All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Blind Chef Scammed by Employer

I think I have to do some research to see if there is a similar program in our area that would allow us to charge the government 4 k$ per employee/trainee just for ferrying them to and from work, simply by creating a "charity".

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

All Aboard Excuse Central-

The absurdity of the abstruse financial binds some people get themselves into to "help" someone else will always amaze me. As well as their magical thinking in believing that a loan, especially the interest, will somehow repay itself so they are not liable for making payments.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Blind Chef Scammed by Employer

I cannot remember when a litigant made me so livid as this scum-sucking parasite did. So, the government (Byrd) throws money at him - thousands upon thousands of dollars - so he can hire, train and educate the disabled. Very noble of him. He keeps them around, paying them peanuts until all monies are in his pocket for the year then gives them the boot. Of course, who knows, since he doesn't believe in keeping any business records and works on memory, which surprisingly, is all in his favour. He's been getting away with this for 9 years and will continue to do so. Governments can't wait to throw our hard-earned money down the toilet. What do they care?  I hope the next person that POS scams beats the daylights out of him.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

All Aboard Excuse Central-

I couldn't... stop laughing, that is. So, my boyfriend tells me we're "opening our doors" to some bum he met on the job. I say, "Okay, darling." Then he tells me this little troll, who has no credit, really needs a motorcycle. Boyfriend has no credit either, so asks me (and I'm a loan officer!) to take a loan of  3,500$ for the wee troll I don't even know. "Okay, darling," I say. I had to stop there before my eyes rolled out of my head.

[Anne Thrax]

On 6/2/2019 at 5:55 AM, configdotsys said:

There have been so many times that she will say to a landlord, "Over the course of the tenancy, you made $80k in rent off this person," or is gives a lecture when someone sells a car to someone else for higher than book value. Maybe the car has a $1k sound system, or an added navigation system but she won't hear it. She just presumes that the person is ripping the other off. I have no doubt that happens on occasion but even under those circumstances, the buyer needs to know the value before they commit to buying something or it's on them. She makes it seem like it's a crime for a person to make money. 

What's even more upsetting to me though is the arrogance she displays when someone says that their video game or dvd collection has been taken, or some other item that she deems unworthy. A new video game is about $60. If it's a popular game, a used copy two years later might be $45. That is NOT chump change to working people. If someone had 10 games broken, stolen, lost, discarded, etc. by a vindictive ex, that is $450 if you use the used price. Hell, even if the person could replace all the games for $200, JJ acts like that is nothing and doesn't take that into account at all. It's not nothing. To many, that is a lot of money.

I just hate when she decides that someone's dishes, towels, food processor, etc. are taking up her time because "I din't go to law school to hear about a toaster." These things cost REAL money to people, especially when it is a roommate or relationship situation in which one of the people gets rid of or sells of the other's property. Not everyone can run out and replace their clothing and household goods at the drop of a hat.

JJ is usually sympathetic to landlords who've been cheated out of rent or had their property trashed.  I've heard her tell a defendant that the landlord is running a business and he expects to make money.  The only ones I've heard her go off on are the ones who are being unreasonable or greedy.

Small claims courts shouldn't be relied upon to make a person perfectly whole when things go wrong.  If someone makes a bad loan or rents to a scammer, or whatever the case may be, it's because of the person's own decisions, and to a certain extent they just have to take the heat. 

Her point is, the job takes a lot of education and experience to do well, and the purpose of her job is to apply the law to the best of her ability to right the major wrongs done against a plaintiff, not make every little thing perfect for one litigant or the other.

At times, JJ does ask the opposing party if what this person says is correct.  If they admit it, then she's on board and orders them to turn the stuff over.  But if there's going to be a fight about little things, then she doesn't want to waste any time on it.  (Besides, it's probably sushi day.)

When you're in the business, it really is annoying when you go before the judge with a client who gets the main things their way, but they still snivel about the pots and pans.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Anne Thrax

[Florinaldo]

17 minutes ago, Anne Thrax said:

Her point is, the job takes a lot of education and experience to do well, and the purpose of her job is to right the major wrongs done against a plaintiff.

One point that perhaps was not clear enough is that this is small claims, not a high-stakes litigation like Monsanto vs alleged victims of their products.

JJ does not consistently do her job "well"; for example when she does not look at some evidence if it does not fit her preconceived narrative (some of her litigants do bring documentation to court) or dismisses some witnesses outright without hearing them (perhaps because of something she read in the file, but she does not share it with us). And in the cases she hears, people who request pots and pans usually do not have much major stuff in the remainder of their claims, except perhaps for some old and much-depreciated appliances.

In cases where there are two competing versions about the "little things" (or even the big ones) without any supporting evidence or documentation for either side, then of course she will justifiably move on, unless one story offends her very idiosyncratic personal sense of logic.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Shocking Teen Assault Video

That arrogant young man and his spineless mother are as disgusting on repeat as on first viewing. She obviously lets him get away with everything, so his bad and violent temper has free rein. Even if we were to assume that the victim was not the most pleasant person,  she did not do anything to warrant such a savage attack.

From his hallterview ("I am not sorry"), it is a safe bet that he will do it again, and perhaps worse.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Anne Thrax]

12 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

One point that perhaps was not clear enough is that this is small claims, not a high-stakes litigation like Monsanto vs alleged victims of their products.

JJ does not consistently do her job "well"; for example [snip for space]

That arrogant young man and his spineless mother are as disgusting on repeat as on first viewing. She obviously lets him get away with everything, so his bad and violent temper has free rein. Even if we were to assume that the victim was not the most pleasant person,  she did not do anything to warrant such a savage attack.

From his hallterview ("I am not sorry"), it is a safe bet that he will do it again, and perhaps worse.

TOTALLY agree with you there.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Anne Thrax

[Byrd is the Word]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Kitty Litter Misstep

“I am not a cat”.  Best defense ever.

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When Faulty Drivers Collide

I wanted to reach into TV land and smack that witchy plaintiff. What is it with these people who think they can force their narrative into evidence (“I wasn't moving. I was proceeding with my right turn through the crosswalk after making a complete stop at the line”) by repeating it over and over? It’s a certain kind of stubborn adopted by a certain kind of idiot. This coupled with the dolt who clearly ran into the side of Witchy Poo’s ugly SUV. By the way Mr. Plaintiff, your bent bicycle wheel speaks more to her contention than yours. Show me damage to her front end if you want any hope of making your case. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm reruns-

Front Porch From Hell-Plaintiff paid contractor/defendant $8k (total fee was supposed to be $11k) to redo the front porch.   Plaintiff claims the porch is higher than the house, and the porch work is horrendous.  There was no written contract, and plaintiff only checked online for negative information about the contractor.   The entire front porch was replaced, and doesn't look that bad to me, but the close ups show the work is sloppy.   JJ dismisses the plaintiff's $5k she wants, but leaves the case open in case fixing the porch costs more than the remaining $3k.    

Unfit for Each Other Roommates-Plaintiff (subletting a 3 bedroom condo) suing defendant / former tenant for property damage, and unpaid rent.   Defendant moved out in August, but had a lease until October.  Defendant wanted plaintiff to use security deposit for the August rent, but that's illegal in their state.  Plaintiff objects that defendant painted the room beige, even though it was painted four years ago.   Plaintiff $325.    

Pilfered Belongings-Plaintiff former roommate,  suing defendants, four former roommates for stolen personal property, cost of a hotel room, etc.   Two defendants lived in the apartment before, and after the plaintiff lived in the apartment, so they have no responsibility.   Plaintiff claims she left in fear of her life, claims defendant drilled holes in walls, and her belongings went missing.  $1175 for plaintiff, and I hope to never be near either litigant, ever.     

Baby Daddy Drama-Plaintiff woman  suing defendant father of her child for daycare costs, for two months that defendant was out of town, equaling $800.   Plaintiff gets $800.  

Raging Party, Missing Laptop- Plaintiff suing former roommate for missing laptop, and book bag that disappeared during the defendant's party, while plaintiff was out of town.   Plaintiff's witness (current girlfriend) claims she saw the defendant with the back pack.    There is not enough proof for JJ, and no money is awarded.     

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. the first is new, second is a rerun-

Siblings' Nasty Text Battle-Plaintiff suing defendant/estranged brother over unauthorized e-reader charges, leading to text battle including threats about arrests and death (Plaintiff left home at 16, and only had contact for the last 10 years).  Plaintiff is suing for false restraining order, Kindle charges (against niece), and a missing Rototiller.   Plaintiff wants overdraft fees, however, she had overdraft fees on the bank account long before the niece downloaded the books.   The defendant brother has had the Rototiller for over three years, so plaintiff isn't getting it back.    Defendant was sending texts that said she was going to kill him, send niece to jail, and other threats.   Restraining order wasn't upheld, because defendant didn't show in court.    Everything is dismissed, and plaintiff just won't let it go.  

Learn How to Pack a Box-Plaintiff was being evicted, and claims mover ruined everything during the move to storage, and later delivery.    Plaintiff packed her own items, and nothing was well packed,  Social Services paid for the move, I didn't realize they do that.   Self-packaged items are not covered by move insurance, so I suspect this case will be a loser.  Plaintiff's only income is a trust fund for $1,000 a month.   Case dismissed.    

Hypodermic Needle Fence Dispute-(This is a doozy, including rotten behavior by everyone involved)-Plaintiff couple claim defendants made claims about them throwing syringes, and medicine bottles, and  other items over the joint fence, and it resulted in their suspension as foster parents.   Plaintiffs are suing defendants for half the cost of a joint fence.   Plaintiffs replaced the old chain link fence with privacy fence, which is 15 years old.  However, the new fence material is sitting there, waiting for the defendants to give permission for the fence installers.  JJ gives them an order to allow the plaintiffs to install the fence.    Defendants claim they didn't call CPS, or police constantly on plaintiffs.   The only thing the plaintiffs get is to be allowed to have the workers put the fence in.     I don't really like anyone in this case, and wish everyone would move.  

Chihuahua Death by Chocolate-Plaintiff ex girlfriend is suing for a loan repayment. and defendant  accuses the plaintiff's  child of killing his late wife's dog with chocolate.   Plaintiff was house sitting for defendant, and supposedly the Chi ate chocolate and died.   Sad but defendant was not able to prove how that happened.     Nothing for anyone.  

(Warning, new case tomorrow involved a sad animal case, and a witness getting the boot, and I believe flipping off the defendants)

[Florinaldo]

14 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Siblings' Nasty Text Battle-

Best quote of the day to the plaintiff in the hallterview: " I think he does not like me for some reason". Geez, I wonder what that reason might be.

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Learn How to Pack a Box

Defendant seems young and perhaps relatively new to the business; could he not smell how troublesome she would be the instant he met her. Unless he owns one of those bargain-basement moving companies that are truly desperate for customers (hence the bidding process they go through).

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Hypodermic Needle Fence Dispute

I wonder if the female plaintiff is self-aware enough to see how bad a black woman would sound saying "they do not belong in Crompton" about two other people of colour.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My guess is in the needle case/fence case is that on Friday and Saturday nights the neighbors sit on their porches and watch the litigants have screaming matches.    It's pretty bad when someone says you aren't good enough to live in Compton.    I suspect the local gendarmes are pretty sick of both parties too.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant was sending texts that said she was going to kill him, send niece to jail, and other threats. 

"You will loose your daughter", threatens nasty old bat who has no idea what's in her own bank account. I was shocked when she said she's 64, sure she had to be between 75- 80.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Learn How to Pack a Box

At least that was kind of amusing. I believed the def when he said plaintiff was lying on the sofa watching a movie after she haphazardly dumped all her shit into boxes and shopping bags, and also that she was in the john doing drugs at the new place. And what is this "schwarzkopf" crystal about which she complained? I know Swarovski but not the other. Of course, she didn't have to pay for any of this moving herself. Pass the bill to Byrd.

[khyber]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Learn How to Pack a Box- Plaintiff's only income is a trust fund for $1,000 a month. 

I distributed an estate to 5 middle aged siblings. One of the five had his money put in a trust because he wouldn't have the good judgement to not blow through it or have it taken by the girlfriend.

[khyber]

22 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

. I was shocked when she said she's 64, sure she had to be between 75- 80.

AAnd what is this "schwarzkopf" crystal about which she complained? 

Its nice to know that General Schwarzkopf founded a tchotchke company after he retired from the military.  Yep, a really old 64.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was shocked when she said she's 64, sure she had to be between 75- 80.

That was indeed the most shocking revelation of this whole case.

[Byrd is the Word]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was shocked when she said she's 64,

I'm 58.  My thought was that if that's what 64 looks like the next 6 years are going to be absolute hell for my face and body.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff left home at 16, and only had contact for the last 10 years

Judging by the look of her she left home to live in a gutter and somewhere along the line she completely lost her sense of humanity. And accounting. FFS, I had a better looking checking statement when I was an incredibly irresponsible college freshman. What a horrible old shrew.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff ex girlfriend is suing for a loan repayment.

And yet another woman who just won’t answer the question no matter what. “Do you have primary physical custody of your children?” Too dumb to realize that a lie will sink her case faster than a perhaps unattractive truth. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[VartanFan]

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Best quote of the day to the plaintiff in the hallterview: " I think he does not like me for some reason". Geez, I wonder what that reason might be.

Just because someone is vile, doesn't mean that they aren't correct.  The niece owed the overdraft fees on those purchases she made.  The brother had the rototiller the he admitted he borrowed, even if he borrowed it years ago.  If sister had been requesting it back (as she said but was promptly shut down by JJ), it's hers!  

[Florinaldo]

29 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

Just because someone is vile, doesn't mean that they aren't correct.

I did not say otherwise. I thought JJ was her usual arbitrary self for dismissing the rototiller part of the case just because it has been a few years. Plaintiff did say she tried to get it back several times but was denied. As for the overdraft fees, the problem would have been to apportion which part was on her and which one was on the niece; it not only depends on the interest rate but also on when each of the charges was made and how long the overdraft was left unattended. I don't think she had made the necessary calculations (or was able to) and it is not up to a judge to do so in a litigant's place; they just have to decide if their numbers are correct.

That being said, I stand by my comment that her parting words were the most amusing that day, unintentionally of course.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

Just because someone is vile, doesn't mean that they aren't correct.  The niece owed the overdraft fees on those purchases she made.  The brother had the rototiller the he admitted he borrowed, even if he borrowed it years ago.  If sister had been requesting it back (as she said but was promptly shut down by JJ), it's hers!  

That case was all about spite and resentment and had little to do with actual property or the the law.  But possession is indeed 9/10 of the law and that along with the passage of time is on the defendant's side.  It's astounding that she showed up to court with that bank account dumpster fire as if any responsible party wouldn't see through her meaningless case in the time it takes to bounce a check. Give the hateful shrew $50 for her Rototiller and direct her back to the hole she crawled out of.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[VartanFan]

7 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I did not say otherwise.

I did not mean to suggest that my first statement was to you.  Sorry that wasn't clear.  It was basically me "talking to the TV". 

If I was reading the bank statement correctly, each overdraft was charged $35 overdraft fee, meaning that the niece would have owed $105 in overdraft for each of the 3 books she purchased.  Was I not understanding this correctly?  As someone who is checks her accounts daily and only spends what I have, I'm afraid my overdraft knowledge is minimal.  

[Byrd is the Word]

3 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

As for the overdraft fees, the problem would have been to apportion which part was on her and which one was on the niece; it not only depends on the interest rate but also on when each of the charges was made and how long the overdraft was left unattended. I don't think she had made the necessary calculations (or was able to) and it is not up to a judge to do so in a litigant's place; they just have to decide if their numbers are correct.

No court is going to do any sort of forensic accounting on behalf of a litigant. It would be the plaintiff's burden to prove which of the overdrafts were the responsibility of the defendant niece and which were not.  Defendant claimed the tiller was a gift and since the plaintiff was already exposed as a liar with almost zero credibility her rebuttal testimony is meaningless.  This case had no merit and was nothing more than a hateful old hag and her 64 year old bitterness.  Dismissing the case was the right thing to do.

[Byrd is the Word]

3 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

meaning that the niece would have owed $105 in overdraft for each of the 3 books she purchased.

What about this.  Is the niece and her $25 or so charges REALLY responsible for overdrafts to an account that is clearly a complete and utter shit show as a result of the account owner's negligence/irresponsibility?

Edited June 5, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

As for the overdraft fees, the problem would have been to apportion which part was on her and which one was on the niece; it not only depends on the interest rate but also on when each of the charges was made and how long the overdraft was left unattended.

Exactly. It seems she is perpetually overdrawn, so how to know which charge might be for the books? It's also suspect how she never, ever knew she was overdrawn constantly until the niece bought the books. That, she zeroed in on. Apparently, she never noticed her account was almost nothing but minus signs.

[Byrd is the Word]

10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

t seems she is perpetually overdrawn, so how to know which charge might be for the books?

Suing for the overdraft fees is roughly equivalent to claims for lost wages. As far as I'm concerned the collateral damage of the overdrafts were more directly a result of the plaintiff's negligent stewardship of her account than any nominal charges by the defendant.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, VartanFan said:

If I was reading the bank statement correctly, each overdraft was charged $35 overdraft fee,

I thought interests were mentioned but I may well be wrong.

The thing is though, the person responsible for the account already being in overdraft was the plaintiff. Normally, the book charges by the niece would have incurred no overdraft fees of any kind, unless the balance was extremely low. The niece (who said she thought the books were free, which might be true) could not be aware of the possible consequences of her actions because she had no knowledge of the account's status. And apparently the plaintiff was as ignorant of where her account stood because she neglected to follow her own finances closely.

So one reasonable argument is that the plaintiff was responsible for putting in place the conditions which led to the overdraft.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Byrd is the Word]

28 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The niece (who said she thought the books were free, which might be true)

I could not agree with you more. By the way, I liked the niece, perhaps because she had the good sense or decency to remain silent and not join the petty family squabble. Plus, it’s hard to take a dim view of a young person who endeavors to read a book rather than a smartphone. 

[bad things are bad]

Quote

I was shocked when she said she's 64,

Quote

I'm 58.  My thought was that if that's what 64 looks like the next 6 years are going to be absolute hell for my face and body.

I'll be 64 in a month. You'll be fine, that goofy lady looked at least ten years older than me!

[Anne Thrax]

On 6/4/2019 at 9:30 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

“I am not a cat”.  Best defense ever.

I wanted to reach into TV land and smack that witchy plaintiff. What is it with these people who think they can force their narrative into evidence (“I wasn't moving. I was proceeding with my right turn through the crosswalk after making a complete stop at the line”) by repeating it over and over? It’s a certain kind of stubborn adopted by a certain kind of idiot. This coupled with the dolt who clearly ran into the side of Witchy Poo’s ugly SUV. By the way Mr. Plaintiff, your bent bicycle wheel speaks more to her contention than yours. Show me damage to her front end if you want any hope of making your case. 

Couldn't agree more about that certain kind of stubborn idiot who thinks if they just cling to their dumb story and keep repeating it, JJ will rule in their favor.

I would have pointed out to the plaintiff in the car vs. bicycle case that the lane she was traveling in could only merge LEFT into traffic.  There wasn't even an option to turn right at the point where she was supposedly trying to make a legal right turn against the light.  So she should have stayed stopped at the red light. 

I hate it when bicycles don't follow the rules of the road.  I'm surprised more of them don't get squished.  Even so - if he had hammered away at the running the red light issue when there was no right turn there (instead of insisting she hit him when it was obvious he hit her), he might have had a better chance of getting his bike fixed.

[Byrd is the Word]

20 minutes ago, Anne Thrax said:

would have pointed out to the plaintiff in the car vs. bicycle case that the lane she was traveling in could only merge LEFT into traffic.  There wasn't even an option to turn right at the point where she was supposedly trying to make a legal right turn against the light.  So she should have stayed stopped at the red light. 

Provided that the graphic illustration of the intersection was correct, it seems that the only function of that traffic light is to protect those persons in the crosswalk since the crosswalk is the only thing intersecting the road at that point.  And that being the case, the driver wouldn't convince too many of us that she was particularly cautious when she crossed it.  Neither of the litigant's arguments moved me and I thought both were careless and at fault.  The clod on the bike was lucky he wasn't seriously hurt also.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm reruns, usually from 2015-

Disappearing Dog-Plaintiff rented a house from the defendants, with a security deposit of $500, $1,000 pet deposit (plaintiff claims dog was only there for an hour, one time).    Why would anyone sign for and pay a pet deposit of $1k, when they don't have a dog?    Defendant claims $5000 plus in damages.  However, apparently the $1k was first month's rent.   $500 to plaintiff for the security deposit, and I suspect the defendants lie a lot, hoping that renters won't fight back. 

Divorce Drama-Plaintiff suing ex-husband (divorced in 1997)/defendant for property.   Plaintiff was a home health care giver, and moved back to the house, and she ran errands, etc.  The litigants had a fight, and plaintiff moved out, and defendant claims plaintiff took all of her stuff with her.    Plaintiff claims she never got her stuff, but when defendant says the oldest son came with a truck to pick her stuff up, she folds, and JJ dismisses the case.

Motorcycle Money Man-Plaintiff suing over the double sale of a motorcycle, by defendant.   Defendant has a lot of weak excuses, but he resold the motorcycle for $14000, and the plaintiff's $3300 (on payments). (It was listed for $14000)  Plaintiff gets his $3300 back.

Man Bites Dog-Plaintiff suing defendant because he broke his tooth biting the defendant's pit bull to stop it from killing his pet.  Plaintiff and defendant share a common back yard, and because plaintiff's lab pit mix, and defendant's two pits, are aggressive, they agreed to never turn the dogs out at the same time.  Defendant let her two dogs out, when plaintiff's dog was out, and a fight ensued.    Plaintiff bit the defendant's dog on the nose,  to get it off of his dog, and he lost a tooth (he will need a bone graft, and implant).   Defendant pays plaintiff for tooth repairs $5,000.    

Drunken Leg Drop-Plaintiff suing defendant for breaking her son's bed, when he was drunk.  The two men were underage, and the plaintiff's sister bought the liquor.   Everyone was drunk, and defendant was kicked out by plaintiff mother.      JJ is right, if anything had happened to someone who left drunk, then homeowner/plaintiff and sister would have been sued.     Plaintiff wants $380 for the bed (defendant paid $20), liquor buying for minors sister of plaintiff will pay $190, and defendant pays $190.   

Landlord Sued for Moving Costs, and Harassment-Plaintiff. former tenant renting rooms at house from former landlord suing defendant for moving costs, harassment, and all kinds of stuff.      Plaintiff was evicted by defendant, her second eviction in one year, the police were called 18 times in one month on the plaintiff.    Plaintiff wants $2500 for moving costs, storage, etc.    Everyone on plaintiff's side looks stoned.    No one gets any money. 

[Florinaldo]

Say what you will about the old harridan of an aunt: she certainly managed to generate a lot of discussion.

She got competition today in the continuing competition for the one litigant on JJ which you get to despise the fastest. I am speaking of the daughter who was driving without a license (and was probably impaired) and killed a horse with her mother's car. I am not certain who the winner is between those two since the difference is in the order of a mere fraction of a picosecond.

The horse owner said that she did everything according to the law in her state/locality when a bear destroyed her fence, but JJ would not hear of it because there would never be such a legislation in force in her America. I would have liked to have the issue explored, just to see if defendant had read and understood that law correctly. There are so many oddball laws in place when it comes to animals, especially in rural areas, that you can't rule out the possibility of her being correct.

I wonder to what extent prospective litigants are told in their preliminary briefing that it may not matter if they took pains to act according to local ordinances because JJ can dismiss those outright, as she has often done. Nice way to reward law-abiding citizens.

That fact is perhaps covered in one single sentence in what I suppose is some form of briefing document litigants receive before they sign on or they appear on the show. Most of them probably do not read whatever they are given, and many of them certainly do not have the intellectual ability to understand that material (judging from the low level of mental sharpnes regularly displayed by litigants).

Edited June 5, 2019 by Florinaldo

[AuntiePam]

30 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The horse owner said that she did everything according to the law in her state/locality when a bear destroyed her fence, but JJ would not hear of it because there would never be such a legislation in force in her America. I would have liked to have the issue explored, just to see if defendant had read and understood that law correctly. There are so many oddball laws in place when it comes to animals, especially in rural areas, that you can't rule out the possibility of her being correct.

I think we needed to know when the bear destroyed the fence.  Did it just happen?  If it just happened, then defendant should have been heard.  If it happened a few hours or days earlier, then no.

[zillabreeze]

24 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

There are so many oddball laws in place when it comes to animals, especially in rural areas, that you can't rule out the possibility of her being correct.

Even if Tweaking Chick DID have clean hands, in many states she not only wouldn't have a claim for the vehicle, she would owe for the horse. NC is a "fence in" state, so with clean hands she should have prevailed.

Can you imagine trying to litigate a case of "open range" or "fence out" livestock with HRH JJ????  Her head would explode.  

[SandyToes]

43 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I think we needed to know when the bear destroyed the fence.  Did it just happen?  If it just happened, then defendant should have been heard.  If it happened a few hours or days earlier, then no.

Exactly.  I think that's a big point.  It may also be a moot point, because even if the horse was actively fleeing a bear, I don't know that the def. would win. Somethings are  just accidents, wrong place/wrong time, and then, well, bummer, dude.  More alarming to me is the fact that the Plaintiff/Mom was hyped about her car being wrecked, and completely missing The Big Picture, which HRH tried to point out, but which I think Plaintiff still didn't get.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. shows, first episode is new, second is a rerun-

Horse Killed While Fleeing Hungry Bear-(Incidents like this are why Care & Control insurance exists for boarding barns, I don't think fence in/fence out laws apply to horses, just livestock like cattle)-Plaintiff daughter (unlicensed) was driving mother's car, while impaired, unlicensed, when she hit the defendant's horse, and it died.     Plaintiff case dismissed for unclean hands. 

Plaintiff daughter gets the boot, tries to go out the wrong back door, and flips a bird (or is it a Byrd today?) at either defendant, or JJ.   Since plaintiff daughter is still alive, then I guess the flipping was at the defendant.   Defendant is counter suing, but sadly the horse was on the road.  Plaintiff is trying to say that her daughter wasn't arrested for being impaired, and that's garbage.   Daughter is so impaired in court, and it scares me to death that she has custody of 7 and 11 year old children.   Daughter / driver was cited for driving while suspended with her kids, and was cited and fined for impaired driving in the accident.     

North Carolina is a fence-in state, but only for cattle, and the defendant has no leg to stand on in this issue.   Cases dismissed.  

There actually was a case of a man hitting a cow, in a fence out state, and JJ didn't want to believe the land owner.     City slickers just don't get it about fence in or fence out states.    However, the fence-in or fence-out statutes are for animals like cattle, not horses.    I loathed the plaintiff's mother in that case, because no matter what her daughter did, nothing was too awful for her to make excuses for her. 

Bad Barter Deal-Plaintiff suing defendant for lock changing fees, etc. totaling $5000  Plaintiffs bartered house remodeling, for free rent for two months.   Property of defendant remained in the house from July to November after he moved out.   $250 for plaintiffs for clean up (the plaintiffs are right, Florida law favors tenants, and squatters)

Empty Pockets in Australia-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan, $940.   Litigants went on a trip to Australia, defendant ran out of money, and needed two weeks of money for expenses, $800.   Defendant claims it was a gift, not a loan, but has a text to plaintiff claiming he'll pay him.   $800 for plaintiff.

Tree Trimming Travesty-Plaintiff home owner suing ex-tenant for chopping down trees and bushes, unpaid rent, and defendant sent a bill to plaintiff for cleaning house, and raking leaves.      Defendant claims trees and bushes were half-dead, but look fine to me.   The hedges in front of the house were all cut down.   Plaintiffs get $2000 with $800 for the hedges, unpaid rent, and other issues.  

Graduation Expediter to the Rescue-Plaintiff suing defendant for her nephew not graduating, after a 'graduation expediter' was paid to guarantee he would get the proper accommodations because of a learning issue.   Defendant's son didn't pass the test to graduate, and expediter was hired, requested a hearing about the 504 services, and if they don't get another chance, then they don't graduate.   $500 was the plaintiff's fee, and defendant never paid.     Defendant says nephew's graduation was guaranteed by the expediter.    Defendant planned graduation party, prepaid tuition for college, and other things.    Plaintiff gets $500.  

3K Worth of Nothing-Plaintiffs were trying to sell their home, and are suing defendant for $3,000 (there's apparently a little communication issue about this), and defendant is a real estate broker.     Defendant claims the plaintiffs gave her $3k, in return for refinancing the house, and taking another name off the mortgage, and so plaintiffs get the $3k back.  

Edited June 5, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

She got competition today in the continuing competition for the one litigant on JJ which you get to despise the fastest. I am speaking of the daughter who was driving without a license (and was probably impaired) and killed a horse with her mother's car. I am not certain who the winner is between those two since the difference is in the order of a mere fraction of a picosecond.

Don't forget her kids were in the car . . . . so. . .  driving impaired (and coming to court impaired which is certainly going to get you ah-NO-Where with JJ) with no license and kids in the car. What a shining example of the no-clean-hands doctrine. And I had to run my DVR back, but she threw deuces (aka like a peace sign) at the court. I imagine Byrd would have shredded her quicker than the bear would have shredded the horse had an actual bird happened. 

I actually could have been an expert witness on this case because I've seen a woman hit a horse that escaped from a corral once. I was riding this woman's bumper on a winding back road in South Jersey once and lucky for me I had backed off. She was driving a big old truck (I think an old all metal dual cab) and I saw the horse bolt right out the corral gate that they had opened for a millisecond and that horse got hit. The entire front of the truck got smashed in. Luckily the woman was wearing a seat belt but had I passed her in my hoopty Toyota, I would be floating around playing the harp right now. 

I did feel sorry for the Plaintiff's mother because she looked weary, most likely from dealing with her daughter. I hope she starts sticking up for her grandkids though because the driver looks like an arrested adolescent that I wanted to slap around about a dozen times. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by ItsHelloPattiagain

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm not sure, but I think the driving while impaired with the kids in the car was another driving incident for the plaintiff daughter.      The plaintiff will never do anything about the daughter, and will deny there's anything wrong with her no matter what she does.  

[Carolina Girl]

10 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Just because someone is vile, doesn't mean that they aren't correct.  The niece owed the overdraft fees on those purchases she made.  The brother had the rototiller the he admitted he borrowed, even if he borrowed it years ago.  If sister had been requesting it back (as she said but was promptly shut down by JJ), it's hers!  

BINGO!  I'm glad someone else noticed this.  JJ kept saying "and you took out another $35, and another $35 while you were overdrawn!"  Can this woman read a bank statement?  If you're overdrawn, the bank does't let you withdraw further funds.  Those $35 "withdrawals" were the overdraft fees in the amount of $105.00 occasioned by the niece buying the Kindle books.  And plaintiff should have gotten that money back.  I don't care if she was overdrawn for five other checks, BUT FOR the niece she wouldn't have been out an additional $105.

And excuse me - just because she didn't SUE her brother to get the rototiller back, it's now HIS by right of possession.  He admitted she had let him use it.  Suddenly now it's his?  Wow.  Remind me to borrow a relative's appliance or something that I covet and hold on to it for a long time hoping they don't take the trouble to sue me to get it back.  Because apparently it magically becomes MINE after awhile. 

Poor judgment all around.  You didn't like the plaintiff.  We get it.  I didn't either, but you were NOT fair to her.

[speac]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

I think we needed to know when the bear destroyed the fence.  Did it just happen?  If it just happened, then defendant should have been heard.  If it happened a few hours or days earlier, then no.

Considering I believe that in the end that the defendant said the horse was running from the bear, one could possibly assume the fence had just been destroyed.

[Florinaldo]

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bad Barter Deal-

JJ contradicted two of her often-repeated principles. First, "You can't do that!" when people throw out suff when departed tenants move out not all at once. It may be trash in her lofty eyes, but if mattresses and furniture is involved, getting rid of it right away could have exposed the plaintiffs to some liability. Also the frequent "if your toothbrush is there, you are there". The guy left a lot of stuff yet was not deemed liable for even a month of rent.

9 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

But possession is indeed 9/10 of the law

Hasn't that been debunked as a sound legal principle? It certainly imposes less effort than trying to actually recover property or ordering someone to surrender it.

18 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Don't forget her kids were in the car . . . . so. . .  driving impaired (and coming to court impaired which is certainly going to get you ah-NO-Where with JJ) with no license and kids in the car. What a shining example of the no-clean-hands doctrine.

You are correct; she wins the contest, even over the vile plaintiff aunt from yesterday.

I do not feel sorry for her mother who is ready to make any excuse and will not push her daughter to take responsibiliyt for her actions. She is encouraging her dangerous behaviour.

[SandyToes]

45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Graduation Expediter to the Rescue-Plaintiff suing defendant for her nephew not graduating, after a 'graduation expediter' was paid to guarantee he would get the proper accommodations because of a learning issue.   Defendant's son didn't pass the test to graduate, and expediter was hired, requested a hearing about the 504 services, and if they don't get another chance, then they don't graduate.   $500 was the plaintiff's fee, and defendant never paid. 

I THINK they said they were from Texas, in which case this is not completely correct.  Students take the "graduation" test over and over again until they pass, or opt to get their GED. (We still have some taking the test from 3 versions ago (about 10 years).  My guess is that Def wanted extra accommodations that student may or may not have qualified for.  If he was entitled to them the first round, he should have gotten them, and would receive them in subsequent attempts.   Hard to add accommodations just because he didn't pass.  If he did NOT get them the first time, and was supposed to, then yes, he'd have access to them the second time (and Big Ugly Things could happen to the school for denying him access.)  But that does not guarantee passing the test.  Students still have to do their part.

And for today's Educational Education Moment:  "504" is a federal classification under the ADA. In Texas, it often includes things like dyslexia and ADD/ADHD.  Special Education covers students during school-eligible years, while 504 is life-long. I had a student who had juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Her condition did not really affect her LEARNING, but affected other areas of her life: frequent absences, difficulty writing, concentrating, etc., and so we could offer some accommodations in the school setting as a result.

https://www.ncld.org/archives/action-center/learn-the-law/understanding-section-504

Edited June 5, 2019 by SandyToes

[SandyToes]

11 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

JJ contradicted two of her often-repeated principles. First, "You can't do that!" when people throw out suff when departed tenants move out not all at once. It may be trash in her lofty eyes, but if mattresses and furniture is involved, getting rid of it right away could have exposed the plaintiffs to some liability. Also the frequent "if your toothbrush is there, you are there". The guy left a lot of stuff yet was not deemed liable for even a month of rent.

Yeah, this bugged me, too!!!  I used to think that landlords going on JJ would at least let them recoup from the screwy renters who stiff 'em (since winning in real life rarely comes with any $$.)  But so often, when there's trash, and the landlords clean it up, or make the repairs themselves, they get the "you didn't pay anyone to do it, so you don't get any money" speech.  And the toothbrush speech, as you mentioned!  No way to predict which side of the fence she'll fall on on any given day/case.  Arbitrary arbitration...

[PennyPie18]

JJ was unusually harsh, IMHO, in the dead horse case. If she is an animal advocate, as in so many dog cases, she could have shown some sympathy to the defendant whose horse was killed. The hallway interview was heartbreaking, and I'm not liking JJ very much lately....she's cranky, hardly ever smiles, acts angry most of the time, and has given questionable verdicts in some cases. 

[AuntiePam]

48 minutes ago, speac said:

Considering I believe that in the end that the defendant said the horse was running from the bear, one could possibly assume the fence had just been destroyed.

She should have started with that.  At the beginning -- which is often all that JJ listens to or cares about -- defendant said that the bear broke the fence and the horse got out.  

[Florinaldo]

50 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

If he did NOT get them the first time, and was supposed to, then yes, he'd have access to them the second time (and Big Ugly Things could happen to the school for denying him access.)  But that does not guarantee passing the test.  Students still have to do their part.

As I said when it first aired, she had an obligation of duty, but not of results; the latter part fell on the young man's shoulders, but they were also subject to the board's discretion in deciding not to accommodate, which is appealable. The aunt either had unrealistic expectations or was simply trying to wiggle out from owning up to a debt. By not paying, she forced plaintiff to recuse herself from pursuing appeals or other administrative recourses.

[iwasish]

I wasn’t so taken by the horse owner. The plaintiff was clearly drunk or on something in the courtroom and may have been the night the horse was killed, so no sympathy there. 

But I’m not convinced the fence was broken that very night or if it was broken by a bear or even broken at all. JJs point was that the horse was in the roadway. As she also said if the driver had broken the fence and hit the horse, drunk or sober the driver would be responsible. 

Indeed if driver had “clean hands” in this case, she might have collected damages from the horse owner. 

I had some sympathy for the horse owner, but once she tossed out the fact that the dead horse was named for her deceased son... I thought she was just looking for sympathy.

The sad fact is that the horse was in the road and shouldn’t have been. The reason for it isn’t important legally.

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, iwasish said:

The sad fact is that the horse was in the road and shouldn’t have been. The reason for it isn’t important legally.

On a show that purports to deal with cases of liability under the law, one would think that the legality of things would matter. But since JJ is presiding, you are correct because the only important thing is what should be legal in her America.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Florinaldo

[bad things are bad]

Quote

I did feel sorry for the Plaintiff's mother because she looked weary, most likely from dealing with her daughter

Yeah, me too. And daughter is an adult, there's not a hell of a lot the mother can do about her except go after custody of the kids

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

On a show that purports to deal with cases of liability under the law, one would think that the legality of things would matter. But since JJ is presiding, you are correct because the only important thing is what should be legal in her America.

As someone said early on, too bad JJ didn't give the horse owner a chance to make her case for the countersuit. I agree with JJ's ruling, I don't I think a motorist driving down a public road should be liable for injuring an out of control animal. OTOH I know that laws differ in some jurisdictions. Part of my attraction to court tv is learning some of the ways laws differ between jurisdictions. Could it be that in North Carolina  (I think I heard that was where these folks are from) has a statute that says a passing motorist is liable if a bear chases livestock onto the road (especially when the livestock is a horse named after a deceased son). Seems more likely that an unlicensed driver who had no business driving would get stuck with liability for property damage. 

[funky-rat]

The Plaintiff/Aunt in the Kindle case should have her bank turn off courtesy overdraft on her account.  I did that on mine after I accidentally overdrew my account and wasn't aware because it was over a weekend, and the card wasn't declining.  They were giving me courtesy overdraft on debit card transactions (which is what the Kindle transactions were, I'm sure).  Now I make sure my card declines if there's not enough money in there.

[TresGatos]

2 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

Yeah, me too. And daughter is an adult, there's not a hell of a lot the mother can do about her except go after custody of the kids

And keep her from driving the moms car.