All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Burning Rubber]

I desperately need new bifocals I can't see clear anything 2 feet in front of me, I am probably blinder than that "legally blind" person who was scamming her employer in other creative ways like suing for discrimination. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Burning Rubber

[DoctorK]

I understand that you don't have to be totally blind to be legally blind, I had a close friend through years of grad school who was legally blind but still had a driver's license from the same state that paid him benefits for being legally blind. However, I was surprised by the ease with which the plaintiff was able to scroll through her phone messages and call out the dates and times, especially since when we got a glimpse of her phone, it was a normal display without any apparent large type or other accommodations. She certainly seemed to have enough vision to be able to work.

[SandyToes]

23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (new)-

Alcohol-Induced Car Battle-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for his car, and the return or value of an interlock breathalyzer (or whatever it's called).    He put the title in her name after he 'caught' a DUI charge.   Defendant ex girlfriend says he gave her the car for driving him around in it for four months.   ......

(Why does someone who doesn't have a license, lies about driving anyway, want the interlock device?    My guess is that if he gets caught driving without a license, it's one charge, but driving without the interlock is a prison sentence.)

Tragedy of Grandmother's Death-Plaintiff suing former tenants for unpaid rent, and damage to his house.    Plaintiff claims they owe three months rent.   Defendants claim they paid one month's rent, the second month they did work for house in lieu of rent, and it was a verbal agreement.    They didn't pay on month two or three because they took out a huge loan to pay for the grandmother's funeral services.   However, non-payment was February, March, April,and loan was in the previous November.    They said they moved because the grandmother died, but she didn't die until after they moved out of the house.  ........

Second (rerun)-

Manhunt for Criminal at Large-Plaintiff suing defendant/ex-boyfriend for stealing her car, and getting it impounded.   Ex-boyfriend and his buddies committed an armed robbery in California.   The fugitives were pulled over in plaintiff's car after the armed robbery, so it was impounded in California.   The defendant and friends grabbed a woman's pocket book, and idiot defendant plead out for four months, and served two months in jail.    Robert, the accomplice was never apprehended.  ......

Married Teen Victim of Odometer Fraud-Plaintiff and husband are suing defendant for a car refund, money they put into the car, and fraud.    Defendant bought car at auction, sold it to plaintiff for $3300.  They looked at CarFax, and odometer was 208,000 not the 108,000 they thought it had.    Plaintiffs want money for pain and suffering, and everything they put into the car.  There is no proof of who rolled the odometer back.  Plaintiffs given choice of keeping the car, or getting a refund for the car.  Plaintiff gets her money back, so she can forget 'pain and suffering'.  

Plaintiffs sign car over to defendant, and get their $3300 back. 

I saw both these episodes yesterday.  That has to be the largest single collection of IDIOT, stupid, JJ contest-igants ever assembled in one hour.  Pain and suffering for a bum car?  When you could have checked CarFax BEFORE you bought it?  $3500 to bail out a very busy and very proficient (if stupid) criminal/boyfriend? (who happened to look about 12) The tenants with the dead/dying/already dead grandma?  At least PRETEND to get a story together before you come on the show!  And I really needed a score card to keep up with the gem who owns a car but titles it in any any convenient female's name. Criminy!

Today's not much better. 

Quote

I desperately need new bifocals I can't see clear anything 2 feet in front of me, I am probably blinder than that "legally blind" person who was scamming her employer in other creative ways.

I completely agree.  Lovely young woman, who probably has a lot to offer, but maybe a little growing up to do. Hopefully.

Edited October 10, 2019 by SandyToes

[basiltherat]

She pled to anger management classes because she beat up her big 'ol hubby.  She should have been suing the employer for malpractice because girl is still verrrry angry and she kept interrupting and getting louder and more strident.  Anger management did not work on her!

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Blind and Discriminated Against-Legally blind plaintiff claims former boss discriminated against her, after hiring her, as an assistant at his anger management school.   Plaintiff slapped new husband, was arrested, and anger management was part of the sentence, from the defendant's company.     Plaintiff claims when she brought documents that boss needed to sign for her to get subsidized child care to return to school, he refused to sign.   JJ is not as confused as I am about the plaintiff's bizarre claims, but she dismisses that. 

Plaintiff can read her phone, which is the usual small print, so I'm confused.    She only worked three weeks, and she was paid for two weeks, and is owed $300.   Plaintiff is also claiming boss told her to buy an iPad, even though she returned it to AT&T, that's dismissed.   Plaintiff claims even though she wasn't at work at an appointment, that she answered calls on the bus to her appointment.          Plaintiff gets $300, even though she keeps interrupting JJ.   The plaintiff shouldn't get anything, since she won't shut up.   

Wedding Dress Payback-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for mortgage payments, and household payments, and her wedding dress.    Plaintiff borrowed $5,000 from defendant, that was equity in the house.       Defendant is suing her for down payment on the house.    They were shacked up for six years.    JJ says plaintiff is $5,000 ahead financially.   Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant counter claim out also.  (Hallterview, plaintiff says her witness in case today was her former maid of honor, who was doing the horizontal mambo with the defendant, apparently some kind of swap party).

Second (Rerun)-

Car Full of Children Headed Into Pond-This is the terrifying case that could have ended up a horrible headline about dead children.   Plaintiff child claims defendant child took the keys, started daddy's car, and it went in the pond.   Plaintiff dad suing defendant mom for car damages.  Both child litigants are blaming each other.   Defendant mother claims plaintiff kid was driving the car, and plaintiff father blames defendant daughter.   Plaintiff father was mowing, had to leave, and asked daughter to move the riding mower into the barn, and car keys were on the key ring.    Car was a 1994 Buick Custom, and it was totaled.     Plaintiff story is afterr the mower moving, the keys were on lanyard on plaintiff daughter's neck, and defendant daughter grabbed the keys, climbed into the car, plaintiff kid crawled in, defendant started the car, and defendant's little brother (kindergarten age) climbed into the car.   Plaintiff kid says defendant kid started the car, and car started rolling, and then defendant and her little jumped out of the moving car out of the window, head first.   Then car went downhill, speeding up, and hit a tree, stopped, and almost went halfway in the pond.   Defendant kid says Mikayla, plaintiff got the keys, climbed in car, and plaintiff started car, and it started rolling, and Mikayla bailed, and defendant and little brother jumped out the window.    

Police showed, parents finally showed, both girls blamed each other.  And the stories are too bizarre to be anything but lies.    I bet all three kids were in the car when the tree stopped them from going in the pond.   I bet it's not the first time the girls drove the car.   Defendant daddy wants to pay for those adorable rims he put on the car.   $500 to plaintiff.  

Fishing for Friends on a Dating App-Defendant and plaintiff he wasn't dating plaintiff, but just looking for a friend after his divorce.   They met on a dating app. (He's a bigger liar than the litigant kids in the car in pond case).   Defendant borrowed $1700 from plaintiff to pay state of California, and he wrote a check to repay plaintiff for $17.   A week later he gave plaintiff back $1000, and defendant claims he was going to paint her house for the other $700.    He never painted the house.   $700 to plaintiff.   Defendant is trying to blame the white haired plaintiff's witness for the court case, he's a nut.  

[Florinaldo]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Blind and Discriminated Against-

What a despicable plaintiff. I am certain she routinely uses her disability (as recognized by some statute) to bully people into complying with her self-centered demands; constant interruptions and responding without even hearing the full statement seem to be part of her everyday bag of tricks. I am sorry JJ found a way to get her some money back.

I agree she should have sued for a refund of the anger management course because it obviously did not work for her; she simply transmuted physical violence into another form of agression.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

when we got a glimpse of her phone, it was a normal display without any apparent large type or other accommodations

I did not catch the shot of her phone's display so I thought she had quite the magnification and contrast function on it. Thanks to your info, I am now leaning towards thinking she lives in a jurisdiction that has very lax criteria for declaring someone "legally blind".

Edited October 10, 2019 by Florinaldo

[augmentedfourth]

Man, the hallterview in the broken up engaged couple really brought it today. Not that the plaintiff was that much of a prize herself, but the defendant (who wasn't too bad looking) really downgraded with that toothless maid of honor. Oof.

I agree that Ms. "Legally Blind" knows exaaaaactly how to game the system and what magic words to say. I'm glad JJ was onto her and only gave her the $300.

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, basiltherat said:

She pled to anger management classes because she beat up her big 'ol hubby.  She should have been suing the employer for malpractice because girl is still verrrry angry and she kept interrupting and getting louder and more strident.  Anger management did not work on her!

I was coming to post this but you beat me to it. Other thing I was found off putting was the whole attitude about expecting new employer to bend over backwards and jump through hoops to accommodate her. Sounds like she set own schedule, expected to pick up and leave in middle of work day and/or bring kid to work, etc. Did I understand her to say she wanted to be paid because she had calls forwarded to her cell while out of office taking care of her personal business? I get a true emergency to take a child to ER - that could happen to any parent, but as an employer I'd want proof there was really an medical emergency  - especially as she left in middle of previous day because of an 'emergency' Social Security appointment. And does Walmart customer service really count as experience for an administrative assistant?

Edited October 11, 2019 by SRTouch

[DoctorK]

6 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

does Walmart customer service really count as experience for an administrative assistant?

Not in any real world.

[edie3]

5 hours ago, SandyToes said:

I completely agree.  Lovely young woman, who probably has a lot to offer, but maybe a little growing up to do. Hopefully.

Why would she?

[Florinaldo]

10 hours ago, edie3 said:

Why would she?

Because she is an immature chidlish entitled brat who thinks her disability gives her license to bully people and bend the rules to get waht she wants.

[funky-rat]

I have a friend who is legally blind, but it's only in one eye, so with glasses AND contacts, she can see halfway decent.  But is still legally blind.  So maybe it's something like that.

[AZChristian]

I found it interesting to see the look on JJ's face while she was watching the "blind" plaintiff scroll through her phone and shuffle through her paperwork.  Felt like JJ made up her mind right then and there.

She always says, "If you lie to me once, I won't believe anything you say."  

I always love when a shyster gets shafted.

[KittyMom4]

On 10/2/2019 at 4:06 PM, Byrd is the Word said:

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. 

On 10/1/2019 at 10:24 PM, 7EasyPayments said:

Uh, they seemed like they deserved each other. 

Something about her was 'off'. 

Sorry, I've been catching up after being on vacay!  These two people definitely deserved each other. She reminded me of a woman I, regretfully, sat next to at a bar one time. She was drunk and bitter about a divorce and ranted about it for quite a while, until the bartender cut her off anyway. There was a lot of that anger in the Plaintiff, something was off. And he seemed like psycho, she's lucky if all he did was throw out some old bikes and slash her tires. 

On 10/4/2019 at 9:34 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I have no doubt that the boy was weaving in and out of the lane as he was riding his bike.  I have seen too many cyclists do this instead of riding in a straight line and allowing the car to pass.  

I thought the same thing, especially with kids, I've seen it in my neighborhood driving home from work. Kids weaving in and out on the street, earbuds in, not a care in the world. I did think the Plaintiff was an ass for suing him though.

On 10/7/2019 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother Abandons Children for 6 Months-Plaintiff, day care provider suing defendant for defendant leaving her two children at the day care for six months. 

Did you hear the halterveiw??? "God doesn't like ugly" WTF with your jacked up teeth and meth-head scrawny body. Shut it. I hope CPS takes those kids sooner than later. The Plaintiff was probably the only stable home they've known in their short lives 

On 10/7/2019 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Plaintiff gets money for mattress, but not for her injury. 

$4,000???? That's some mattress. The Defendent said it was used and since we only got to see a couple photos I wondered why JJ gave her so much but she might have known more than we were shown.

On 10/7/2019 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Cost to Change Your Mind-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of deposit on a trailer that plaintiff never moved into. 

That Plaintiff was D U M B. Glad she didn't get her money back.

On 10/8/2019 at 5:41 PM, Burning Rubber said:

Quack "holistic" "doctor" was a low  IQ dumbass and got undeserved respect from a star-struck Judge Judy.

hahahahahaha! I loved JJ questioning his schooling and him proudly (and stupidly) grinning like a dumbass discussing his 'credits'. Whatever dude. I don't think she was impressed, I felt she was just trying not to piss of any fans who may believe in that quackery. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by BexKeps

[Byrd is the Word]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Because she is an immature chidlish entitled brat who thinks her disability gives her license to bully people and bend the rules to get waht she wants.

One hundred times this. As an employer, I see red every time an hourly employee who would abandoned her post to run to the social security office or the ER (understandable & forgivable, but still problematic) then make an accusation of discrimination when she was terminated.

I’d wager that Miss Anger Management sees better than I hear. I wonder if there’s a hustle for being legally deaf. 🤔

[Byrd is the Word]

16 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Man, the hallterview in the broken up engaged couple really brought it today. Not that the plaintiff was that much of a prize herself, but the defendant (who wasn't too bad looking) really downgraded with that toothless maid of honor. Oof.

Good grief, you nailed it. The defendant looked like a bit of a serial killer with that haircut and neck button but his new girlfriend positively gross. The poster child for the dangers of poor oral hygiene  

JJ remarks often that her show isn’t Dr. Phil. Though not a fan at all of his program, I’d pay to watch that ménage a trios slug it out with Phil as the referee. 

[funky-rat]

4 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Good grief, you nailed it. The defendant looked like a bit of a serial killer with that haircut and neck button but his new girlfriend positively gross. The poster child for the dangers of poor oral hygiene  

JJ remarks often that her show isn’t Dr. Phil. Though not a fan at all of his program, I’d pay to watch that ménage a trios slug it out with Phil as the referee. 

I bumped into a guy I went to school with and just casually knew (we didn't run with the same crowd) at his job once, and he was talking to his wife on the phone while we were waiting on some paperwork, and let it slip that they  were going to the "lifestyle" club that's down the road a bit (place is always jammed on weekends) .  He immediately realized his error and asked me not to tell his boss, and I didn't.  I'm not a prude whatsoever, but I was a bit morified, and I told him that it was his perogative to patronize that place, but I would be careful, because there's always a danger that either he or his wife would realize that there was something more "spicy" out there, and it could ruin everything they had - even if they were both willing participants.  He said "duly noted", and that was the end of it.

They're no longer together.  The split happened about a year after that incident.  I still believe that it was a factor.

[Byrd is the Word]

25 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

I bumped into a guy I went to school with and just casually knew (we didn't run with the same crowd) at his job once, and he was talking to his wife on the phone while we were waiting on some paperwork, and let it slip that they  were going to the "lifestyle" club that's down the road a bit (place is always jammed on weekends) .  He immediately realized his error and asked me not to tell his boss, and I didn't.  I'm not a prude whatsoever, but I was a bit morified, and I told him that it was his perogative to patronize that place, but I would be careful, because there's always a danger that either he or his wife would realize that there was something more "spicy" out there, and it could ruin everything they had - even if they were both willing participants.  He said "duly noted", and that was the end of it.

They're no longer together.  The split happened about a year after that incident.  I still believe that it was a factor.

Certainly it’s the very, very rare human that’s comfortable sharing their mate and more rare still to find two such persons married to each other. 

[KittyMom4]

On 10/10/2019 at 9:50 AM, funky-rat said:

If it looked decent on the outside, there's probably not a lot the park ownership can do.  Ours does inspections, but only on the outside.

We have a trailer in a seasonal mobile home park, there are really nice ones  and some really old ones. We have been renovating ours for the past 3 summers due to the prior owner either not maintaining or making 'improvements' that made it worse. Anyway, our park owner/manager insists that it be maintained on the outside to certain standards, whatever you do inside is your business but the minimum that one has sold in our park is $3,500, and this year 2 of them sold for $12,000. Some of these trailers are nicer than most homes. 

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Wedding Dress Payback-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for mortgage payments, and household payments, and her wedding dress.    Plaintiff borrowed $5,000 from defendant, that was equity in the house.       Defendant is suing her for down payment on the house.    They were shacked up for six years.    JJ says plaintiff is $5,000 ahead financially.   Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant counter claim out also.  (Hallterview, plaintiff says her witness in case today was her former maid of honor, who was doing the horizontal mambo with the defendant, apparently some kind of swap party).

OMG, talk about a shocker, yikes!  All 3 of them were slimy in clothing, I don't want to imagine what the rest of them looked like....

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

I'm not a prude whatsoever, but I was a bit morified, and I told him that it was his perogative to patronize that place, but I would be careful, because there's always a danger that either he or his wife would realize that there was something more "spicy" out there, and it could ruin everything they had - even if they were both willing participants.  He said "duly noted", and that was the end of it.

Several years I worked with 2 married women who, I found out later, were in the 'lifestyle' with their husbands. Both marriages ended up falling apart and  "Susan" is now married to "Karen's" ex- husband. Karen is currently single and confided in me that she wished she'd never crossed the line. She thought at the time that it would bring some excitement and she ended up losing everything. Both women had kids with their former spouse, can't imagine what birthday parties must be like now.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Hair Salon Rip-Off-Plaintiff/salon owner (he owns the building) suing former hair salon tenant that didn't pay her rent, and claims she stole furniture also.    Defendant claims plaintiff told her she could refurbish, and keep the old salon furniture.   What kind of salon rents for $450 a month?    As usual, defendant has no proof she paid the rent.   Plaintiff says defendant paid less than half of the time.     $2200 in rent is owed by defendant.    Salon furniture is next, but since furniture was used, plaintiff gets nothing for the furniture.    Plaintiff gets $2200, not furniture.   I agree with plaintiff wife, first month late rent should have resulted in eviction. 

Cousins Go Dutch on Rent-Plaintiff allowed his cousin and her two kids to move in to his place, she never paid her $200 a month rent.  They were first going to pay alternate months, but only plaintiff paid all of the rent.  Plaintiff claims defendant took his clothes, but defendant says she returned his stuff.  Plaintiff says he put rims on her car ($440 worth), and one day they were gone, replaced by cheapies.   Case dismissed for lack of anything to care about. 

Friends' Fallout-Plaintiff suing former friend, for unpaid loan to fix up an RV.  Defendant's RV needed work, so plaintiff loaned her money,  Plaintiff has spare set of keys to RV, and defendant wants money to change the locks, not happening.  Defendant has PTSD from an accident, and wants money for harassment, not happening.    I don't think plaintiff had money awarded, but it was so boring, and an obvious money grab by defendant, that I'm not sure. 

Second-

Mean Girl Cat Fight-Plaintiff mother suing defendant mother, got into a continuing battle between their daughters, apparently the fights started in second grade.   Plaintiff claims defendant daughter assaulted her daughter, and defendant tried to run plaintiff mother over.   The two girls were in school since Pre-K to the present together (they're now 11).   It started being physical in fourth grade, and they're now in fifth grade.   The mothers' mutual law suit in fifth grade is dismissed.   After the latest fight, defendant mother claims plaintiff attempted to run over her with her vehicle.       JJ gives the mothers the learning civility at home.    Plaintiff filed for protective order, JJ says tough to defendant wanting damages for this.  This arguing between the two families have gone from school fights, to the apartment complex where they live now too.      School said defendant daughter is the bully in this case, and I believe that, I think she learned that at home.    Defendant daughter is nasty, rude, and mean, just like mommy.   Case dismissed. 

Scorned Renter Takes Revenge-Plaintiff is suing former friend for return of security deposit, lost wages, and room deposit.   Octavis Lampkin (p.) gave defendant $250 deposit for a room in a condo she was going to rent, the rental never happened, and plaintiff wants $5k back.  Defendant claims plaintiff vandalized her car.  Plaintiff gets $250 deposit back.   Defendant's witness is new roommate who saw plaintiff around defendant's car and that's when the scratches happened.   Police never showed up to take a report.  

Plaintiff gets $250 deposit back, and that's all.     $300 to defendant for car damages, mean defendant gets $50, and plaintiff gets $0.

[Byrd is the Word]

The plaintiff in the Junk Food Junkie case may be the first of his kind to show up with an actual loan contract. Nothing fancy, just some chicken scratch on the back of an envelope and it’s a slam dunk for him. Bravo kid. And did anyone else notice the the squeaky blonde defendant woman child appears to be carrying baby number 3? Evidently the men in her life are also “on again, off again”. 🙄😉 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Swindled While in Prison-Defendant was incarcerated for a year , and comes home to missing car.  Plaintiff's girlfriend sues defendant for cost of car, and repairs.   Plaintiff claims her witness sold the car to her, and defendant told him to sell car.    Defendant had borrowed $2k on title loan in car, and he assumed title company repossessed car.    Plaintiff claims she bought car worth $2200 (Blue Book price) from her witness for $500. 

Plaintiff wrecked car a week after she bought it, and car was towed.    She got it back from the tow lot with a bill of sale she forged with defendant's signature.     When defendant located car, the police got it back for him, and he also got the insurance check from the accident.   Plaintiff is suing for accident insurance check , tow fee, and what she did to maintain car.   JJ tells plaintiff that the $500 was equivalent to renting car for the two months.     Cases dismissed.   

Junk Food Junkie-Plaintiff suing former roommates for a loan for their car.    Defendant boyfriend was stay at home step dad taking care of defendant girlfriend's two kids.   The loan to defendants was $750 from plaintiff.   Plaintiff wrote an agreement for repayment, by a certain date, signed by the defendants.    Defendant case dismissed, and plaintiff gets $750. 

Second-

Golf Cart Collision-Plaintiff suing golf cart driver for hitting her car broad side.  Golf cart driver claims motorist caused the wreck. Golf cart driver pulled out into side of car, and it was all his fault.    Plaintiff came to the 4 way stop sign, made a right turn, when golf cart was coming out of a side street, ran a stop sign and hit the right side of her car.  My guess, defendant and his friends were having a liquid lunch, and were drunk when he hit her car.  Byrd boots the tottering impaired wife of defendant, and I enjoyed it (I'm mean, get over it).

Plus, security guard took incident report, and defendant admitted he ran a stop sign and hit plaintiff's car.   $2010 to plaintiff.   They should take away defendant's golf cart, and anything else he drives.  

Marriage on Drugs-Event planner/plaintiff (part time) sues for wedding expenses from defendant/current sister in law.    Defendant paid $2003, plaintiff spent $5,900 and didn't charge for her services.    JJ asks why defendant brother (brother of plaintiff, husband of defendant) doesn't pay part of the expenses, and plaintiff says her brother barely ever works.  Brother is incarcerated, and an addict.    $3000 for plaintiff. 

Pregnant Dog Attack-Plaintiff claims the defendant's pregnant dog was aggressive, because the dogs are more aggressive while pregnant (no they're not).     Plaintiff claims defendant knew his dog had a history of aggression, but didn't warn anyone, and shouldn't have brought his dog to the dog park.   Plaintiff took his Golden Retriever to the dog park, took it off leash, and the Golden went to the defendant's on leash German Shepherd, and a fight ensued.   Case dismissed, and plaintiff is an idiot.    

[AuntiePam]

56 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The plaintiff in the Junk Food Junkie case may be the first of his kind to show up with an actual loan contract. Nothing fancy, just some chicken scratch on the back of an envelope and it’s a slam dunk for him. Bravo kid. And did anyone else notice the the squeaky blonde defendant woman child appears to be carrying baby number 3? Evidently the men in her life are also “on again, off again”. 🙄😉 

That blonde is still probably trying to figure out what happened.  Her expression would make a perfect .gif for "Duh", if I knew how to do a gif. 

Did they really think JJ would fall for that text from the landlord?  "How much do you think we paid for plaintiff to live in the house?"  "Like, $820". 

She had beautiful skin though, didn't she?

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Junk Food Junkie-

Another day, another legally-blind plaintiff, but this one more believable as being really disabled and a thousand times more well-behaved. He even had them sign a loan agreement. His only fault was responding "Yep" once or twice, for which he was promptly  corrected by JJ. I do not understand why she did not do the same with the female defandant and her curt "yea'! ".

Defendants were tiresome with their "are you talking to me?" routine when JJ was asking them questions. They were so obviously trying to take advantage of the plaintiff.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Golf Cart Collision-

I remembered that belligerent harridan of a wife, trying to argue that a stop sign one block away had any relevance to the case. They did give off vibes of a couple who likes to tipple, together or separately.

The husband tried the "she came out of nowhere" defense, which I despise. It usually means the litigants did not see her because they were not paying attention or did not look carefully enough at incoming traffic, inching out to take into account possible visual obstructions.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Byrd is the Word]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

The husband tried the "she came out of nowhere" defense, which I despise.

So true. Unless there truly is time travel, virtually nobody comes out of nowhere. What these people don’t realize is what they are saying in fact is “I wasn’t paying attention and I didn’t see the (blank) until it was too late”.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

wife, trying to argue that a stop sign one block away had any relevance to the case.

Don’t we all hear this a lot in real life all the time? I have a brother with an anger issue who will tell me the events of a conflict he’s recently experienced. It could be a cop or it could be a driver in a parking lot. He’ll include a bunch of irrelevant and maybe untrue details that bolster his case and omit, what I’m certain, is incendiary behavior on his part. In the end it all boils down to personal responsibility and the admission that we screw up or misbehave occasionally. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[SandyToes]

6 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Another day, another legally-blind plaintiff, but this one more believable as being really disabled and a thousand times more well-behaved. He even had them sign a loan agreement. His only fault was responding "Yep" once or twice, for which he was promptly  corrected by JJ. I do not understand why she did not do the same with the female defandant and her curt "yea'! ".

Didn't see it, but perhaps JJ realized this guy has a real chance in the world, so wants him to be at the top of his game in all instances.  Most likely, defendant is a lost cause, and JJ knows it. 

Sounds like a good ep. Sorry to have missed it. 

[khyber]

21 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

That blonde is still probably trying to figure out what happened.  Her expression would make a perfect .gif for "Duh", if I knew how to do a gif. 

Did they really think JJ would fall for that text from the landlord?  "How much do you think we paid for plaintiff to live in the house?"  "Like, $820". 

She had beautiful skin though, didn't she?

My in-laws lived in the next town over from these 3 mensa rejects. The place is lousy with dumb, poorly educated kids just like them.

[KittyMom4]

On 10/12/2019 at 9:33 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

Don’t we all hear this a lot in real life all the time? I have a brother with an anger issue who will tell me the events of a conflict he’s recently experienced. It could be a cop or it could be a driver in a parking lot. He’ll include a bunch of irrelevant and maybe untrue details that bolster his case and omit, what I’m certain, is incendiary behavior on his part. In the end it all boils down to personal responsibility and the admission that we screw up or misbehave occasionally. 

Do we have the same bro??? He's had 3 DUI's, here are his arguments against why he shouldn't have gotten them:

First DUI:  He had just chewed a piece of gum, that's why he blew over the limit.

2nd DUI:  His power steering was bad, that's why he was swerving, he had an appointment at the garage the next day but the Sheriff wouldn't listen.

3rd DUI: Technically he still had 2 tail lights, since the one above the rear window should count, and besides, he was in his driveway by the time the Sheriff turned on his lights. I guess it's like playing tag, when you're in your driveway you're 'home safe'. Good god. 

There are many other stories where my bro deflects any blame starting in our childhood when he smashed a laundry basket over my head because I wouldn't give him the TV remote, I could write a book. People like my bro, your bro and the drunk golf cart driver and his wife always expect to be let off because they're special...in their own heads. 

[funky-rat]

My BIL was like that, up to about his late 20's/early 30's.  And my MIL believed every thing he said.  When he was a pretty hard drug user, we think he might have been selling himself for drugs, and we also think he might have been dealing at one time.  He got jumped in an alley one night - no where near where he was living, and no place he logically should have been, unless one of those two scenarios was at work.  His jaw was broken and he had to have it wired shut for a few weeks.  My husband looked at him when no one else was there and said "Drug deal or transaction gone wrong?".  He just stared blankly back.  But he told my MIL that some guy grabbed him and said "You WILL deal drugs for me" and when he said no, they beat him and left him for dead.  He claimed he didn't know this guy.  She believed him.  No one else did.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2015-

First-(2015)

Retirement Payday Fail-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan to pay his mortgage.   Plaintiff gave defendant three cashier's checks adding up to $5k, instead of a checking account check (she thought it would work better, wrong idea).    The litigants were living in defendant's house, paid no rent,    Defendant was unemployed for a while, but still supported plaintiff, and supported her during and after her trip to rehab.   Plaintiff claims she sent keys and rings back to defendant, but defendant claims he didn't receive rings back.   $5k to plaintiff.   

Teen Drives Into Wall-Plaintiff suing cousin and her brother, for damage to her bedroom wall, after defendant borrowed his sister's car, and drove it through the plaintiff's bedroom wall.      Plaintiff's son was implicated by the defendant driver, but he denies ever driving a car, and says plaintiff doesn't even own a car.    Plaintiff son was going to sneak out to meet defendant driver, to go to a party, and that's when the defendant driver hit the house wall.  Defendant driver still only has a learner's permit, and his cousin is surprised that her insurance didn't pay for the damages from an uninsured, unlicensed driver.     JJ thinks plaintiff son was driving, but either way unlicensed person hit the house. 

$1600 to fix the wall, and plaintiff gets that.  

Second-

Puppy Choking on Chicken Bone Drama-(I hate these pet owners, too bad they kept the poor puppy).  Plaintiff suing rotten neighbors for vet bills, after she took their puppy to the vet to get a chicken bone removed from it's throat, after defendants left it outside to die. 

I can't watch this again, the plaintiff gets the money for vet bills, and the defendants keep the poor puppy.   

[Byrd is the Word]

The sibling vs sibling case was absolutely shameful and pathetic. Plus, you don’t need the wisdom of Salomon to figure out who’s the problem when 3 siblings stand against 1.  

Edited October 15, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[littlebennysmom]

2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

The sibling vs sibling case was absolutely shameful and pathetic. Plus, you don’t need the wisdom of Salomon to figure out who’s the problem when 3 siblings stand against 1.  

That wall eyed plaintiff was really something.  What a piece of crap.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Elder Abuse and Kidnapping-Plaintiff son charged into a church service screaming that plaintiff sister kidnapped his mother, and also claims his sister stole $50,000 from her.   Plaintiff is suing for a false restraining order, harassment, and a bunch of other junk.    Another brother is witness for defendant sister.   Mother is living alone with the help of the daughter, and has a restraining order against plaintiff son.  (I automatically put plaintiff son in the nutso category, for the giant pile of paperwork, and post-it indexing).     Plaintiff brother's case dismissed.   

Defendant sister has a counter claim against plaintiff brother, for false allegations against her for elder abuse.      Brother had quit claim from parents to get deed to the house, in 2008.   When house was sold brother got most of the money, a third went to mother, and the siblings (except Daniel) didn't get any money but their names were also on the deed.   Defendant's case dismissed also.   

Plaintiff did go to the family church, and came into the service screaming sister kidnapped his mother, and stole from her.  There is a recording of the man screaming allegations, and the police being called.    I fear for the sister's safety, the plaintiff is totally fixated on her, and will never stop.      Cases dismissed.   (with plaintiffs like this, I'm very glad for Byrd's presence in court, and a couple of extra security people standing by). 

Second (Rerun)-

Bleachtastic Break-Up-Plaintiff suing defendant ex-girlfriend,  for false police report (he was detained for about 10 minutes, and released), and bleaching his clothes    Defendant claims plaintiff poured bleach in her face, and on her clothes, while she was behind him, which is against the law of physics.        Defendant claims he had her in a headlock, but she was behind him, so that's total garbage.   Defendant claims plaintiff poured bleach around, all over both litigants, then claims plaintiff poured bleach on her face, down her throat, and on her clothes.     Plaintiff claims defendant was swinging a machete too.     

Plaintiff claims that defendant wanted him to make her hot chocolate, and he didn't make stuff fast enough for her, and told him to leave.    He started packing, and called a friend for a ride, then she attacked him, and lied to the police.  Police reports says both litigants were treated for bleach exposure.    Defendant claims she had third degree burns to her eyes (more garbage).    Plaintiff gets money, defendant gets nothing. 

Auburn Football Lights It Up-Plaintiff suing hair dresser for chemical burns to scalp, and was treated at urgent care the next day.    Plaintiff claims perm/relaxer bleach was on her scalp, under the dryer for almost three hours.    Hairdresser neutralized solution, and claims nothing was her fault.    Defendant claims plaintiff came in to the salon several days earlier, than plaintiff says.       $3k for plaintiff.      (I wonder if the timeline was what the defendant says, and the plaintiff had her perm, and then went home and tried to dye it right after?   My understanding is that this can cause all kinds of issues.) (The Auburn-Alabama game the Saturday after Thanksgiving is pretty much a holiday through out the South.    A rabid fan wouldn't watch it while they're working the way plaintiff said the hair dresser was).   I think the hairdresser was correct, and the woman and the husband came to the salon days earlier, and then plaintiff did something to her hair that caused the burns.   Someone in serious pain from perming, etc. isn't going to wait two days to go back to the salon, and urgent care).   

Edited October 15, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

Brother in the elder abuse case is definitely nutso, and proved it.  He also needs to consult our previous day's anger management class!

[Byrd is the Word]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I wonder if the timeline was what the defendant says, and the plaintiff had her perm, and then went home and tried to dye it right after?   My understanding is that this can cause all kinds of issues.)

I had a similar feeling about this case.  It makes sense that the defendant was at fault, but there was something about the plaintiff and her husband that was way, way off.  The addition to the football game detail seemed a bit contrived.  I know it's a huge game in Alabama, but is it really likely that game is playing on the TV in salon that caters to old women?  And the defendant seemed both truthful and competent some how.

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims that defendant wanted him to make her hot chocolate, and he didn't make stuff fast enough for her, and told him to leave.    He started packing, and called a friend for a ride, then she attacked him, and lied to the police.  Police reports says both litigants were treated for bleach exposure.    Defendant claims she had third degree burns to her eyes (more garbage).    Plaintiff gets money, defendant gets nothing.

I agree with JJ's logic on this.  Men are guilty of lots of stupid, violent behavior but using bleach to intentionally destroy clothing is not something one of us is likely to do.  Accidentally destroying them with bleach is another matter.  That's why Mrs. BITW now hides the Clorox. 😐

Edited October 15, 2019 by Byrd is the Word

[funky-rat]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Auburn Football Lights It Up-Plaintiff suing hair dresser for chemical burns to scalp, and was treated at urgent care the next day.    Plaintiff claims perm/relaxer bleach was on her scalp, under the dryer for almost three hours.    Hairdresser neutralized solution, and claims nothing was her fault.    Defendant claims plaintiff came in to the salon several days earlier, than plaintiff says.       $3k for plaintiff.      (I wonder if the timeline was what the defendant says, and the plaintiff had her perm, and then went home and tried to dye it right after?   My understanding is that this can cause all kinds of issues.)

I remember this one, and thinking the Plaintiff did just that, and yes, that will ruin hair.  Late 80's/early 90's, I had a huge mane of mall hair.  It was glorious.  I also used to do higlights.  I did Sun-In once, and took a curling iron to it, and it got wicked with the effect, but my stylist read me the riot act.  BUT.....he told me about this new technique that he went to New York to get certified in and it was totally safe.  It would take about 4 hours to per my hair.  It was long and thick.  Then, while it was still wet after washing the solution out, he'd color it, using something called Sun Glitz.  It was all kinds of weird colors (green, blue, etc) and I looked like a beach ball after he pulled all of my hair through a cap, but the results were nice.  I would be at the salon pretty much all day, and back then, it would easily be $150 or more. 

After a couple of treatments, my hair started to fish hook.  He told me it was normal and he'd trim it off.  It got to the point where I couldn't comb it anymore.  The underside was so knotted and matted that it would be knotting back up as soon as I would brush it.  It was horrible.  He would tell me it was OK - that sometimes happens, and it would just give me good volume (yeah, I know, but I trusted this guy who was trained in name brand salons and certified, etc).  Then he would spend an hour brushing it out, only for it to knot back up.

Eventually, he left to go to another area - a larger city.  My mom followed him there - she'd drive over an hour each way for him to do her hair.  I opted not to - it was too much hassle.  I went to get a top perm before my wedding, as the top wasn't holding on like it used to.  The place I went said my hair was badly damaged, and they tested my hair in perm solution - it essentially melted.  They recommended I let it grow out as much as I could and get it checked again before I got married.  I found someone to give it a minor perm, and then decided to let it grow out.  I went to another salon, and the underside was so bad that they said my best course of action was to cut it all off.  All....of....it....and start over.  I've had short hair ever since.  Chatting with the stylist who cut it off, she was shocked that he would perm, then directly color it, and that Sun Glitz was extremely harsh just on it's own.

I'm not one of those people who says that one perm eons ago ruined their hair, but overprocessing definitely ruined mine.  It's been extremely fine since then, and the top has continued to thin out.  Depressing.  I'm extremely fussy about any processing I get anymore.

Edited October 15, 2019 by funky-rat

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably from 2015 or 2016-

First-

Nervy Squatter Lawsuit-Plaintiff was renting condo from owner, overstayed lease, and was served a three day notice to quit in June, and left the end of August.    Plaintiff was shorting or not paying rent.   Defendant was a roommate of squatter plaintiff.   Plaintiff wants rent from roommate, lock fees, and attorneys fee.    (Note to plaintiff, if you're eyes don't even open, then your fake eyelashes are way too big, and heavy).  JJ calls landlord to see if plaintiff ever caught up on the rent,     Defendant was locked out in June, back in condo in August, and moved out the end of August.   Plaintiff wants July rent from defendant, but plaintiff had locked her out.    Defendant had possessions in the condo in August, but didn't live there (after police called by plaintiff twice, claiming defendant was a burglar).   Defendant had to get a restraining order to move  back in August (JJ says no rent owed from defendant).  Nothing for plaintiff, or defendant. 

Well-Behaved Courtroom Dog-Plaintiff suing defendant for her dog attacking plaintiff's dog.   Plaintiff says defendant was outside the non-leash area, with her dogs off leash, outside the fenced/gated dog park. .   Defendant has a Husky, and Chihuahua, and Husky attacked plaintiff's dog.  The plaintiff's adorable dog is maybe 10 pounds or so, and is totally quiet in court.    Defendant's stupid story is that plaintiff was going to kick her Husky, and that made her dog defensive, and she claims there was no attack.      Tiny plaintiff's dog wakes up when JJ yells at defendant, and is still totally quiet.    Defendant lies about her dogs being in the dog park, then went outside (supposedly gate to dog park was broken), and then came in dog park, and attack was all plaintiff's fault.    Injury photos are very bad, I'm surprised the little dog lived.    $865 for plaintiff.

Second-

Father Shields Negligent Teenager-Plaintiff suing 17 year old driver, and his father for automobile damage from teen hitting her car.    Plaintiff was turning left off of highway, and teen pulled out from stop sign, and hit entire driver's side of plaintiff's car.  Both cars were insured, and everyone had a license.     Father of teen arrived at accident scene, and asked plaintiff to not call police, and said he would pay for damage.     Then when defendant's father refused to pay for car damage, lied to his insurance company about the accident, so his insurance rates wouldn't go up.   Teen driver also stands up at the display board and lies about the accident too.    After this the car was rear ended, and car was totaled, but it was a reduced amount because of previous accident damage.    JJ awards nothing, because woman received more money that car was worth.  

Shouting Out Not Allowed-Plaintiff suing ex roommate for theft of his property.   The two litigants were just roommates, matched up to rent house by realtor who rented the house.   Defendant locked plaintiff out of the house, and he couldn't retrieve his property.    Only defendant signed the lease with the realtor.   Plaintiff claims he was never served with counter claim by defendant, so she had to refile in their location.    Defendant received a TRO, and plaintiff couldn't go back into the residence.       

JJ is right, defendant should live alone.    Defendant saying how scared she was of wimpy plaintiff is so unbelievable.     Defendant says man only left trash behind, and she disposed of it all.   $0 for plaintiff.  (Plaintiff won't shut up, and gets his case dismissed, after he says defendant is a meth user).  If he kept his mouth shut, he would have been paid, but too bad. 

[Byrd is the Word]

@funky-rat one of the best things about being a dude is that the difference between a good haircut and a bad haircut is three weeks max. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

I Wouldn't Let You Take Care of a Goldfish-Plaintiffs suing former caretaker for father for  unpaid loans, and attorney fees.  Defendant can't even remember when she worked for the plaintiffs, and took care of the father.    Defendant claims she worked from either only three months or a year, she's not sure of anything.    Defendant's claim is she worked $8,500 her last month.   Plaintiff actually worked for about 9 months, they loaned her $3500 for a car, and a month later she quit, and never repaid anything.     $3700 to plaintiffs for car loan, plus attorney fees.

The Gift of a Hair Cut and Bed Bugs-Plaintiff let defendant rent her rental house (3 bed/ 1/1/2 bath, 2 doors down from plaintiff's actual residence).      Plaintiff filed for damages, the same day she filed for eviction.     Did defendant get notice since she moved out on Sunday, law suit was filed on Tuesday, case was filmed on Wednesday?  Counter claim didn't serve notice either, so JJ just will look at two months unpaid rent only.   Bed bug claim by plaintiff is out also.   I wonder if defendant's current landlord, or host knows about the bed bugs?   JJ dismisses the damages, and other allegations, except rent, to go back to local court.  $700 to plaintiff, everything else goes back to local court in Missouri.  

Second (Rerun)-

Don't Mix Business With Pleasure-Plaintiff made miscellaneous loans to defendant/co-worker/ex-boyfriend, for work related items for business trip expenses (food, gas, lodging).  Defendant has a lot of excuses, but plaintiff has a text from him stating he owes her $900, plus a further loan, and claims he has proof he paid her back $230, leaving $810 owning to plaintiff.  nothing to loser defendant.  

Identity Theft Between Cousins-Plaintiff wants money for plane ticket, something about hair, stolen clothes, and then the fireworks start in court with defendant cousin.   Defendant suing for identity theft.   Defendant claims plaintiff was pulled over in her car, while defendant was in Jamaica, and she was later notified that she received a ticket, but alleges it was the plaintiff driving, and used her name.   Everything dismissed, it was just a money grab by at least the defendant.    

Edited October 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Byrd is the Word]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff actually worked for about 9 months, they loaned her $3500 for a car, and a month later she quit, and never repaid anything.     $3700 to plaintiffs for car loan, plus attorney fees.

It occurred to me that the confusion the defendant demonstrated could be due to the stroke she suffered. This case also struck me as one that probably could have and should have been worked out without a judge’s intervention. The defendant was hired to care for the plaintiff’s father and by all accounts she was good at it and cared very much for him. Now he’s without a quality caregiver and the plaintiffs won a battle and maybe lost a war.  

[funky-rat]

16 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

@funky-rat one of the best things about being a dude is that the difference between a good haircut and a bad haircut is three weeks max. 

Another reason I keep my hair fairly short.  I've gotten some BAD haricuts.  Especially recently.  If you have thinning hair on top, people just don't know how to handle it - how to cut it so it lays better, and draws the eye to areas where the hair is more plentiful.  So many stylists now just want me to tell them how to cut my hair.  If I knew that, I'd be a stylist myself.  I just want to wash and go.  No fuss.  No product needed.   Just a simple cut.  Used to be you got a good cut, and a good stylist could follow what the other one did.  That's now hard to find too.  I did find someone I liked, but she's 2 hours away (we were in the area for a show and weekend getaway, and I desperately needed a haircut).  I now make appointments and drive to her.  Sad, but it's what I have to do because no one can replicate what she does.

1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

It occurred to me that the confusion the defendant demonstrated could be due to the stroke she suffered. This case also struck me as one that probably could have and should have been worked out without a judge’s intervention. The defendant was hired to care for the plaintiff’s father and by all accounts she was good at it and cared very much for him. Now he’s without a quality caregiver and the plaintiffs won a battle and maybe lost a war.  

THIS.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. reruns, probably 2015 or so-

First-

Thanksgiving Day Breakdown-Long term partners split up romantically, and become roommates.  Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid rent.   They broke up in November 2015, and became roommates, and defendant never paid the rent or utilities, until she moved out in June 2016.   Defendant gives JJ some carbon copies of checks, but doesn't have actual proof of any payments $2250 to plaintiff.

Sun Roof Strife-Plaintiff is suing defendant for sun roof damage.   Plaintiff needed a place to stay, and her two children, and paid no rent, but they were all living with a friend who was paying the rent for everyone.       Defendant says plaintiff was delivering pizza, and defendant was baby sitting plaintiff's baby in the car.    Defendant also borrowed plaintiff's car to drop of plaintiff's kid at school, and then said she dropped an ink pen in the sun roof track, and the sun roof broke.   After the broken sun roof they all lived together for almost a year, then the court case was filed.   Defendant says they were all doing a police report, and that's when she dropped the pen.  Plaintiff says there was no accident, and no police report.   Plaintiff receives $580.58. 

Second-

Break-Up Fit of Rage-Plaintiff and ex-girlfriend lived together for about a year, and plaintiff loaned girlfriend money to buy a car ($1000).     He can forget the car loan, that wasn't a loan at all.   After she smashed his car window, he bonded her out of jail, and they still kept living together.    Case dismissed.     

No Backsies-Plaintiffs were roommates with defendant.   They told defendant to leave and find her own apartment, defendant did that, and now plaintiffs want back rent.    Defendant did exactly what the coven of roommates told her to do, so she owes nothing.     

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Mother's Day Drug Use-Plaintiff took defendant high school age girl into her home for over a year, never charged her rent.   Plaintiff is suing for unpaid rent, and damages.  As JJ says, No good deed goes unpunished, and Never take in someone who has been kicked out by their parents.   Defendant lived rent free while she was in high school, when she graduated she paid nothing, including rent to the defendant.   Room was trashed around Mother's Day, and defendant is blaming the plaintiff's son.  Plaintiff wants room damages, and four months rent.  Plaintiff has photos of the ruined mattress,  $972 for plaintiff.  

Fight Over Funeral-Plaintiff suing brother's widow (his wife of two years or five years, and his only marriage).  Defendant is counter suing for a family heirloom's return.   Funeral costs $4131, and defendant borrowed it from plaintiff.   Defendant received a $7700 final expense insurance proceeds, but didn't pay plaintiff/brother in law back.   Apparently, plaintiff bought the giant, butt ugly broach, and he paid the late husband $500 for it.   I don't like the defendant, and think she's trying to stick the plaintiff with the funeral costs, and thought he would never take her to court for them.   She also is not getting the ugly broach back, because plaintiff bought it fair and square, and her story about giving it to plaintiff for safekeeping is garbage.     Defendant's daughter is a loon.    $4131 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.  

Second (Rerun)-

$25 a Week Doesn't Feed a Gerbil-Plaintiff  (married 2005-2010, and have two kids) suing ex-husband for his share of a Dodge Durango that was in both of their names.     Ex husband filed for bankruptcy, claims Durango was sold three years before the divorce.   Deadbeat defendant paid $25 a week total for child support for two kids.   He now lives with a girlfriend and her son.   The second man divorced he only gets minimum wage, or jobs that pay mostly unreported tips.    Man filed for bankruptcy, right after the divorce.  and claims that neutralized his debt for the Durango to his ex-wife.  (Defendant has to put out on national TV that the wife was cheating on him, and I think any smart woman would have cheated on him, or never let him near her either).     Car company came after plaintiff, and garnished her wages for the Durango, and since deadbeat defendant didn't have a pay check.    Defendant told plaintiff to file for bankruptcy, and she told him to stuff that idea.   Money to plaintiff for car loan.  

Polyamorous Relationship Fail-Plaintiff is suing her former romantic partners, for a loan, stalking, harassment,  property, and clothes she left at their mutual love pad, after they broke up.    Defendant man and woman alternated living in their own homes, and plaintiff would visit them for relationship purposes.  (I bet Byrd put down the crossword puzzle this time).    What a sordid tale.    Both women claim the other woman assaulted them, no police reports, or medical reports.  $1850 to plaintiff for car loan, defendant's case dismissed.  

[AuntiePam]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Mother's Day Drug Use-Plaintiff took defendant high school age girl into her home for over a year, never charged her rent.   Plaintiff is suing for unpaid rent, and damages.  As JJ says, No good deed goes unpunished, and Never take in someone who has been kicked out by their parents.   Defendant lived rent free while she was in high school, when she graduated she paid nothing, including rent to the defendant.   Room was trashed around Mother's Day, and defendant is blaming the plaintiff's son.  Plaintiff wants room damages, and four months rent.  Plaintiff has photos of the ruined mattress,  $972 for plaintiff.  

Fight Over Funeral-Plaintiff suing brother's widow (his wife of two years or five years, and his only marriage).  Defendant is counter suing for a family heirloom's return.   Funeral costs $4131, and defendant borrowed it from plaintiff.   Defendant received a $7700 final expense insurance proceeds, but didn't pay plaintiff/brother in law back.   Apparently, plaintiff bought the giant, butt ugly broach, and he paid the late husband $500 for it.   I don't like the defendant, and think she's trying to stick the plaintiff with the funeral costs, and thought he would never take her to court for them.   She also is not getting the ugly broach back, because plaintiff bought it fair and square, and her story about giving it to plaintiff for safekeeping is garbage.     Defendant's daughter is a loon.    $4131 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant. 

Not just a loon, but very antsy and jittery.  My guess is that she's the reason that the heirloom was taken to the brother's house.  JJ asks who would steal from them, and she responded "Friends".  So yeah. 

[KittyMom4]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

She also is not getting the ugly broach back, because plaintiff bought it fair and square, and her story about giving it to plaintiff for safekeeping is garbage.     Defendant's daughter is a loon.

That 'brooch' looked like something from the clearance bin at Spencer's Gifts after halloween! OMG was it ever ugly. Melting it for the precious metal it was made from would be the only thing I'd want from it. 

14 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Not just a loon, but very antsy and jittery. 

Yea, my thought, if the 'safekeeping' story was true, was that the daughter had some sticky, meth tinged fingers.....

[funky-rat]

23 minutes ago, BexKeps said:

Yea, my thought, if the 'safekeeping' story was true, was that the daughter had some sticky, meth tinged fingers.....

The brother said his late brother said the wife would try to sell it and wanted some loan for $500 in exchange for the broach - just weird.  The Widow's hands were a very unnatural color.  I thought maybe spray tan, but she didn't appear to be tanned on the rest of her.  The defendant and her daughter seemed sketchy.  I wondered if the deceased knew he was ill, and didn't make it widely known.  A family friend who had been married several times over the years (some divorces, some widowed) married a guy who had never been married before, and he was in his late 50's/early 60's.  We thought it was odd, but what we didn't know is that he was ill.  He wanted someone to help care for him, and she wanted financial stability.  When he died about 8 years later, he left everything to her.  No one else knew he was ill until he couldn't hide it anymore.  We didn't know that they knew well in advance until he had passed away.  But the family friend didn't stick it to anyone for his expenses, etc.

[khyber]

Its pretty common to have to front the money for death expenses since you can't apply for the insurance payout until you have the death certificate, which can take a couple of weeks. It was stupid of her to not pay it back.  I agree with everyone that the daughter & her friends are probably druggies who would steal anything they could sell.  What about the age difference? It seemed like the widow was way older than the dead guy, or was it just a hard life?

[funky-rat]

11 minutes ago, khyber said:

 What about the age difference? It seemed like the widow was way older than the dead guy, or was it just a hard life?

I thought she was late 50's/early 60's with a hard life.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 p.m. episodes, both probably from 2015-2016-

First-

Tree Huggers v. Tree Choppers-Plantiff suing trailer park neighbor with mutual property line for the survey costs.    Plaintiff did survey she said defendant's fence was on her property.    Fence was encroaching, and it was taken down, and another fence defendant build was encroaching on plaintiff's property again, and it impacted the plaintiff's fence posts.    THey also cut the plaintiff's cable (someone should be shot for that, I've had repeated cable cut issues from new builds, and it's freaking infuriating).     No one is getting survey costs.   

Sorry JJ, you don't put your fence on my property, not even an inch, or on the joint property line.    Defendant got HOA permission to trim her trees, but buttinsky plaintiff told neighbors to leave the trees alone, and actually stood in the way of the tree cutters.   So defendant's company could only cut half of the trees, and they were all on defendant's property.     Cases dismissed.   

Mistaken Trailer Identity-Plaintiff  is suing defendant for stealing his utility trailer (a flat open trailer).     Trailer was stolen in August, plaintiff has police report.   

In October, defendant's employee was at a stop light, and plaintiff signaled him to pull over, and they stopped at a gas station.    Plaintiff accused defendant employee of having his stolen his trailer.      Police were called, and trailer was confiscated, pending clarification of ownership.    Defendant claims trailer was bought in 2012.   Plaintiff claims his trailer was homemade, not the manufactured trailer the defendant owns.    Police confirmed the VIN number and license plate were correct with defendant's paperwork, and police released the trailer to defendant.    My guess is plaintiff will never give up calling defendant is a thief, and the hallterview interview with plaintiff reinforces that idea, he will never quit.  Case dismissed. 

Second-

Car Dumped on Ex-Wife-Plaintiff was married seven months to defendant, they bought a joint car, and divorced.   He didn't want Ford Escape longer, with twelve payments pending.  He put the keys in her mailbox, and left SUV at her house, and left.      Plaintiff put $800 down, and a month later he took the SUV, kept it for three years, making payments, and then dumped it at plaintiff's house.     Defendant sold car to Car Max, and still owed $1547 on loan, and plaintiff gets $1547.  This should have all been decided in divorce court.  Then defendant goes far stage left (our right).  

Judge Judy Calling-Plaintiff suing money she paid for Jeep Grand Cherokee, defendant had the title, and donated the car (or so he claims).    Defendant is count suing for tickets and impound fees, and claims he donated the SUV to a family, or as JJ says he gave it away.  JJ sends Byrd over to make sure defendant only gets her the phone number, and she goes to her office to call the man.    Mr. Cornell (new owner of car) bought car for $500.   Defendant says plaintiff never had SUV registered to her, kept getting tickets, and car was impounded.   Plaintiff says she didn't register car in her name, because she didn't have the title.  Defendant received $1,000 from plaintiff, and $500 from the current owner, and since plaintiff drove car for seven months, she gets nothing.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Irreplaceable Violin Victim-Plaintiff/professional violin teacher, and performer, was in band with defendant, and claims he destroyed her violin.     She has already been paid over $9,000+ by the insurance company, hasn't actually replaced the violin, and still wants $3500.    She has a letter claiming a replacement by the same maker would be $15k plus.   JJ dismisses case without prejudice to go back to Pennsylvania where she can have the appraiser in court.    Plaintiff claims defendant was drunk, but he says he had a medical emergency, confirmed by physicians.  

Ex-In-Laws' Exit-Plaintiff sing former sister in law, and brother in law (he was married to defendant's sister, she's defendants witness).    There are two separate loans to in-laws after ex-wife and plaintiff separated, for an electric bill to help defendant's grandparents, $1500 (she repaid $300), and motorcycle loan was to ex-brother in law.     Plaintiff's witness is current girlfriend (aren't they always).    Motorcycle loan was for $2000, and can prove he repaid $150. Plaintiff receives 3,050

Dog in a Tutu-Plaintiff with dog in tutu, and defendant (brother's fiance) are fighting over a cute little dog.   Dog had to go to vet for overdose on Cocaine, THC, and Meth left around the defendant's house.   

Plaintiff took care of dog for almost a year, after defendant became homeless, and is still unsure of her future plans.     Plaintiff says in the beginning the dog had a lot of health problems that were the defendant's fault.   Defendant says the dog didn't get the drugs in her home, but plaintiff says differently.    Defendant and her fiance (plaintiff's brother) don't seem to be capable of staying awake in court.    Plaintiff picked the dog up, with two police officers assisting, and took dog to emergency vet for a drug overdose.   (I wonder if dog's hefty vet bills included detox?   I bet they did).  Plaintiff gets the dog, and vet bills. 

Second (Rerun)-

Horse Killed While Fleeing Hungry Bear-Plaintiff driver and her mother, are suing defendant for damage from defendant's horse damaging the car, and killing the horse.     Defendant claims her horse broke through the fence when being chased by a bear.   However, plaintiff mother claims horse was often on the road, and there are police reports supporting that.    Plaintiff charges dismissed for unlicensed driver stoned daughter, for unclean hands.        Plaintiff daughter is obviously impaired in court, as JJ says after she boots daughter.      Defendant says unlicensed driver was impaired, and is obviously drunk or high in court.   There is proof that the daughter has three DUI convictions already, and lives alone with a 7 and 11 year old children.     Defendant has proof of license revoked citation, and claims plaintiff daughter saw many animals on the road (there was actually only the one horse), and has driven without a license with her defenseless children in the car.   

Cases dismissed.  

Bad Barter Deal-Plaintiffs suing former tenant for rent, water bill, lock changing and cleaning fees.     Defendant and plaintiffs agreed that defendant would do work on the house.   Defendant claims he moved out in September, and plaintiff claims he left many possession behind in the house, and the house is trashed.  JJ says she would have trashed the man's stuff, and defendant claims he'll come and get his stuff.     Plaintiffs get $250, because they have no proof of how much clean up would cost. 

Empty Pockets in Australia-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid loan while they were on a trip to Australia.     Defendant ran out of money, and borrowed money from plaintiff, $800.  As usual, defendant says it was a gift, and plaintiff says it was a loan.   $800 for plaintiff.  

Edited October 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama