleeve tats. 

When it became clear that she was losing the case, she turned on the fake tears and rambled for a few minutes about her pooch being a sweetheart before JJ kicked her out.

That is what you call a skank.  37?  Really???  And she accuses the Plaintiff of asking for "favors" in return for the vet bills??!!?  UGH.   Funny that the Plaintiff muttered that he wouldn't touch that with gloves on!    

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, Dakisela said:

And she accuses the Plaintiff of asking for "favors" in return for the vet bills??!!?

That's nothing. We've seen skanks offer "favours" in return for a second-hand appliance. 

[DoctorK]

26 minutes ago, Dakisela said:

That is what you call a skank. 

Oh boy, what a unintended PSA for staying away from meth. She was tweaking harder than anyone I have ever seen even on COPS and LIVE PD. Her Dad's behavior was also pretty off the wall. I loved plaintiff's comment about not touching Miss Perfect Skank Example without gloves, I wonder if JJ heard that.

Edited April 30, 2019 by DoctorK
better word choice

[Brattinella]

No Judge Judy for me today... pre-empted by shrieking weathermen and big blocks of primary colors.  Thankfully it is not in our area yet.

[zillabreeze]

26 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

She was tweaking harder than anyone I have ever seen even on COPS and LIVE PD

Plaintiff actually leaned over and called her a "tweaker" during testimony.  If JJ heard it, she didn't admonish him.  By the end, my jaw hurt from watching that hag😬 Then I ran to floss & brush for no good reason.  Thirty-seven???? No.

25 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

No Judge Judy for me today... pre-empted by shrieking weathermen and big blocks of primary colors.  Thankfully it is not in our area yet.

Just started getting dark in here DFW.  Radar histrionics will begin soon.   Big storms are such a rarity in Texas spring!  I'm so glad I have a whole afternoon of mansplaining to get me through.

Edited April 30, 2019 by zillabreeze