All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[bad things are bad]

16 hours ago, VartanFan said:

I think the mom was probably at work all the time and the kid just did whatever she wanted growing up and she's believed all of her sociopathic lies.  

I think Mom looked beaten down, like that kid has put her through hell over the years. But she's not helping by enabling the little twat

[cmpbl]

I don't believe there was a baby. First of all at 8 months it's a stillborn and second of all there should have been a funeral. That girl is a hot mess.  😢

[littlebennysmom]

That freaky huge dude who punched the teeth out of the 30 years older/2 feet shorter plaintiff was godawful.  If, as he claimed, his date (not girlfriend, DATE!) was hitting on men, women, children, fire hydrants that night, you get away from that person!  Not "protect" her from a teeny old guy.

[DoctorK]

I agree about the tall dude who knocked out the plaintiff's front teeth, he was in complete denial about his inability to control his angry reaction, and he was feeling that his masculinity was being disrespected by his date (which has some truth to it) and the old guy. He is someone I would absolutely avoid in a bar.

Meanwhile, the earlier show featured one of the most annoying defendants I remember in a while, the blue haired vlogger. He was a total douche, and apparently makes part of his living by being a complete asshole. However, I was also impressed (not favorably) by his friend/witness - I couldn't figure out whether he was imitating a laughing hyena or a braying jackass. I was surprised JJ didn't have Byrd throw him out at the loud laughing when his buddy the vlogger got today's century wrong.

[littlebennysmom]

5 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I agree about the tall dude who knocked out the plaintiff's front teeth, he was in complete denial about his inability to control his angry reaction, and he was feeling that his masculinity was being disrespected by his date (which has some truth to it) and the old guy. He is someone I would absolutely avoid in a bar.

Meanwhile, the earlier show featured one of the most annoying defendants I remember in a while, the blue haired vlogger. He was a total douche, and apparently makes part of his living by being a complete asshole. However, I was also impressed (not favorably) by his friend/witness - I couldn't figure out whether he was imitating a laughing hyena or a braying jackass. I was surprised JJ didn't have Byrd throw him out at the loud laughing when his buddy the vlogger got today's century wrong.

Between blond horsehair wig from yesterday, 7' tall angry man, and teal pouf "vlogger" (ugh, I actually typed that twee word), JJ is upping their game on hateable weirdos.

[patty1h]

15 minutes ago, littlebennysmom said:

Between blond horsehair wig from yesterday, 7' tall angry man, and teal pouf "vlogger" (ugh, I actually typed that twee word), JJ is upping their game on hateable weirdos.

It's November, which is also the month when networks do their "sweeps".  In simple terms, sweeps are when networks roll out their prime entertainment, which will hopefully get higher ratings, which they use to get advertisers to pay higher rates for airing their commercials.   The other sweeps period is May. 

I guess the JJ team is getting the "quality" stuff on the air to get them dollars.

Edited November 5, 2019 by patty1h

[AuntiePam]

In the vlogger case, was plaintiff laughing or crying in the video?  It was hard to tell.  She did seem a bit weird, but that's no reason for Teal Tuft to do what he did.

And she really didn't bring any money with her on the date? 

[basiltherat]

I agree that the girl who went on the "date" with Modern Day(glo) Romeo had really poor judgment and could have gotten herself in a whole lot of trouble.  But permission is permission, so she won.  So all you Tindr vloggers out there, get your victim, er, date, to sign on the dotted line or you will lose a lot of money that you don't know how you make.!

This was a highly entertaining episode and a case to demonstrate why I, for one, am glad I am part of the Get Off My Lawn Generation!

[CrazyInAlabama]

(Sweeps used to be November, February, and May, and they rate shows all day long, on every network.     Shows like JJ, that aren't in Prime time hours, get rated during those periods to establish viewer numbers).

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Kidnapped and Tossed to the Road-Plaintiff claims defendant (Turquoise haired wastrel is a dance instructor, and does social media) kidnapped her during a Tinder date, then invaded her privacy by live streaming the event.  (As I've been informed by friend's kids,  Tinder is for hook ups, and not anything more than a hookup).   Defendant makes money from views of his event he live streams.   His Turquoise hair matches his tie, and makes a snotty remark about what a chore it was to go out with trolls like the plaintiff, and just said she's ugly.    Defendant witness is a giggling fool.    Plaintiff could hear text to voice insults on his phone when he was driving her around, and he refused to let her out of the car (kidnapping or false imprisonment or both).    Byrd refuses to explain vlogs to JJ, and is laughing at the stupid defendant's statements.    Defendant was streaming video of plaintiff for the entire date.     

 When plaintiff realized she was being live streamed, and wanted out of the car, said she was being kidnapped, and he refused to take her back to the car, he finally dropped her off at a gas station.     I hope the plaintiff did file police charges against him.  

If the defendant rolls his eyes at JJ one more time, I hope Byrd beats him to a pulp with the Fly Swatter of Death.   What a total jerk the defendant is.  $5,000 for plaintiff, nothing for the narcissistic idiot defendant.  (My question is why anyone would climb into a car with someone they don't even know?   This could have ended a lot worse, as in an episode on ID channel about dead bodies).   

Second (New)-

Disrespected Date Sucker Punch-Plaintiff (older slight, gentleman) suing defendant (younger, taller, and apparently violent).    Defendant went on first date with woman, (she's the plaintiff's witness) and became angry when she was talking to other people.   Defendant claims plaintiff witness/date was acting bizarrely, making approaches to others, was talking with the plaintiff, and defendant claims date was pressed against plaintiff.     I wonder how many drinks the defendant and his former date had that night?  At least they took Uber, instead of driving.  

Defendant approached plaintiff from behind, when plaintiff and witness were pressed against each other.    Defendant then walked up to plaintiff, and defendant sucker punched plaintiff in the face, and knocked out plaintiff's front teeth.  Defendant's case was dropped after he went through anger management, and kept his nose clean.      Plaintiff's other witness is an EMT, and put pressure on the wounds, and plaintiff says he saved his life.   Loser defendant claims it wasn't his fault.   $5000 to plaintiff

Fight the Power of Attorney-Plaintiff suing son's ex-girlfriend that he lived with before his incarceration, for a car.    Son was making car payment ($210 monthly, with about $5,000 left), and defendant claims man prepaid car payments.    Girlfriend/defendant didn't pay anything for the loan for the car she was driving.    Plaintiff had power of attorney, and plaintiff paid car loan up, and wanted the car.   Defendant claims the car was a gift, as usual.   Plaintiff wants money for the car payments, and the car was repossessed, and plaintiff wants payment for car battery.    Plaintiff has the car now.    Cases dismissed. 

(Tomorrow's first episode is a horrific dog attack of an Akita on a Goldendoodle, some might want to skip that case).  Fortunately, according to my cable guide, this is the only animal case this week.  

Edited November 6, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[iwasish]

Sucker punch guy was definitely way out of line, however that girl he was with was some kind of strange. The laughing and giggling while he testified... and then her story about why she was with the little guy,  “He looked like he was crying“ “I was concerned about him” “i told him to come back in with me?”  The little guy said he was nowhere near upset, just happened to be leaving and she grabbed him by the hand and started talking to him. 
I just got the impression she was fucking with her date for whatever reason. He was an asshole and maybe she was trying to get under his skin and hoping he’d get pissed and leave, was she flirting with the Uber driver too? 
No excuse for Defendants behavior, but  she wasn’t at her finest either. 

[parrotfeathers]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

In the vlogger case, was plaintiff laughing or crying in the video?  It was hard to tell.  She did seem a bit weird, but that's no reason for Teal Tuft to do what he did.

And she really didn't bring any money with her on the date? 

She was giggling.  I don't think she deserved $5,000.

I'm really astounded anyone would endanger themselves by doing something like this.

[howiveaddict]

4 hours ago, littlebennysmom said:

Between blond horsehair wig from yesterday, 7' tall angry man, and teal pouf "vlogger" (ugh, I actually typed that twee word), JJ is upping their game on hateable weirdos.

And notice all the weird ear lobe spacer things the last two days.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Byrd refuses to explain vlogs to JJ, and is laughing at the stupid defendant's statements.    Defendant was streaming video of plaintiff for the entire date.     

If the defendant rolls his eyes at JJ one more time, I hope Byrd beats him to a pulp with the Fly Swatter of Death.   What a total jerk the defendant is.  $5,000 for plaintiff, nothing for the narcissistic idiot defendant.  

Second (New)-

(Tomorrow's first episode is a horrific dog attack of an Akita on a Goldendoodle, some might want to skip that case). 

Loved JJ's Candid Camera analogy.  She also commented about Byrd cleaning his glasses today.

Thanks for the dog attack warning. A coworker's yorkie was killed by an akita, in front of her , years ago. I don't think she ever got over it.

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, parrotfeathers said:

She was giggling.  I don't think she deserved $5,000.

I really doubt that she did not understand what "vlogging on Twitch " means as she told JJ, who of course swallowed that response hook, line and sinker because she herself does not understand these things (or likes to pretend she does not).

I think she had a pretty good idea of what to expect before the date, only she did not know how much of a self-centered asshat the guy was before it was too late. She made an informed decision to go out with him and then decided to play victim, even though she was giggling during a good part of the video we saw. I believe they were both partially responsible; liability was shared, but perhaps not 50-50. And what an idiot that guy was to bring that video as evidence thinking it would exonerate him instead of showing his true character.

[funky-rat]

14 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

In the vlogger case, was plaintiff laughing or crying in the video?  It was hard to tell.  She did seem a bit weird, but that's no reason for Teal Tuft to do what he did.

And she really didn't bring any money with her on the date? 

To me, it sounded like an uncomfortable giggle - some people do giggle when they're nervous or uncomfortable, and it sound like that to me the entire time she was on the video.  She said she had money, but it was in her car.  She said she could go back to her car and get it and he started flinging insults.  My guess was that she had little to no cash on her, but had some locked up in her car.  I kind-of doubt she'd not have at least a debit or credit card on her.  She shouldn't have gotten in the car with him the minute she saw he had a selfie stick, and when he started making rude comments about her, but that doesn't mean she deserves what she got either.

12 hours ago, iwasish said:

Sucker punch guy was definitely way out of line, however that girl he was with was some kind of strange. The laughing and giggling while he testified... and then her story about why she was with the little guy,  “He looked like he was crying“ “I was concerned about him” “i told him to come back in with me?”  The little guy said he was nowhere near upset, just happened to be leaving and she grabbed him by the hand and started talking to him. 
I just got the impression she was fucking with her date for whatever reason. He was an asshole and maybe she was trying to get under his skin and hoping he’d get pissed and leave, was she flirting with the Uber driver too? 
No excuse for Defendants behavior, but  she wasn’t at her finest either. 

I would have liked to see the Plaintiff's witness pay half of it, becuase she sure as heck egged it on.  Her behavior proved that.  Imagine what she's like when she's drunk.  Yeesh....

10 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I really doubt that she did not understand what "vlogging on Twitch " means as she told JJ, who of course swallowed that response hook, line and sinker because she herself does not understand these things (or likes to pretend she does not).

Vlogging and Live Streaming are two different things, though.  Vlogging is presenting a pre-recorded video where you talk about stuff - they are likely to be edited after recording, to make a cohesive presentation.  Live Streaming is sending the video out live as it happens.  Personally, I wouldn't sign up for a date with someone who was doing either, but I'm old.  I believe her when she says he said he would be vlogging HIMSELF for his site, and she certainly didn't sign up for what in my day was called a "pig party", where popular guys would invite over girls they thought were homely/heavyset/loose, etc, sweet talk them, ply them with alcohol, and then crap all over them in any number of ways (taking photos and distributing them, trashing them at school, etc).  It was pretty clear to me that this guy gets his jollies off of that kind of thing, and I'm pretty sure he's done it before, and that's scummy as all get out.  I didn't think the P was homely or any of that, but I'm sure he saw something in her he could exploit.  Twitch is a site for gamers, and she may not have been super familar with it, and didn't think the Douchey Defendant would be on there doing what he did.

The behavior of the Disgusting Defendant, to me, supercedes anything the Plaintiff may have done wrong.  He had no right to do what he did.

[KittyMom4]

19 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

She was giggling.  I don't think she deserved $5,000.

I'm really astounded anyone would endanger themselves by doing something like this.

Speaking as someone who has used dating sites, NOT TINDER, you would be surprised how stupid people can be. I always met my 'match' at a public, non-alcoholic place (coffee shops) during daylight hours but I have a coworker who had no qualms about meeting a stranger at a bar at 9:00pm or later. 

[KittyMom4]

On 11/4/2019 at 9:50 PM, Giant Misfit said:

And not for one second do I believe her mother didn't know what the deal was. The girl was only **19**. I don't care how "independent" she claimed she was, there's no way the mother was in the dark with any of this. The girl didn't learn how to be a psycho in a vacuum. I really loved when, after she was asked who the baby in the photo belonged to, she clammed up with, "I don't talk to her anymore." This was all an evasive maneuver to avoid JJ making one of her infamous in-chamber phone calls

I think mom threw in the towel on that girl a long time ago, I've known these moms, my daughters had friends whose parents had no clue what they were up to, and did.not.care. These same parents would defend their little lying, thieving, brats to the very end too, always using the "what could I do?" defense. 

I do not think that girl was pregnant, and I pray she never becomes so. Dumbo boy should definitely be thanking his lucky stars and EXCELLENT parents that he is not attached to her for the next 18+ years. I guarantee she will make any man who does knock her up miserable for the rest of his life. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:11 AM, funky-rat said:

So I have no doubt in my mind that Great Value Elsa last night faked the whole thing. 

I'm DEAD. I was thinking more like BBK (Bargain Basement Kardashian) but GV Elsa is perfect. 

And there was definitely no baby. First of all, an unborn baby supposedly born that late would have not been a simple miscarriage - it would have been a STILLBIRTH. There would have been some kind of resuscitation or something (babies born at 25 weeks are living these days after stints in the NICU). JJ counted the months out on her fingers and it was way more than that. 

Second, if that that highlight hair heifer had actually had a baby that DIED, she would have been milking it for all it was worth - there would have been a Go Fund Me Page, she would have been trolling the baby daddy's parents for funeral costs, emotional distress, etc, etc. She didn't even seem upset to lose her faux baby. 

Sounds like the not-the-baby-mama was Munchhausen'ing that clueless guy and his nice parents.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Pomeranians and the Police-Plaintiff was walking her two Poms. on the street, leashed, and defendant's Cattle Dogs jumped out of defendant's Jeep, and her dogs attacked plaintiff's dogs.    Plaintiff claims defendant has had two previous run ins with defendant screaming at plaintiff for walking her dogs on the public street.     Plaintiff took her dog to the vet,  and claims the abcess (spelling?) on dog's face was a puncture wound.  Defendant didn't pay her animal control fine, because she claims her dogs weren't out of her Jeep, and JJ advises her that the city will put a lien on her house.   Defendant filed a restraining order against plaintiff walking on the street, and it was denied,    Defendant keeps laughing at inappropriate times, and denying reality, it's obvious something is wrong with her.   JJ says defendant needs psychiatric help, and I absolutely agree. 

$1500 to plaintiff for defendant harassing her, and for filing a false protective order,  but not enough proof for vet bills.   

Underage Drinking and Online Bullying-Plaintiff alleges defendant (former high school friend) kicked her car after a night of drinking.    Defendant claims she wasn't drinking (she's 20).    There was a verbal fight, mostly by defendant, and defendant kicked plaintiff's car, witnessed by two others in police report.  Plaintiff says defendant was very drunk.    $1600 for plaintiff, and defendant told to stuff it. 

Second-

Revealing 911 Call-Plaintiff suing former friend, and two others for vandalizing his car (one woman is his cousin).   There is a 911 call from the plaintiff, with breaking glass on the tape.  Plaintiff has a protective order against his cousin for two years, but he says all three defendants attacked him.     Plaintiff claims the two women threw mustard on his car when he was stopped at a light, he was heading to work.   He pulled into a parking lot to call police, and that's when the two women, and the man, smashed the plaintiff's window.    Plaintiff's witness (a woman he didn't know before this) heard the rock smash the window and saw all three defendants in the parking lot.     Defendants claim they were in Chicago when the attack happened, but as usual, the witness couldn't make it.     Defendants are such liars.     I feel sorry for plaintiff's witness, she did the right thing talking to police, and coming to court, but I worry about retaliation by the three defendants.     $1170 for plaintiff, defendant told to get lost.  

Trust Your Instincts-Plaintiffs are landlords, and rented to the grandmother of defendant for 15 years, and grandma is still a tenant.    Defendant is granddaughter, and her witness is grandmother's sister (Great Aunt?).  Defendant was a tenant, but received a three day notice to leave in January, but according to landlords, didn't move until March.    Defendant has a ton of reasons for not paying full rent ($800 a month), and didn't pay full rent after August of whatever year this was.     $4400 is owed by defendant according to landlords.  $4400 to landlords.    

Edited November 7, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

First: I do not believe anyone should take video or photos of anyone and post them online without their consent. I also thought the defendant was a total douche.

That being said, this gal saw him with the selfie stick in the parking lot of the restaurant. She said when she got in the car and he put the phone in the vent, she saw it was recording her. When they were in the car, she was dying laughing. It did not sound like nervous laughter to me. She then said, at one point, and I quote, "I'm going to say that you kidnapped me...." She told JJ that she told him that she was very uncomfortable and she felt like he was kidnapping her because he would not take her back to her car. I didn't hear her say any of that in the video in the context that she was trying to portray to JJ.

The defendant was an extremely unlikeable douche and I did feel bad for the plaintiff but just got a weird vibe from the whole thing. The "I'm going to say that you kidnapped me...." completely changed the case. JJ made it sound like because he did not get a release signed from her that he is not allowed to film her and post it or broadcast. That opens up millions of options for people to head over to JJ for their $5k pay day.

Maybe I'm just weird or something but the personality that the plaintiff showed on the video seemed like a completely different person than the one in the video. She looked like she was truly bewildered in court but was a hysterically laughing person in the car. 

[patty1h]

I can only shake my head at the ex-prison guard plaintiff (XPG) who was suing her ex-con boyfriend Cortez for assault, back rent, etc.  I'm sure NO ONE is surprised that these two lovebirds didn't last.

Their backstory was ridiculous:  XPG hooks up with prisoner with an 8 year sentence.  She leaves the job because she is not supposed to interact with the inmates, and they move in together when he gets out.  Next thing she knows, he's hanging out with his friends and not coming home for days. When he finally shows up there are fireworks - she's throwing his possessions and she says he pushes her in the struggle.  She goes to ER with a small facial bruise and is now suing for loans, rent, etc.   Oh, and she has two kids under 15 in this mess.

Mr. Cortez first gets huffy at JJ's questioning him, saying she should show him some respect.  JJ puts him in check after that and he's settles down.  JJ makes him pay back for tickets the plaintiff paid (another case of 'you did the crime, so you pay for it').  Cortez becomes pretty mellow and agrees that he did some wrong things.  JJ blasts XPG for vandalizing Cortez's belongings - she should know better as an ex law enforcer.

In the hall, XPG says "I loved him and he changed...".  Oy, lady.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m., both episodes new-

First-

Canine Sucker Punch-Plaintiff (Goldendoodle owner) suing defendant (Akita) for vet bills ($411) for a horrific attack on his dog.    Defendant and boyfriend had Akita at car show, defendant claims her dog, 17 month old Akita, has never bitten.   However, there was another complaint (two months later) by a neighbor, that the Akita got out, and Akita attacked the neighbor's two dogs, and one dog was injured.   Akita was quarantined, and defendant paid $500 vet bills.   Goldendoodle was on leash, and plaintiff asked "Is your dog friendly", and defendant boyfriend said "Not really", so plaintiff tried to avoid dog.    At the outside award ceremony, Akita was passing by plaintiff, with the boyfriend, and attacked without warning, grabbing Doodle's nose, throat, and then paw.     Doodle's pictures are awful.     No surprise, Akita wasn't injured.     Defendant girlfriend claims Goldendoodle barking shows it's aggressive too, total garbage.  Two attacks in two months?  Akita needs to go to the farm with grandma (Yes, we all know that means a dirt nap).    Akita owner and boyfriend just don't get it.   I feel sorry for the animals, and people who will suffer for the defendants' ignorance, because this animal will attack again.   Plaintiff gets $411. Byrd has to tell defendants to leave, and waves bye-bye to them.      

Homeless Five-Child Family Payback-Plaintiff suing former co-worker (September Johnson) over a car she bought from plaintiff.   Defendant paid $400, and stopped paying (total was $1500).   Defendant's story is that she is the Sainted Single Mother of Five (SSMOF).   She and companion, and children ended up in a homeless shelter, but didn't return car, or pay for car either.   Car deal was over a year ago, and defendant drove car, and eventually junked it.    $1100 for plaintiff.  

Second-

Correction Officer Falls in Love With Convict-Plaintiff is former corrections officer, and defendant is a former convict (2008-2015), and they met at 'work'.    Plaintiff suing for unpaid loans, unpaid rent, and an assault.  Defendant says no loan agreements, she started all of the arguments, and nothing is his fault.    Plaintiff quit job, so they wouldn't have a conflict.    They moved in together in January 2019, and he was moved out by police in May 2019, and wasn't paying rent.   Plaintiff has an 8 year old, and 16 year old living with them also.   Who moves in a long term convict in with her two kids?      Plaintiff loaned defendant for a long-term unpaid ticket, $700+ (before they were living together), so he could get his license back.   Defendant claims woman paid ticket, but it was a gift.   

Defendant is getting sassy, and rotten to JJ.    Bet Byrd isn't doing cross word puzzles in this case, and I bet the security people are very close.     Plaintiff told to forget back rent.    In April the two had a fight, and it turned physical, after she threw his stuff into the hallway.  She claims he pushed her, and knocked her into the wall.    Defendant claims she pushed him first, and he pushed her back.   Restraining order is one year, but he was in jail for something else when the hearing happened.      Plaintiff had no medical bills.     $500 to plaintiff, but doesn't get the rest of the rent after the restraining order paid for.      

Drug Paraphernalia Eviction-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for rent and utilities, and a loan.   They lived together, after (according to defendant) his former roommate left drug paraphernalia around, and it was noticed, and he had a 24 hours notice to quit.  He moved in with plaintiff (he claims it was never romantic with them).    Defendant didn't pay rent for his 14 day tenancy.   Plaintiff gets her $280 rent, and $100 to get his phone out of pawn. 

[basiltherat]

Can anyone explain why FEMALE guards are anywhere in the same zip code as MALE inmates.  That's trouble waiting to happen, on and off the job.

[CrazyInAlabama]

There are male guards in female and male prisons, and female guards work in male and female prisons also.     

Edited November 7, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

I'm as confused as you are @basiltherat.  Women who hook up with convicted felons are a special kind of desperate and it makes me shake my head.  Prisoners are on the Nope list, I don't care how charming or how many times they say they're innocent.

I just wouldn't want to get involved with an inmate for ANY reason, but the genius today left the job for him AND got her kids involved in her messiness.  Then BF gets a taste of freedom after 8 years in the joint and wants to make up for lost time out on the street?  She should have let that prize Cortez just walk and forget whatever he owed her.   But she probably felt like he should be more grateful after what she did for him and got angry.  Mistake.

[SRTouch]

On 11/5/2019 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Kidnapped and Tossed to the Road-Plaintiff claims defendant (Turquoise haired wastrel is a dance instructor, and does social media) kidnapped her during a Tinder date, then invaded her privacy by live streaming the event.  (As I've been informed by friend's kids,  Tinder is for hook ups, and not anything more than a hookup).   Defendant makes money from views of his event he live streams.   His Turquoise hair matches his tie, and makes a snotty remark about what a chore it was to go out with trolls like the plaintiff, and just said she's ugly.    Defendant witness is a giggling fool.    Plaintiff could hear text to voice insults on his phone when he was driving her around, and he refused to let her out of the car (kidnapping or false imprisonment or both).

"pay as much attention to what I'm saying as you did to matching your tie to your hair" Good one, Judy

Agree that D set up P for cyber bullies, and pretty low for him to dump her at a gas station instead of taking her back to her car or giving her cab money. Also wonder exactly how much editing he did to the video. Vid seemed pretty short considering they apparently drove a ways. This was his video, so I assuming it was edited to be as humiliating as possible for P while showing him in best light possible.

Not sure P deserved 5 grand,  but agree D crossed line as soon as he used her to make money without consent. She was fine with getting into some strange guy's car with no money and letting him buy her dinner. She's lucky to have escaped with only her dignity and feelings being hurt - next time could be much worse.

Quote

Disrespected Date Sucker Punch-Plaintiff (older slight, gentleman) suing defendant (younger, taller, and apparently violent).    Defendant went on first date with woman, (she's the plaintiff's witness) and became angry when she was talking to other people. 

Whoa - take note any single folk out there, there be crazies out there.... watch who you date. First was woman hopping into stranger's car being subjected to cyber bullying - this one is some bubble head out with strange big dude and the big hulking stranger dude walks up and sucker punches some scrawny little old stranger half his size 'cuz he figures guy is paying to much attention to girl he's on his first date with. Actually, if a fraction of what D is saying is true you'd think he would have called it a night and made arrangements for his 'date' to get home safely..... according to D, Emily, his date, was playing the slut before they even went into bar (well, this bar, as they had been drinking all night as they bar hopped across town), says she invited Uber driver back to her place while touching him up, then, if D is to be believed Emily was putting the moves on both men and women inside bars all night..... Emily is here with another guy to act as witnesses for little P dude who got sucker punched and lost a few teeth, and she's doing the incredulous face routine as D describes her slutty behavior...... ok, JJ just toying with big D dude and my interest is waning - P not going to need to say anything except how much his dental bills were - and if it's not 5 grand I'd award him the max anyway for actual pain and suffering from getting his front teeth knocked out and the hassle of chasing D for payment as apparently this all happened 2 years ago.... ok, after implausible testimony from D about how he was just defending himself and his date, D finally gets to where he 'struck' P - JJ goes straight to asking for dental records to figure how much D owes..... turns out any criminal charges were dropped when D agreed to go through anger management (this was his first arrest) and stay out of trouble for awhile...... oh, and if you pause screen while JJ reads his statement you hear a whole 'nother story about how little guy shoved him and was about to punch poor big D as 3 other guys were coming to beat him up - so D ran away terrified of getting in a fight...... ok, P really doesn't need to talk, but JJ gives him his day in court - turns how P sounds way more reasonable and much more believable (and smarter) than D or bubble head Emily combined - his story is that he works as a music journalist and reviews local bands on a tv show - he had been at club for his job, started to go home, ran into bubble headed Emily, they talked as they were walking in same direction (he says handing hands but Emily says they never touched) and D came up and cold cocked him from behind - yep, I'm believing him (the hand holding may, or may not, be an embellishment from telling the story these past 2 years)...... turns out the other witness is an EMT who happened to be there and helped treat P and stop the bleeding...... yep, JJ awards the max..... in hallterview big deal dude claims he's the real victim 

Edited November 7, 2019 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Canine Sucker Punch-Plaintiff (Goldendoodle owner) suing defendant (Akita) for vet bills ($411) for a horrific attack on his dog.

More rant than talk of case Didn't watch, but expect typical clueless owners, under-socialized and untrained dog led to attack and - if it hasn't already, will end in dog being euthanized. Akitas are beautiful, intelligent, and extremely loyal to 'their' family. They are also not a breed for first time owners as the breed is known for dog aggression (especially same-sex aggression), being unfriendly towards strangers, not particularly good around children, having a strong prey drive, prone to want to wander, etc etc With the right owner, a great dog - 99% of dog owners are not a good match...... I'd love to have one, but have 6 cats and live in a trailer park where kids are playing in the street and people are always walking by with their dogs. Sure, rare to see an unleashed dog here - but I'd probably end up being the defendant whose dog broke through the screen door to 'protect' me from the neighbor walking their yapping furball in front of my trailer.

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Canine Sucker Punch

Defendants instantly joined the first ranks of the Stupid and Clueless Dog Owners Hall of Fame. And they do have some very stiff competition on these court shows.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Correction Officer Falls in Love With Convict

For her part, plaintiff in this case has found a place in the I'm So Desperate I Never Learned Anything From my Otherwise Respectable Job Hall of Fame. A corrections officer getting involved with a current inmate and then pursuing that relationship after she gets out of that job and him of jail? The gene of common sense is obviously lacking in her genetic make-up.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

She was fine with getting into some strange guy's car with no money and letting him buy her dinner. She's lucky to have escaped with only her dignity and feelingshe being hurt - next time could be much worse.

She took a risk she thought was calculated and was probably more informed about the set-up for the evening than the oh-so-innocent front she put on during the hearing. That is why I still think she was partially liable and thus did not deserve the full award, no matter how off-putting the defendant was.

[khyber]

I was stunned that the ex-CO would be that stupid and besotted to bring an ex-felon into a house with children. If he did 10 years it was for something serious. Also, how stupid must she be to think that the "relationship" dynamic would be the same after he no longer needed to be subservient to her institutional power.

[One Tough Cookie]

15 hours ago, basiltherat said:

Can anyone explain why FEMALE guards are anywhere in the same zip code as MALE inmates.  That's trouble waiting to happen, on and off the job.

Just ask Joyce Mitchell about that!;)

Seeing Byrd totally lose it yesterday was the highlight of my day!

Edited November 7, 2019 by One Tough Cookie

[parrotfeathers]

14 hours ago, SRTouch said:

More rant than talk of case Didn't watch, but expect typical clueless owners, under-socialized and untrained dog led to attack and - if it hasn't already, will end in dog being euthanized. Akitas are beautiful, intelligent, and extremely loyal to 'their' family. They are also not a breed for first time owners as the breed is known for dog aggression (especially same-sex aggression), being unfriendly towards strangers, not particularly good around children, having a strong prey drive, prone to want to wander, etc etc With the right owner, a great dog - 99% of dog owners are not a good match...... I'd love to have one, but have 6 cats and live in a trailer park where kids are playing in the street and people are always walking by with their dogs. Sure, rare to see an unleashed dog here - but I'd probably end up being the defendant whose dog broke through the screen door to 'protect' me from the neighbor walking their yapping furball in front of my trailer.

Nothing on video so it's okay to watch.  That girl is horrifiably stupid.  "Dogs will be dogs" has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever.  I bet she won't say that when her baby is mauled or killed (she probably isn't savvy enough to practice birth control) if that dog is still there at that time in her life.

I was at a conformation show a few years ago and an Akita actually mauled the judge when she put her hands on him (a requirement in a show).  He was expelled from showing for life.  An Akita requires a very strong minded owner and have to know from puppyhood that it is not in charge.

[SRTouch]

16 minutes ago, parrotfeathers said:

An Akita requires a very strong minded owner and have to know from puppyhood that it is not in charge.

One of my brothers had a very expensive, yet free, Akita. Expensive in the sense that he spent a lot on vet bills, but free because previous owner dumped him and my brother found and rescued him. Poor thing had terrible skin and food allergies, and the few times I saw it it was almost bald. Also, required emergency surgery for a twisted stomach - a not uncommon problem with dogs, like akitas, with those deep chests. Took a lot of time and training, but my brother was able to turn into a good family dog. Never able to end it's dog agression, though, so no doggy play dates.

[blondiek237]

Why can't people research the breed before they just go get a dog because they like how they look.  My husband wanted a Boxer, I told him fine but he would be the one running with him everyday as they need a lot of exercise.  We settled on English Bulldogs (see my pic) perfect in the exercise department, but they can be stubborn and our Jax has dominant issues and requires a strong hand--he knows mommy is boss and if I give him the right look he backs down.  He taught me a lot about patience.  Having a dog is work.  When I signed up Ozzy for puppy kindergarten my husband thought I was nuts, but even before Jax came home he made sure he was enrolled.  They cannot teach themselves what you want, you need to train them.  Idiots like these people give dog owners a bad name

[funky-rat]

2 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Nothing on video so it's okay to watch.  That girl is horrifiably stupid.  "Dogs will be dogs" has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever.  I bet she won't say that when her baby is mauled or killed (she probably isn't savvy enough to practice birth control) if that dog is still there at that time in her life.

Don't forget:  "It's a public park, so you have to expect this kind of thing" and "It'a a dog eat dog world".  I actually said to the TV, "THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS!!"

[SRTouch]

16 minutes ago, funky-rat said:

Don't forget:  "It's a public park, so you have to expect this kind of thing" and "It'a a dog eat dog world".  I actually said to the TV, "THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS!!"

Ouch! As I've said before, I don't just not watch dog cases because I don't want to see or hear about dogs hurt or abused..... no, I don't watch because 90% of the time I'm tempted to throw something at the tv and can't afford the replacement costs.

1 hour ago, blondiek237 said:

Why can't people research the breed before they just go get a dog because they like how they look

Absolutely, seems everybody is walking around with a device allowing almost instant access to the Internet - just use Google to learn about the breed. True, training and environment can go a long way, but dogs are not deep thinkers or philosophers, and when startled, threatened or confronted by the unfamiliar will sometimes react on instinct. Going back to the Akita case - akitas are an old old breed. For over a thousand years they were bred as big game hunters, then as fighting dogs, and finally as guard dogs - let's see, to be good at those three jobs they would need to have a strong prey drive, be dog aggressive, and territorial while being leary of strangers. Do any of those traits suggest a dog who should be in a crowd surrounded by strangers and other animals in a public venue.

Course, I don't even need to factor in Internet access and lack of research to realise how many folks have pets that make NO sense in their lives - I just look at all the cold weather dogs here in SW Oklahoma and Texas

[funky-rat]

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Do any of those traits suggest a dog who should be in a crowd surrounded by strangers and other animals in a public venue.

Course, I don't even need to factor in Internet access and lack of research to realise how many folks have pets that make NO sense in their lives - I just look at all the cold weather dogs here in SW Oklahoma and Texas

And let's not forget the now-common attitude of "Screw everyone else.  I do what I want, and you need to look out for me. If you don't, oh well, your problem".  Which is precicely what both Defendants essentially said.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

A Roommate's Violent Eviction-Plaintiff suing former roommates for security deposit, illegal eviction, and restraining order.  Plaintiff rented room at defendants' apartment, paid rent, moved boyfriend in, but paid $100 a month extra for him.    Plaintiff wants rent for June (she was booted in May, but had paid June already) because she was evicted.  Restraining order was resolved by a mediator, so it's out of bounds.   Defendants claims plaintiff moved everything out in two days, but plaintiff claims they kept her king sized bed, and other things, served her with the restraining order and wouldn't let her take anything.  Plaintiff went back with police escort to get her property, and was served with a temporary restraining order that day.   Defendant woman won't shut up, keeps interrupting JJ, and Byrd has to threaten to boot her.   Defendants want non-existent damages, but didn't file a counter claim.   Defendant girlfriend gets the Byrd boot.   $650 to plaintiff for rent.   

Out of Work, Pregnant and Swindled-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit $750, but wants $1500 (claims PA gives double security back if landlord doesn't send list of damages in a certain time).    Defendant/landlord wants unpaid rent, and huge water bill.  $750 rent, and $750 security deposit.  Sadly, water bill and other utilities are a verbal agreement, and worthless for real estate with a written lease that doesn't mention them.  Plaintiff moved out after a job loss, after she couldn't pay the rent.   Defendant denies woman moved out voluntarily, but was actually evicted.    I love the defendant's suit, shirt and tie, he dressed very well for court.    Water bill is not mentioned in lease, so that's out.  $750 for plaintiff for her security deposit. 

Second-

Ex Brother-In-Law Repo Feud-Plaintiff suing defendant (men are former brothers-in-law) for truck.     Plaintiff took over payment on truck, and one payment before payoff, defendant repo'd the truck.  Defendant was brother in law, and plaintiff agreed to take over payments on a truck with 2 1/2 years left on payments.    Defendant had truck for 14 months, until plaintiff took over payments, title was in defendant's name.   Plaintiff claims he made last payments in May, and defendant claims he paid a last payment of $347 to pay off note in July.    Plaintiff put over $6k in payments when he had truck/car whatever, and then defendant claims the last payment of $347 that defendant was entitled to repo the truck. 

The story becomes clear, the $347 was from when defendant had truck,  Defendant will lose car, and get his appearance money after plaintiff gets the truck back, and title is redone to plaintiff.   Plaintiff just needs a statement from former loan company that vehicle loan is paid in full.  JJ will issue order that title and car/truck is plaintiff's, and that marshal should give truck to plaintiff.  (apparently defendant still has the truck/car).   Plaintiff gets truck back.       

$20,000 Child Support Payback-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for $1600 loan to pay bills.   Defendant says money was for mutual bills with plaintiff, when plaintiff moved in with defendant and son.  $1600 to plaintiff.  (JJ says woman needs to move money into an account for her daughter, since she made the loan out of her kid's child support).

[Brattinella]

Does the JJ show provide false eyelashes by the pound?  Yikes!

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m.  episodes, both new-

First-

Bleaching Baby Daddy Clothes Goes Live-Plaintiff suing for ex-girlfriend (and baby mama) for bleaching all of his clothes after their nasty breakup.   Defendant was brilliant, and thought live streaming her vandalism was a good thing, after she found out he had another girlfriend.   Plaintiff was off work for three years after a work accident.  Defendant's first live streaming video is her bleaching every item of his wardrobe.   Current plaintiff girlfriend in giggling through this.  Princess Paynes is the defendant, and she still doesn't have a clue that it's called vandalism.    Plaintiff gets $4,000 for his clothes.   Defendant wants money because plaintiff is alleged to have broken her door down the day after Bleachgate Live happened.  She also claims she put his bleached stuff outside.   (How can Princess open her eye lids with the huge fake eyelashes she's wearing?).  Plaintiff claims he broke down the door, slammed her head into the wall, and hit her roommate.   Princess has zero police reports, photos, medical reports, so no proof.   Defendant claims someone (alleges plaintiff or his girlfriend) slashed her tires, with no witnesses or proof of that either.  $4,000 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.

Lien on Me, Shame on You-Plaintiff suing defendant for selling her a car with a lien on it.  Defendant bought car, had a title on it, and took out title loans on his current vehicle, and on the car he sold plaintiff.   Defendant sold car to plaintiff for $580, but still owed more than that to title company, but didn't tell plaintiff about the title loan lien.  A while later plaintiff looks outside, and car is gone (repossessed).   Defendant bought car for $1300, had a lien for $1300, and plaintiff was going to pay him $2300 (minus the $580 she already paid him).  Plaintiff gets $580.

Second-

You are a Lousy Nanny-Plaintiff (former nanny) suing defendants for back pay, and then she called CPS on the couple.    However, nanny didn't call CPS when she saw the injury, and child said "Daddy was mad at me".  Nanny claims it wasn't a bruise on top of child's head, but a goose egg that was clearly visible.   However, nanny waited quite a while to call CPS, (long after she was fired), but only after she repeatedly asked for her salary.      

   Defendants have a counter claim that nanny put their very expensive chef knives in the dishwasher, (claim is for over a $1,000 for the knives), and left the house a mess.    Nanny only worked five days for the couple (Nanny worked 3 days a week, 21 hours in total, $15 an hour, equal $322), and paid her for zero days.    Defendant wife also never did a back ground check on nanny before leaving her children with her for five days.   I find it absurd for anyone to see a huge goose egg on a little girl's head, kid says daddy hit her, and doesn't call CPS about this fictitious injury until after she didn't get paid.    Nanny was owed $322 wages, and Defendants get the same amount for their day spent at CPS, so no one gets anything. 

Fence Frenzy-Plaintiff and defendant have a common fence, and the two agreed that defendant would put up new fence, and plaintiff agreed to pay $1200 for her half.   Plaintiff paid defendant $750, never paid the last $500.    When the fence was finished, plaintiff nasty old lady (to me), plaintiff didn't like fence, so had it taken down, and replaced.   Nasty old lady plaintiff wants $1500, to pay for half of the replacement fence, plus $500 back for what she paid for the first fence.   Nasty plaintiff wanted a middle horizontal rail on the privacy fence, just like the old fence. so she had it torn down, and rebuilt.   (My personal opinion is, the privacy fence the defendant put up was up to standard, and even had the nicer side facing the old bats side).     Nasty plaintiff actually called the police over the fence.   The wood the defendant used looks like a better quality than what the defendant used.     Plaintiff gets nothing.      Defendant also dismissed, because the money covered the materials.  

[configdotsys]

Any time I see any sort of animal mentioned in the blurb on the DVR, I delete it. I just can't watch or hear about it or I get so upset.

The CO that got involved with the criminal seemed like a Love after Lockup situation. Dude was enamored of this plain Jane because she could keep him in commissary and whatever else while he was in but as soon as he got out it's all about hanging with friends. He seemed to have a major layer of anger under there. She should be glad he's gone.

I finally watched the case with the pregnancy and was so confused at what went on there. I  am not for violence of any kind but I spent the entire episode thinking that defendant in the cheap wig needed the smirk smacked off her face. 

[SandyToes]

16 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

I finally watched the case with the pregnancy and was so confused at what went on there. I  am not for violence of any kind but I spent the entire episode thinking that defendant in the cheap wig needed the smirk smacked off her face. 

Yeah, the line for that is queing up...

I'll save you a spot.

Edited November 8, 2019 by SandyToes

[JD5166]

6 hours ago, funky-rat said:

Don't forget:  "It's a public park, so you have to expect this kind of thing" and "It'a a dog eat dog world".  I actually said to the TV, "THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS!!"

I hated that little twat. 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Maybe I'm just weird or something but the personality that the plaintiff showed on the video seemed like a completely different person than the one in the video. She looked like she was truly bewildered in court but was a hysterically laughing person in the car. 

This is about the Tinder case a few days ago. I grew up in an area where there were a lot of old-school Asian ladies and sometimes if they were uncomfortable, they would just start laughing. It was like a weird hysterical sounding laugh. (plus they covered their mouths - it was a cultural thing one told me where it was unladylike to show their teeth). Given the plaintiff's kinda old-fashioned outfit and that she didn't seem to understand how Tinder worked (or was faking quite well), perhaps she was really uncomfortable and things got a little too weird for her too fast. Cos in the video, the next thing you hear is her sounding super panicked and shrill. 

Plus the defendant was Mr. Tooly McToolerson. I would have ruled against him because he was such. a. tool. I would make a horrible judge. 

[NYCFree]

The crazy non pregnant scammer wig stand horrifically reminded me of the girl my teen son dated last year. The girl was his “first” and my son wasn’t really thinking rationally. We knew the girl wasn’t a good match for him, but also knew that if we tried to prevent it, that would just drive him further to her. The girl and her mother also had serious lack of boundaries, to the point where the mom would call my son, while he was in school, then be annoyed when he couldn’t chat with her. Thank God that it’s mostly in the past at this point (she will friend his internet friends, etc).  That defendant made me shudder at the close call my son had at something even worse happening.

I HATED the teal haired guy. Trying to make a living humiliating young women. I truly hope he can be the object of someone’s ridicule in a viral video.

Edited November 8, 2019 by NYCFree

[Hellohappylife]

Okay that live stream case was just so cringe. I’m the same age as the defendant (26) even myself or any of my friends act that way on social media or our daily lives. JJ has it so right,young people these days tend to think they are Interesting special snowflakes and that people want to know their every waking thought 24/7. It’s obnoxious and annoying.  I don’t know if the plaintiff getting $5,000 was a good choice but the petty side of my is glad that she got more money from that guys stupid video, than he pever will. 

The most disturbing part about the whole video was the guy being completely unfocused on driving, not looking up at the road because he’s too busy reading stupid comments that I’m sure are from bored 12 year olds

Edited November 8, 2019 by Hellohappylife

[Florinaldo]

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

plaintiff nasty old lady (to me)

Not just to you.

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendants have a counter claim that nanny put their very expensive chef knives in the dishwasher, (claim is for over a $1,000 for the knives), and left the house a mess. 

JJ kept calling them derisively "steak knives" instead the chef knives they were. Wùsthof cultely can be expensive, and is often overpriced, but JJ was obviously set on giving them nothing for the knives and that is why she persisted in describing them incorrectly.

Defendants let the nanny look after their offspring without completing the background check. I understand they may have been in a hurry to get someone and they said she did not provide the necessary information promptly but still, that is quite a risk to take.

[khyber]

12 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

This is about the Tinder case a few days ago. I grew up in an area where there were a lot of old-school Asian ladies and sometimes if they were uncomfortable, they would just start laughing. It was like a weird hysterical sounding laugh. (plus they covered their mouths - it was a cultural thing one told me where it was unladylike to show their teeth). 

I lived in Taiwan for a year and thought exactly this. It was laughter brought on by being in an uncomfortable situation. 

[SRTouch]

12 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

This is about the Tinder case a few days ago. I grew up in an area where there were a lot of old-school Asian ladies and sometimes if they were uncomfortable, they would just start laughing. It was like a weird hysterical sounding laugh. (plus they covered their mouths - it was a cultural thing one told me where it was unladylike to show their teeth). Given the plaintiff's kinda old-fashioned outfit and that she didn't seem to understand how Tinder worked (or was faking quite well), perhaps she was really uncomfortable and things got a little too weird for her too fast. Cos in the video, the next thing you hear is her sounding super panicked and shrill. 

Plus the defendant was Mr. Tooly McToolerson. I would have ruled against him because he was such. a. tool. I would make a horrible judge. 

I had the same reaction - also, was that her mother as her witness? If she truly is old school trying to break out into a more western life, the fact that her mom was present could reinforce the cultural behaivor.

As for turquoise hair/tie dude (and his grinning fool witness)....... well, I was taught not to say anything if I can't say anything nice so............

[ButYourHonor]

18 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Does the JJ show provide false eyelashes by the pound?  Yikes!

I could hardly concentrate on the case because I kept waiting for her to blink and for them to drop off due to excess weight.

[Mondrianyone]

53 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I was taught not to say anything if I can't say anything nice so............

Me, too.  But I always seem to violate that teaching on the Internet.  So . . .

All other issues temporarily aside, what was the wife in that nanny case thinking, hiring that young woman to spend all day alone at home with her husband, given the . . . I'm gonna say discrepancy in their appearances?  She's lucky all that got ruined were a bunch of knives.

I'll go sit next to SRTouch now.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The biggest red flag in the nanny case was that the parents didn't even have enough information to do a background check on the nanny.     They left their children for five days with a stranger, and that's inexcusable.      They're lucky they only had some knives ruined, and didn't have something much worse happen. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama