All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I'm sure JJ has REAL marble showers in her homes, and cannot imagine breaking THOSE, so she ridiculed  this plaintiff (because WHO sues their own daughter??? - right?) Geez lady, we had a corian shower and it was thin as hell, and had cracks in it. 

Oh, it's Corian! I thought they were saying "Korean marble" and I was wondering when that country had become a source for that type of rock or if perhaps it was a debased pronounciation for "Carrara". Although it seemed very improbable that the plaintiff could afford the latter, I am certain it is the only kind of marble allowed in JJ's properties. Once again the entitled rich power-mad TV judge decided to ridicule a litigant unwise enough to venture on this show.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Ex-Lover Steals Shotgun and Gold Bars?!

I loved Eben. He's so considerate. He didn't want burglars to have to waste their time looking for stuff in his house. He just puts his most valuable items in a small, portable safe that isn't attached to anything. It's one-stop shopping for thieves. Bizarre g/f (was that a really bad wig?)in her backless, tacky Vegas dress is so self-righteous and moral when she thinks her new b/f might be cheating. She can't tolerate dishonesty! And this from someone who was cheating on her husband and who is a low-down thief and a liar. She now moves from sofa to sofa. Whoever she's mooching from better hide the silverware!

[nora1992]

9 hours ago, Brattinella said:

I'm sure JJ has REAL marble showers in her homes, and cannot imagine breaking THOSE, so she ridiculed  this plaintiff (because WHO sues their own daughter??? - right?) Geez lady, we had a corian shower and it was thin as hell, and had cracks in it.  Yes, the daughter threw a fit and kicked the shower wall and broke it.

I don't have a hard time believing the daughter threw a hissy fit, nor do I have a hard time believing that the mother is at the end of her rope with the daughter.  Would JJ have told the mother to eat the cost of the repair if the daughter had hit the mother's car instead of knocking the shower apart?  And in the text, the one that JJ kept reading aloud in the clips (the "I'm having a hard time mama"): I think the lack of punctuation/capitalization worked in the daughter's favor.  I didn't read "I'm having a hard time, Mama."  I saw "I'm having a hard time believing your estimates.  Mama D says that ...."  Cases like this make me feel a little less sad about not having kids.

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, nora1992 said:

Would JJ have told the mother to eat the cost of the repair if the daughter had hit the mother's car instead of knocking the shower apart?

The problem the mom had (an addition to so many other things) was that she failed to meet her burden of proof. The plaintiff’s sister’s testimony was useless and convinced me of nothing.  And the text message did not indicate an acceptance of a financial responsibility. I hated both litigants and that family is a hot mess. But it’s coin toss to me that the skanky plaintiff with the terrible attitude broke the shower. Oh, and for the record, any girlfriend that balls me out in front of others for the unforgivable sin of forgetting her hair products can go do what I’ve been doing to her in the dark, to herself. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Byrd is the Word]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I loved Eben.

I didn’t. I kept imagining that crazy eyed long haul trucker and his 80,000 lbs load tailgating me down the expressway. 😬

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I kept imagining that crazy eyed long haul trucker and his 80,000 lbs load tailgating me down the expressway

I loved how dim-witted he was. I wouldn't want to be on the highway with Eben and his googly eyes either.  At this point, I enjoy any case that doesn't involve animals or violence.

I even watched the rerun of Mr. Wiegler, biggest penny-pincher on the face of the earth, suing the owner of the home he rented, for a bag of tinsel, a plastic spritzer bottle, some pans and a can opener.  This from a man who has a home in Cape Cod and rented another home in San Diego for half the year. Don't worry, Weigler. The dollar store still carries spritzer bottles and they even have Betty Crocker can openers for 3$!

[Schnickelfritz]

I want to play devil's advocate for a minute with the Corian marble shower case. We had corian counters and one day out of the blue, one cracked. Let me tell you, that sounded as if a gun had gone off in the kitchen. It was loud as h*ll. Sent Mr Schnick diving for cover in the living room. We weren't in the kitchen at the time and there were no hot items on the counters. Not that I think the daughter was innocent in this case, but I did wonder because everyone remarked on how loud it was.

ETA - We found out later that any bad thing done to the "marble" at any time can lead to failure later. The thing is, that it almost always fails at the time of the bad thing. Thanks prior renters for shortening my life.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Schnickelfritz
clarification

[Mrs Shibbles]

The mother in the shower case said in the exit interview that she was done with her daughter/ that she was basically “dead” to her.  I can’t remember the terminology, but that tells me mom is a piece of crap.  

I don’t doubt that the daughter was a pain/ a lot to deal with but the mother isn’t taking the high road at all. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

$2,000 for Lifelike Baby Doll?!- (this is the creepy doll that looks like a real baby case, these are so realistic that people's car windows have been smashed to rescue them)-Plaintiff orders life-like baby doll from defendant, received the doll, reversed the charges, then changed her mind about the charge reversal a few weeks later, so weeks later the money went back to the defendant.   With each reversal, there were additional charges for each service too.  Then there was another charge back (refund), from the plaintiff, and this required a phone call or other request from plaintiff.     

Defendant goes to police to file a report about the fraud, and the district attorney pursued case, and told plaintiff to either return the doll, or the money.   The plaintiff is suing for slander, loss of business, for talking about the dispute online in the doll community (that's an interesting mental picture, of the 'doll community').     Plaintiff claims she returned the doll to defendant.  Plaintiff uses 31 different names for her 'business', and first contacted defendant to buy the doll using another name.    Plaintiff is despicable, and should be ashamed (she really reminds me of someone I worked with, who was just as despicable).      Nothing to plaintiff, and she deserves nothing.   

Unwed Parents Payback!-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for loss of property.   They had a fight, plaintiff left, and the next day defendant had sold his TV, and Xbox, to the pawnshop.  Plaintiff gets $500, defendant gets nothing.

Escape With the Children?!-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend (Sainted Single Mother of Three-SSMOT) for stealing his property, identity theft, and other stuff.    They lived together for seven years, with three kids ages 7?, 3, and 6 months for the two of them.   Defendant didn't want to marry, because her mother never married dad.    Plaintiff never asked defendant to marry, claims she was abusive to the children, and never proposed.   Plaintiff claims he doesn't know if all three kids are his.    There is an on-going custody case (probably still is) when he took the two oldest kids when defendant was about to have the third kid.   Defendant sold his tools, and emptied the bank account when he left to 'protect' his kids, but did not get medical care for the children for their supposed physical abuse by the mother.     Defendant stopped working a few years ago, and loaned $8k to plaintiff.  Plaintiff's case dismissed.    Defendant gets nothing either.  

Jail Time Between Best Friends-Plaintiff suing ex-friend defendant for selling his property while he was in jail (Interesting shirt, with gold spike epaulets on defendant).     Defendant claims he used money from selling property to pay bills for plaintiff.    Plaintiff claims his account was drained, but defendant claims he only took a few hundred, and then admits he paid his bills with plaintiff's account.   Must have one big fight at defendant's apartment, and everyone ended up in jail.    Plaintiff gets $2800.    Defendant claims he donated some, sold some, trashed some of plaintiff's property.    Plaintiff gets $3,000.   Nothing for defendant.   

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

22 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

That was quite a performance from Missy Khi Scissorhands! And I use the word advisedly because I am sure she acts this way in good part because she has found it helps her to get her way in daily life.

I sew on a daily basis and there has not been one time where I've ever had scissors in my pocket for any reason - even toenail scissors. Of course, if I had my big old glasses with no lenses and a fake page-boy bob wig on, and I felt like stabbing somebody who owed me money, then perhaps I might. And I was waiting for JJ to blow her out of the water when she was implying that she didn't understand how JJ didn't understand HER Wimpy logic in giving the plaintiff money so she didn't have to borrow money for him (did she want to borrow her own money back? Did she give him some money and wanted him to clairvoyantly add his money to hers and get a money order to pay her rent? Or did she confuse everybody so much they just gave in? inquiring minds wanna know. . .  )

Quote

he mother in the shower case said in the exit interview that she was done with her daughter/ that she was basically “dead” to her.  I can’t remember the terminology, but that tells me mom is a piece of crap.  

So your own child is dead to you because she broke yer shower? Wow the threshold is getting lower these days. All I kept thinking is the mom was jealous of her very nice looking daughter and was somehow cosmically "paying her back" somehow (and how cheap must that fakey "marble" be if the shelf fell off?) 

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is the shower was already cracked, the shelf had fallen before, and they just stuck it back somehow.   Then the daughter comes over, takes a shower, and the shelf falls again.   That was the mother's opportunity to try to get the daughter to pay for it, and I bet the other daughter caught hell from the mother when they got home.    My guess is the sister/witness is the next one out the door from Mom's house.  

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I sew on a daily basis and there has not been one time where I've ever had scissors in my pocket for any reason - even toenail scissors.

Yes, but we're talking about litigants - people who walk around with knives and scissors in their handbags, crowbars under their car seats, baseballs bats in the back seat and guns in their pockets, just in case.

[AZChristian]

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My guess is the shower was already cracked, the shelf had fallen before, and they just stuck it back somehow.   Then the daughter comes over, takes a shower, and the shelf falls again.   That was the mother's opportunity to try to get the daughter to pay for it, and I bet the other daughter caught hell from the mother when they got home.    My guess is the sister/witness is the next one out the door from Mom's house.  

I thought it might have been the mother's thought that she might get Judge Judy to pay for it.

[SandyToes]

So just watched the party planner/married to incarcerated dreamboat case.  I smell a whole lot of "We'll just get Judge Judy to pay for it!" planning in addition to the party. (Wedding, right?! Blech!)  Def, says in the hallterview, "She deserved to be paid, and now she has been."   Yuck and yuck.  That makes her rank right up there with Kelly Bay of Pigs, IMHO.  Stupid AND conniving.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both new episodes-

Golf Cart Collision!-Plaintiff claims defendant t-boned her car with his golf cart, and golf cart had a stop sign.    Defendant's wife gets the Byrd boot, for constant yakking.    There is something wrong with defendant, he seems very shaky, and confused.    Plaintiff had right of way, and it is obviously the defendant's fault.  There is an incident report from a security guard, and defendant admitted his liability.    Plaintiff receives $210. 

Marriage on Drugs?!-Plaintiff wedding planner  suing defendant, her sister-in-law, for wedding expenses, $3000 over what defendant paid already. Wedding favors look gross.     Pink haired defendant paid $2,003, but not the other $3000.    Brother (defendant's husband) is currently incarcerated for drugs.    Plaintiff gets $3k.   

Pregnant Dog Attack!-Plaintiff (Golden Retriever owner) claims defendant's (German Shepherds, one leashed, and pregnant GSD on leash) pregnant dog was aggressive (maybe he has this confused with the protective instincts of a mother dog with a litter of puppies?), and attacked his dog at a dog park.   Plaintiff's unleashed dog was nipped by the defendant's leashed dog, when the plaintiff's loose dog approached the dog, and plaintiff wants vet bills.     There is no proof that the defendant's dog has a history of aggression, or bites.   Plaintiff gets what he deserves, nothing. 

Six Dachshunds Wreak Havoc?!-Plaintiffs/landlords claim former tenants of damaging their rental home with a dog-breeding business.   However, plaintiffs collected $10k, for the two months dog breeder/tenants rented the house.    Tenants had six adult breeding animals (five of the six dogs), and both are smokers too.    The defendants did a short term rental because her current home had water flood damage on both stories.    Lease called for no smoking in the house, and no dogs, without the $300 non-refundable pet deposit.    The tenants stayed five weeks, for $10k total.    Damage included interior doors, baseboard trim, and carpets all have to be replaced, and dry wall damages from urine.    $4700 to fix the house, but rental income was $10k, plus $300 pet deposit.   

Egged House Payback!-Plaintiff is suing defendant teen, and her father for egging damage to her house, after teen girl and her friends egged her house after a break up with her teen son (who is very cute).    I think it's entirely reasonable for the father of the little twit to fix the house she ruined, because it's a crime.    The plaintiff should have pressed criminal charges against the girl, and sued in civil court locally, not small claims.  $250 for plaintiff, and this was ridiculous.  

[Byrd is the Word]

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Six Dachshunds Wreak Havoc?!

Here’s the latest example of her royal highness demonstrating that she’s the only person on planet Earth entitled to make a killing. Her talents are worth mega millions per year but the rental of the plaintiff’s property is only worth what she says it is. Thus this defendant destroys a property and walks away owing nothing because the plaintiffs knew she had dogs. That’s not justice. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[Florinaldo]

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Golf Cart Collision!-

I do hope that when I get to that age, I will not be as confused, dangerous and obnoxious as that old couple was. They really fit the stereotype of senile pensioners.

37 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Pregnant Dog Attack!

I agreed that the plaintiff took his chances and assumed the risks by going to a dog park. However, I could not help but snicker when JJ said that she was not aware that pregnant women can be more irritable. I suppose she is speaking from personal experience since in her case it would be difficult to imagine her being oven more irascible while expecting, although it does happen with mere mortal women.

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Six Dachshunds Wreak Havoc?! + Egged House Payback!

JJ seemed in full tightwad mode during that episode. It is true that the plaintiffs knew about the six dogs and thus were aware of the risks involved in renting their house. However, JJ then begrudged them for making a profit because the market for such rentals allows it. I took it as her saying that because they made money, they are therefore not worthy of receiving any damages. I think a split liability verdict would have been better instead of awarding them nothing. Is making money now a crime against nature in "JJ's America" (except for her, of course).

My house has bever been egged, but from little experience I have in dropping an egg on the floor, I know they are a bitch to clean up. They also seem to ooze in every crack. I am not sure therefore that simply hosing them down would be sufficient. As for the requirement for an "expert" on the subject, JJ is usually not reluctant to assume that mantle. I was also surprised that she accepted the little brat's admission of using only a dozen eggs on the house without challenging her credibility.

[zillabreeze]

21 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Here’s the latest example of her royal highness demonstrating that she’s the only person on planet Earth entitled to make a killing. Her talents are worth mega millions per year but the rental of of the plaintiff’s home is only worth what she says it is. Thus this defendant destroys a property and walks away owing nothing because the plaintiff’s knew she had dogs. That’s not justice. 

My sentiments exactly!  Anytime HRH starts asking how much someone made on a deal, you know where it's headed.  The Great Unwashed are not allowed to flip cars or rent out houses for more than a tiny bit over purchase price.  She, however, can spew the same tired lines over and over and get paid gajillions.

I also knew HRH was scrambling around to shit all over the plaintiff when she proclaimed "baseboards and doors can't be ruined in 5 weeks".  Like hell you say!  Two or three male dogs hiking over and over in the same spot can destroy most anything.   

Rant over.  Two caveats for the plaintiff:

-Know your breeds/dogs.  Unneutered males will piss on everything and  Dachshunds are notoriously hard to housebreak.  Deposit accordingly.             

- Don't EVER tell someone to treat your home with the same respect they treat their own!!!!  Have you not seen "Hoarders"?

Edited May 10, 2019 by zillabreeze

[SandyToes]

16 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

As for the requirement for an "expert" on the subject, JJ is usually not reluctant to assume that mantle. I was also surprised that she accepted the little brat's admission of using only a dozen eggs on the house without challenging her credibility.

Yeah, what was up with all that?!  As for not questioning the brat, what happened to "You know how a teenager is lying?!" rant?? 

Although, the woman suing for $5000 seemed a little odd, too.  And this took two years?!

Boy, I was all primed for the 6 Dauschunds case!  I just KNEW it was going to be one of my favorite types - the kind where one side says nothing at all and wins!  And then zowie!  Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory!  But I'm with @Byrd is the Word on this one. Yes, they made money.  Yes, they knew about the dogs. They never really got to present any evidence as to what the damages were once Her Honor heard how much they made.  Maybe they WOULD have been owed something - at least hear them out. 

3 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

"baseboards and doors can't be ruined in 5 weeks".  Like hell you say!  Two or three male dogs hiking over and over in the same spot can destroy most anything. 

'Specially when they are low to the ground to start with!

Edited May 10, 2019 by SandyToes

[Byrd is the Word]

While we’re on the topic, anybody want to guess how much any one of us would be on the hook for if we whipped a dozen eggs off JJ’s house in the middle of the night?

Her callus attitude today with two responsible homeowners injured by the deliberate acts of fools was not her finest hour. 

[SandyToes]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiff's unleashed dog was nipped by the defendant's leashed dog, when the plaintiff's loose dog approached the dog, and plaintiff wants vet bills. 

Plaintiff's comment:  "He should know that by going to the dog park it is possible that his dog will bite someone."  HUH?  Run that by me again?!

I needed a baseball glove to catch my eyeballs they rolled so far back in my head. 🙄

[Florinaldo]

34 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

While we’re on the topic, anybody want to guess how much any one of us would be on the hook for if we whipped a dozen eggs off JJ’s house in the middle of the night?

Her callus attitude today with two responsible homeowners injured by the deliberate acts of fools was not her finest hour. 

It would be "off with their heads with the Mighty Flyswatter of Doom"!! (Or the equivalent maximum penalty in her America...)

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Golf Cart Collision!-

Byrd gives Belligerent Blabbering Old Bat the Boot. Good job, Byrd.  Hated the gated community golf nuts. I have no doubt def was half-crocked on the day of the accident. He seemed drunk here. So tired of the old "She came out of nowhere," defense. Skip a few liquid lunches at the club and a few rounds of golf and pay for the damage you did, you smirking old fart. In these cases, I really wish plaintiffs could be awarded extra for having to waste time and effort bringing these skeevy, lying assholes to court to force them to pay what they should have paid from the start if they had an ounce of integrity. Which they do not. 

Just when you think you've seen the apex of desperation, we get Laura, the middleaged, frumpy, pinky-haired deadbeat who agrees to pay plaintiff thousands of dollars to arrange a Royal wedding for her and plaintiff's brother - an addict who doesn't work and is presently a guest of the state, parking his worthless ass in the slammer for the taxpayers to feed and clothe. Laura has to pay the whole shot since of course it's accepted that the man of her dreams, the bridegroom, can't contribute a nickel. I really hope Laura doesn't have any daughters.

[AuntiePam]

35 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Her callus attitude today with two responsible homeowners injured by the deliberate acts of fools was not her finest hour. 

Does anyone believe that any of her properties have ever been vandalized by teenagers?  I sure don't, but that's what she said.

It looks like she expected the homeowner to be late for work or take the day off in order to clean the mess caused by the teenage girl who egged the ex-boyfriend's house.  "It was homecoming."  Yeah, right. 

That said, plaintiff should have seen where it was going and just asked for the cost of a replacement door.  JJ might have been okay with that. 

Defendant in the hallway, "taking responsibility".  Bull pucky.  No consequences. 

I agree about the six dog case too.  If plaintiffs can rent their place for $425 a night, they lost money while the damage was being fixed.  And it was one time when a plaintiff had an expert and JJ ignored the expert.  Did those renters never take their dogs outside to potty? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I bet you that the dog breeder tenants were actually a puppy mill, and I bet every single dog was popping out repeated litters, and the only reason the 12 year old dog wasn't is because it was either a male stud, or a female that wasn't breeding any longer..    From what the old harridan said, I suspect the dogs were kept in one room, never saw the outside, and that was the damage.   Lots of puppy mills, even the registered dog ones have no outside access for the dogs.   

  People like those tenants are the reason that many landlords won't rent to pet owners.    I'm guessing the dog breeders failed to mention that the animals were anything but neutered and spayed pets also.     JJ should have asked how many puppies that house had in it too.    The mistake the homeowners made was that they should have told the tenants no, when they were asked about the dogs.  

Also, a personal safety issue I have is that many of these golf cart people don't have seat belts.    You can get them installed, and they give you a much better chance of surviving an accident unscathed.    A big reason for accidental death in the Villages (the huge retirement community in Florida, right next to where this accident happened) is injuries from wrecks with cars and golf carts, and the golf cart driver is ejected.  

Edited May 10, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Although, the woman suing for $5000 seemed a little odd, too.  And this took two years?!

Yes the amount seemed high at first glance, but its validity was never closely analysed by The Great One who rejected the claim out of hand; we only got a fleeting glance at a portion of the badly framed estimate. I wonder if perhaps they tried the civil court course as @CrazyInAlabama suggested and were discouraged by delays or they were waiting for the father to make good on his moral obligation to pay and eventually got fed up.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So tired of the old "She came out of nowhere," defense.

Same here. It is usually a face-saving euphemism for "I was not paying attention" "I did not look around fully" or "I was too buzzed to notice". Probably a combination of all three in this case.

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

That said, plaintiff should have seen where it was going and just asked for the cost of a replacement door.  JJ might have been okay with that. 

She probably was too focused on her initial claim to realise JJ was offering an out in exchange for a reasonable compromise. Although considering the final verdict, I think that any amount we would consider "reasonable" would still have been excessive in JJ's eyes.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AZChristian]

Yep, JJ missed it big time on the rental case.

Let's say a person goes into Nordstroms to shop.  While there, they misbehave in such a way that they destroy a huge portion of the store, requiring Nordies to spend thousands of dollars to repair the damage.  In Judge Judy's world, since Nordies makes a LOT of money by selling stuff, they shouldn't try to get the destructive customer to pay for the damage they caused.

Or maybe the customer "just" shoplifted $1,000 worth of stuff.  It sounds like in JJ's world, if the customer paid for $300 worth of stuff, Nordies should just let them get away with the stolen part.  After all, they got $300!!!!

[Byrd is the Word]

14 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

It looks like she expected the homeowner to be late for work or take the day off in order to clean the mess caused by the teenage girl who egged the ex-boyfriend's house.  "It was homecoming."  Yeah, right. 

JJ's $250 judgement was positively absurd.  I would have awarded her $250 for being woken up in the middle of the night, another $250 to have to scrub egg off her property and whatever it took to do the likely repainting/refinishing of her door and siding.  $250 total for a deliberate act of vandalism is an insult to the plaintiff and tantamount an exhortation of the teenage vandal.  And the smug, douche bag dad should be ashamed of himself.

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So tired of the old "She came out of nowhere," defense.

Same.  Likewise is the "he/she was speeding" defense.  As if you can accurately judge the speed of the car you failed to see in the first place. So unless you're struck by Marty McFly in an '84 DeLorean all you're really saying is "I was distracted by something or someone and wasn't paying attention" which is equivalent to an admission of guilt. Time to hand over the keys gramps or whatever it is that starts that stupid veeeehicle. And for the record, my children are on notice that if Mrs. BITW and/or I ever come off as these two old farts did send me off on an ice flow and remember the good times.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[funky-rat]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

3 p.m. reruns-

$2,000 for Lifelike Baby Doll?!- (this is the creepy doll that looks like a real baby case, these are so realistic that people's car windows have been smashed to rescue them)-Plaintiff orders life-like baby doll from defendant, received the doll, reversed the charges, then changed her mind about the charge reversal a few weeks later, so weeks later the money went back to the defendant.   With each reversal, there were additional charges for each service too.  Then there was another charge back (refund), from the plaintiff, and this required a phone call or other request from plaintiff.     

Defendant goes to police to file a report about the fraud, and the district attorney pursued case, and told plaintiff to either return the doll, or the money.   The plaintiff is suing for slander, loss of business, for talking about the dispute online in the doll community (that's an interesting mental picture, of the 'doll community').     Plaintiff claims she returned the doll to defendant.  Plaintiff uses 31 different names for her 'business', and first contacted defendant to buy the doll using another name.    Plaintiff is despicable, and should be ashamed (she really reminds me of someone I worked with, who was just as despicable).      Nothing to plaintiff, and she deserves nothing.   

If you want nightmares for days and to see dysfunction in all of it's glory, find and watch the BBC Documentary called "My Fake Baby".  Yes, there is a HUGE online community of people who like these things.  Two of the people were absolutely the worst. 

The one didn't want real kids but liked the attention she got with the reborns, never telling people they weren't real babies.  She would order extra wheels for her carriages so they could be in constant cleaning rotation (since dirty wheels are a no no).  She would spend thousands of dollars in designer clothes for her fake babies.  She special ordered one and flew to the US to pick it up. It had some damage from shipping (it wasn't bad, and was easily repaired) but she "rejected" the doll "because she's not perfect and will never be perfect".  Glad she doesn't have real kids. 

Another was a grandmother who raised her grandson from infancy until he was a few years of age because her daughter (the boy's mother) had cancer and was undergoing treatment, and the baby's father wasn't around.  They lived with the grandmother for another year or two, and then she met someone and they moved from England to New Zealand.  The grandmother was distraught and my heart broke a little for her until she ordered a reborn that looked exactly like her grandson, and named him after the grandson ,and dressed him in the same clothes.  I then had disdain for her when it came out that she had first asked her daughter to leave the grandson behind, then hinted that she tried more drastic measures to keep the boy from his mother, and I'm relieved they have some distance between them.  The grandfather was not happy, saying it was morbid because it looked like she was carrying a dead baby.  She showed the doll to her grandson via Skype or something similar, and he was also not amused.  Some professional help was needed there.  Both of them, actually.

Edited May 10, 2019 by funky-rat

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Dog Park Play Date Gone Wrong!-Plaintiff claims the defendant's Great Dane bit her dog (medium Lab) at the Dog Park, and wants vet bills.        After the bite, defendant got the plaintiff's dog out from under a bench,    This is when the plaintiff claims the defendant said the dog went after the defendant's infant daughter.    Plaintiff and her witness are making things up, and JJ says so.     Defendant had to do a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer to the plaintiff.     Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves less.  

No Pity for Playing House!-Plaintiff suing ex, and father of her one kid (plaintiff has two others by someone else) for having an accident totaling her car with the kids riding in it too.    Insurance didn't pay for the car damage, because her insurance had lapsed, and defendant was never on the policy either.   Plaintiff claims defendant live-in should have asked permission to take the kids to the park, and he should pay for the car.   Case dismissed.   

Addiction, Conviction...Recovery?-Plaintiff, and mommy are suing for emotional distress, stolen property, refund of rent,  and wrongful eviction.   He was evicted from his sober living house for refusing to take a drug test.  Plaintiff has been imprisoned for prescription fraud, identity theft, and possession of oxy, and was on probation, and lived in a sober living house for 18 months.   Defendants claim man destroyed his room at the sober living house after the drug test dust up.   

The plaintiff who has been on Social Security disability for 12 years, claimed when he had to do a drug test, that he had an appointment (not medical).   Then he told them he wasn't taking a drug test, so he was evicted, and then trashed his room.  He is accused of pouring concrete down the sink, removing the light fixtures, breaking the toilet, and other damage.   

 The interesting moment for me is when Mommy says he's not moving in with her, even though he was living in a tent in the woods, and was evicted by police.     Case dismissed.  

Edited May 10, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

10 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Addiction, Conviction...Recovery?-Plaintiff, and mommy are suing for emotional distress, stolen property, refund of rent,  and wrongful eviction.   He was evicted from his sober living house for refusing to take a drug test.  Plaintiff has been imprisoned for prescription fraud, identity theft, and possession of oxy, and was on probation, and lived in a sober living house for 18 months.   Defendants claim man destroyed his room at the sober living house after the drug test dust up.   

The plaintiff who has been on Social Security disability for 12 years, claimed when he had to do a drug test, that he had an appointment (not medical), so told them he wasn't taking a drug test, so he was evicted, and then trashed his room.  He is accused of pouring concrete down the sink, removing the light fixtures, breaking the toilet, and other damage.   

 The interesting moment for me is when Mommy says he's not moving in with her.     Case dismissed.  

I remember that case. Mommy is a total enabler, coming to his defense and accusing JJ of being ignorant about psychiatric diagnoses or some such. Sonny boy was likely using and didn't want to take the test. Mommy defended him on the but didn't care that he lived in a tent in the woods and was not going to have him living with her. Uh huh.

All these damn reruns and we can't get the VFW Grannies, Cheeseballs or the Crazy Ex Mrs. Horvath that took a caravan of people out to her ex's to get "her" daughter back.

[CrazyInAlabama]

If you live where they have Saturday reruns, they are sometimes the super old ones like the VFW fight, cheeseballs, etc.    That's how I have the Patricia Bean slut calling case immortalized on my DVR.      I think the cheeseball case might be on one of the two DVD's they sold of classic cases, but it's been so long since I saw them, I'm not sure. 

[configdotsys]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

If you live where they have Saturday reruns, they are sometimes the super old ones like the VFW fight, cheeseballs, etc.    That's how I have the Patricia Bean slut calling case immortalized on my DVR.      I think the cheeseball case might be on one of the two DVD's they sold of classic cases, but it's been so long since I saw them, I'm not sure. 

I used to be on at 5 and 5:30 a.m. here in NY and that was where the oldies would show up but they took that away a while back. For a while, they were still advertising JJ at that time and my DVR would record two infomercials. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 pm, both new episodes-

Judge's Biggest Fan Professes Love for Her!-Plaintiff says woman who was serving community service for traffic tickets (couldn't pay the fines) robbed him while he was in jail, including using his debit card.     Defendant lived with him for five or six days, then he was arrested for having naughty stuff in his possession (his former roommate he claims),  (he's so cute, he loves JJ) and the litigants went to store together.    Litigants started fighting, and woman called the police.    Plaintiff was arrested for failure to appear, and he went to jail for 12 days.   When man returned home, computers, TV, etc was all gone, and money was taken out of his bank account.      

Defendant admits that the ex-girlfriend of plaintiff (Stephanie) was invited over by her.  $2850 for the plaintiff.  As JJ ruled, whether the ex stole his stuff, or defendant did, she had control of his apartment, and property, so she's responsible.   

Permanently Disabled Entrepreneur!-Plaintiff suing ex-partner ex-girlfriend, ex-live-in defendant, over unpaid wages, and belongings after the breakup.    Plaintiff says he worked for her cleaning business and didn't pay him.   Rent was $3k a month, and man and three other roommates each paid $600 a month.    Plaintiff claims defendant threw him out after she cheated on him, and didn't pay him for the last two months.   Defendant claims she paid him in cash, because of his disability he can only earn so much.   He's apparently totally disabled, but can still clean full time.    Plaintiff wants his jewelry gifts to the defendants back, not happening.  Case dismissed.

Fiancee Father Fight!-Plaintiff suing son's ex-fiance for destroying a cell phone that he helped her buy.    Defendant was on plaintiff's plan, and was given a cell phone that was returned broken.   Defendant claims she only paid for the line, but her phone was a free one.   Why is it always an iPhone?   Father and son plaintiffs have the same hipster hair, I hate it.  $376 to plaintiff, and defendant is lucky to be rid of both of them.   

Bingo Charity for Children!-Plaintiffs suing former landlord for a deposit on two rentals, and bingo supplies.     Plaintiff rented a residence, and gave a $900 deposit, and signed the lease.   Property wasn't ready on 1 December (mold issue), and plaintiff gets $900 back from defendant.     Plaintiff bought metal doors and locks for the prospective residence, but never used them, and wants to be paid for them (fat chance).    The other two plaintiffs also wanted to rent another location from the defendant, and it was for a charity bingo location, but they never moved in.    Plaintiff claims defendant borrowed $500 from him, and he gets that back too.    Plaintiffs are not getting money for bingo supplies they bought.     One plaintiff gets her $900 deposit back, and other plaintiff gets his $500 back, and that's it.  

Edited May 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[PennyPie18]

49 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant admits that the ex-girlfriend of plaintiff (Stephanie) was invited over by her.  $2850 for the plaintiff.  As JJ ruled, whether the ex stole his stuff, or defendant did, she had control of his apartment, and property, so she's responsible.   

Good Grief, I thought that guy was on something. The nephew was much calmer, and acted more mature than his wacky uncle. I had a hard time understanding much of what he said after professing his love for JJ!!!

[Florinaldo]

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bingo Charity for Children!

I liked how the defendant readily agreed to the facts which supported that he owed some of the money requested, letting JJ dispose of the unreasonable aspects of the claims, without raising the usual dumb arguments many litigants frequently do. It was a gamble for the plaintiffs to buy all of that stuff in advance; not necessarily a silly one as JJ said especially if they took advantage of a bargain, but they have to assume the risks and the consequences. Was there any indication that they tried to resell the stuff to recoup some of their expenses?

54 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

defendant is lucky to be rid of both of them. 

Myself I thought exactly the reverse: they should be glad to be rid of the irresponsible leech of a defendant. And that should not be taken in any way as an endorsement of their hipster-lumbersexual hairstyles.

4 minutes ago, PennyPie18 said:

Good Grief, I thought that guy was on something.

I could not stand to be 5 minutes in the same room with him, although he was clearly wronged. Defendant must either have a much higher threshold of tolerance than me, or she was biding her time in expectation of a moment she could take advantage of him and get some payoff. He was probably lucky to have such a poised and credible nephew appear as his witness, since his own choppy testimony might not have been enough to sway JJ.

[CrazyInAlabama]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

And that should not be taken in any way as an endorsement of their hipster-lumbersexual hairstyles.

I hated their matching hairstyles so much, that I was hoping no one would get anything, just for them offending my style sense.      I think all three in the case were fools.   Why is it almost always an iPhone? 

In the first case with the jailbird, I think the defendant did everything the plaintiff, and his adorable nephew said she did.        I think the plaintiff shows why long term drinking has horrible consequences, and hope he stays sober.        

Edited May 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think the plaintiff shows why long term drinking has horrible consequences, and hope he stays sober.        

Whereas the defendant looked as if she spent a few decades sleeping in some backyard smokehouse, and not under the cold smoking process.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Florinaldo

[WhoaWhoKnew]

JJ life lesson #356864: never pick anyone up at court ordered community service.

[Guest]

On 5/9/2019 at 8:11 PM, Byrd is the Word said:

While we’re on the topic, anybody want to guess how much any one of us would be on the hook for if we whipped a dozen eggs off JJ’s house in the middle of the night?

My guess would be $0 because the first egg wouldn't have left my hand before her squadron of armed security guards shot me dead. 

I could barely watch today's case without obsessing over JJ's overuse of spray-on hair. Jesus, get a good lace front and call it a day, lady.

[Byrd is the Word]

Every time that crazy old drunk mentioned he worked on a UPS truck I said a prayer that UPS does something about that immediately for the sake of the motoring and pedestrian public. That old fool should not be with 100 feet of a moving veeeeehicle.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[zillabreeze]

10 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

My guess would be $0 because the first egg wouldn't have left my hand before her squadron of armed security guards shot me dead. 

I could barely watch today's case without obsessing over JJ's overuse of spray-on hair. Jesus, get a good lace front and call it a day, lady.

I like the pony tail, but can't understand the Eddie Munster widow's peak look.

Around here, they bury the delicious old cases at 3am on Monday mornings.  No clue why.  Several years ago, if the afternoon show was interrupted for weather, car chases, etc. they would air it in the wee hours the next day.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is that the UPS employee was some kind of package runner, or something like that.   I doubt he's had a driver's license in many years, and probably couldn't pass the drug screen to get a permanent job, or one requiring driving a truck.     Of course, it might explain the interesting route some of my UPS packages take occasionally.    I doubt his employment survived his incarceration.  

The new hairdo would look better with some bangs or something to hide the widow's peak, and so it doesn't look so severe.  

Edited May 11, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

My house has never been egged, but from little experience I have in dropping an egg on the floor, I know they are a bitch to clean up. They also seem to ooze in every crack. I am not sure therefore that simply hosing them down would be sufficient. 

I'm wondering if the plaintiff couldn't get the egg off initially so she tried to power wash the egg residue off the door, causing all the damage. I've got this nozzle on my hose that could seriously take the paint off my door. 

Quote

A big reason for accidental death in the Villages (the huge retirement community in Florida, right next to where this accident happened) is injuries from wrecks with cars and golf carts, and the golf cart driver is ejected.  

Golf cart accidents are an epidemic all over south Florida. My former boss treated a couple of teenagers who were driving golf carts in the dark a la Jackass and they ended up flipping, trapping the kids underneath. One kid lose most of his arm. 

Quote

If you live where they have Saturday reruns, they are sometimes the super old ones like the VFW fight, cheeseballs, etc.    That's how I have the Patricia Bean slut calling case immortalized on my DVR.   

Boo hoo, I don't have Saturday reruns in my area, and due to an unfortunate DVR failure, I don't have Patricia Bean. Every now and then I would replay it, thinking at the start "this wasn't as bad as I remember", and then thinking "oh yes it was."

[AZChristian]

6 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Golf cart accidents are an epidemic all over south Florida. My former boss treated a couple of teenagers who were driving golf carts in the dark a la Jackass and they ended up flipping, trapping the kids underneath.

And in Arizona. 

Half of the accidents seem to be caused by old people whose adult kids have taken away their car keys because the parents are half blind and can't see or remember what a STOP sign is for.  So they get into their golf carts and pull out in front of oncoming vehicles (like the guy on Judge Judy).

The other half are caused when the kids go to visit the grand (or great-grand) parents, and are given the keys to the golf cart with the admonition, "Don't go past the main gate because you're too young to drive on public roads."  Yes, we've seen them go flying around corners so fast that some of the kids are flung out of the cart (no seat belts, of course).  We saw a couple of kids almost end up in the lake . . . not to mention almost plowing down old people who were walking their dogs around the lake.  I called Security more than once on the underage kids who were driving.

Get off my lawn!!!!

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I'm wondering if the plaintiff couldn't get the egg off initially so she tried to power wash the egg residue off the door, causing all the damage. I've got this nozzle on my hose that could seriously take the paint off my door. 

The thing is that eggs can strip off paint, just like soda can (a friend was following a truck that was hauling soda canisters - they hit a bump, and one sprung a leak, spraying cola all over her hood, and eating the paint off - they paid to fix it) - the yolks are very acidic.  We never egged houses or cars for that reason (TP was another story, until the one time it rained, and that stopped too).  I vehemently disagreed with JJ on this one.  Very early in the morning, the cops aren't going to want to come out to look at some eggs, and she'd have to leave it on there for the cops to see.  Just hosing it off isn't going to help, even if the cops would have come immediately - the damage is likely done.  The homeowner was stuck between a rock and a hard place - she lost either way, all for the dumb actions of some kids.

On 5/11/2019 at 8:23 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

Every time that crazy old drunk mentioned he worked on a UPS truck I said a prayer that UPS does something about that immediately for the sake of the motoring and pedestrian public. That old fool should not be with 100 feet of a moving veeeeehicle.

They said he was a seasonal package handler.  They don't drive - just load trucks.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns-

Bailiff Caught in the Middle!-Plaintiff ex-girlfriend is suing defendant ex-boyfriend for stealing her property, and burning her clothes up.    Defendant claims the plaintiff took his RV (defendant bought it for them to live in on her stepdad's property).  Litigants were fighting because plaintiff ran off with her ex-boyfriend, and defendant was mad.  Plaintiff witness (woman's stepdad) saw defendant burning plaintiff's clothes and shoes.   Byrd the Magnificent is asked by JJ to stand between the tables of angry litigants.   Litigants both get nothing.   

Boyfriend Beat Down?!-Plaintiff  suing ex-boyfriend defendant for breaking her lap top, false arrest, and assault.    The litigants had a drunken fight, and plaintiff claims he smashed her laptop, and attacked her.  So why is the plaintiff the one that was arrested?  Defendant's defense is he was too drunk to remember what happened.   However, police report says plaintiff punched and hit the defendant, so she was arrested.   $1,099  to plaintiff for the laptop, and that's it. 

You're Not the Victim Here!-Plaintiff suing neighbor for insurance deductible, and car rental.  Plaintiff claims  defendant's 13 year old daughter backed mother's car into his car, while his car was parked in his driveway.    "Nobody saw her do it", and "it was an old car anyway", are defendant car owner's defenses, and had no insurance on the car.    As usual, defendant didn't know she had no insurance.   Daughter was putting car in reverse for her mother, for no reason that makes sense.   Defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her daughters, but daughters aren't sure who pushed them.   Plaintiff gets insurance deductible, and car rental.   Defendant claims she came out, saw her car rolling slowly, and stopped it before it hit anything.   

Defendant claims plaintiff took a crowbar to his own car to make more damage  😲.     $693 for plaintiff.

Random Drug Test Crash?!-Plaintiff suing defendant for damaging his car on the way to take a drug test.   Defendant was getting promoted at Walmart, so needed a drug test (she no longer works there), so she borrowed plaintiff's car.   When she came out of the drug test lab, she saw damage on the car, but she claims the damage was there already.  

Plaintiff claims woman was shopping around trying to get clean pee for her drug test, and I really believe him, since defendant no longer works at Wally World.   Plaintiff claims defendant was upset about the car, and claims someone hit the car while she was in the drug lab.     Plaintiff gets $1124.

[TheLastKidPicked]

On 5/10/2019 at 4:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge's Biggest Fan Professes Love for Her!-Plaintiff says woman who was serving community service for traffic tickets (couldn't pay the fines) robbed him while he was in jail, including using his debit card.     Defendant lived with him for five or six days, then he was arrested for having naughty stuff in his possession (his former roommate he claims),  (he's so cute, he loves JJ).

You'll notice that the old guy brought in his nephew to help him out.  And also notice that the nephew was quiet and respectful, allowing the adults to talk.

It sure looked like the nephew was very accustomed to having to help the uncle out.

Edited May 13, 2019 by TheLastKidPicked

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both new episodes-

$25 a Week Doesn't Feed a Gerbil!-Plaintiff woman suing ex-husband defendant (who is paying nothing for child support, and he's filed for bankruptcy too), for a Dodge Durango that they had a joint loan for.    Durango was repo'd, and plaintiff is suing for defendant's part of the shortfall on the car loan.   Defendant paid $1500 or so for the child support in the past year.    Defendant lives with new fiance, and her child or children.      

The second the divorce happened man took a job working for tips, and minimum wage, then started a security company.     Defendant wanted plaintiff to file for bankruptcy too.      Defendant claims the child support was nullified by his bankruptcy.    Defendant claims he divorced woman because she cheated on him seven times, and I can't blame her for cheating on that loser. (However, what was she thinking marrying him, and having two kids with him?).  To pay off the Durango, plaintiff paid 3101.00, so loser plaintiff's part is $1550,50.

Polyamorous Relationship Fail-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend defendant and ex-boyfriend defendant, who were all in a relationship together, for property, assault, stalking, and a bunch of stuff.    Plaintiff took her two little daughters (10 and 4) to the love fest too.   Plaintiff got dumped twice, by both defendants.    Defendant man borrowed money to fix his car, while they were in a relationship, while plaintiff claims defendant crashed the car and needed to replace it.   Defendant man claims the $130 he gave her was a gift, and not a loan repayment.  Loan was for $2k.    $1850 still owed from the loan.   Assault charge is against plaintiff by defendant woman, and the other way around too.  Plaintiff went to woman defendant's home, and supposedly an assault happened, no police report, no medical records.    $1850 for loan, and nothing else.  

Child Slapped for Wetting the Bed!?-Plaintiff ex-husband suing defendant ex-wife (with two kids) for lost wages, libel, harassment, and defamation.    The defendant has a huge stack of evidence envelopes on her desk.   Ex-wife alleges domestic violence, and mental health issues in ex-husband.    Defendant claims plaintiff slapped the 9 year old girl (was there proof this happened?), for wetting the bed, custody hearing (at defendant's behalf) was held and woman wanted supervised visitation only.    Judge changed visitation for a couple of months, and then it went back to unsupervised.   

Mother claims drug use (no evidence), abuse, mental health issues, and other issues for another custody hearing.   One time the man had the kids for three hours, noticed they were being followed, and went to a police station, and mother picked them up there.     (except he went to a police station a couple of hours away, maybe in the part of town where they live, ex-wife has relatives on the force? Those were some very determined people to follow them enough for someone to notice). 

What a shock, ex-wife has remarried (right after the divorce), and my guess is she wants to erase the first husband from her kid's lives.   Ex-wife alleges plaintiff beat her and oldest daughter, and the is no proof, but was before 2011 when they divorced.   There is zero proof of 'beatings'.   

Ex-wife also contacted the plaintiff's current girlfriend, and her father.     Counterclaim by defendants dismissed.    $1000 to plaintiff.         

Edited May 13, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

55 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant has a huge stack of evidence envelopes on her desk. 

As soon as I saw her come in with all of those papers, I was betting that 95 % of that would be irrelevant to the case and would only serve to show her as a vexatious litigant, ready to sue under the flimsiest of pretexts. I was wrong, in that the actual figure was closer to 98 %.

In an amusing sidenote, her name Shippy is a homonym for a French word that translates as "bitch". What a perfectly apt trans-lingual coincidence.

Her spineless enabling present husband was no better.

Too bad the girls are caught in the various manifestations of her vindictive bitterness , with the meek ex-husband directly on the receiving end.