All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[funky-rat]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Sadly, the defendant was legally correct, it is too bad that the plaintiff didn't know enough to mail the defendants at last known address (i.e., the house they rented from her) with registered or certified mail. If it got forwarded, she has proof of notification, if it was returned as refused or no forwarding address on file, she would have proof that she did the legally required attempt to send notice. Shame on the plaintiff for not knowing that as a landlord, but I despised the smirking, smarmy defendant and wish JJ had hit him a lot harder on his talking over her, not shutting up when told, and turning to the female defendant making snide comments to her and chuckling. It took me a while to place the defendant's demeanor then I got it - classic old style arrogant YUPPIE. However, in his case the Y(oung) is misapplied.

It was also in her lease that she had 21 days to respond with any damage claims.  I'm not sure she would have gotten to him in that timeframe even if she had his forwarding address.  I didn't like the defendant at all, but I wasn't a huge fan of the plaintiff, as she had every excuse in the book as to why she didn't do what her legally binding lease provided for.  I also wasn't impressed much with her attorney (well, whe she SAID he did - he wasn't there to go in to detail). 

I don't know how "binding" the plaintiff's comment of "Don't contact me again" is.  When I worked for a collection agency, we were allowed, by our state law, to contact them one last time to say that we wouldn't contact them again per their request, but it didn't cancel their debt, and we reserved the right to turn the matter over to an attorney.  I have a feeling the attorney didn't feel this was worth his time.  And as much as I hate to, I agree with the defendant that he didn't want a walk-through until he was done moving out and cleaning up.  He was a shitty tenant, but I could see her being a shitty landlord.

2 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

People want pit bulls because they think it makes them look strong and fierce: "Look at me, I can handle a pit bull!"  But it really just makes them look pathetic and needy. 

For a lot of people, yes.  I know 3 people who have Pits that I am comfortable around because I know they got them from reputable breeders with no fighting stock in them, they properly socialized them, they're spayed/neutered, and they know how to handle them.  Of the 3, only one has the big bruiser type dogs.  I don't fear them because I know they were handled correctly when they were puppies and they're around people all day, every day (he owns a business).  And he had one put down that he owned prior because it growled at his son a few times and was showing a few signs of aggression.  He never bought from that breeder again.  And none of the people I know that I feel comfortable with are apologists.

Someone was mauled by a pit here recently.  The apologists came out of the woodwork to say the woman who was mauled was at fault, because it's not the dog, it's the owner.  So what do they propose?  Putting the owner to sleep?  Ludicrous.

[Florinaldo]

21 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

It was also in her lease that she had 21 days to respond with any damage claims. 

I never understand how landlords and other alleged business people can not grasp the most basic provisions of their own contract, assuming they have even read it; nor are they aware of the laws and regulations governing their affairs. Everything was spelled out clearly and if she only had sent him a registered letter at their last known address, she would have won and smug arrogant defendant would have been out on his ass. I am sorry to conclude that her own idiocy or laziness meant she deserved the outcome. She might have some recourse against her lawyer for giving incorrect advice, but she may very well have misunderstood what he said. Both litigants trotted out the dumb and irrelevant argument about being Christians.

So Tuesday we had the twit dog owner with the orverbite who has "no reason" to believe her dog was the biter, and Wednesday we were treated to that lying slimy pittbull owner. Even the policeman saw though her lies, as recorded by his body cam. Dog owners get a very bad collective reputation from the biased sample that gets to appear on these court shows.

I wish JJ would stop saying that they cut off the litigants' mikes when she speaks because anyone who watches the show knows it's not true. Which means it is an empty and ineffective threat. It would be much better if they actually did it when she raises the possibility.

[AZChristian]

4 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

I never understand how landlords and other alleged business people can not grasp the most basic provisions of their own contract, assuming they have even read it; nor are they aware of the laws and regulations governing their affairs. 

People's Court had a case the other day where the lease said, "Landlord can change the terms of this lease at any time with 30 days written notice."  MM let her know right up front that a contract signed by two parties cannot be changed because just one person wants to change it.  She said, "For example, under the terms of a lease, which may be a 12-month lease, you think you have the right to notify the tenant in writing after two months, 'Your rent has just been changed from $500 a month to $10,000 a month.'  NO."

I just love the "I didn't read the contract, and I signed it, but I don't want to abide by it" defense.

Sheesh.

[AngelaHunter]

6 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I just love the "I didn't read the contract, and I signed it, but I don't want to abide by it" defense.

If the TPC case of the 15-year old Nissan where the plaintiff adamantly denied reading what he signed is any example, it seems there are people who think saying, "No, I never read the contract," should be a pass to not abide by it. I really think they believe this.

[khyber]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

People want pit bulls because they think it makes them look strong and fierce: "Look at me, I can handle a pit bull!"  But it really just makes them look pathetic and needy. 

My nephew who has spent his entire life trying to measure up to and please his domineering father, had pit bulls. The problem was , he was a duck hunter so it made way more sense to have a water dog, but no it had to be a pit.

[Guest]

I had to come here.  Just had to.

Am I the only one who thinks smarmy pit bull "walker" looks exactly like Al Franken? 

I was waiting for it to say "I'm a good person, and gee Judge Judy....people like me". 

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Dog owners get a very bad collective reputation from the biased sample that gets to appear on these court shows.

I don't think this really bias, pit bulls are one of the top dogs in biting people and are strong enough to do a great deal of damage, this results in court cases. It doesn't mean that either the owners or dogs involved in these cases are representative of pits and their owners, but they may be representative of owners who end up in small claims courts. The fundamental truth we see in these court shows is that good people and bad people (and dogs) show up in all colors, creeds, orientations, and planets of origin and the litigants represent only the group of people who choose to go on a reality show to settle their small claims cases.

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

litigants represent only the group of people who choose to go on a reality show to settle their small claims cases.

The same can generally be said of real life court rooms. With the possible exception of domestic courts, most of us have the life skills to avoid courtrooms in both our personal and professional endeavors. Win or loose, a courtroom experience is rarely worth the financial and emotional capitol. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, years ago JJ was really firm about people who talked over her (like the idiot storage unit woman this week), and when she threatened to cut off a mike, it was cut off.   It took away from the show, and so she boots them sometimes, or really chews them up.   I wish Byrd would take the Fly Swatter of Death after some of them.   

I really hope that awful woman with the Yorkie murdering Pit Bull (and you know that dog lives there full time) gets booted by her landlord, and I hope the police and animal control tell the D.A. to go after her for lying to them on video, and in her signed statements to AC.   

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I don't think this really bias, pit bulls are one of the top dogs in biting people and are strong enough to do a great deal of damage

My comment did not target the animals but the owners. Time and again those who come on the show lie, deny facts that are clearly buttressed by visual or written evidence and change their story as they go along, all in an effort to preserve their darling pet's honor (or to keep as much as possible of their share of the award kitty). Even plaintiffs whose animal was attacked are not always entirely honest, for example regarding the use of a leash. As I said, these people are just a sample of all dog owners – and a self-selecting one at that thus statistically biased as far as their regular behaviour– but they are the ones we see most regularly. The decent ones that come on once in a while cannot compensate for the image cast by the rest of them.

Granted, pit bulls are one the most violent-prone breeds, and there are always plenty of people to find excuses for them. I fume every time the SPCA up here in Canada comes to the defense of the breed when someone is mauled by one, and sometimes even killed. It seems that protecting humans from vicious animals is a form of racism in their eyes and that victims are always at fault.

As @funky-rat pointed out, there are exceptions to the pit bull rule and some are not violent when the owners "got them from reputable breeders with no fighting stock in them, they properly socialized them, they're spayed/neutered, and they know how to handle them". 

Also, most (if not all) dog breeds are subject to violent episodes; we have seen cases on these shows where the attacking dog was a Labrador, a Golden Retriever, a Collie or even a smaller dog like a Spaniel or a Fox Terrier. All when they are not under the control of their irresponsible owners, like the sorry examples over the last 2 days.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. both reruns, probably 2016-

First-

Baby Daddy Bye Bye-Plaintiff suing ex over a car trade in (plaintiff has two year old by someone else, defendant said he would treat the kid as his own, and she's now is the mother of his kid too.  Her parents actually let him move into their house).    Plaintiff used a car as a trade in, he ended up with a Toyota Tundra (only kept for a month, then back to the dealer), and a Jeep that he still has.   Defendant still  owes over $6k for the Toyota, but plaintiff let defendant used her car as a trade in on the Tundra.     She traded her car in because she wanted a car for her two kids, and now has no car.   She doesn't work.   Idiot plaintiff's idiot father is whining in court about the unfairness of the man taking the car.   As JJ says, plaintiff parents were thrilled about someone taking daughter, and her kid off their hands.  Case dismissed.   

Hair Cutting Double-Talk-Plaintiff sold defendant custom kitchen island, and built out a custom salon in the commercial space of the building, and the island was in an apartment for the defendant.    Defendant hairdresser claims no firm price (but says $2k in statement by defendant).    I suspect JJ is right, defendant just wanted an L.A. paid vacation.  Defendant claims he paid $300 cash, $420, = $720, and says he paid the rest in hair cuts.    Defendant wants $1240, plaintiff gets $1055.  

Second-

21st Birthday Party Down the Toilet-Plaintiff rented house for a 21st birthday party (for son's birthday party, instead of his condo), and there was only one working toilet, with no toilet paper flushing allowed, and an outside urinal pit.   Defendant claims to have had parties up to 300 people at the house, and have to carry toilet paper outside in garbage bags.   there is nothing in the contract about the bathrooms, just a sign in the one working bathroom, with one toilet.   Plaintiff claims defendant rented backyard, defendant lives in the house.  Defendant is counter suing for damages to plumbing.   $750 was rental price, and plaintiff gets $350 back.  

Volvo Custody Fight-Plaintiff suing for repair costs, and storage fees for 2005 Volvo S80.   Plaintiff bought car from defendant, and claimed it couldn't be smogged, and therefore, was not able to be registered.  Plaintiff wants to keep car, but get paid for mechanical work she put into it.  This is a California sale, and is required to have a valid smog certification.  

Defendant will have to take the car back, and will pay the car price back to plaintiff.   However, plaintiff wants to keep car, so case is dismissed.    

[Florinaldo]

In today's jewelry case, JJ let it slip that the show pays for the award, not the litigants. She is usually much more careful and implies that the money comes out of the loser in a case.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Don't Get Involved With Your Son's Coach-Plaintiff loaned $4500 to son's baseball coach for his DUI costs.   She claims the coach scammed other parents too.   Defendant scum ball claims it was a gift, not a loan, and in return for extra coaching for son.   Amazingly, his cell phone plan changed, and he lost the texts .   Plaintiff has check defendant cashed.  $4500 to plaintiff.  

Diamond Heist-Plaintiffs suing jeweler for refund for engagement ring, and travel expenses. Plaintiff ordered ring, paid defendant, but it wasn't ready on time, and he also wants travel expenses for one of those special proposal trips.    Defendant isn't a real jeweler that produces rings, etc. but a middle man who buys from others, which is a shock to the plaintiff.    Plaintiff paid $7,000 to defendant. Defendant counter suing for restocking fees.  However, JJ is right, the office had no stock, and they called up websites and jewelers to select the ring he wanted.   GIA certification for the stone would come with it.   Defendant spent the $7,000 he collected from the plaintiff, and when plaintiff said he was going to sue for non-delivery the plaintiff stopped production from the jeweler.  Plaintiff does know anything about buying diamonds or rings.   Plaintiff gets $5k (loses over $2,000+), and defendant is a crook according to JJ, and we know she knows diamonds, and sales. 

Second-

Disabled Man Cheats the System-Plaintiff deadbeat tenant, fathers four children (3, 2, 1) (he also has four older children too) while totally disabled, his girlfriend is his caregiver paid by the state,, and is suing former landlord for poor living conditions.   Girlfriend gets caretaker money, and welfare from the state, plus Section 8.   They didn't marry to get more money from the state (Iowa). Plaintiff didn't pay his portion of the rent, that was only $2 at first, then went to $106 half way through the year, and $113 later, out of $1643.  Plaintiff didn't pay the $106 or $113 ever.   So for five months he paid a total of $10 rent, and nothing else for the other 10 months, until Section 8 forced him to pay $800+.   In April he was booted out of Section 8, owed the $1643, and paid nothing.    Byrd is so generous to this man. 

plaintiff paid a $500+ security deposit.   Landlady is so lucky he moved, and is owed two months rent, $3286.    Plaintiff claims the apartment had roaches, etc.   He is a total scammer along with his co-parent/caretaker, and a squatter.

Mini-Mall Mayhem-Plaintiffs own mini-mall shopping center sue former tenant, for non-payment of rent.    Defendant is alleged to have left, didn't pay rent, and broke the lease.  Defendant claims the heat didn't work for a total of two months.    Sadly woman plaintiff has a mole on her upper lip that greatly resembles a booger.   The lease copy from the plaintiff has handwritten addendums added, but not on  defendant copy.     Plaintiffs claim the heat was fixed, but defendant claims it wasn't.   Case dismissed.   

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

He is a total scammer along with his co-parent/caretaker, and a squatter.

Greatest part was the scammer standing there,mouth hanging open and absolutely gobsmacked at the verdict.

[Byrd is the Word]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Get Involved With Your Son's Coach-Plaintiff loaned $4500 to son's baseball coach for his DUI costs

Weather drama preempted my eps today so I didn’t see this case. However, on general principle not only would I not enable a drunk youth baseball coach by lending him money for legal defense, I would probably advocate for his removal from the baseball program. Perhaps this was pointed out yesterday; perhaps not. Sorry if it’s redundant.

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $5k (loses over $2,000+), and defendant is a crook

Absolutely. How can anyone explain accepting $7,000 in payment and delivering nothing as something other than a crime?

[PrincessPurrsALot]

DO NOT extrapolate the assumed behaviors of ANY litigants onto entire classes of people.  These are people on a TV show that are chosen to create drama and provide Judge Judy opportunities for her famous eye rolls (how has she not sprained her eye muscles?).  This is not the place to express your personal thoughts about any particular group, including. but not limited to, the disabled, people receiving public assistance of any type, different ethnicities or races. 

[funky-rat]

40 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Weather drama preempted my eps today so I didn’t see this case. However, on general principle not only would I not enable a drunk youth baseball coach by lending him money for legal defense, I would probably advocate for his removal from the baseball program. Perhaps this was pointed out yesterday; perhaps not. Sorry if it’s redundant.

Absolutely. How can anyone explain accepting $7,000 in payment and delivering nothing as something other than a crime?

re: Coach: I don't recall anyone saying in the coach case that they advocated for his removal.  Perhaps he wasn't honest about why he was in trouble? That's all I can think of, because I couldn't see the parents in this case turning their kids willingly over to a drunk.

re: Jeweler: the guy was lucky he didn't get his ring from this guy.  He was trying to pass off some alloy crap as gold (yes, I know 10K is an alloy, but as soon as he mentioned a yellow tint on white gold, and the ring being plated, I knew he was pulling a scam), and he'd probably get zircon instead of diamond, or a low quality diamond.  Sucks he lost $2000, but you're always better off going to a real jeweler.  It's a shame they couldn't bring a separate case against him that was actionable - not what the GF tried to do, suing for the loss of their special moment, or whatever it was).

As an aside, I prefer 10K when it comes to rings.  Rings get banged around a lot, and 10K is sturdier.  My husband had his finger saved when a roll-up truck door broke and came down on his hand.  Smashed his wedding ring fairly flat (they had to use pliers to get it off) but his hand emerged otherwise unscathed (instead of smashed fingers).  The company who owned the truck paid to repair his ring as well.

Edited September 13, 2019 by funky-rat

[AZChristian]

25 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

re: Coach: I don't recall anyone saying in the coach case that they advocated for his removal.  Perhaps he wasn't honest about why he was in trouble? That's all I can think of, because I couldn't see the parents in this case turning their kids willingly over to a drunk.

IIRC, coach did admit that other people had also loaned (or "gave" as we all know that defendants claim on JJ) him money.  One can only wonder how many small claims suits he's had to deal with as a result.  Too bad they couldn't have lined them all up on JJ and had separate cases against him.  They could have done a "coach week" special!

The only drawback is that he would not have had to pay them back out of his own pocket.  And Byrd shouldn't have to pay for ALL of this guy's drinking, DUIs, etc.

Edited September 13, 2019 by AZChristian
Grammar is important.

[funky-rat]

13 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

IIRC, coach did admit that other people had also loaned (or "gave" as we all know that defendants claim on JJ) him money.  One can only wonder how many small claims suits he's had to deal with as a result.  Too bad they couldn't have lined them all up on JJ and had separate cases against him.  They could have done a "coach week" special!

The only drawback is that he would not have had to pay them back out of his own pocket.  And Byrd shouldn't have to pay for ALL of this guy's drinking, DUIs, etc.

Yes, he told other parents he was having trouble, but I'm not confident that he was completely honest with the parents that he had a serious (by his own words) alcohol problem, and was violating his probation repeatedly.

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

As an aside, I prefer 10K when it comes to rings.  Rings get banged around a lot, and 10K is sturdier.  My husband had his finger saved when a roll-up truck door broke and came down on his hand.  Smashed his wedding ring fairly flat (they had to use pliers to get it off) but his hand emerged otherwise unscathed

I’ve taken to wearing a silicone wedding ring, especially when I’m working with tools and/or in the water. It’s safer than a metal ring, no problem if I loose it and sorta fun to play with the different colors. It’s also true that some of these alloys like titanium or tungsten that guys are wearing aren't as easily cut off in the ER in the event of a finger injury which could be a real problem. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns, both probably from 2016-

First-

Eye Witness Wow-Plaintiff suing brother,and his wife over damage to plaintiff's rental car.   Defendants were having marital issues, and husband/brother wanted plaintiff to rent a car for him to take his two kids to visit in Minneapolis.  Witness for plaintiff, former neighbor of defendants, saw defendant wife smashing the windshield.   Defendants were late returning vehicle, and didn't pay plaintiff, until she threatened to file theft charges, then the windshield damage happened.   $741 to plaintiff

Pack Your Bags...Guilt Trip-Plaintiff loaned a 30 year old truck to her son, claims it was trashed by the time returned, and she's suing for the truck value, and every penny she's ever spent on it, and that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims truck was her only vehicle, but her long term boyfriend has three vehicles she used.   Plaintiff/mother claims she had to junk/salvage the truck.   However, her son-in-law, and son say she sold it to someone they know.  Plaintiff wants $2300 for the truck, but she gets zip. (The plaintiff/mother is so full of it, and her phony poor little me routine in the Hall-terview is pathetic.   Crying works better with actual tears).

Second-

Car in Captivity-Plaintiff claims her car has been held captive by defendants for 10 months at his car repair lot.   Plaintiff took her car to the mechanic in July, and claims the fact she had no car caused her company to fire her.    The original car issue was oil pan, and radiator (she ran over something).  Defendants claim plaintiff paid $780.   Defendant claims plaintiff still owes for further work, and they're not releasing car until the payment.   

Car is running, but motor is past warranty period, but why should defendants suffer because plaintiff took a long time to pay her bills?    JJ says to go get the car and take it somewhere else, and gets her $780 back (if you want a used engine, you take your chances with it working). 

Speed Eviction-Plaintiffs suing former landlords for return of security deposit and rent.  Defendants rented a townhouse, and rented room to plaintiffs for a week.   Deposit was $1,000, and $800 rent, and they paid $1700 to defendants.    Eviction was because plaintiffs weren't on the lease.   Property manager, another proposed tenant, and the police (they rent three rooms) came in the house, and told the plaintiffs to leave.   $1700 to plaintiffs.   (In the Hall-terview the plaintiff says they found out that the defendants had an eviction action going against them, and said there were a bunch of 'prospective' tenants knocking on the door constantly).

Edited September 13, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Service Dog Scammer-Plaintiff claims his dog is a Service Dog, and is suing his former landlady for an illegal lockout, loss of property, and security deposit.     Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's house.  Defendant claims false restraining order, property damage, etc, and claims his dog was not a service dog.   Plaintiff claims his doctor says the dog is a service animal, and claims the dog is a therapy animal (still not a service dog), and dog was needed for ?     Plaintiff claims his dog was a service dog.     Defendant says dog was not house trained, and did it's business all over the apartment.   Plaintiff filed for protective order after the 30 day eviction notice was issued.  In the application for the protective order plaintiff claimed landlady was in a relationship with him, threw gasoline on him, hit him, made passes at him, and defendant lied under penalty of perjury.    

 Plaintiff got a TRO, served the restraining order, and landlady couldn't evict him on time.      Landlady says on hearing for restraining order, plaintiff didn't show.   He claims he was hospitalized, but can't remember where or for what.   I feel so sorry for the former landlady.   Landlady put his items in a storage unit after eviction, and he claims she cut all of the cords, and threw bleach on it (is he kidding?).   Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves even less than that.  

Counter claim by landlady starts now, over false restraining order.   Court extended restraining order, because of his 'hospitalization'.   He didn't show up for the second hearing, and protective order was dismissed.   $5000 for landlady for false restraining order.   (Defendant does best JJ Hall-terview ever). 

The Court Can't Help With Canoodling-Plaintiff and defendant were shacked up, and now want JJ to split up everything they bought or used during their canoodling.   She wanted him to pay for her car insurance after they split, and then she totaled the car.   Case dismissed. 

Second-

Shady Dog Thief-Plaintiff claims ex -boyfriend's brother stole her dog, and defendant won't tell where dog is, and JJ points out defendant's witness can't even find the knees to his pants. (Pants are those ripped jeans).    Plaintiff's dog is in Minneapolis, and JJ tells defendant it's a long walk home to Minnesota.    If defendant doesn't shut up about his personal issues I'm going to offer Byrd money to beat the snot out of him.   One reason defendant can't leave Minnesota is something to do with parole.  Byrd goes to tell defendant to shut up, and stays right next to him, and confiscates his phone.  Plaintiff claims man sold the dog.   Dog is a poodle mixed with a beagle, really cute.   JJ threatens to yank defendant idiot's appearance fee.    JJ is issuing an order for a marshall to help get the dog back, and then jabber jaws defendant will get his appearance fee.      

Niece and Nephew Bailout-Plaintiff suing niece and nephew for a loan for bail, and for the value of a car.  The aunt/plaintiff has the niece's two children for over a year, and purchased the car to get herself back on track,, and regain custody of her two children.     When defendant woman had a dirty drug test, that's when aunt took car back.  How does a non-custodial parent get to bring the kids to her house?   Even after a dirty drug test.  Visitation is now supervised, and at the CPS office only.   Defendant and plaintiff swear the court order said aunt had to buy her a car, and defendant says car was a gift.      

(Leavenworth KS has a lot of prisons, for the state and federal systems.   Their tourism motto used to be "How About Doin' Some Time in Leavenworth", which is certainly appropriate for the two defendants)

Case sent back to small claims court in Leavenworth, KS.  

Edited September 15, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[augmentedfourth]

The only person in both episodes today who wasn't a total dumpster fire was the landlord defendant in the first case. (Who, yes, gave an amazing hallterview.) The two shacking up litigants in the second case of the first episode might not be terrible people, just misguided in their belief that JJ was going to sort out their shit, but everyone else today -- EVERYONE ELSE -- was absolutely horrifying. And I am SO glad JJ called out the current trend of getting a doctor's note for getting any randomass animal declared a service animal, or therapy pet, or whatever. I'm not discounting legitimate needs, but waaaaaay too many people are gaming the system and getting their pets into places where they otherwise wouldn't be allowed. Considering how quick that plaintiff was to cite the ADA, he knows exactly what he's doing. I wish there were a better system in place.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case sent back to small claims court in Leavenworth, KS.  

I would love to know how that went with the litigant who refused to answer questions from the judge in a real court.

[Toaster Strudel]

Red Man Bun service dog scammer was a grade A sociopath. He looked so demure and innocent, but a little scratching of the veneer revealed calculating, exploitative evil.

Calling his landlady of 3 days an ex-girlfriend on a petition for a restraining order, with false allegations of violence? I saw red, and my husband wouldn't shut up about how deranged the plaintiff was, so I had to constantly rewind.

Unbelievable that this lying trash had to audacity to sue her after letting his dog (you don't have proof it's my dog, you don't see him doing it!) soil everywhere.

I totally identified with the defendant's hallterview hallelujah. She sure was glad this nightmare was over.

If "Mr Scott" applied all his devious scheming energy to, say, particle physics, humankind would be able to travel through time already.

[AZChristian]

13 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

And I am SO glad JJ called out the current trend of getting a doctor's note for getting any randomass animal declared a service animal, or therapy pet, or whatever. I'm not discounting legitimate needs, but waaaaaay too many people are gaming the system and getting their pets into places where they otherwise wouldn't be allowed. Considering how quick that plaintiff was to cite the ADA, he knows exactly what he's doing. I wish there were a better system in place.

I also suspect that his comment that Pennsylvania has no laws governing the training and use of service animals was wrong.  He was a little too smooth and rehearsed in his answers.  I trained my dog.  My doctor certified my dog.

You know how they sometimes show JJ giving the litigants a thorough visual going over when she's entering?  I really wanted her to say to the plaintiff, "Okay, you with the really stupid hair . . . what's your case?"

[zillabreeze]

20 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Okay, you with the really stupid hair . . . what's your case?"

Or the ug tats, gaudy jewelry,  the too tight garments...she should ask "Doesn't that hotel we paid for have mirrors?"

I don't understand why we haven't been hired for production staff.

[AZChristian]

Just now, zillabreeze said:

Or the ug tats, gaudy jewelry,  the too tight garments...she should ask "Doesn't that hotel we paid for have mirrors?"

I don't understand why we haven't been hired for production staff.

They should contract with the Browns from Sisterwives to provide LulaRoe clothing for Judge Judy's litigants.  Now THAT would be hysterical.

[zillabreeze]

11 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

If "Mr Scott" applied all his devious scheming energy to, say, particle physics, humankind would be able to travel through time already

Or get any fucking job!  Layabout jerk.  Big strapping dude isn't even slightly embarrassed to stand in front of the universe and proudly proclaim that he doesn't go to work like the rest of us peons.

I'm about a thousandy and "between positions". It embarrasses the hell out of me!  I'll flat out lie when someone asks what I do.  Our litigants wear their society sucking badges with great pride.

8 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

They should contract with the Browns from Sisterwives to provide LulaRoe clothing for Judge Judy's litigants.  Now THAT would be hysterical

See?  Here we are, the great untapped production talent!  Make me Dowager for the Day, with TLC and the court shows...I come with PTV staff.

[DoctorK]

45 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

"Doesn't that hotel we paid for have mirrors?"

Or shampoo?

[ButYourHonor]

I want to know if that dippy teen got her dog back!  That one case a year ago, JJ made SURE she got her little pom back, but this time, I’m not so sure it will work.  I don’t think the guy cares if he gets the money.  Which is pretty stupid since it is probably more than what he thinks she owes him...  of course he looks and talks like an idiot, so realizing that fact might not come easy to him...

[DoctorK]

16 minutes ago, ButYourHonor said:

he looks and talks like an idiot, so realizing that fact might not come easy to him...

It is really depressing how many of the litigants are unable to use their native language.

[Toaster Strudel]

4 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

Coparent guy to scam society case.

His "co-parent" of three very young children and caregiver.

If that doesn't have "calculated scam" all over it, I don't know what does.

[funky-rat]

On 9/14/2019 at 11:14 AM, AZChristian said:

I also suspect that his comment that Pennsylvania has no laws governing the training and use of service animals was wrong.  He was a little too smooth and rehearsed in his answers.  I trained my dog.  My doctor certified my dog.

There are definite laws regarding SERVICE animals.  I'm not so sure about THERAPY animals.  That's a sore subject with me, ever since I stepped in dog crap in the shoe department at a TJ MAXX, where we encountered a young blonde woman carrying her "therapy" dog in her purse.  She let it down to crap on the floor, then walked away.  My mom had a few choice words for her, and the manager came over to clean it, and my shoe, up.  She told my mom she apprecaited her ire toward the woman, but they were told they can't say anything, since the whole "therapy" animal thing was a huge gray area.  It takes away from people who legit need therapy animals, and makes it harder for legit people who have legit service animals.

[Byrd is the Word]

On 9/13/2019 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

$5000 for landlady for false restraining order.   (Defendant does best JJ Hall-terview ever).

I absolutely loved this defendant. She stood there stoic and with class, holding her tongue while that lying  asshole scammer told a completely unbelievable and ridiculous story at her expense. Her unbridled joy in hallterview at finally being vindicated made my day and almost brought tears to my eyes. By the way, there needs to be WAY more pushback on this comfort/emotional support animal BS. Way more.

PS, “I’m in the hospital all the time. I don’t know the name of the hospital”. WTF is that all about?! If that’s true he should be required to wear a hazmat suit when he’s within a mile of another human being  

Edited September 16, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[bad things are bad]

Quote

“I’m in the hospital all the time. I don’t know the name of the hospital”. WTF is that all about?

Lying liar. Or, possibly, he shouldn't be allowed to function in society if he can't remember (or FFS, just SAY THE NAME OF ANY HOSPITAL. It's not like JJ is going to validate it)

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

, but they were told they can't say anything

My dog loving friend was told the same thing when he asked the manager at Kroger about a dirty dog in a basket WHERE FOOD GOES.

Lawd! Help us!  My on screen guide is showing a whole crop of new court shows- Judge Jerry (yes, Springer), Protection Court (restraining orders with a scary looking judge) and Personal Injury Court.  Good grief.  Is there no end to the number of people just busting to air their dirty laundry in public?????

[funky-rat]

19 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

Lying liar. Or, possibly, he shouldn't be allowed to function in society if he can't remember (or FFS, just SAY THE NAME OF ANY HOSPITAL. It's not like JJ is going to validate it)

Saint Eligius Hospital.  Dr. Wayne Fiscus, attending.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-

First-

World's Greatest Landlord-Plaintiff landlord suing defendant / former tenant for unpaid loan, bailing her out of jail.   Landlord seems to have a lot more interest in plaintiff, than just being a nice guy the way he claims.    Defendant arrested for DUI, and bail was $2,000.  Defendant claims landlord said he would buy her a car, and she says it would be included in the rent, it was always in his name, so he wants toll fees, impound fees, etc. .   Landlord swears he didn't have ulterior motives towards tenant.   As JJ says, he should have repossessed the car, or reported it stolen.    (He was shocked after the DUI that she came home drunk, kept drinking, and assaulted him).   He gets $2,000 for bail back.

Online Attorney Fraud-Plaintiff /former client suing former attorney for lying about being an attorney, ripping her off for creating a trust, and modifying a previous trust, and failure to return documents.    JJ had proof in a facebook message that defendant was asked if they are a paralegal or an attorney, and the defendant said she's an attorney.   Defendant claims plaintiff took binder of documents, and refused to sign for package.    $200 to plaintiff.

Second-

Double Baby Daddy Drama-Plaintiff and defendant are both baby mama's to the same fool, fool is witness for plaintiff.    So I guess that means plaintiff won custody of baby daddy?   Plaintiff claims defendant dumped some substance in her gas tank, and assaulted her.  Plaintiff says defendant kept calling man's phone, and defendant shows up at plaintiff's

Go Bang Your Heads Against a Wall-Plaintiff suing ex boyfriend over unpaid loans, a car and utilities.     However, she committed fraud when she registered the car, by forging defendant's name.   Defendant was loaned $700, to buy Audi to flip, and for half the profits, but car wasn't sold.    Plaintiff claims she paid for the Hyundai, but defendant bought it for $500, and it was registered in his name too.    She registered the car in her name, (Hyundai wasn't in either litigant's name), and so they each have a car with a title in each name.   Plaintiff committed perjury when she registered the car in her name.   Case dismissed.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both episodes are new-

First-

Good Luck Molesting People-Plaintiff suing defendant for slamming her door into his parked vehicle.    This should be fun, defendant gets mouthy with JJ, and Byrd boots her (sadly, not literally boot).   When plaintiff was sitting in his parked car at Walmart, and defendant pulled in next to his car's passenger side.    Then plaintiff heard her door hit his car, and damage the mirror.   Defendant simply won't shut up.     Plaintiff says she apologized, and says defendant will get the car fixed cheaply.     However, defendant says she never hit the man's car, or damaged his mirror.   Plaintiff wrote down defendant's information, without success.  Plaintiff hired a process server (his witness, who defendant calls a molester in court).  

Defendant goes off in court, and JJ boots her husband, and then her, but only after Brittany the car bashing liar goes on and on.   Brittany finally gets the boot.   (So if you're in Reno, NV, at a Walmart you may run into her, because she apparently works there.   Run far away).

I feel so sorry for the process server the plaintiff hired, that woman certainly accused him of everything.    She even denied being Brittany, but her name was on her shirt.   Process server cost $49.00, plus car damage (they tried to serve it three times at her house, husband denied she lived there), and finally served her in the parking lot.   

Plaintiff gets $2691.   

Collateral Damage-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, put down $1,100 in cash, and drove off with car, and title.    Plaintiff was told about the issues with the car by defendant, plaintiff paid $1100 cash,    After going to the mechanic, plaintiff said there were $4k in repairs needed.      Plaintiff wanted to return the car, and defendant said no.  Plaintiff dumped the car in defendant's yard, and left it, but she took the title with her.    Plaintiff gets $1100, and defendant gets title back.   JJ says the defendant is a scammer after reviewing text messages between litigants.   

Second-

(Not Very) Controversial Judge Judy Decision-Plaintiff realtor suing web designer defendant for not doing the web site she wanted.  Apparently, this is not the first web designer she's hired for the same job.   (Note to defendant, lipliner outside your lips in a dark color is passe).   Total cost of website was $3500, with defendant paid $1300 already.   Plaintiff claims the website was never posted on the internet.  Defendant sent user name and password to defendant, and says it was posted on the internet.   Plaintiff case dismissed.    (I don't know why my cable guide called it Controversial, but it wasn't). 

Housekeeper Steals Customers-Plaintiff cleaning service owner suing former employee for soliciting clients away from her business.   Defendant was hired with a contract, to do cleaning services, and contract said no stealing clients.   One of the ex-clients, and present client of defendant is the witness.      JJ gives the plaintiff $5,000 for lost client.  

(Tomorrow's first new episode is a Labrador chewing on a smaller dog, in case someone wants to avoid that one)

Edited September 21, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

Today's case of the Molesting Process Server -- no way that he would have touched that woman' boobs without her immediately calling the cops and pressing charges. 

On the other hand, $2700 for a busted side mirror and a door dent?  The photo of the door -- looked like lots of circular dents to me -- very weird.  JJ might not have been so generous if the defendant hadn't been such a loudmouth liar. 

[Byrd is the Word]

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Total cost of website was $3500, with defendant paid $1300 already.   Plaintiff claims the website was never posted on the internet.  Defendant sent user name and password to defendant, and says it was posted on the internet.   Plaintiff case dismissed.    

There’s nothing better than when a litigant torpedos their case with the evidence they present. This shifty, plaintiff (who I’m positive is HORRIBLE to work with) tired to sneak an edited voice mail into evidence only to be thwarted by the defendant and HRS. The VM in its entirety clearly supports the defendant’s position. What’s with this pointy, witchy fingernails, btw? And those jeans might not have been the best wardrobe choice. 

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant was hired with a contract, to do cleaning services, and contract said no stealing clients.   One of the ex-clients, and present client of defendant is the witness

Yet another case where the litigant’s own evidence, in this case the defendant’s witness, sabotages the case. Correct decision and a tough lesson in contracts and non compete agreements. Been there. Welcome to the club.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[zillabreeze]

3 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

There’s nothing better than when a litigant torpedos their case with the evidence they present. This shifty plaintiff tired to sneak an edited voice mail into evidence only to be thwarted by the defendant

That was a thing of beauty!  Bad enough the tightwad tried to play just enough to suit her side.  Then she cut off the unedited version right before it hurt her case "to help" JJ out.  Bad move dumbass.

I wish JJ would have delved into the different web designer every year.  Seemed like P might have been getting her web work done "just enough" in pieces before stiffing each person and moving on.

I listened to Brittany Boobs over an hour ago and my head is still pounding.  JJ is really letting these people squawk longer and louder than ever before.

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

no way that he would have touched that woman' boobs without her immediately calling the cops and pressing charges. 

Wow. Pretty sure the only one in that courtroom that has any interest in or contact with that horrible woman’s breasts, including that super weird pint sized husband, is that horrible woman herself. She must have grabbed those enormous things 25 times during her unhinged rant. If she wasn’t such a loud mouthed dragon hag I’d have been interested in her story because I don’t believe she actually did $2,700 in damages to the plaintiff’s hooptie. I hope the plaintiff’s witness files a slander suit against her since her claims that he “molested” her are almost certainly true and indeed malicious. It pains me to think some kids out there call that one mommy. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I don’t believe she actually did $2,700 in damages to the plaintiff’s hooptie.

She just pissed off JJ $2,700 worth.  

If someone still has this on DVR, would you look at something, please???  When the plaintiff is handing up his damage photos, they are printed on regular copy paper.  Freeze up and see if there are actually a bunch of little divots in the car door or if the paper is just wrinkledy?

I meant to check that, but my delete finger was too itchy.

Not that it matters; Plaintiff deserved $5,000 and a ticker tape parade for NOT clocking Brittany Boobs right in the kisser.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Good Luck Molesting People

I am certain that harridan of a defendant habitually wears people down with her breathless repetitions of events or facts, as reinterpreted to her benefits; her hostile accusatory attitude probably allows her to "win" arguments and  get out of difficult situations. JJ was wise to let her spin out all the rope necessary to hang herself, 2 or 3 times over (although I am sure even a very tight noose could not stop her from spewing her hateful nonsense).

I am not sure if the rules they agree to before appearing on the show exclude whatever is said from possible slander claims, but if not the process server should sue her ass off. Perhaps another judge would also multiply the value of an award, which would then come out of her own pockets.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Controversial Judge Judy Decision

Plaintiff wanted to "save JJ's time" by not playing the whole message. How transparent. I am certain she makes it a habit of screwing contractors, and then she had the gall to come on national TV to get more money (which she indeed got, but from the award kitty). Defendant should have been awarded some punitive damages.

Was her makeup airbrushed on? It looked so artificial and unpleasant to watch.

BTW @CrazyInAlabama, why do you deem this decision to be controversial?

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Controversial" is what my cable guide named it.    Some case titles make more sense than others.   I don't think anything about the decision was controversial at all.  

My cable company (Spectrum) does a the title of the cases on each episode, and usually a short sentence about the case.   However, they don't put the year on series, or episode numbers.    Every cable guide I've seen is a little different.   Sometimes I'm looking at the episode of JJ, and the case titles don't match the show.    Don't know if that's the local channel, or if something crossed up in the information that was sent to whoever does the cable guide.      I loved the defendant in the 'molester' door damage case and her husband both getting the boot.  

It's all part of the evil plan of my cable company to drive me out of my mind. 

I think the parking lot door case was correct.    I've known people who used their car as a weapon the way the defendant smacked her door into the plaintiff's car, and I bet she was still moving slightly to hit all along the door.   I bet her car has the metal edge guards too, and they can absolutely whack a dimple in your door like that.    Remember she works for Walmart, and the employees around here have to park a certain distance from the door they'll be leaving from at end of shift (so security can see they make it to their car safely).   If she was already angry, (I bet she's always angry) and had to park further out than she wanted, then I can easily see her taking it out on the plaintiff's car door and mirror.     I wonder if anyone else watching from Reno (I think Reno) has similar damage in that parking lot?  

My guess is she opened her door a couple of times, but had the door shoved against the plaintiff's door while still moving into the space.  

Edited September 21, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

I see. So the titles you use are always those from your cable guide? I do not get those on my on-screen guide, just the generic description of the show.

[augmentedfourth]

I just looked, and I have the same titles for today's episodes. (I have Optimum/Altice/whatever they're calling themselves these days.)

Story time! So there's this attorney in the area that I'd just kind of known by sight, maybe enough to nod a greeting too from across a room, until I worked an incredibly stupid slip 'n' fall case with her where she was working for the local municipality where this happened and she was questioning the claimant in a hearing. She asked the claimant to do something basic, like draw an X on a photograph to indicate where she slipped and fell, and the claimant's attorney flipped the fuck out for no discernible reason. He objected, and then launched into this huge tirade about how inappropriate her request was. She responded to his objection, and he kept on screaming at her, just going on and on and on. When he stopped to take a breath, she simply asked, "Are you done?" Nope! He went on for another several minutes. Again, when he paused, she asked, "Are you done?" Nope! Still going! I forget what the final "Are you done?" count was, but he finally ran out of steam and she just continued on with her questions. At the end, after everyone else left, she turned to me and said, "What the FUCK was that all about?" Ever since then, we've been like BFFs whenever we've worked together.

Anyway. That job came to mind today when I was watching JJ just let that idiot defendant keep ranting and raving and going on and on and on and on and on and on. It's like a toddler throwing a tantrum (and believe me, I'm familiar with those) - sometimes there's nothing else you can do until they wear themselves out.

[DoctorK]

18 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

Nope! He went on for another several minutes.

So what was the judge doing about this? I understand on an entertainment reality show that you might let an amusing litigant go on and on, but not in a real cort room.