All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The next time I’m driving from Chicago through Michigan, make sure my tank is full when passing through Jackson.

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Unless, of course, you stop every 15 minutes for more cigarettes and cheap beer.

Don't skip the famous gas station sushi!

Edited September 26, 2019 by DoctorK
better choice of word

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 pm episodes, both reruns, probably from 2015 or 2016-

First-

Father Scams Inmate-Plaintiff car buyer suing seller for a Mustang purchase.    Plaintiff bought car from defendant for $3500.   Plaintiff bought car, paid in full, had car title, and took car.   Then four or five days later plaintiff was incarcerated for 14 or 15 months.   Plaintiff mother needed spare key to car, contacted defendant to get one.   Plaintiff never retitled or registered car in plaintiff's name, a month or so later someone wanted to buy the car from mother on payments (it was still in defendant's name).    Plaintiff mother says the potential buyer took car, paid her a few hundred dollars, car disappeared, and buyer was also incarcerated.   Defendant never saw the Mustang again.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant applied for a duplicate title, and resold the Mustang.   Defendant did get a duplicate title because plaintiff mother called him, said he had lost the title and needed a replacement.  Defendant says car was impounded two times, and that was when plaintiff mother needed title to get car out of impound (my guess is to resell it to the mysterious incarcerated person).   Plaintiff mother told defendant son that her son was driving car, and title flew out the window.   Defendant agreed to meet woman at the DMV, and made several appointments to meet her on different days, but she never appeared. 

 Car is registered to Freddy something, and Freddy said he traded his car and some money for Mustang, and no title.  My guess is Freddy had a title signed over to him, and registered it, so I bet plaintiff mommy had the title all along.  Freddy *** got car out of impound and registered it somehow.  Defendant is found by JJ to have nothing to do with impound or reselling of car. Case dismissed.  

Brother's Gift Backfires-Plaintiff is suing his sister for her unpaid traffic tickets.  (On a tacky note, who did that to the defendant sister's hair? Edward Scissorhands maybe?).     Defendant claims plaintiff doesn't want her driving the car, and her only ticket was thrown out of court.   Defendant claims everyone drives that same vehicle, including plaintiff, and various relatives, so who knows who got the tickets.   Defendant claims brother filed a false CPS claim against her, but there is no proof who called CPS.   Everything dismissed.  (Followed by a hug in the hall, so I suspect it was all phony to get the ticket paid).

Second-

Pedestrian Teen Hit by Truck-Plaintiff teen was jaywalking across street, and was hit by defendant, when teen she ran across street in front of his car.   Defendant was beaten by an uncle of the defendant teen.  Plaintiff father denies he knew anyone hitting the defendant, but the child's mother rats out her brother in law.  Teen claims the man saw her, nodded at her, and hit her anyway, so she says it was a deliberate attack on her.   Defendant's insurance wasn't activated (that's why I go to my agent's office to initiate my insurance on a new car, after talking to the online customer service if the regular office is closed), because he did it on his phone.     Plaintiff teen claims man deliberately hit her.  Defendant says multiple people attacked him, and the principle assailant went into the family house.   Teen and her father both claim to know nothing about the assault happening on the defendant, and claim to not know who assaulted defendant.        Teen's mother says Uncle Cornelius did the assault.   Teen ran between cars, and accident was unavoidable.  Case dismissed.  

College Payback Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing step grandson for student loan payments, attorney fees, and damaged credit, $4600+.   Plaintiff co-signed student loan, defendant paid for almost 2 years, stopped paying on loan, renegotiated to $360, was $500+    something.    Both defendant parents are disabled, and defendant moved home and is helping parents financially, so stopped paying loans.   Plaintiff is step grandfather, by his second wife, one of defendant's parent is her adult child.    There is a no trespass order against defendant father, by step grandfather.     I see why they agreed to come on the show, because it would be hell to collect a small claims case from the defendant.  

Defendant's loan is only $1542, but step grandpa wants treble damages, and he's not getting that.    Plaintiff gets $1542.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first new, second rerun-

First (new)-

That's What Mother Do-Plaintiff mother suing her adult daughter who wanted phones, cell phones, and a loan for two months rent.  Daughter/defendant has four kids.   Plaintiff has been giving loans for rent, and laptops for grandkids, $1,000.   $450 for one month's rent, $100 for three pre-paid telephones.  Defendant has never repaid any loans.   $1595 was the next 'loan'.  Mother had zero expectation of being repaid, since daughter and husband never paid anything back.  Defendant has no income, so now she wants daughter to repay everything.  Sadly, plaintiff has applied for disability, and was turned down once, and has reapplied.   Plaintiff's boyfriend in also disabled.   Defendant's husband is not father of any of the four children, and there is no formal child support.  Actually, three of the kids live with their father, and defendant has them a few hours a day, so she should be paying child support.   Plaintiff gets $1350 for three months rent.  

8K Snatched from Model Child's Bank Account-Plaintiff is suing father because at 19 years old he bought her a car, as a gift, but father didn't pay the car loan off.   8 years later the money was yanked out of plaintiff's bank account for the car, after a judgment.     Defendant gave car to now ex-wife to drive, it broke down, and was put in plaintiff's aunt's back yard, and seven years later it's still there.   Loan amount is up to $8400, with interest and fees, and plaintiff's attorney is trying to get amount reduced, and plaintiff says lender settled for $5k. 

Plaintiff gets $2500 for the loan, and $500 for plaintiff's attorney, for father's half of the settlement and lawyer.

Second (rerun)-

Child Slapped for Wetting Bed-(This is the rerun where defendant / ex-wife has easily two feet thick stacks of documents)-Plaintiff suing ex-wife and mother of his child for allegations that he beat his oldest daughter with ex, and allegations he threatened to kill her current husband (what fool marries this woman?).    Litigants have two children, and were married for five years.   Despite massive amounts of paper in defendant's custody, she doesn't have any records proving plaintiff beat anyone.    Angela Shippy certainly has what to look like in court down pat.    The court proceeding alleging a slap, was held and defendant got supervised visitation for a couple of months.   Plaintiff has unsupervised visitation for years now.   Defendant alleged drug use, and beatings by plaintiff, with no proof.   

Plaintiff had the children for a few hours, and defendant claims he was being followed and harassed by car of several people.    He drove a couple of hours away, and he went to the police station for help, asked police to call Nurse Ratchet, (he was worried about help from local police).    Plaintiff stayed at the police station with children until ex arrived.  A police officer called and told defendant to pick them up, and never asked to talk to the daughters.   Divorce was 2011, 2014 starts the custody stuff with defendant,    (My personal guess is plaintiff thought the local police would disregard anything he said, so he went where the police didn't know the ex-wife. )   

Plaintiff says defendant sent text messages to his girlfriend's family alleging plaintiff beat defendant, oldest daughter, threatened to kill husband, alleges no contact orders against him, and other allegations.   

Ex-wife has no medical or police reports to prove any beatings of oldest daughter, that ex claims was before the divorce in 2011.     The only 'proof' of ex-wife's beating is what she told her therapist-no proof except what defendant says.

Plaintiff receives $1,000 , and defendant gets what she deserves, nothing.    I feel so sorry for the two girls.      

Edited September 27, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This is the rerun where defendant / ex-wife has easily two feet thick stacks of documents

None of which contained any evidence to support her claims of beatings to herself and her daughter. JJ gave this woman some excellent advise about parenting with an ex spouse based on a lifetime of experience. Clearly from her facial expressions and hallterview remarks the advice sailed over her head like a jet plane. This was a case with real world, serious issues and it left me feeling very sad for those children.

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant's husband is not father of any of the four children, and there is no formal child support. 

But she sure had the hang dog, look of shame to her face, doesn’t she. None of which seemed genuine. We all have experience with deadbeat family and friends. And we all know that when you give them money you assume the risk. Asking the court to remedy that is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Either don’t do it or lick your own wounds when you get burned. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[bad things are bad]

Quote

That's What Mother Do

Mother were an idiot (common to the entire family, I'd guess), but that daughter was a prime example of Backpfeifengesicht (a very punchable face). I wanted to slap that surly fecund "ain't got no money for rent, but check out my TATS" fool. 

Eliciting yet another hearty "thanks for reproducing" from DH and me. 

[AuntiePam]

In Thursday's mother-daughter loan case, JJ was unsympathetic at the beginning.  Mamma buys tablets and cell phones for the grandkids, and lends money to daughter for rent.  There's no repayment.  Lending with no expectation of repayment -- it's not a loan, it's a gift, we've heard JJ say. 

Then JJ asked plaintiff about her disability, and it seemed to me that JJ decided to cut her some slack.  She had done the right things.  Plaintiff was just a mom, trying to help her daughter, and she might actually be disabled. 

Daughter needed a smack though.

[funky-rat]

8 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

Then JJ asked plaintiff about her disability, and it seemed to me that JJ decided to cut her some slack.  She had done the right things.  Plaintiff was just a mom, trying to help her daughter, and she might actually be disabled. 

Daughter needed a smack though.

It's possible.  I was only skeptical because she had a long laundry list of various conditions.  Which is one thing people who are on disability are told to do - the more things wrong with you, the more there is a chance that one will stick.  But I absolutely thought she deserved to be reimbursed for the rent.  The phones and whatnot?  Not so much.

[Byrd is the Word]

47 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

Then JJ asked plaintiff about her disability, and it seemed to me that JJ decided to cut her some slack.  She had done the right things.  Plaintiff was just a mom, trying to help her daughter, and she might actually be disabled. 

Sometimes I'm disappointed in myself when I dismiss those claiming a disability as being a slacker and scammer.  But I'm also reminded of a personal acquaintance who is on full disability from the local police department with a back issue.  He collects handsomely and is still able to operate a snow removal business and do some serious home remolding in his ample spare time.  I'm also certain that many of those "disabled" who show up in JJ's and other courtrooms are indeed scammers and slackers.  But I'm also certain that there is an entire class of disabled who, like the rest us us, live a life free of serious discord and manage to avoid courtrooms.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[DoctorK]

Wheel chair versus car. To start off, a mobility cart is not the same as a wheel chair and that is what the plaintiff seemed to be sitting in. The defendant was extremely annoying in almost every way, but the plaintiff annoyed me almost as much. She initially called the center lane a break down lane – firstly break down lanes are off to the right every place in the US I have driven, and secondly the drawing showed combined solid and dashed yellow lines on both sides of the center lane, this is a turn lane even though later the plaintiff called it a median. The plaintiff referring to the diagram said that she was crossing at a five degree angle; not that I expect anyone to use a protractor but the angle looked like it was 35 degrees or more. Visibility is an issue, the device is low set and if it approached the defendant from the right it may not have been visible (however, if the defendant had really been alert she still should have seen the plaintiff). There are a lot of people in my area who use these devices and almost all of them have some kind of mast or antenna with a red ball or flag about six or seven feet off the ground which is helpful even when using a cross walk let alone into moving traffic. Speaking of cross walks, the plaintiff said that she was crossing four active and one turn lane where she was (jay walking) because the nearest cross walk was ¼ mile away. At 4 miles per hour (which seems to be about right for these mobility devices) that means that going to a cross walk would add less than ten minutes to the trip. That seems like a small delay to cross safely and avoid crossing four active lanes of traffic (by the way, what was the speed limit there? Around here most roadway like that are 35 to 50 mph which is a risky crossing even for the fleet of foot.

I was happy with the verdict because as annoying as the plaintiff was, the defendant was worse and I believe also legally in the wrong, and her whole story about insurance status smelled delusional.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m., both rerun episodes, probably around 2016-

First-

Teen Lies to Police-Plaintiff mother (car owner) is suing her son's former friend, for forcing son to let defendant drive the car, and wrecking it.  The two teens have been at the same school for several years, and were friendly.   Plaintiff son claims defendant forced him to let him drive the car, and he wrecked it.   Defendant says plaintiff was driving during the accident, and wanted defendant to switch places and lie to police.   Plaintiff mother claims defendant bullied her son, which is ridiculous since the son was friendly with defendant, and liked to go to defendant's house to visit.   Defendant says plaintiff was driving to the donut shop, car brakes failed, and car crashed, Defendant says plaintiff wanted him to take responsibility for the accident, and he did.   

Insurance disclaimed paying, because the driver defendant wasn't licensed, or on the insurance.  $1525 for plaintiff.

Rodent Disposal Fee Fight-Plaintiff step grandmother owns condo, and step granddaughters moved in to the condo.   Plaintiff loaned $5,000 to one step granddaughter (who moved in with her two kids).   Defendant paid back all but $1,000, and she claims she doesn't owe the step grandmother anything.   Grandmother claims she has a signed lease with defendant (other step granddaughter moved out), for her boyfriend, and now, two kids to live there.  Rent is $787 a month, and didn't pay for two months.   Plaintiff's witness granddaughter lived in condo for 7 years, and moved out when boyfriend moved in, and other baby was coming, and she said there never was a rat problem.     Defendant's reason for not paying rent is that the condo had a rat problem.  

Plaintiff wants two months rent, $1000 loan, and rodent disposal fees.   They have a picture of the dead rat.   $2674 (or something like that) to plaintiff.   

Second-

Children Fight Deceased Father's Soulmate-Plaintiffs grown son and daughter, are suing the late father's long term (six years) partner.   Defendant had life estate in late father's house, but after pressure from awful adult children, she moved out to a place of her own.   Plaintiffs want taxes, attorney's fees, and property that belonged to the father.    Defendant says the two brats took items the days around the funeral.     Plaintiff daughter wants car that father left.    Since it was in both names, car became defendant's car.   Plaintiff daughter ticked because she had to pay $12k for the car.   

Plaintiff daughter wanted the patio furniture for sentimental reasons, and it turns out that she wanted to sell it during the summer season for the most profit. 

 Plaintiff's law suit is dismissed, because their course of harassment forced defendant to move out of a house with a life estate for defendant.     Audience applauds the verdict. 

Email Scam and Slander-Plaintiff suing defendant for giving him a bad cashier's check for a van he sold her.   Plaintiff gave them a check for more than the price of the van, so the plaintiff's gave defendant change ($900+ in cash).     Defendant claims she has no idea where the car is now, and says she gave car to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs deny this.  Car is registered to defendant.  Defendant claims police and postal inspectors were contacted about bad check, and I can't believe people fall for that scam still.    $2775 for plaintiffs.

[zillabreeze]

On 9/23/2019 at 4:37 PM, arejay said:

I always wonder when I hear "my fiance"......just how long have the two of you been blissfully engaged? Did you agree to marry him before or after you contributed to his family bloodline? Has he actually even asked? 

The Late Dr. Laura used to say " do you have a ring and a date?". Not a fan, but it's appropos.

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Speaking of cross walks, the plaintiff said that she was crossing four active and one turn lane where she was (jay walking) because the nearest cross walk was ¼ mile away. A

Ooh whee!  I knew you and I would be all over this!  I agree that Cruella D'Crazy messed up, but P had some fault in the game.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Speaking of cross walks, the plaintiff said that she was crossing four active and one turn lane where she was (jay walking) because the nearest cross walk was ¼ mile away.

Firstly, I have recently been held up on a road by a scooter in a travel lane and was pissed!

If JJ wasn't so damned technically challenged, Google Earth on the screen would have been an excellent tool.  Where was the crosswalk for reals?  If P had a safe light and crosswalk and couldn't be bothered then all bets should be off.  Except Cruella goes in the "you should be in jail for no insurance IMHO."

That little thingy that was by the bus stop...was it a driveway or an ADA ramp??? Big difference, again, Google Earth.

I was amazed that P wasn't a whopping 400 pounds, that's all I ever see on those damn scooters here.

[AuntiePam]

DoctorK, yep.  I think if defendant had had insurance, JJ might have gone the other way.  It was foolhardy of plaintiff to cross there, and she had to see that there was traffic.  Just go half a mile to the crosswalk.  It's not PC of me, but damn, she had a motorized chair?  How hard can it be?

[NYGirl]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Wheel chair versus car. To start off, a mobility cart is not the same as a wheel chair and that is what the plaintiff seemed to be sitting in. The defendant was extremely annoying in almost every way, but the plaintiff annoyed me almost as much. She initially called the center lane a break down lane – firstly break down lanes are off to the right every place in the US I have driven, and secondly the drawing showed combined solid and dashed yellow lines on both sides of the center lane, this is a turn lane even though later the plaintiff called it a median. The plaintiff referring to the diagram said that she was crossing at a five degree angle; not that I expect anyone to use a protractor but the angle looked like it was 35 degrees or more. Visibility is an issue, the device is low set and if it approached the defendant from the right it may not have been visible (however, if the defendant had really been alert she still should have seen the plaintiff). There are a lot of people in my area who use these devices and almost all of them have some kind of mast or antenna with a red ball or flag about six or seven feet off the ground which is helpful even when using a cross walk let alone into moving traffic. Speaking of cross walks, the plaintiff said that she was crossing four active and one turn lane where she was (jay walking) because the nearest cross walk was ¼ mile away. At 4 miles per hour (which seems to be about right for these mobility devices) that means that going to a cross walk would add less than ten minutes to the trip. That seems like a small delay to cross safely and avoid crossing four active lanes of traffic (by the way, what was the speed limit there? Around here most roadway like that are 35 to 50 mph which is a risky crossing even for the fleet of foot.

I was happy with the verdict because as annoying as the plaintiff was, the defendant was worse and I believe also legally in the wrong, and her whole story about insurance status smelled delusional.

I agree with you so much!  The wheelchair plaintiff was so smug but the defendant was annoying too.  I wanted JJ to throw both cases out... YOU GET NOTHING!!!  Wheelchair was actually jay-riding across a 5 lane street.  Holy Moly.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Woman in Wheelchair Struck by Car-Plaintiff was in a mobility scooter, crossing a five lane road (middle lane is a turn lane, not a break down lane the way defendant does).   Plaintiff was jay scooting, in the turn lane, and defendant hit her scooter.  Scooter was destroyed, and plaintiff is so lucky to only have bruises, and road rash.    Defendant keeps saying they collided, but won't admit she hit the woman in the mobility scooter.  Plaintiff says it's 1/2 mile to the nearest crosswalk.  Plaintiff was halfway across from the bus stop, to the driveway to an apartment complex, and she didn't see the defendant coming.  Defendant claims scooter rider was too low to see from her SUV.   Plaintiff mentions that defendant did not have insurance, and the police report says defendant does not have insurance.   Defendant says the lack of insurance allegation is a lie, and the police, district attorney, and everyone else is plotting against her, and lying, including her insurance company. 

Defendant's car was impounded for lack of insurance, and it's still in impound after three months.   

Plaintiff is lucky to be alive after this loon ran her down.    $5,000 for plaintiff.

(On a personal note, where I live there is a heavily traveled road with a big grocery store, and other stores on one side of the three lane road, and across the road is a retirement home, with apartments.    I have seen people cross that road, during the middle of the day, one on a scooter, and the other using a walker.    I guess the retirement place doesn't have a van service, so they just take their chances on getting across the road in one piece.)

Judge Judy Doesn't Believe the Case-Plaintiff purchased suites of rooms for a sporting event, for $13,500, (and $4500 was pay pal).      He's suing the defendant for selling him access to the luxury athletic event suites, and it turns out defendant had no right to sell the access.    JJ is suspicious of the receipt plaintiff has for cash, of about $6,000.   JJ sends case back to small claims in Boise.   

Second-

Dramatic Cyclist Meets Drunk Peddler-This is the rerun where two people were on a bike trail, and the woman claims the defendant ran into her bicycle while she was passing him on the right.     As JJ says, she would have sympathy for the plaintiff if she wasn't such a Drama Queen.      Plaintiff claims she called out 'passing' to defendant, and he still rammed her bicycle.  Plaintiff claims defendant was going faster than she was, was ahead of her, and was intending to pass him on the right.     Defendant says plaintiff and husband were arguing, yelling at each other, and the plaintiffs were actually coming toward him.  

Defendant sent out to show on Google Maps his route from the liquor store (bottle was still sealed) to his house.  JJ doesn't believe why the defendant took the longer route home (it's called exercise JJ).     $ 1288 to plaintiff for bike repairs, medical and ambulance fees.  

Where There's Smoke...There's More Smoke-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit, harassment, and malicious eviction.   Plaintiff lived in the "No Smoking"  one bedroom apartment, and admits daughter was over and smoked in there once.   However, landlord lives in the building also (it's a triplex), and says he warned plaintiff numerous times about her smoking.   Sadly, plaintiff has the classic heavy smoker's voice, so she's already lying.   There was an $850 security deposit, and plaintiff wants $250 back.  It cost $810 to get the smoke smell out.      $40 to plaintiff, and she doesn't deserve that either.  (After the verdict, the defendant is jumping up and down with joy at winning, and the hallterviews are hysterical.   Defendant can document 33 days he warned her about the smoking).

Edited September 27, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Wheel chair versus car. To start off, a mobility cart is not the same as a wheel chair and that is what the plaintiff seemed to be sitting in.

Welllllll this is only part of your post I disagree with. I have a handicapped friend who has at least three wheel chairs. One, his oldest, is a hand-me-down, but he says is most comfortable - problem is it's big and heavy..... when I give him a ride and he's taking this chair I have to lower the back seats in my small SUV and it's all I can do to lift it up into the car. #2 is small, ultra light weight and fits in just about any back seat - but not comfortable at all - at all. #3 is the happy medium, light enough and small enough to load easily - comfortable for an hour or two (like sitting through a movie) but then not so comfy

My thought with P was using on of her backup chairs after her fancy electric chair/cart was totaled..... those electric carts run anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars - did quick Google search and found One for 10 grand, and when I followed the link discover that was the 30% sale price as it normally cost just under $14,000

[basiltherat]

I have NEVER in all my years of watching JJ seen a participant doing Snoopy's HAPPY DANCE upon a verdict!  Dude had a long, dirty looking tangle of gray hair and he probably smoked a lot of the wacky tobaccy, but if something's in the lease and you signed it, sayonara!

On the other case, the lady doing the Jay Scootin' Boogie was so damn lucky!  the Def definitely had no damn business driving, insurance or no insurance.

How much of the battery gets drained by going an extra quarter or half mile out of your way?  It's possible her battery might have petered out in the middle of crossing the road, proper crosswalk or not.

[AZChristian]

I was apparently not the only viewer who thought the electric wheelchair plaintiff should not have won the case (as annoying as the defendant was).  I was curious enough to Google to see if I could find anything.  Here's a little Google satellite shot of the area of the accident.  

The thing that I find quite outstanding is that the plaintiff insisted that she had to cross there because the nearest crosswalk was at least 1/2 mile away.  According to Google, it is only .2 mile to the intersection (with a light and crosswalk) west of the bus stop, and it's not much more than that to the intersection (again, with a light and crosswalk) east of the bus stop.  Any pedestrian (including those in wheelchairs) has an obligation to cross at a crosswalk if it's that close.

The defendant was correct; plaintiff was in the wrong for crossing there.  

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

The Late Dr. Laura used to say " do you have a ring and a date?". Not a fan, but it's appropos.

I don't think Dr. Laura is "late."

[SRTouch]

27 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I was apparently not the only viewer who thought the electric wheelchair plaintiff should not have won the case (as annoying as the defendant was).  I was curious enough to Google to see if I could find anything.  Here's a little Google satellite shot of the area of the accident.  

Ah, JJ's usual knee jerk reaction when she hears "no insurance." Had D not been so mouthy and argumentative she may have succeeded in splitting liability with Jay scooting plaintiff.... but combine no insurance with mouthy-ness and P is the big winner

Edited September 27, 2019 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I don't think the defendant who hit the wheelchair did herself any favors when she claimed to have insurance.    Then claiming her car getting impounded for three months for no insurance was because everyone in town hated her, and are all conspiring against her.  

[Brattinella]

Plaintiff kept harping on the "liquor" in the guy's backpack, but SHE looked like a well-worn barfly to me.

[zillabreeze]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I don't think Dr. Laura is "late."

That was tongue in cheek.  Lawd, we need a sarcasm font.  I dug the shit out of Dr. Laura.  "The late" was referring to her tots fucking up with the N bomb and losing her radio show.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

That was tongue in cheek.  Lawd, we need a sarcasm font.  I dug the shit out of Dr. Laura.  "The late" was referring to her tots fucking up with the N bomb and losing her radio show.

Don't feel bad.  I liked her too . . . but I had to google because I thought (from your post) she had died and I didn't hear about it.

Yes, a sarcasm font would be awesome.  Sometimes, I just put /sarcasm after something snarky.

[zillabreeze]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Don't feel bad.  I liked her too . . . but I had to google because I thought (from your post) she had died and I didn't hear about it.

Yes, a sarcasm font would be awesome.  Sometimes, I just put /sarcasm after something snarky.

Some people do sarcasm lIKE tHIs WITh mIXed uP CaPs.  That's a lot of work.  Some just end their post with "/s". 

I just need a sarcasm font as my default.

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don't think the defendant who hit the wheelchair did herself any favors when she claimed to have insurance.    Then claiming her car getting impounded for three months for no insurance was because everyone in town hated her, and are all conspiring against her.  

 Being BSC didn't do her any favors either. 

[arejay]

14 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

The Late Dr. Laura used to say " do you have a ring and a date?". Not a fan, but it's appropos.

Nevermind. I had to check first to see if she was indeed late, but it seems I was instead.😅

[Mrs Shibbles]

Love Dr. Laura.  I understand that she’s not everybody’s cup of tea.  

She is on satellite radio, but you can also listen to her by subscribing to her podcast.  

[zillabreeze]

Whelp.  I gots no JJ. New stuff is on Fox here and reruns are on the affiliate. They're in a pissing contest with my Dish provider.

Yesterday, I had to catch her on antenna, IN REAL TIME.  With commercials!  Oh the humanity!  Please send thoughts and prayers.  LOL 

I'm all good, but they shut it off a couple of hours before Thursday night NFL and Sunday football looks scrubbed, too.  

I'd rather work at a sewer treatment plant right now than answer the phones at Dish!

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

Whelp.  I gots no JJ. New stuff is on Fox here and reruns are on the affiliate. They're in a pissing contest with my Dish provider.

Went through that here recently, but with DirecTv. Guess I was lucky in that my interruption started with summer reruns and ended when new episodes began to be aired - think I only missed 1 day of new stuff..... Not sure if that's good or bad, though, as I think I'd rather watch old reruns.

[Byrd is the Word]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

road rash.

She claims to have lost 2 layers of skin. I’ve heard that “diagnosis” since I was a kid. Is that even a real thing?

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, JJ's usual knee jerk reaction when she hears "no insurance."

I’m on her side on that issue. No insurance in virtually every justification in the US renders the operator in violation of the law. Without insurance or a license you should be liable for damages if you chose to flaunt the law and shouldn’t be in the road in the first place.  Otherwise, in addition to everything else, it’s an affront and an expense to those of us who pay for insurance.

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says the lack of insurance allegation is a lie, and the police, district attorney, and everyone else is plotting against her, and lying, including her insurance company. 

Defendant's car was impounded for lack of insurance, and it's still in impound after three months.   

Law enforcement conspiracy my ass. JJ kept giving the goofy old thing a very knowing look when she told the D that she had problems. My best guess is that while she cleaned herself up fairly well, she can easily be imagined in a dirty T-shirt and jeans as one of the faces of meth. That woman was serious mess. 
 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m., both episodes are reruns, probably around 2016 season-

First-

Stealing From the Disabled-Plaintiff /former tenant suing former landlord (owner of duplex, who lives in one side, and rents the other side out) for stealing from her bank account.  Plaintiff claims her landlady had the account number, and pin number, and used it to steal from her.  However, rent was $715, but the withdrawal was for $713 instead.   Plaintiff had a history of late payments, one month non-payment until well after the due date, so she was served with an eviction notice from landlady.   JJ says no proof of theft, no reason to get security back, since no payment for one month was never paid.   Utilities weren't in her name, but that wasn't put in counter claim.    Damages are cleaning, holes in wall, etc.  Both cases dismissed.  

Stalking and Harassment-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid loans, and the return of belongings (a spare laptop, and a BBQ grill).   Defendant claims stalking and harassment, but no police report.   What a shock, they met online.   Plaintiff loaned her money for her to buy items to resell at the flea market.     Plaintiff loans, and credit charges are dismissed.   Counterclaim dismissed.    Plaintiff has order to retrieve his grill and laptop in the next five days with a police escort. 

Second-

Let's Do the Bad Math- Plaintiff suing former friend for return of car down payment, emotional distress, and slander.     Defendant sold his nephew the same car, for $1098.   Then sold car to plaintiff for $745, because nephew went to jail, didn't finish paying for it, bu plaintiff had to repossess it himself.    Defendant still has the title, but plaintiff has the car.   Defendant wants $5,000 for return of the car, lost wages, and car damages-this man already collected more than double the blue book of the car.      Plaintiff gets car signed over to him, and defendant gets $730 back.     Nephew told to sue uncle/defendant for his $1098.

Contractor Scam-Plaintiff suing contractor for return of payments for home remodeling.    Defendant is a licensed contractor in Orlando, Florida, and was hired to redo a shed.  The contractor was supposed to redo the shed into liveable quarters from the studs out, and did very little.   Defendant loses, and should have.  

[ButYourHonor]

Breeder vs ACTUAL Puppy Mill...

While I didn’t have a lot of love for the breeder (I have a purebred dog and will likely have another, but I - and all extended family members for that matter) are EXTREMELY vigilant on who we choose as breeders.  The breeder getting dogs from various states was good, but she should also be showing those animals and continuing to make them champions and improve the breed) but GOOD GRIEF, the defendant had me pulling my hair out!

15+ dogs and two little kids IN A TRAILER??  Even if most of the dogs are in a “pole barn”, you KNOW that too many dogs are getting access to the home.  And a dog that already KILLED one Pomeranian??  I mean I guess I’m glad they are getting dogs rather than having ten kids, as more often seems to be the case on this show, but really?  REALLY??  Use your brains, people!!

The breeder did win points with me for just wanting the dog back more than the money, and JJ mentioned getting animal control involved, so hopefully something positive will happen for the poor kids involved in this situation.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second rerun-

First (New)-

Pomeranian Puppy Mill-Plaintiff dog breeder suing defendant for pick of litter, return of puppy, dog breeding fees, and something else.      Plaintiff sold Pomeranian to defendant who has three Pomeranians, and twelve Beagles (supposedly the Beagles are the fiance's dogs).   The three Poms live in the house, and the Beagles live in a pole barn, and outside.    Defendant, and fiance both sell dogs, so we're talking a puppy mill for two breeds, and plaintiff is a puppy mill operator too (JJ said so).  Defendants wanted a female Pom to breed to their male Pom that was six months old, plus they have two other females, soon to be 20 Poms (my guess, maybe more than that).     Plaintiff has 6 Pomeranians, puppies sell for males $900, and females are $1200, and all are AKC registered dogs, and from different blood lines.      Defendant wanted a female puppy to breed Poms, and plaintiff had an 18 month old female to sell.   

Contract was $1500, and pick of litter, defendant claims she negotiated a better price.   Defendant said she couldn't offer a puppy because female is spayed, but dog isn't spayed yet.   There is no way I would believe the defendant has a registered AKC male to breed, or will spay female after one litter.    Defendant also got another Pom female to breed a few months later too.   

Plaintiff claims defendant had an 80 pound dog [Black Mouthed Cur] that killed another of her female Poms before she bought the plaintiff's Pom.  Guess defendant avoided mentioning that in the dog count.     Plaintiff claims she found out about the dog killing after she sold the puppy.    Plaintiff given choice of picking up the puppy with the sheriff's help, or money.    Plaintiff gets puppy back, with the sheriff's help, and JJ says animal control and sheriff's office will look at the animal welfare.     No money changes hands.    

 Second (Rerun)-

Judge's Biggest Fan Professes Love for Her-Plaintiff was incarcerated for 12 days, and claims defendant was in his home and used his debit card at ATMs and for other charges.   Defendant was staying in plaintiff's home, and they met doing community service for traffic tickets (they couldn't pay).    Plaintiff says he's JJ's number one fan.   Defendant borrowed money from plaintiff's nephew for herself.  

Sadly for defendant, some ex of the plaintiff was called by defendant, and  came over to the man's apartment while he was incarcerated, and there is no proof the defendant is the only person with access.    (Don't worry, there is no way this man's seasonal job at UPS is driving anything).    Plaintiff gets $2850 because no matter which woman stole the TVs and laptop, defendant had control of the apartment.

[WhoaWhoKnew]

I could smell the beagle hoard through my tv. 

[VartanFan]

Pom/Beagle defendant putting on the water works when she realizes she's losing the dog (and potential $$ from breeding)....I was enraged.  I don't know that we've EVER seen a litigant who chose the dog over the money.  To me it shows that her heart is in the right place...even if her skillset and bullshit detector are terrible.  

[funky-rat]

I don't know that I'd call the Plaintiff a puppy mill, because she'd need a WHOLE LOT of dogs for that, but I would call her a backyard breeder.  Still way better than the defendant.  Just because you have 17 acres doesn't mean you should have that many dogs.  I'd say they were trying to set up a puppy mill.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The plaintiff was a breeder, but not a mill.   The defendant and her boyfriend were definitely a puppy mill, for beagles, and Pomeranians, plus there was the cur dog that killed the other Pom, and who knows how many animals that they actually have, and are breeding constantly.    I'm glad that JJ said the same Sheriff's Deputy that would escort to pick up the puppy will inspect the premises with Animal Control, but I bet the defendants will be getting their many animals out of there before that happens.     

Edited October 1, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2016 or so-

First-

Ex-Wife Gets the Pit Bull-Plaintiff truck driver suing ex-wife, and her mother for the return of his dog, a Cane Corso/Pit Bull mix.  The plaintiff had the dog since three months old, and the dog usually traveled with him. (Bizarre note, plaintiff claims he never lived with the ex-wife for the two years they were married).   (I'm not liking the plaintiff, his previous dog died of heartworm, easily prevented).  Plaintiff gets $500, and defendants keep the dog.  

Mercedes Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing former friend for value of a car, and a false restraining order.    Plaintiff claims defendant gave her the car, and then repossessed it, after defendant didn't maintain insurance on it.   Mercedes ML 320 (I think) was the car. but I don't know the year.     Plaintiff claims car was registered in her name, but she didn't have insurance on vehicle.     Defendant has paperwork from the police saying car is hers, claims the plaintiff abandoned the car, and police called her to pick the car up.      Defendant claims plaintiff swiped the car back, had it for a month, and car is now gone.   Case dismissed for both sides.    

Second-

Dirty Drug Test Bail Out-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for unpaid bail, and credit damage.  Defendant failed drug test, again.      They were actually living together for a while, because otherwise she would be homeless.   Her children were taken by the state in 2005 after a DUI, and plaintiff has custody since 2005.  This time she was arrested in 2008 for petty theft, 2005 DUI, and this time 2013 for a dirty drug test.    She tested dirty for meth, and prescription drugs.    Defendant paid child support from her disability.    Remaining bond amount is $4786, or she would have to go to jail for six months.   She claims to be sober for six months, but she's been arrested many times in El Dorado county.    Defendant's mother claims she didn't know daughter was busted again.     Too bad for plaintiff, the phone number for bondsman is wrong, no contact to verify.  Case dismissed.  

Teen TV Custody-Plaintiff and defendant lived together, bought a TV two years ago, and plaintiff wants $300 for half of their joint TV.   Defendant has a "Once Upon A Time" Disney tattoo on her upper chest, and between that and her green hair, not a pretty picture.   Defendant offered $300, and plaintiff accepted it, so he gets the money.   $450, for plaintiff, $150 for the phone defendant broke, and $300 for the TV. 

[basiltherat]

I didn't get any of those cases today, but neener, neener, neener, I have a SPOILER ALERT!!  Tomorrow, JJ DENIES THE DEFENDANT WATER!!!!

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first episode new, second rerun-

First (New)-

Mystery Tire Slasher-Plaintiff claims former boyfriend slashed her tires, but has no proof, so that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was storing two of her bicycles in the defendant's mother's commercial building basement, and she wants them back.   Defendant says he gave bikes and other things away, because plaintiff wouldn't pick up her stuff.  Plaintiff received $100 for the two bikes.   (Thanks to Auntie Pam for that, I missed the ending, so I have no idea which one of these adult whiny babies won). (Thanks to Byrd is the Word, for the hall-terview recap)

My In-Laws Stole My Dog-Plaintiff claims ex-inlaws stole his dog, and other property.   However, he can't say what the other property was, or have proof, except for his car.  As usual, in-laws have nothing belonging to plaintiff, and marital property needs to be split by the divorce judge.   Sorry he doesn't get dog back.  

Second (Rerun)-

My Yard Is Not Your Pet's Bathroom-Plaintiffs are suing defendant for his dog's feces, and urine (really big dog) killing their front lawn (he walks dog on a leash).    This is part of an on-going neighborhood feud.  Plaintiffs live in one house, have temporary restraining orders against next door neighbor (who is defendant's witness), and defendant lives on the other side of witness.   The defendant claims his dog only went on the neighbor's lawn once or twice, but it's on a door bell camera on video, with four occasions, plus the time the plaintiff husband saw the man walk his dog over there too.  Defendant's dog was off leash several time on video, and the witness (her home is next door, and defendant lives on the other side of her house) is on film with defendant and the dog.    Plaintiffs want replacement costs for their landscaping.      (I feel so sorry for the plaintiffs living next to these people).   JJ is right, no matter how many times the defendant had their dog go on the property, it attracts other dogs to do the same thing, and I bet the next door neighbor has her dog out there too.   $1045 to plaintiffs.     JJ tells neighbor to drop dead over his arrest for having his dog at large.  

Edited October 2, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

4 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first episode new, second rerun-

First (New)-

Mystery Tire Slasher-Plaintiff claims former boyfriend slashed her tires, but has no proof, so that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was storing two of her bicycles in the defendant's mother's commercial building basement, and she wants them back.   Defendant says he gave bikes and other things away, because plaintiff wouldn't pick up her stuff.  (Sorry I missed the ending, so I have no idea which one of these adult whiny babies won).

I fast-forwarded so don't know JJ's reasoning, but she gave plaintiff $100 for the two bikes.  Plaintiff tried to show receipts for replacement bikes but JJ wasn't having any.

Whiny babies -- perfect description.

[Byrd is the Word]

43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sorry I missed the ending, so I have no idea which one of these adult whiny babies won

Ha! You missed the best part. As JJ is exiting the courtroom Mr. Old Boozer makes a failed attempt to get her to listen to his counterclaim for the return of his property from her residence. “I had over $1,000 worth of medication”.  Miss Old Boozer replies “What, the Viagra?” Boom! She drops the mike. 🎤 

PS, evidence or not, I have no trouble believing this bitter old fool is capable of slashing the tires of a woman who dumps him.

43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

As usual, in-laws have nothing belonging to plaintiff, and marital property needs to be split by the divorce judge.

“Pfft. Whatever.” says the board certified loser as he stomps out of court. 

37 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

don't know JJ's reasoning, but she gave plaintiff $100 for the two bikes

The plaintiff had nothing to show the value of the bikes and since she didn’t exactly look like Lance Armstrong, JJ awarded her $50 each for a couple of bikes she didn’t seem to care much about in the first place.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[7EasyPayments]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Ha! You missed the best part. As JJ is exiting the courtroom Mr. Old Boozer makes a failed attempt to get her to listen to his counterclaim for the return of his property from her residence. “I had over $1,000 worth of medication”.  Miss Old Boozer replies “What, the Viagra?” Boom! She drops the mike. 🎤 

PS, evidence or not, I have no trouble believing this bitter old fool is capable of slashing the tires of a woman who dumps him.

Uh, they seemed like they deserved each other. 

Something about her was 'off'. 

[funky-rat]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first episode new, second rerun-

First (New)-

Mystery Tire Slasher-Plaintiff claims former boyfriend slashed her tires, but has no proof, so that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was storing two of her bicycles in the defendant's mother's commercial building basement, and she wants them back.   Defendant says he gave bikes and other things away, because plaintiff wouldn't pick up her stuff.  Plaintiff received $100 for the two bikes.   (Thanks to Auntie Pam for that, I missed the ending, so I have no idea which one of these adult whiny babies won).

My favorite part was the guy's counterclaim, because she disposed of some of his super valuable stuff.  Um....pot calling kettle, line 2.

14 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The plaintiff had nothing to show the value of the bikes and since she didn’t exactly look like Lance Armstrong, JJ awarded her $50 each for a couple of bikes she didn’t seem to care much about in the first place.

One of them she bought used on eBay, and did a local pick-up (I've done that a few times with items I was afraid would get damaged in shipping, or would be too expensive to ship).  I don't recall what the deal with the 2nd bike was.

[bad things are bad]

17 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Ha! You missed the best part. As JJ is exiting the courtroom Mr. Old Boozer makes a failed attempt to get her to listen to his counterclaim for the return of his property from her residence. “I had over $1,000 worth of medication”.  Miss Old Boozer replies “What, the Viagra?” Boom! She drops the mike. 🎤 

Yeah, I didn't give her much credit in the IQ department, but that retort was funny and perfectly timed!

[Brattinella]

I'm SO looking forward to today's episode!  JJ hollers at a guy who DARES to pick up the water bottle while she IS SPEAKING!

[Byrd is the Word]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mystery Tire Slasher-Plaintiff claims former boyfriend slashed her tires, but has no proof, so that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was storing two of her bicycles in the defendant's mother's commercial building basement, and she wants them back

More and more I’m finding these jilted lover cases painfully tedious and dull. Invariably they’re triggered by bitterness and/or jealousy and center around worthless shit nobody really wants or the return of gifts that become loans post coitus. Be gone all you and remember the good times if there were any. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, 2016 or so, probably:

First-

Pot Bellied Pig Bite-Plaintiff claims her (two blocks and two acres away) neighbor has a huge pot bellied pig (200 lbs.) that has escaped the stockade fence/chain link defendant's fence., Pig came on the plaintiff's property, and bit her Great Dane.  Plaintiff has an invisible fence, and says the pig has come on her property before too    There is a video of the pig in the plaintiff's yard, showing the pig biting the Great Dane.      Dane was bitten on the leg, and owner wants vet bills.      

Defendant was notified by the police to get her pig off plaintiff's property.    Defendant wants legal fees, she hired a lawyer to get documentation.  The defendant had fence down over a month before the escape and bite.  

  Total vet bills $626, so $700 to plaintiff.  

Two Bedrooms Too Small-Plaintiff rented room in apartment from defendant.   Plaintiff was up to date on rent, when defendant changed the locks on him.  Defendant claims plaintiff was aggressive the second he moved in, and he evicted plaintiff for safety reasons.   It was a non-smoking apartment, and defendant claims plaintiff was smoking, but that wasn't in the lease.   Plaintiff claims an assault also.    Defendant claims plaintiff broke in, and stole two TVs, and other items, without proof.    $700 rent and security back to plaintiff. 

Second-

Artwork vs. the Car Wash-Plaintiff wife takes car in for detailing, claims her famous artist husband's painting in the trunk was hideously disfigured by the careless detailers when they slammed the trunk lid down.  She also claims they stole items out of the car.    JJ rightly tosses their case, since they have no proof of theft, and who leaves a valuable painting unprotected in the trunk?    Plus, there is no way that the husband's are worth that much.   Defendant claims plaintiff wife actually closed the trunk on the painting.   (Spencer Van Der Zee does paintings about telepathy and energy, in case anyone wants one).     Plaintiffs claim painting is worth $3600.    

Case dismissed. 

[Byrd is the Word]

Today’s new episode. Truck and boats. Liars and more liars. Too much bullshit. I need a shower. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second a rerun-

First (new)-

Don't Drink Water Now!   I'm Speaking!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (who is married) for a truck she claims she paid for, but he kept.  Plaintiff's Mommy gave daughter money to fix the truck, for almost $1,000.   Defendant's worse sin is he's trying to drink a lot of the Sacred Water Fhat Must Not Be Drunk, while JJ is talking.   Truck was registered in defendant's father's name, but is driven by defendant and wife.   

Before the breakup with plaintiff, defendant and plaintiff used the truck.   (Dating is now called "Dealing With").   Defendant says he can't drive the truck because he has Epilepsy.      Plaintiff paid for truck (bought from defendant's father, I think), and they drove truck together.    JJ says plaintiff should sue the father, because he didn't give her title to the truck, so she needs a judgment against the father for the truck.    This is when JJ tells defendant to leave the water along.    Defendant is counter suing for destruction of property.     Nothing for anyone.    

Follow the Money-Plaintiffs suing defendant / boat mechanic for return of a deposit, repairs, and property damage.   Plaintiffs took boat to mechanic in late October 2017, left a deposit of $5,000 to fix the boat.   Plaintiff claims she put the money in checking,  then withdrew money, but nothing shows money went to defendant a couple of weeks later.     Plaintiff claims she gave the mechanic $5,000 cash, but didn't get a receipt.       Case is dismissed without prejudice to go back to a local court.  

Second (rerun)-

Girlfriend Vandal Hacks Into Lover's Phone-Plaintiff claims his ex girlfriend went through his phone, found out he was texting with other women, and claims defendant vandalized two cars on the same day.   One of the women is having his baby.    The same day defendant sent nasty text to plaintiff, the car vandalism happened the same day.   First car on one day had smashed windows, and when he drove the second car to her house she threw a brick through the windshield.  $3785 to plaintiff. 

South African Carpet Theft-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend and live-in for return of belongings.  Plaintiff wants his handmade South African carpet back.   Defendant claims he took the carpet.   Plaintiff says after defendant tossed him out, he had to get a locksmith to open the new lock on defendant's door, and claims landlady told him to leave.   JJ calls the landlady, and she tells JJ she only let him take his clothes, and no furniture or rugs, and then landlady changed the locks.       

Defendant changes her testimony from her sworn statement.  Defendant keeps trying to bring up a trip to Africa he backed out on.  In her statement defendant wrote that she didn't feel comfortable meeting the mother of his child, and the child in Africa, and she says she cancelled.      

$3,106 to plaintiff.  Sadly, that rug isn't replaceable.      If the defendant was a decent person, she would have returned his rug. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[7EasyPayments]

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

South African Carpet Theft-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend and live-in for return of belongings.  Plaintiff wants his handmade South African carpet back.   Defendant claims he took the carpet.   Plaintiff says after defendant tossed him out, he had to get a locksmith to open the new lock on defendant's door, and claims landlady told him to leave.   JJ calls the landlady, and she tells JJ she only let him take his clothes, and no furniture or rugs, and then landlady changed the locks.       

Defendant changes her testimony from her sworn statement.  Defendant keeps trying to bring up a trip to Africa he backed out on.  In her statement defendant wrote that she didn't feel comfortable meeting the mother of his child, and child in Africa.    

$3,106 to plaintiff.  Sadly, that rug isn't replaceable.      

Defendant looks uncannily similar to Eddie Murphy in drag......in Norbit? Dr. Doolittle? Somebody here will know. 🤣