All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[arejay]

So, Miss Sleeping With the Boss, just what do you intend to do about that burgeoning cold sore on your lip?

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, nora1992 said:

Where is Jake in all this?  And is there trouble in paradise - is the defendant's witness admitting that the defendant made it to work the first crack in their collusion?  Will the witness have to find a new office manager after this, or a divorce attorney?  

Reminds me of an old comedy sketch on some show: "Tune in tomorrow to find out what happens in the next episode of "As the Stomach Turns."

2 hours ago, arejay said:

So, Miss Sleeping With the Boss, just what do you intend to do about that burgeoning cold sore on your lip?

The old guy better skip the BJs for now.

[Florinaldo]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Tune in tomorrow to find out what happens in the next episode of "As the Stomach Turns."

That was the soap opera parody on The Carol Burnett Show. One running gag was the lead character reacting to the doorbell before it actually rang to underscore how incompetent the production team was supposed to be.

[Byrd is the Word]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The he said/she said case of stalking, or harassing or whatever is totally confusing, and I don't see why it required a continuance.    No one seems to make a police report, or at least didn't bring one.    I wish everyone involved would have moved on, and not wasted time getting bogged down in some ridiculous fighting.   

I actually found this case easier to follow than lots of the car title crap or other mindless, childish cases that we see.  During his testimony I gave the plaintiff props for clear, concise and honest (I believe) answers to JJ's fact finding expedition.  I think it boils down to the plaintiff telling Jake about his suspicions (certainly well founded) the the defendant was two timing him with the George Costanza look alike Doug Kephart (who actually referred to himself as "Mr. Kephart".  Who does that?).  She showed up at the plaintiff's house along with Mr. K/George and confronted the plaintiff.  Months later she filed for a protective order against the plaintiff based on lies and unsubstantiated conceptions.  She's a liar and a idiot and I'm pretty sure she'll be exposed as both today.  Also, there's SO much wrong with Mr. K.  For instance, why would any married man show up on a nationally syndicated television show with his bobble head slam piece to deny that she's his bobble head slam piece? I would love to see his wife's reaction on a split screen up there in the wilds of Minnesota.  The plaintiff has the proof and a believable story while the defendant has no proof, guilty conscious and a nasty herpes chancre on her lip.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That was the soap opera parody on The Carol Burnett Show.

I thought it was her show! I wasn't positive and didn't bother looking it up so thanks!

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

his bobble head slam piece

🤣🤣🤣

I think it's really important to find out if the slam pig really was at the hospital with a broken leg and awarding the plaintiff 5K for the false restraining order hinges on that.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My hope is that Jake is moving out while defendant is out of town for the case, and she'll come back to a wide open front door, and a sign that says Bye, Felicia!.    I hope that Jake isn't moving back withe plaintiff either.    I also hope that Mrs. Doug is soon to be the ex-Mrs. Doug, and get everything.     Anyone who is guilty of naughty acts in this case should have thought what it would look like to agree to come on a show that has the viewership of JJ.   

[Byrd is the Word]

Even though the plaintiff in the

42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My hope is that Jake is moving out while defendant is out of town for the case, and she'll come back to a wide open front door, and a sign that says Bye, Felicia!.    I hope that Jake isn't moving back withe plaintiff either.    I also hope that Mrs. Doug is soon to be the ex-Mrs. Doug, and get everything.     Anyone who is guilty of naughty acts in this case should have thought what it would look like to agree to come on a show that has the viewership of JJ.   

Even though this plaintiff was dull as dust, I liked him from the jump.  He told a very credible story with quick yes or no answers to yes or no questions.  Furthermore, certainly he wasn't the only one aware of the sketchy relationship between the defendant and Boss Hog, these things are never well kept secrets.  Any one of many people could be responsible for the vulgar text messages sent from a spoofed number that the defendant presented. Hell, it could have been an angry Jake trying to trap her in a lie or simply punish her and Mr. K.  And driving by her house in a small town, even if true, is meaningless.  The two lovers on the defendant's side were absolute fools to show up in that TV courtroom.  If Mr. K doesn't somehow pay for that decision for years I'd be almost shocked.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The two lovers on the defendant's side were absolute fools to show up in that TV courtroom. 

I have to wonder what "Half her height and twice her age" promised Ms. Herpes in exchange for her shopworn favours? She works for him, right? Is he some Minnesota tycoon, showering her with cars and jewels and money? I have a hard time imagining that. Maybe a little extra overtime(wink wink), or a longer lunch hour? What, oh what is the deal here? I need to know.

Really, this is much more interesting than, "I bought an old junker from some guy on CL. Now it's broken and I want my money back", "I found a total stranger to come live with me and he/she stopped paying rent/stole my crap/turned tricks/made me uncomfortable", or breeder skanks biting, kicking and punching each other over a deadbeat loser.  If I never hear, "He/she keyed my car/bleached my clothes/deFramed me on FB" again it will be too soon. I really didn't know all these forms of dispute resolution were so common among adults. 

[Florinaldo]

29 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The two lovers on the defendant's side were absolute fools to show up in that TV courtroom.

They certainly are not the first fools to appear on such shows to display their tawdry personal lives for a national audience to see. I hope we won't be disappointed and that they do get their comeuppance for it, either with the verdict or when they go back home.

[Byrd is the Word]

54 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

They certainly are not the first fools to appear on such shows to display their tawdry personal lives for a national audience to see. I hope we won't be disappointed and that they do get their comeuppance for it, either with the verdict or when they go back home.

Totally agree, though obvious adulterers like Mr. Short and Stout rarely show up to either deny the undeniable sexcapades or support their side slam.  Maybe chivalry isn't dead after all. This guy is a bit of a TV prize for me.  Mrs. BITW would not be pleased if I showed up in TV court under the same circumstances; displeased as in "you picked Miss Minnesota Golden Gopher, you can have her". And I have the same expectations for today's installment and I will have a grand mal hissy if it's an anti climax.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

Slick Senior Picture Operation?!

I get that Judy is going to shame the perpetually unemployed, SSI/disability layabout litigants.  But here she shoots a well put together and articulate entrepreneur through the grease using air quotes, the word "slick" and letting us all know that her clever and probably successful business model isn't illegal.  Why would it be? So exactly what does her highness consider an honorable profession?  Lawyer? Judge? Television star? Yikes.  Never mind.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Nervy Son Sues Mother for Being Late?!-Plaintiff grandmother was 8 minutes late returning her grandson to his father, and she's being sued by her defendant son. Snort!  I wasn't buying her "Perfect Meemaw" act either.  Giant weenie son didn't learn that petty, passive-aggressive crap at school.

There was some passive-aggressiveness going on there with MeeMaw Dearest but that son was a giant titty-baby himself (hey CrazyInAlabama, y'all know what this means). And my first rule of court shows is - If ya got enough money to buy a bunch of tattoos, you got money to fix ya damn teefs. Nobody need look like a Halloween pumpkin decoration in May. 

Quote

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. 

Again, see the First Rule of Court Shows above. Especially titty-tats. Nobody cares what the story is that you've got tattooed across your chest and arms and boo-sums. Especially your neighbor who now has to walk his dog in a HazMat suit with a spray bottle of bleach in case Toothless McGee comes popping out of the house ready to "pay off some vet bills". 

Quote

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.🙄

Thankfully here in Florida, we have the Sunshine Law where one can look up all kinds of records on all kinds of sites. I looked up a guy that was dating a co-worker (on her request). Guess why he never invited her over to his house? BINGO - that "it's complicated" note on his FB page meant "my wife is still living in my house and no I'm not really divorced like I told you I was". Oopsie. 

Quote

When I was a kid we were traveling to visit friends in the next state. .. A storm moved in and the sky got a really sick shade of green.  I was sitting in the back seat on the passenger side and the rain there was coming down almost sideways.  But when I looked out the other side of the car, I could see that a hundred yards on that side there was very little rain and few clouds.  The sun was shining down out there like it was no big deal.

I went out with my daughter and son in law on their boat once. It took a LOT to get me to go on that boat. On the way home, he was driving the boatdown the intracostal (inland of the ocean) and it started to rain. We started laughing. Then the rain came harder and pretty soon D and I were cowering under towels while SIL was trying to steer the boat over increasingly choppy waters. I looked to one side and saw that greenish sky and to the other side, the sun. We finally made it to the docks where the boat trailer was parked and we looked like we had been doused with buckets of water. Once we made it home I put on the news and saw the tornado that had popped up on the shore to our right. It was only a little Florida pop-up tornado but it did do some damage and flipped a few cars. Needless to say I don't go out on the boat anymore. 

[Byrd is the Word]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Slick Senior Picture Operation?!-Plaintiff photographer suing defendants (Mom gets the boot later) for stopping payment on a check, to pay for defendant's daughter's senior photo shoots.

As one of the few male voices in this room I have to say that this case was nothing more than an estrogen fiesta.  Why that unic father didn't wait in the hotel while these entitled hags (including JJ) duked it out over their vanity is the only thing that interests me about this case. That and the fact the momzilla reminded me of Miss Piggy. Maybe Kermit is a unic.  That would explain a lot.

[AngelaHunter]

47 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

As one of the few male voices in this room I have to say that this case was nothing more than an estrogen fiesta. 

I don't know about that. We often see women here who seem to have much more testosterone than many of the beta douchebag "males."

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know about that. We often see women here who seem to have much more testosterone than many of the beta douchebag "males."

Absolutely true. The vanity, the ignorance of technology and the fact Miss Piggy and her snarky daughter we’re seemingly impossible to please got to me. As @Florinaldo and @DoctorK point out, the pictures were probably raw images and not as bad as the plaintiff’s evidence suggested. And if you don’t like the photographer’s flair on certain images reject those as we all have at one time or another. Had Miss Piggy let the process play out the pictures probably would have pleased her. Unless of course Miss Smartmouth isn’t quite as fabulous to look at as mom and beta dad believe. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Artwork vs. the Car Wash!-Plaintiff and wife claim the car wash workers ruined his $3,600 painting (plaintiff does 'interesting' art work) that was left in the vehicle's trunk.    I remember this one, and the painting was unprotected, and there is no proof that the car wash people did anything to the painting.     I suspect the wife /plaintiff damaged it,  and they needed a fall guy to pay for it.    

The car wash defendant claims the woman slammed the trunk, and hurt the painting herself.   There's a bunch of garbage about missing phone chargers too, and according to the car wash manager the woman claimed her phone charger was missing, and said it was in the trunk, and when the woman slammed the trunk she hurt the painting.

Nothing for the plaintiffs, and I wish they would have had to pay the defendant's company for the harassment, and defamation from their false claim. 

Puppy Choking on Chicken Bone Drama?!-Unfortunately, I remember this one too.   

Plaintiff took a puppy to the vet, for $557.    After owners were letting 'nature take it's course', when puppy choked on a chicken bone, plaintiff took the puppy to the vet.     Plaintiff was 'fostering' the puppies, when defendant's Chihuahua had puppies.    Defendant woman also claims the mother Chihuahua is 25 pounds, and was only 8 months when she dug out of the yard, and was knocked up.   Defendant knew dog was in heat, but it wasn't house trained, and so they left the mother dog outside.     Plaintiff had previously fostered the puppies for September, and October.

Plaintiff saw the puppy the defendant's kept looked thin, and sick.   Defendants left the dog laying alone outside to die, so a couple of days later plaintiff took the puppy to the vet.  Vet report says puppy had bone in throat, that was surgically removed.     Defendants claim plaintiff stole the dog, and they called the police to get the puppy back.    I wonder  how many litters the mother has had by now?    

Sadly, the defendants still have the dog in their possession, and called the police to get the puppy back.       Defendant/ owner refused to pay the vet bills, and neighbor wants to be repaid.  Defendant's wife defense is they had only had the puppy four days, and that's a bogus reason, because the puppy was born in that house.     

Plaintiff gets $557, too bad she didn't get the puppy too.  

[AuntiePam]

6 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Even though this plaintiff was dull as dust, I liked him from the jump.  He told a very credible story with quick yes or no answers to yes or no questions. 

I didn't like Matt.  I'd have no problem believing that he got bored and decided to make life hell for Jake's ex-girlfriend, or Jake's current girlfriend, or whomever got between him and Jake, or anyone who hurt Jake's feelings.  His affect is too flat, especially for someone claiming damages for a malicious restraining order.  Shouldn't he be a little bit upset?  After all, he was pissed enough to sue her, even after she didn't follow through, so his calm demeanor seemed phony to me.

My guess is that Mr. K is no longer with his wife.  Do we know?

In today's case of the woman-beating drunk driver who wanted his security deposit back. hahahahahahahahahahha.  If not for his history, JJ might have asked defendant how much it cost her to move and store his crap, and given him the difference, but JJ wasn't gonna give this guy a dime. 

Did anyone else think he looked like a grown-up Bobby Hill (except for the glasses)? 

[Florinaldo]

The conclusion of the continued case was both disappointing and satisfying. The former because the plaintiff was exposed for the lying slime that she is, including being able to get to work with a broken ankle for about 2 weeks but not being able to haul her tall ass to court during the same period; distance does not matter as a cab or other transportation would have been available. Also, her claim of being terrified by the plaintiff is absurd. I think she would not be terrified even is confronted with the Abominable Snowman; quite the reverse actually. I also cannot help but wonder how her witness's wife will appreciate being speculated about by JJ as a possible source of the nasty e-mails the defendant got, all of this on national TV (on top of the ambiguous, to say the least, relationship being displayed for all to see).

I was disappointed because JJ did not award the guy anything. She applied the relevant yardstick much more stringently than in the past I believe. But she is consistent at being inconsistent.

As for the roommate case, I did not see the justification for JJ summarily dismissing his complaint. His monetary claim did not seem excessive. If she took his jail history into account in ruling against him, that was a mistake because it should not be relevant; even convicted felons are allowed justice. And if she did not like him personally – he was not very personable to say the least – that is an even worse reason.

Because JJ said he was wasting her time, I would opt for the reason I often propose, i.e. "Delayed Daily Bowel Movement Syndrome".

Edited May 2, 2019 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. both new-

Therapy Pit Bull vs. 8 Year-Old-Child-Plaintiff suing defendants  for vet bills after an attack on their Black Lab., and dog was leashed.    Defendant is suing for damages, and false statements made on Facebook. Plaintiffs claim the pit bull a little boy was walking pulled him across the yard to attack their dog.   A friend was outside with the pit bull, and the friend's eight year old was getting ready to walk the dog.   

The first attack was in a neighbor's driveway (in the sidewalk), the man got the pit off his dog, pit slipped the collar, and attacked again.     Defendant was watching the eight year old, doesn't know his name, and child's father left him with the defendant.    (What the hell did the defendant wear to court?)

Defendant claims the dog is a therapy pit bull, and claims the attacking dog was on her property, and plaintiff dog was unleashed.     Defendant claims she was in the doorway outside, and saw everything, and spins everything to her version of the attack.    She also claims the dogs jaws were locked together.    She also claims the male defendant hit at her with the dog's leash.    

Animal control report was brought by the plaintiffs, and the report said defendant claims she didn't see the fight at all, and the child was 5 not 8.     Police report is interesting, and says they've had problems with this address before.    $997.35 to plaintiffs, and nothing for the defendant.   

Alabama Child Support Drama-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for return of overpaid child support.   Daughter is 19 now, so the excess child support was deducted (2 payments), and plaintiff wants the money back.    $945 is the disputed amount.   Defendant certainly has interesting mathematics in her child support calculations.   Plaintiff gets $945, and defendant has to go back to court to get medical bills she's claiming. 

The Terror Continues! (part 2 of yesterday's case)-(I was tired of the he said/she said yesterday, so I'm hoping this is super short, and I never see the litigants again).  JJ brings up that maybe defendant's boyfriend's (her witness and boss Doug) wife sent the texts.    Medical records requested from defendant are submitted, and defendant went to work, but not to court.     JJ points out defendant wasn't forced to come to court to face plaintiff.   The threatening texts are awful, but no proof of who sent them.   There supposedly were photos taken of the defendant and her married witness, by plaintiff's witness (girlfriend), hope the wife received them.     How touching, defendant's boyfriend, and witness is now slandering the plaintiff.    Litigants get nothing.   (Personally, I think the plaintiff deserved something for getting dragged into court repeatedly, and having a TRO on him.    I love how the photos that defendant claimed were taken of her and love muffin/boss, were at her house.  I hope the defendant's love object gets served the second he goes back to Minnesota). 

DUI and Domestic Abuse?!-Plaintiff suing former roommate for return of his security deposit, and property that disappeared.    Defendant was renting a room from a rented condo month-to-month to plaintiff.    Plaintiff had a fight with girlfriend in October, and he was arrested, for domestic abuse on a spouse (a girl he'd been dating for a week).   Plaintiff was already on probation for DUI, so initially he was in jail for two days, then 43 days for the parole violation.     In November when he got out, his tenancy had lapsed, and plaintiff claims that landlady only returned 90% of his property.     Defendant says she used the security deposit of plaintiff for her moving costs, truck rental, etc.    Nothing for the litigants.  

[Byrd is the Word]

10 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I was disappointed because JJ did not award the guy anything. She applied the relevant yardstick much more stringently than in the past I believe. But she is consistent at being inconsistent.

I had the same sort of “meh” feeling to the outcome. I think JJ’s last minute empathy for the defendant may be because the texts she received from somebody were pretty horrible. Her conclusions were possibly wrong and certainly unsubstantiated. But absent of malice she must have been within her rights to file. Also, for what it’s worth, her boss and probably more George Costanza lookalike wasn’t wearing a wedding ring suggesting that perhaps the issue of his wife may be moot.  So a big, fat “whatever” from me. 

[DoctorK]

9 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

But absent of malice she must have been within her rights to file.

For me this is a problem. JJ hammered the plaintiff to come up with any motive for the defendant to want to harm him, and concludes there is no possible motive. WTF, the defendant was all pissed off that the plaintiff had interfered with her relationship with Jake and may have torpedoed it. Sure sounds like a credible motive for her to act with malice toward the plaintiff.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Also, the defendant was probably really angry that pictures, and rumors about her relationship with the boss/witness were becoming public knowledge.   I think the restraining order was to shut the plaintiff up, when there is zero evidence that he sent the texts and emails to her.   I wonder if the (hopefully) soon-to-be ex Mrs. Doug was sitting at home giggling about someone else getting blamed for her emails?   Or maybe Jake, the defendant's boyfriend finally woke up to what she was up to?   

Edited May 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

8 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

WTF, the defendant was all pissed off that the plaintiff had interfered with her relationship with Jake and may have torpedoed it. Sure sounds like a credible motive for her to act with malice toward the plaintiff.

Now, now. I would be a lèse-majesté offense to prevent JJ from exercising her privilege to twist the facts and legal arguments so they fit her pre-ordained decision.

[basiltherat]

Welcome to Pit Bull Week!  How many damn cases have we had this week?  You have to be a really, really STOOPID

defendant to want to go anywhere near Judge Judy, who will read to you her Pit Bull Letter for the 27th time this week!

[Byrd is the Word]

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Therapy Pit Bull vs. 8 Year-Old-Child

Judging by the demeanor of the First Lady of Munkinland, her therapy dog isn't very therapeutic.

Also, this litigant may now hold the record for number of time saying "your honor" in an appearance.

[Byrd is the Word]

And never let it be said that the dad in the "Alabama Child Support Drama" didn't do the least he could do.  Sheesh, what a turd.  Unless he could demonstrate that his ex spent the money on herself, suing to take $900 away from your 19 year old daughter is a very unmanly thing to do.  There's one angry guy that probably won't take a walk down the aisle with his daughter come her wedding day.  And way didn't the ex counter sue for the medical expenses she claimed he owed her?

Edited May 3, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[PennyPie18]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I was disappointed because JJ did not award the guy anything. She applied the relevant yardstick much more stringently than in the past I believe. But she is consistent at being inconsistent.

I too, was very disappointed in the ruling. I think the plaintiff should have been awarded some compensation for the aggravation he went through. And, there were several others who could have sent the "threatening" texts.....like the cheated-on wife! What is it about PitBull owners who defend their dogs, even when there are serious injuries??? They can't for a moment admit that their "baby" attacked another dog or human. It's quite clear that breed is dangerous, but the owners couldn't care less about the safety of others.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Terror Continues!

That was kind of an anti-climax. All this "word of mowth" evidence from the slam piece, etc. I'm sure it would be much more interesting to see what happened when her ridiculous little boss got home to his wifey.

Even more ridiculous was the little schlub, Gutenberg, who got his pansy-ass flung in the can after assaulting some girlfriend with really bad taste, after a one-week whirlwind romance. And then he got nailed again for a DUI. You'd think a hardened criminal like this one would know better than to stand there whining that def/landlord "didn't move ALL his stuff into storage" while he was incarcerated, but "only moved 90% of it" and he's suing for the other 10%, because a total stranger should mollycoddle him as though she's his mommy. Gutenberg stands there, all "duhhhh?" with arms spread like a martyr after his nonsense is dismissed. Ooh, he was so mad! He may have had a tiny little hissy fit since we didn't see him in the hall.

[Florinaldo]

53 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

suing to take $900 away from your 19 year old daughter is a very unmanly thing to do.

I don't think manliness has anything to do with it. If you are entitled to money by law, then you should get it. Or should we characterise her as unwomanly for wanting to keep money she was paid by mistake? I had a good chuckle at her convoluted arithmetics though.

Did I hear his name right? Christopher Lee? If so, he could be cast an extremely well-fed vampire.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Therapy Pit Bull vs. 8 Year-Old-Child

That defendant certainly proved the uselessness of that breed of dog as a therapeutic animal.

She certainly was typical of the negligent dog owners we see on these shows: not taking the necessary precautions with her animal (entrusting it to a chidl) and finding all sorts of excuses why her precious little biting machine could not have done any of the things alleged by the plaintiffs, the police and Animal Control.

[SandyToes]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendant was watching the eight year old, doesn't know his name, and child's father left him with the defendant.   

What kind of batshit nonsense was that?  Some guy leaves his little kid with a woman who doesn't even know the kid's name?!  With that dog?!  "I haven't seen him or his child since The Incident."   Well, no $hit, Sherlock!  Thank goodness for small favors...

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Judging by the demeanor of the First Lady of Munkinland, her therapy dog isn't very therapeutic.

Ha!  Post of the Day award!!

[27bored]

On 4/30/2019 at 5:07 PM, AngelaHunter said:

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.

On 4/30/2019 at 9:16 PM, SandyToes said:

Nice to have you back! We've missed your snark.

I missed you guys too! I got burned out on JJ and the dog cases , but after a break I think I’m ready to join the party...just in time for The Ponytail.

On 4/30/2019 at 5:23 PM, Dakisela said:

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!    

So I’m gonna say I believe he did tell her she could work it off, and I’ll tell you why. His girlfriend seemed like the type who kinda doesn’t like giving head. She does it because she loves him but not, like, because she loves it, you know?

So he probably saw Hillary Skank farting around, several of her Fronts missing, and decided to see What That Gap Do in exchange for not filing a lawsuit. But Tom Skanks wanted to get paid on top of that, and given he’s already giving his girlfriend his BAH, he couldn’t afford it. So he sued that ass.

At least, that’s how it went in my brain.

[nora1992]

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

For me this is a problem. JJ hammered the plaintiff to come up with any motive for the defendant to want to harm him, and concludes there is no possible motive. WTF, the defendant was all pissed off that the plaintiff had interfered with her relationship with Jake and may have torpedoed it. Sure sounds like a credible motive for her to act with malice toward the plaintiff.

The defendant wasn't scared enough of him to avoid barging into the plaintiff's house in July.  This whole case felt like JJ was a cat who was enjoying playing with two mice, and then got bored with both and dismissed them.  The plaintiff deserved something; feelings are not evidence!  Based on the defendant's affect, I'd be shocked to learn that the plaintiff is the only person in their small city who doesn't like her.  For all we know, Jake is gaslighting her.  Where was he?  Jake is the Macguffin of the whole thing.  Her account of six months worth of fear doesn't hold up when you take the confrontation in the defendant's home three months into this reign of terror.  JJ made it up as she went along; must be the hair extensions in the ponytail. 

[Byrd is the Word]

12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I don't think manliness has anything to do with it. If you are entitled to money by law, then you should get it. Or should we characterise her as unwomanly for wanting to keep money she was paid by mistake? 

As a father of a daughter, I maintain that manliness has everything to do with it.  The plaintiff sued his ex to take money away from his daughter and not her mother. Tell a bunch of dads that you sued your ex to take money from your daughter and you’re going to hear a number of rebukes. We all know dads like this. They’re the ones not invited to the daughter’s wedding because the bride is understandably bitter. If all of us as parents rise only to the level of our legal obligations the world would be a much sorrier place.  The guy’s a pussy, plan and simple. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[khyber]

21 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Slick Senior Picture Operation?!

I get that Judy is going to shame the perpetually unemployed, SSI/disability layabout litigants.  But here she shoots a well put together and articulate entrepreneur through the grease using air quotes, the word "slick" and letting us all know that her clever and probably successful business model isn't illegal.  Why would it be? So exactly what does her highness consider an honorable profession?  Lawyer? Judge? Television star? Yikes.  Never mind.

It was a legal and legitimate marketing strategy that worked. I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, the whole idea of Senior pictures & spending that kind of money is crazy to me but I graduated in a simpler time when you just got the basic shot in a cap & gown. 

[funky-rat]

28 minutes ago, khyber said:

It was a legal and legitimate marketing strategy that worked. I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, the whole idea of Senior pictures & spending that kind of money is crazy to me but I graduated in a simpler time when you just got the basic shot in a cap & gown. 

JJ should have asked how many of the 20 other kids complained and sued her.

We did senior shoots when I was in school (late 80's/early 90's) but you got a portfolio with a few shots in it, and some to give to family and friends.  That's it.  And they were shot in a studio.  I did some fun stuff with my ice skates, and some friends did sports uniforms, or had props (usually the grad year made out of wood), but nothing like the elaborate stuff they do now, wanna-be Vogue shoots, shot on location, hours of editing, etc.  And yes, looking at colors on different screens will produce different colors....every single time.  Plus printing stuff out on a color laser or inkjet printer will look different than on photo paper with a photo printer, and even then, quality of paper, ink, etc, matters.  Methinks that the mother is one who eats the steak, but then wants a free meal....frequently (and that's not a dig at her body, just using a well-worn JJ analogy).  And I also think her daughter is a mean girl, who believes her own hype, and thinks she's a model.  Her mom's "Ugh, what is this???  I wanted to see Hannah, not some OTHER KID!" when looking at the sample album said it all.  No, the photographer didn't do an album because she STOPPED PAYING!  JJ needed a clue on this one.

The local expensive photo studio did something like this when I was in school.  They hand-picked some local rich snotty kids who they thought were exceptionally pretty or popular, and gave them the best photo package and extras, put them in to a proof album, and had them come around to us peons, showing us how awesome the shots were, and then they'd offer us a business card with their name on it, so we could save some money, but it was a small amount, off the "sitting fee" or something - not really worth it - but it also got the kid money off their packages, and some freebies.  They would also get their picture hung in the window of the studio, etc (another reason us peons were never offered it).  So this kind of  thing is nothing new.

[Byrd is the Word]

I thought the photographer in the senior portrait case did commendable work successfully correcting the RBF of the subject.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[patty1h]

I'm confused about the case of the paralegal who was accused of stealing $30K from the businessman.  She was crying that she didn't do it, but in the next breath was saying that she was willing to pay him back.  Those are conflicting stands, hence, my bewilderment.   Did I hear wrong or miss something?

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Car Dumped on Ex-Wife!-After a few years in a relationship, a seven-month mortgage, and a quick divorce, defendant ex-husband wanted a new car, and so he dumped the car, and keys off at ex-wife's house, because he wanted a new car.     Defendant drove the car for three years, and made some payments.    There were 12 payments left, and so ex-wife/plaintiff sold car to Car Max for $2,000, and she gets $1500+ for car. 

Judge Judy Calling-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of money she paid for a Jeep Grand Cherokee.    Defendant donated the car, so he no longer has the car or title.    Plaintiff drove around in the car for seven months.   Defendant is counter suing for impound and towing fees, and claims he donated car to a family.    JJ is going to call the person who received the Jeep.  The car receiver, Mr. Cornell answers the phone, and says he paid $500 for the car, if it was driveable, received the title, and if it's registered.    The real story is the plaintiff never registered the car in her name, kept getting tickets that were going to him, and insurance was paid by defendant, after plaintiff paid him.   Plaintiff paid $1000 for car, $500 from Mr. Cornell, and JJ says the $1000 for seven months use is cheap.   Car was impounded, plaintiff claims she paid the traffic tickets, and paid the impound fees.   Plaintiff gets $475.   

Father Shields Negligent Teenager?!-Plaintiff suing defendant father and son for auto accident, when son ran stop sign and hit plaintiff's car.   Defendant (car owners) said that they didn't want the police or insurance involved.   Defendant father was in another vehicle close behind the son's car.   Plaintiff was coming down the highway, made a left turn, and defendant son came out from the left turn lane, and hit the plaintiff.   The defendant father didn't want to do a police report, said we'll take responsibility for it, and pay for the car damage.     The defendant lied to his insurance company, so they disclaimed the accident, and refused coverage.     Defendant dad claims the plaintiff ran into his son, which is ridiculous.     Plaintiff gets $0  (she also was rear ended after this, and insurance paid $1800, which is more than the value of the car).  

Shouting Out Not Allowed!-Plaintiff suing for theft of tools, and recording equipment.   He was renting a house, and shared it with the defendant, as a business deal.   Only defendant signed the lease, but plaintiff didn't sign, both were evicted.  Plaintiff left house after a restraining order, and an eviction.      As usual, plaintiff has no proof of rent payments.  Defendant has a counter-claim for non-payment of rent.  Since plaintiff was served the day before court about the counter claim, and it's dismissed without prejudice.    The only amusing part is the defendant, keeps saying "I object".    Defendant seems a little dentally challenged.   Before the eviction, the defendant locked the plaintiff out.  Defendant still lives in the house, paid everything from back rent.    Plaintiff says defendant is a meth user, and gets his case dismissed for being naughty.         The only funny note in this case is the hallterview, where plaintiff again said defendant's a meth user.   Plaintiff didn't seem to realize what meth is, since she kept saying she doesn't drink, or go to bars.  

Edited May 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I'm confused about the case of the paralegal who was accused of stealing $30K from the businessman.  She was crying that she didn't do it, but in the next breath was saying that she was willing to pay him back.  Those are conflicting stands, hence, my bewilderment.   Did I hear wrong or miss something?

There’s more here than meets the eye. I’m not sure if the defendant is a fraud or another victim in a more complicated scheme. He insinuated that she somehow had control of a Wells Fargo account and hid the statements from him but as a simply a vendor to the plaintiff that seems unlikely. Scammers use PayPal all the time to perpetuate fraud. Years ago PayPal threatened to take me to collections over an large amount that they claimed I owed them. The account had my name and email but none of my financial instruments. My real PayPal account was in good standing. How and if a scammer ever profited from the amount PayPal claimed I owed is a mystery.  But  after I reported the matter to the the police and sent PayPal a copy of the report they dropped the matter. I wouldn’t be surprised to find there’s a third party playing them both off as fools and setting her up as the crook. 

[ButYourHonor]

On 5/2/2019 at 11:30 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

Even though the plaintiff in the

Even though this plaintiff was dull as dust, I liked him from the jump.  He told a very credible story with quick yes or no answers to yes or no questions.  Furthermore, certainly he wasn't the only one aware of the sketchy relationship between the defendant and Boss Hog, these things are never well kept secrets.  Any one of many people could be responsible for the vulgar text messages sent from a spoofed number that the defendant presented. Hell, it could have been an angry Jake trying to trap her in a lie or simply punish her and Mr. K.  And driving by her house in a small town, even if true, is meaningless.  The two lovers on the defendant's side were absolute fools to show up in that TV courtroom.  If Mr. K doesn't somehow pay for that decision for years I'd be almost shocked.

I do NOT understand why the plaintiff didn’t win.  Why was JJ wondering why the defendant would be malicious when it was pretty obvious.  She was ticked off about plaintiff ratting her out and entering a TRO was her way of getting back at him.  I mean it doesn’t take a judge to put those pieces together...

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both new-

Babblers are Usually Liars!-Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her fiance, but plaintiff claims the fiance attacked her.     Plaintiff  accuses a former friend of returning her car with a huge dent that wasn't there before, and stealing a necklace.   Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car to go to the beach, fiance drove to Orchard Beach, parked, everyone met at the beach.  Defendant claims some tow truck parked at the beach did the damage.   Damage is assessed by JJ at $1,000 for plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims the necklace was ripped off by defendant at the gym.    The car loan was months after the necklace. $1,000 for plaintiff.  

Battle Over the Bronze Lions!-Plaintiff was selling her house, and claims some bronze lions were her property, and is suing the home buyers/defendants.     There was no attorney involved, and no contract, but closing documents were done by a title company (it works that way in some states).        I think this house sale happened in 2015!  Plaintiff provided $12k closing costs, and signed the addendum the morning of closing costs.   Plaintiff wants the bronze lions back, defendants claim they were part of the house.   There is an email from male defendant about the lions, and an email from plaintiff saying they could have them for $5k, and he responded he wanted them.   That was a bizarre case, especially since the house was in New Hampshire, but the defendants were listed as Tampa, Florida (or somewhere in Florida) on the screen.    $5k for plaintiff.  

Account Missing $30K?!-Plaintiff claims defendant stole $30k .    I'm confused, because the police have never asked her about this.    Plaintiff claims he authorized, in writing a $700 filing fee by the defendant from his bank account, and instead, defendant charged $30k.   The plaintiff didn't have online banking, or receive written statements until months after this happened, and that's when he saw the charges that all listed the defendant's company.   So I'm guessing the email address was getting the statement notices, and the account was set up for paperless statements.     Instead, of one $700 transaction, the defendant's company (or a similar name company) charged 61 transactions, for $31627.97, including the $700 fee.   Wells Fargo gave $3100+, Pay Pal $19,000+, leaving about $8,000+ deficit.   Police are investigating, and reports have been filed.      JJ told defendant to shut up, since she's going to talk to the police, and maybe others about the case in the future.  JJ can't help the plaintiff, and I hope the police can.   Since all of the money ended up with defendant's company, and she had his information to do the original fee payment $700, then I suspect it was her company, but it could have been one of the assistants, or support staff too.    

The Party That Was Never Planned!-Plaintiff suing party planner defendant for not decorating.    $600 was paid to defendant, $500 for decorations, $100 for her services.   Defendant didn't show until after the party.    Defendant claims she could never get a hold of client/plaintiff.   After the event, when defendant never showed, plaintiff wanted a refund.     The written contract by defendant says event is cancelled, and no refunds, for some reason I don't understand.   $700 to plaintiff.   However, defendant says she paid some money back to plaintiff already.    There was a $500 check mailed months after the party didn't happen, and JJ gives $200 more.  

Edited May 4, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

8 hours ago, khyber said:

It was a legal and legitimate marketing strategy that worked. I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, the whole idea of Senior pictures & spending that kind of money is crazy to me but I graduated in a simpler time when you just got the basic shot in a cap & gown. 

I agree.  JJ is shocked at what senior photos have become, but that's on her, not keeping up with changing times. 

And she was wrong to insist that every girl wants to be a model.  No, the reason girls want those professional photos is that the photographer makes her look good.  It's the first time since puberty that her skin looks clear.  Photographers can do magic, and that's what those kids are paying for. 

[ButYourHonor]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

3 hours ago, patty1h said:

I'm confused about the case of the paralegal who was accused of stealing $30K from the businessman.  She was crying that she didn't do it, but in the next breath was saying that she was willing to pay him back.  Those are conflicting stands, hence, my bewilderment.   Did I hear wrong or miss something?

There’s more here than meets the eye. I’m not sure if the defendant is a fraud or another victim in a more complicated scheme. He insinuated that she somehow had control of a Wells Fargo account and hid the statements from him but as a simply a vendor to the plaintiff that seems unlikely. Scammers use PayPal all the time to perpetuate fraud. Years ago PayPal threatened to take me to collections over an large amount that they claimed I owed them. The account had my name and email but none of my financial instruments. My real PayPal account was in good standing. How and if a scammer ever profited from the amount PayPal claimed I owed is a mystery.  But  after I reported the matter to the the police and sent PayPal a copy of the report they dropped the matter. I wouldn’t be surprised to find there’s a third party playing them both off as fools and setting her up as the crook. 

Yes, I think she is innocent and likely part of a larger fraud.  I think that the friend who said most of the money went to a SIMILARLY NAMED account brought up the key.  The fraudster had part of the money go to this poor sap of a girl - hence the money she found and was trying to give back - but funneled the larger amount into their own account, most likely KNOWING that the poor sap would get blamed.

Quite frankly, if she was acting, she was doing a DAMN fine job of it, and I have serious doubts that some little paralegal in wherever she was is somehow secretly ballsy enough to pull off this scam.  I also got a sort of scary vibe from the guy - what was that in the hallway about trying to lure her somewhere “because the cops would be there”.  Umm why didn’t you mention that in court?  You never followed up on the report but once and yet you had this scheme set up with them?  Fishy.

Oh, and about the photographer case...  I do think photo prices have gone up rather ridiculously and that this photog was clearly running a (common and very successful) racket of sorts, BUT...  Whoever said “the camera does most of the work” could not possibly be more wrong.  You can have the most expensive DSLR out there and if you don’t know how to use the settings, shoot in manual, handle the light, etc., the pictures will come out like crap.  And if you don’t then spend a considerable amount of time in photoshop (personally I feel the better photogs don’t need as much photoshop skill unless they are going for a certain look) then the shots will not have the look of a professional photographer.  There’s a reason you see MEMEs of newborn and baby photography fails.

Edited May 4, 2019 by ButYourHonor

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the fraud case plaintiff was instructed by the police to see if he could get the woman to his business, and the police will record what she says.     I think the police set it up, but it didn't work out.     The police are still investigating, but I bet they set up the recording (that didn't actually happen), and were waiting on the court hearing to proceed.   I found it bizarre that the police have the investigation going on, but supposedly didn't interview the defendant yet.    

If I found out I was being blamed for a theft like this, I would have gone to the police, not waited around for them to contact me.  I also wouldn't offer to replace funds, that I had no idea who stole them, or what happened to them.     It just doesn't make sense to me that the defendant would offer to make his loses up, if she didn't know what happened to the money.

I wonder how the Pay Pal refund worked?   I wonder if they traced the money trail for the police?     I guess we'll never find out.     

Edited May 4, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Edited May 4, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If I found out I was being blamed for a theft like this, I would have gone to the police, not waited around for them to contact me. 

If I understood her testimony correctly she did to that and got nothing from them. Perhaps the investigation was new the police weren’t prepared to interview her. Often these investigations move at a snail’s pace.  It occurred to me that an employee or family member of the defendant might be behind this which might explain why she seemed to make an offer of restitution.  I’m also pretty sure I’d lawyer up if, regardless of my innocence or guilt, I were formally accused and treated like a perpetrator by the police.  It is too bad we’ll never know. There’s been a crime committed by someone and it’s a much more interesting case than the snappy ass defendant in the Audi vs tow truck, I hate liars, I didn’t steal your $2 necklace case. What a vile woman that was. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[ButYourHonor]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

If I understood her testimony correctly she did to that and got nothing from them. Perhaps the investigation was new the police weren’t prepared to interview her. It occurred to me that an employee or family member of the defendant might be behind this which might explain why she seemed to make an offer of restitution. Often these investigations move at a snail’s pace. I’m also pretty sure I’d lawyer up if, regardless of my innocence or guilt, I were formally accused and treated like a perpetrator by the police.  It is too bad we’ll never know. There’s been a crime committed by someone and it’s a much more interesting case that the snappy ass defendant in the Audi vs tow truck, I hate liars, I didn’t steal your $2 necklace case. What a vile woman. 

She repeatedly said that she went to the police and they wouldn’t talk to her or tell her anything.  Her business page on Yelp is... interesting...  Tons of 5star reviews until 2016-2017 and then it seems like customer service became a thing of the past.  Looked at her FB page and she has recent happy-looking pictures up there, so she hasn’t been arrested in any event, and I assume this actually took place a little while ago (didn’t catch the dates) since JJ doesn’t air immediately after filming.

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Babblers are Usually Liars!

Ms.Pena is a mouthy, nasty idiot who doesn't know how to shut her trap. I'm not understanding why the plaintiff continued to be her friend ("So-called" says Ms. Pena) after the def stole her daughter's necklace. I guess some people are suckers for punishment. Ms. Pena, those ginormous, ridiculous fake lashes are apparently so heavy they make you squint. Don't you know that causes wrinkles?

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Battle Over the Bronze Lions!

I enjoyed this, if only for the lack of violence. I guess the "Duh?" def hubby forgot he agreed by email to pay for the lions. What their actual worth is no one knows, but he agreed to pay 5K which he is ordered to so showed up here for nothing.

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Party That Was Never Planned!

Things seemed to be totally in the plaintiff's favour: JJ says to the defendant, "You didn't show up for the party?" "Incorrect," replies party planner. "So you did show up?" PP: "Well, no, but I had a good reason."

It was a twist when we find out def refunded plaintiff - who seemed incapable of understanding simple English - 500$ but she never cashed the cheque, I guess hoping to get a big payday in court and this birthday party for free.

So, middle-aged adults throwing extravagant birthday parties for themselves is - as the present vernacular says - "a thing" now? I'll never catch up. 😞

[CrazyInAlabama]

Special Saturday rerun-

Teen Accused of Scamming the Sick!-Plaintiff claims teen worked for him, and stole from his checking account.     The plaintiff was paid for her work.   Defendant claims the plaintiff offered to pay her car payment, for one month.    Plaintiff says he paid her in November, but was in the hospital the entire month of December (bad car wreck, and he wasn't at home until in January), when he discovered that there was a payment taken from his checking account, for various months to Toyota, where the defendant had car payments.    Except the police report about theft wasn't made until the next October.  Case dismissed.

Martial Arts Fight Fraud?-Plaintiff ticket seller accuses defendant of giving her a fraudulent check for tickets, man attended the event, and paid the $250.  The check bounced, because the account was closed by the bank for fraud.    Defendant didn't tell the ticket seller about the account being closed.   $265 for the plaintiff.  Defendant claims he paid the plaintiff $200 cash, and has no proof.         

In the party planner case, I suspect that the plaintiff didn't cash the check is because that would mean that she accepted the $500, instead of the $700 she was owed by the planner.    Other cases for rent, or other payments have said that if you accept partial payment, then that means you have settled for the lesser amount.   So I'm hoping that if she received $700 from the court, she wouldn't have cashed the check from the party non-planner. 

In the car damage/necklace theft, I suspect the entire case was to get free money for the plaintiff, for the car, and for a necklace that was probably cheap.   The necklace was claimed to have been stolen by the defendant months before the car loan, so that was bogus too.    

In the $30k theft case, it wasn't until the court case that defendant knew what police station was handling the case.  So who knows what police station she went to about her case, or if she actually did.    

Edited May 5, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama