All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Chalby]

My husband asked me if there is an overabundance of 'stupid' people whom appear on JJ or does JJ only pick out cases where people sound ridiculous? I didn't know the answer, but I have to agree that most of the plaintiffs or defendants sound so entitled, stunned and/or out of touch, that I simply don't understand. My last beef is why are there so many men borrowing/taking money from women and implying it's a gift? They don't even appear embarrassed to be seen on TV for the scam artists they are, meanwhile women still hand over money - why?

[augmentedfourth]

Let's have a round of applause for the defendant in the construction worker case, who showed up with all her business records (that even existed in the first place), knew how to find what she was looking for in a timely fashion, and was also dressed appropriately and had shiny hair and all her teeth. She lost a few minor points at the end for arguing with JJ about her counterclaim, but was otherwise one of the more competent litigants we've had in a while. (All right, tow truck defamation guy was pretty on the ball, too, but he just had to hand over screenshots of social media posts and let those two idiots dig their own hole.)

I literally said "Oh noooo..." out loud to the TV when the high school girlfriend so proudly announced they were starting a family in the hallterview. OH NOOOOOOO.

[parrotfeathers]

12 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Let's have a round of applause for the defendant in the construction worker case, who showed up with all her business records (that even existed in the first place), knew how to find what she was looking for in a timely fashion, and was also dressed appropriately and had shiny hair and all her teeth. She lost a few minor points at the end for arguing with JJ about her counterclaim, but was otherwise one of the more competent litigants we've had in a while. (All right, tow truck defamation guy was pretty on the ball, too, but he just had to hand over screenshots of social media posts and let those two idiots dig their own hole.)

I literally said "Oh noooo..." out loud to the TV when the high school girlfriend so proudly announced they were starting a family in the hallterview. OH NOOOOOOO.

I know her mom and dad are just thrilled.

[CrazyInAlabama]

There actually are parents that would be thrilled about the expected bundle of joy with the criminal defendant and their teen daughter.     Look at all of the parents on this show that are letting very underaged kids cohabit and breed multiple kids under the parent's roof.  

(I knew someone who had done glitz pageants with her little girl for a while, until she did the math.    You pay for the basic pageant entry fee, then additional for each extra title, i.e., best smile, best hair, best costume, talent.   Plus, you have to get makeup, spray tan, flippers (teeth), hair styling, extensions, highlights, dresses for each category, stage costumes and props for talent, plus travel costs, hotel room, etc.   The pageant organizer makes a lot of money, and the hotel does on room, and performance room rental, but when you add in the pageant expenses, plus modeling and talent, and hair extensions, etc., you won't even break even)

Edited November 18, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:30 PM, patty1h said:

Gotta say... both of the litigants in the airline buddy pass sale were eye candy.   They were a nice finish after the two earlier cases of resisting arrest and baby mama drama.

Yeah, and the plaintiff's eyebrows ere tweezed better than mine!

[iwasish]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There actually are parents that would be thrilled about the expected bundle of joy with the criminal defendant and their teen daughter.     Look at all of the parents on this show that are letting very underaged kids cohabit and breed multiple kids under the parent's roof.  

As evidenced in “Unexpected”

[parrotfeathers]

On 11/16/2019 at 3:17 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

There actually are parents that would be thrilled about the expected bundle of joy with the criminal defendant and their teen daughter.     Look at all of the parents on this show that are letting very underaged kids cohabit and breed multiple kids under the parent's roof.  

Yes, that is very true.  I would have been beaten within an inch of my life by my parents!

[bad things are bad]

  ON 11/15/2019 AT 9:30 AM, CAROLINA GIRL SAID:

Quote

I wanted to see pics of the little girl to see what was worth $600. Hair extensions? Make-up? For a young girl??? Wow. 

Back in the TWOP days, there was a pretty lively discussion board for Toddlers and Tiaras, which I would hate-watch from time to time. I'm quite capable of believing that Pageant Papa was spending that kind of money for a dollar store tiara and a "fabulous" trophy. 

[funky-rat]

2 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

  ON 11/15/2019 AT 9:30 AM, CAROLINA GIRL SAID:

Back in the TWOP days, there was a pretty lively discussion board for Toddlers and Tiaras, which I would hate-watch from time to time. I'm quite capable of believing that Pageant Papa was spending that kind of money for a dollar store tiara and a "fabulous" trophy. 

Of course he was, because his kid has to pull for a "Haar Tattle"!  Git it gurrrrlllll!  I sometimes miss that show.  The revival of it was plain awful, and it thankfully died a quick death.

[DoctorK]

For anybody who hasn't yet seen today's new Bounce House case, don't miss it! I have never seen her blister a litigant the way she did today.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Bad Attitude Ex-Boyfriend-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid loan for $8500 to buy a motorcycle.   Defendant simply won't stop making remarks to his ex, and mouthing off to JJ, hopefully a Byrd boot is in his future (and his tattoos are ridiculous looking).   Litigants were neighbors, and briefly romantic, she loaned him money for the motorcycle, as usual, defendant denies it was a loan.    Defendant wanted $7500, and $1,000 for tax, license and registration.   Plaintiff took out a personal loan for $8500, and claims defendant said he would repay the loan within a few months, and plaintiff has text messages.   Plaintiff claims defendant smashed her phone after the loan, and before court.  Defendant's witness is his long time roommate, and sometimes romantic partner (my guess is she's not his romantic partner when he's trying to get some woman who will get him money).    Defendant's witness is a total liar.  Defendant made the first few payments to plaintiff, and she put it in the bank, and he paid $2800 total.  Defendant keeps making remarks about plaintiff sending him naked pictures of herself.   Defendant owes $5700 or about that, and claims plaintiff owes him $877.    Plaintiff gets $5,000, and for mouthing off defendant gets nothing. 

Second-

Teen Child Support Woes-Plaintiff suing defendant (ex-wife) for child support (they have 2 kids 17 and 15?) and extra curricular activities for the 17 year old.   Defendant is now unemployed, but plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay when she had a job.   Plaintiff's witness is current wife.   Plaintiff was divorced while he was incarcerated, and no child support order was in place, and each litigant had one kid living with them, until last year.    Defendant agreed to split dental bills, and extra curriculars, for the kids that both live with plaintiff.    Plaintiff wants over $3,000.   Defendant is unemployed, and she's getting paid to go back to school (phlebotomy), and for the four month course will be broke.    Plaintiffs claim woman isn't unemployed, and hasn't been.    There is no formal family court order for support, and JJ says they should go back to court.    Defendant says plaintiff is taking her to court for child support soon.  Plaintiff gets $1133 for the kid's braces. 

Baby Car Seat Slip-Up-Plaintiff suing defendant (they were roommates for a few months).  Defendant put her two year old in a high chair/booster seat, not a real car seat for the baby.  Plaintiff got a ticket for driving slowly in the high speed lane, and her fines were $484, and a ticket was for plaintiff as a driver, for having a baby unsecured in the car.   Plaintiff had to pay late fees for the tickets, so she wants $900+ total.  As JJ says, plaintiff got a ticket for driving improperly, and allowed the defendant to use an improper car seat.   Case dismissed. 

(I can't wait for the bounce house case later today.   Sadly, there's also a 1/2 hour case in the second new episode that's a German Shepherd attacking a little girl's dog).  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new (first one seems entertaining for a JJ beat down, but second episode is a dog attack).

First-

Bouncy House Liar, Thief, and Cheat-Plaintiff (rents bouncy houses for kid's parties) suing nutso (look at her interesting hair accessories) defendant for stealing his bouncy house, damaging it.   It costs $2400 to $2700, and he wants $1200.    Plaintiff says defendant wanted to rent bouncy house for $200, and she didn't return the bouncy house.    Defendant says some woman told her that for $200 plus $150 she could keep the bouncy house.   Sadly, defendant witness is the daughter, and has a ton of makeup on, and looks cheap.    So defendant stole the bouncy house, never returned it, and damaged it.   What the hell is over defendant's lip?   

Plaintiff and police came to defendant's house, and picked up bouncy house.   Defendant simply won't shut up, and won't stop shaking her head.   Defendant's mother (defendant wasn't there during party) said if plaintiff paid her $200 he could have his stolen property back.     Damage to bouncy house is estimated from $1,000 to $1,200.    Defendant's sworn statement to show says plaintiff's wife sold her bouncy house for $350, because they were shutting down their business, and it's total garbage.    

Plaintiff says he has a signed contract with defendant, and text messages about rental costs.     $1200 to plaintiff, because defendant is a liar, a cheat, and a thief.  

Brides Falling False Eyelashes-Plaintiff makeup artist suing former client for makeup and eyelashes for her wedding.  Deposit was $250, total contract was $500.    There was a trial makeup, and $250 was for the photo shoot.   Defendant says her fake eyelashes didn't stay on, and her makeup looked bad.    Defendant complaints her fake eyelashes didn't stay on.  (the eyelashes probably didn't want to be seen in public with defendant).     Defendant should have sued her hairdresser, not the makeup artist.   Six days before the wedding, she fired the plaintiff, but wanted her $250 deposit back.  However, defendant used the photos from her photo shoot, and wanted her deposit back anyway.   Defendant claims because it took so long to do her makeup that half of her photo shoot time was over.   $250 to plaintiff.    

Second-

The German Shepherd and His Live Terrier Chew Toy-Plaintiff suing ($2256 vet bills) defendant for an attack on his dog.   Plaintiff's 8 year old daughter was walking the Jack Russell Terrier, leashed, on the front lawn, when the defendant's German Shepherd dog attacked in the plaintiff's front yard.    Plaintiff says a year ago they adopted the JRT, and the dog got out, and chased the defendant's witness's cat.   Byrd cracks up about Black and White TVs.     

Defendant witness claims plaintiff dog was on defendant's front lawn, and girl was standing on the sidewalk, but it was a 4" leash.  Defendant's German Shepherd (GSD) was on his front lawn, but witness claims GSD was on some kind of lead.    Defendant's witness went outside when the child was screaming, and saw the plaintiff father running down the street.   The little girl testifies that the GSD picked her JRT up in it's mouth, and chewed on it like a chew toy.     Sadly, I think since the JRT was on the grass in defendant's front yard, the plaintiff's claim is ridiculous.    Plaintiff says GSD didn't have a leash on, but it was the defendant's property.      JJ's question is if plaintiff has no responsibility in this fight.     I don't think the little girl should have been walking the JRT, they aren't big, but they're often hostile to other dogs, and strong.    Plaintiff claims when he arrived at the attack, that GSD didn't have a leash or restraint, and was unattended, but never left the owner's property.       Plaintiff gets $1100 (half of vet bills, because some of this was his fault).      (Personally, I think the little girl should never have been walking that dog, and the plaintiff should have been told the vet bill was all his.   The little dog was trespassing, and paid the price, and his owner should have paid the price also.     I shudder to think what would happen if the JRT wanted to get in the face of another dog, and dragged the girl in front of a car, or into the reach of a human aggressive animal.   JRTs are called Jack Russell Terrorists (instead of Terriers) for a good reason.   They are dog aggressive, never back down, and even fight with other JRT's in the same household sometimes).      The plaintiff learned nothing from that, because from what he said the little girl is still walking Cujo the JRT by herself. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[7EasyPayments]

Is it POSSIBLE to purchase a black-and-white TV in 2019?

And with Jackie Gleason on it ?   🙄 LOL 🤣

JJ with her pager, typewriter, and Rolodex. 😉

[parrotfeathers]

I never had kids and never was a "kid" person but that little girl in the jack russell german shepherd dog kerfuffle was just beautiful to me.

[iwasish]

Jack Russells are great dogs, but very feisty. Strong and do not back down. Young girl said HER DOG YANKED her back to the defendants property and her dog was barking at the German Shepherd and it grabbed it up like a toy.  Defendant was smart enough to keep his mouth shut since JJ gave girls dad a grilling. All the testimony agreed that GS never left its property, was not aggressive to the humans, dropped JR and went inside.  50/50 split was fair. But it wouldn’t have  bothered  me if she ruled in favor of defendant. Especially since girl had already passed defendants house when JR pulled her back and instigated the confrontation. As a dog owner, I would probably offered the 50% and made sure in the future that the dog was tethered so it couldn’t reach the property line. Just for my own piece mind. I don’t want to see any animal injured. 

[Carolina Girl]

11 hours ago, iwasish said:

Jack Russells are great dogs, but very feisty. Strong and do not back down. Young girl said HER DOG YANKED her back to the defendants property and her dog was barking at the German Shepherd and it grabbed it up like a toy.  Defendant was smart enough to keep his mouth shut since JJ gave girls dad a grilling. All the testimony agreed that GS never left its property, was not aggressive to the humans, dropped JR and went inside.  50/50 split was fair. But it wouldn’t have  bothered  me if she ruled in favor of defendant. Especially since girl had already passed defendants house when JR pulled her back and instigated the confrontation. As a dog owner, I would probably offered the 50% and made sure in the future that the dog was tethered so it couldn’t reach the property line. Just for my own piece mind. I don’t want to see any animal injured. 

See I completely disagreed with her ruling in that case.  The GSD was in HIS yard and controlled or not, did not start this trouble.  The little girl passed the yard without incident and it was HER dog that jerked her back and ran up to the GSD to engage.  There is nothing in the testimony that indicated that the GSD was evidencing aggressive behavior towards the JRT when it passed.  Her failure to control the JRT was the ONLY reason this incident happened.  

[funky-rat]

Our neighbors have a JR.  Sweet doggie, but can be agressive and territorial.  And he's yippy - he'll be yipping even when I'm petting him and his tail and butt are wagging something fierce.  He can't be put outside without being tethered down - he'd be gone otherwise.  He'll pull at his tether, too.  Even though the dog is small, that young of a girl shouldn't be walking it by herself.  An adult with her could have quickly diffused the situation.  I thought the ruling was fair.  Once the JR set foot on the GS's "turf", they become partly responsible.  Had the German been tethered, and the JR pulled the girl in or the girl lost her grip, I'd have been OK with the P getting nothing at all.  The D, while a little cold and factual, was not ranting or raving, and brought a coherent, sensible witness.

Bouncy House Scammer, on the other hand....Lordy.  If someone on FB Marketplace said "Hey, wanna keep this?", darn straight I'd be asking for something in writing, to protect myself.  She couldn't keep her many lies straight, and I'd bet that her whole family are nothing but scammers.  I had a co-worker years ago (also purportedly very religious) who would brag about how they'd go on vacation and eat for free because they'd complain the food was bad, or some other such nonsense.  Someone I know who has known the family for years said a favorite scam of theirs was to pray loudly so others would stare, or complain about them being loud, then say they were being religiously persecuted to scam free food.  I saw someone try to pull the same thing a few months back at a fast food place, and I flat-out said that no one said anything to them, nor looked at them sideways when they called the manager out.  Former co-worker's kids are now well versed in this scam, and her parents were as well.

I was so distracted by Scammer's horrible facial piercing, and what reminded me of a feminine napkin plastered to her head (yes, I know it was lace, but that's what it reminded me of, especially the odd placement).  My late evil MIL wanted me to wear this hideously ugly headpiece when I got married.  I had already chosen a hat with veil, but she didn't like it.  I finally told her I didn't want it because it looked like someone pasted a feminine napkin and attached a veil to it.  She backed off.

Edited November 19, 2019 by funky-rat

[Zahdii]

Children should not be walking dogs alone.  There needs to be an adult present, and that adult should be holding onto the leash.  Too many things can go wrong otherwise.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, Zahdii said:

Children should not be walking dogs alone.  There needs to be an adult present, and that adult should be holding onto the leash.  Too many things can go wrong otherwise.

Completely agree.  That GSD seemed to be a well-trained dog that didn't venture past its own boundaries.  I shudder to think what could have happened to that little girl if a neighbor's pit bull had gotten out.  

[Mondrianyone]

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

I was so distracted by Scammer's horrible facial piercing, and what reminded me of a feminine napkin plastered to her head (yes, I know it was lace, but that's what it reminded me of, especially the odd placement).  My late evil MIL wanted me to wear this hideously ugly headpiece when I got married.  I had already chosen a hat with veil, but she didn't like it.  I finally told her I didn't want it because it looked like someone pasted a feminine napkin and attached a veil to it.  She backed off.

This is what's known in legal circles as the Modess Defense.  (I just Googled Modess pads to see if they were still sold.  They are.  And I found this, in reference to how taboo the whole subject of menstruation was:  "Johnson & Johnson devised creative advertising strategies, including silent purchase coupons. The coupons allowed women to simply hand the voucher to the sale associate and the buy the pads without uttering a single word."  I guess we have come a long way.)

Did it look to anyone else as if the Scammer/Liar/Thief was pregnant again?  Just what the world needs more of.

The little girl in the Jack Russell case was exquisitely beautiful, but she had a rather odd affect, I thought.  Not that it will stop the offers of modeling contracts from pouring in--if she isn't already doing that.

JJ does understand that when you watch Honeymooners reruns on TV, they're in black and white because that's how they were filmed, doesn't she?  I'm never really sure how much of that techno-ignorance is genuine and how much is put on for comedy's sake.

[funky-rat]

11 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

The little girl in the Jack Russell case was exquisitely beautiful, but she had a rather odd affect, I thought.  Not that it will stop the offers of modeling contracts from pouring in--if she isn't already doing that.

She had a speech impediment, and I think that made her affect seem off.

[KittyMom4]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant complaints her fake eyelashes didn't stay on.  (the eyelashes probably didn't want to be seen in public with defendant).     Defendant should have sued her hairdresser, not the makeup artist. 

Omg, thought I was the only one who thought her hair was the issue, both in the photos and here on JJ. I was hoping to see the wedding photos to see how the new makeup artist did, although I have a strong suspicion that the Defendant wanted the "free" photo shoot and had no intention of using the Plaintiff as her make up artist.

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$1200 to plaintiff, because defendant is a liar, a cheat, and a thief.  

JJ was so right on every point she made, this lady is a professional scammer. She didn't hesitate with any of her excuses/reasons, she kept it up until the bitter end and then some. And her daughter with her blank expression and  "I'm not embarrassed" response is following in her mother's footsteps, hopefully right to jail. Disgusting.

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

I was so distracted by Scammer's horrible facial piercing, and what reminded me of a feminine napkin plastered to her head

LOL! My husband said it looked like she had one of his granny's lace handkerchiefs tied to her head! 

2 hours ago, funky-rat said:

I had a co-worker years ago (also purportedly very religious) who would brag about how they'd go on vacation and eat for free because they'd complain the food was bad, or some other such nonsense.

My sister's husband is like this, takes pride in scamming stuff for free. I told her she is complicit in it by not calling him out on it. 

[Zahdii]

I had a friend whose brother in law would take receipts from other peoples drive through orders and call up the restaurant to complain about the food.  "I ordered a burger without cheese and you put cheese on it!  I'm allergic to dairy!  Are you trying to kill me?"  "I wanted a large fry and you gave me a small one!  What the hell?"  "I ordered a burrito with everything on it, and I got a taco.  What are you going to do about this?"

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Zahdii said:

I had a friend whose brother in law would take receipts from other peoples drive through orders and call up the restaurant to complain about the food.  "I ordered a burger without cheese and you put cheese on it!  I'm allergic to dairy!  Are you trying to kill me?"  "I wanted a large fry and you gave me a small one!  What the hell?"  "I ordered a burrito with everything on it, and I got a taco.  What are you going to do about this?"

ah, yes - a frequent complaint in the pizza delivery biz is wrong toppings - first time a customer complains the management adds a notation on customer's computer info - depending how believable complaint is, and after checking with cook, manager will offer to replace food, but may or may not tell driver to bring back first delivery. Some customers say don't bother sending replacement, which, if manager believes them results in a notation that next time they'll get a discount or something free. If cook admits to screw up customer keeps all the food, otherwise driver is to bring it back..... a cook who habitually screws up ends up paying driver the delivery fee (every time driver leaves cost driver money (and potentially a big tip on delivery they missed making the second - free - delivery) and store is paying wages for someone not in rotation). If it happens too often, the cook gets to pay for the order - sometimes at full price, sometimes at regular employee discount depending on often it happens....... when customer is regular complainer I've heard our owner offer to refund the money, but only if customer brings food back to store. This sometimes results in complaint they'll never order again. Then they're surprised when next time they order they're told there's a note of the complaint - on very rare occasions note says to refuse service.

Edited November 19, 2019 by SRTouch

[Mondrianyone]

This is so interesting, @SRTouch!  I had no idea there was so much info-gathering going on in my local pizza place!  Do you know if these practices are pretty widespread or just limited to the larger chains with computerized ordering systems? You'd think people would be smart enough not to try the same thing repeatedly at the same pizzeria, but we've all watched JJ long enough to know how far that particular assumption gets you.

[Angeltoes]

Quote

The coupons allowed women to simply hand the voucher to the sale associate and the buy the pads without uttering a single word."  I guess we have come a long way.

We've either come a long way or the wrong way because these days people don't hesitate to get online and share with everyone they know, and total strangers who happen to be surfing by, every intimate detail about their life, body and relationships.  No discretion or secrets anymore.

That little girl in the dog case needed to be taught to say,"Yes, ma'am" instead of a robotic "un-huh."  Plus, no kid says "picked him up like he was a chew toy" unless she heard grown-ups say it or she was coached. 

She was an adorable little girl.  I told Mr. Angeltoes there was no way that she came from that guy (her dad).  He said he was sure they were parent/child because they had the same eyes.

[funky-rat]

5 minutes ago, Angeltoes said:

That little girl in the dog case needed to be taught to say,"Yes, ma'am" instead of a robotic "un-huh."  Plus, no kid says "picked him up like he was a chew toy" unless she heard grown-ups say it or she was coached. 

Or the "He was alerting me to danger" part.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Innocent Onlooker Steps Up-Plaintiff ($2147)suing defendant over a traffic accident, caused by defendant cutting plaintiff while driving.   Plaintiff's witness is an innocent onlooker.  As usual, defendant does not have insurance, and it lapsed the day before.    Plaintiff was driving, turning left with a green light, plaintiff turned left, and defendant (a liar)says she was already in the left hand lane turning, in front of the plaintiff, and claims plaintiff hit her car in the rear.   Plaintiff witness was behind and driving behind the two litigants, and says defendant cut off plaintiff, caused the accident.  Defendant's witness is her daughter, and her lies supporting her lying mother.    Plaintiff receives $ 2147, lying, uninsured defendant's counter claim is dismissed. 

By the way, when they rewrite my policy or I change companies, I'm covered, so why wasn't the defendant?    

Officer Byrd Nudged by a 13-Year-Old-Plaintiff-Plaintiff teen (actually his mom) is suing the mother of kid the plaintiff bullied on the playground, for his glasses breaking.     Fortunately, the kids aren't in the same school now.   Defendant says he was sitting on the slide, and plaintiff threw wood chips in his face twice, defendant told plaintiff to stop, and plaintiff took defendant's hat, and threw it in the trash.   

Plaintiff seems to think like Eddie Haskel (Leave it to Beaver) his charm will get him off the hook-Nope, not happening.   Plaintiff claims it was all just fun when he threw wood chips in the defendant's face, and ripped his hat off and put it in the trash.   A few minutes later plaintiff claims the defendant attacked him, and wanted to fight.   Plaintiff's mother thinks her son's stuff doesn't stink, and I bet he's always been a bully, and mother ignored it.  Plaintiff then pushed the kid, demonstrated on Officer Byrd.    Then plaintiff's glasses were broken.   JJ is paying nothing to the plaintiff, and gets a round of applause from the audience.   JJ dismisses case, and tells plaintiff mommy her kid is a bully, and he certainly is.   Bet plaintiff has a long history of bullying other kids.   

Second-

Hostile Work Environment-Plaintiffs claim defendant didn't pay them for work, but defendant claims he advanced the couple so much money, that he owes them nothing.  The plaintiffs worked painting a house, and some handyman work on the same house.  Each week defendant paid them for their wages, minus what he advanced during the week.  Plaintiff says a hostile work environment existed with defendant, for example when plaintiff mixed the wrong paint.    Case dismissed (Ms. Monteczuma hasn't done too well since this either).    

Trampoline Park Accident-Plaintiff suing defendant (they both worked at a trampoline park), and plaintiff's iPhone was damaged.  Plaintiff's phone was sitting in the break room, on top of an empty, large pizza box, and defendant stabbed the pizza box.  When defendant took pencil out of box, phone was flipped into a bowl of punch and ruined the phone.   As JJ points out, defendant should replace the phone.  Defendant claims plaintiff had insurance on the phone, so it shouldn't have cost full price to replace.    $300 to plaintiff, and defendant needs to leave mommy at home next time.  

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, Mondrianyone said:

This is so interesting, @SRTouch!  I had no idea there was so much info-gathering going on in my local pizza place!  Do you know if these practices are pretty widespread or just limited to the larger chains with computerized ordering systems? You'd think people would be smart enough not to try the same thing repeatedly at the same pizzeria, but we've all watched JJ long enough to know how far that particular assumption gets you.

I imagine pretty much every store that has a computer has a field for comments. The store I work for is a small family business (2 stores in Ok and 3, with same name, in Colorado owned by brother in law). Ours has some comments which print on the ticket (like driver directions to call first, or come to side door, etc), and another field which is for internal comments customer is never meant to see - the internal comments can be set to pop up on screen when order is being made, or set to only be accessible by management. Say a regular customer routinely forgets to ask for the free breadsticks anyone can get, upon request, with any order over $10 - a comment may be added to ask if they want free sticks (if you know what to ask for you can get better deals lots of places where servers are told not to volunteer the info).

For instance, the same pizza at our store sells for $9.99,   $11.99 or $13.99 depending on how the order is placed - and the person taking the order is NOT supposed to volunteer the lowest price. (I admit I routinely break that rule, but don't tell the boss.....) Another good one is a large 1 topping pizza ($11.99) and an order of breadsticks ($3.99) where a customer could get the same two items for $9.99 (plus the free half order of sticks upon request) just by asking for a 'pizza and sticks' deal with free sticks...... it all comes down to reading the menu, cuz if you don't ask for the special on the phone we're not supposed to offer - not even supposed to tell you the specials unless you specifically ask..... like I said, I routinely break the rule - not only because I try to treat the customer as I'd like to be treated, but because I think a customer not only tips better when treated that way, but is more apt to order again...... the store owner disagrees, but his wife is on my side and doesn't mind us offering the specials unless we're really busy and have lines on hold

Edited November 19, 2019 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Whoa, anybody else's notification button going crazy. Just posted a comment, and when I went to the top of the page was told I had 46 unread notifications - nope, really just 2...... 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

8 Year-Old Vandals' Getaway Car-Plaintiff suing parents of two 8 year olds, who stole items, and vandalized his shop.    Plaintiff stores property in the basement of his father's property, two kids broke in, were unsupervised.   One boy tells Judge Judy his story in the witness chair, the other kid needs to stop trying to coach the delinquent on the stand.        The witness admits he went in the basement (apparently it's not really a basement) at least five times.   The vandalism to the man's property included piling up broken property in the office, the plaintiff's car was keyed with a crowbar, and plaintiff witness heard a running motorcycle.    There is a cell phone photo of the two boys, who the witness saw in the building.   The police were called.   Plaintiff's car trunk was loaded with knives, crowbars, tape, a blow torch, and boys said they were going to take the car, but they couldn't get the garage door up.   The boys also spray painted all over the inside of the building.  There is a picture of the boys coming back two months later, and there's another picture of them from the witness' cell phone.  $2300 to plaintiff, and defendants claim there was no proof of the boy's damage and trespassing, but there are photos.   The defendant mothers are morons. 

Intentional Puppy Poisoning-Plaintiff suing former landlord, and friend for property damage, and nearly killing her French Bulldog puppy ($3,000 in vet bills).     Plaintiff paid no rent at any time, and claims defendant told her if she cooked she didn't have to pay rent.    Defendant told plaintiff he was going to evict her, and she left, and found the locks were changed on her after she left.   She wants $5,000 for her property.  Defendant says it was supposed to be a temporary arrangement, and woman was supposed to stay until she found another place, after being evicted from her previous room.   Defendant says there never was a personal relationship between him, and the plaintiff.   

Plaintiff went out of town for three days, and when she came back home she claims someone fed her dog sugar, and she claims creepy friend of landlord was going to sleep with her.     She claims her property was thrown in the garage, and damaged, and the locks were changed.  Vet report says dog had pneumonia.   Plaintiff claims her dog was very ill, and it was defendants' fault.    She was supposed to pick dog up from vet at 5 p.m, but she showed up at 12:30 p.m., demanded to take her dog home, and did.  (Plaintiff should stop with the lip fillers, and Kardashian hair extensions).       Case dismissed.      

Second (Rerun)-

Labrador Takes a Bite Out of Terrier-Plaintiff suing defendant (Labrador owner) for an attack on her dog.    Plaintiff was walking her dog (Jack Russell Terrier mix) on leash, when defendant's two unleashed dogs ran across the street (a Labrador, and a Chihuahua), and attacked her dog.    Defendant just won't shut up.   Defendant corraled her dogs, came back across the street, and offered to drive plaintiff and dog home.  When plaintiff arrived at home (she walked), they took dog to vet for overnight, and vet records are submitted.   

Defendant claims the JRT/mix jumped in her car, and her dogs were defending her.   Defendant claims plaintiff was on the same side of the street, and off leash.  Defendant claims she felt sorry for plaintiff dog, and only offered to pay because she's a nice person(No, she's not a nice person, she's an idiot).   Homeowner's insurance was for the front house, but defendant lives in the guest house.   Byrd has to tell both litigants to shut up.   $1536 to plaintiff, defendant is still an idiot.    

Another One Bytes the Dust-Plaintiff suing defendant /computer technician for lost wages, cost of computer, and computer lessons.   Plaintiff said she traded old computer to defendant, and he was supposed to teach her to use the new computer.  The old computer was $1000, and was 10 years old, and plaintiff wants $2400.   New computer was only $500.  (Even I can send software from old to new computer, they sell it for less than $100).    New computer caught a virus, so maybe she should have put antivirus on it.     Case dismissed. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Rabbittron]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Whoa, anybody else's notification button going crazy. Just posted a comment, and when I went to the top of the page was told I had 46 unread notifications - nope, really just 2...... 

I got told I have 183 all day and after I cleared it next time same amount I  count each time. 

[gingerormaryann]

The kids who vandalized the "basement" were serial killers in training.  Overall, I was shocked at how easy JJ went on them and their disgusting mothers.  It was a very unsatisfying episode considering JJ always talks on the show how she was in family courts for how many years and if any kids needed intervention, these two do.

[nora1992]

Impeachment proceedings aired today instead of JJ locally,  but I did see the end of the case with the nanny, the plumber and the goulash gourmet.  How did it start? 

Reloading the website brought up the earlier comments, so my questions are answered.  Thanks!

Edited November 20, 2019 by nora1992
Display changed

[VartanFan]

Quote

See I completely disagreed with her ruling in that case.  The GSD was in HIS yard and controlled or not, did not start this trouble.  The little girl passed the yard without incident and it was HER dog that jerked her back and ran up to the GSD to engage.  There is nothing in the testimony that indicated that the GSD was evidencing aggressive behavior towards the JRT when it passed.  Her failure to control the JRT was the ONLY reason this incident happened.  

 I'm with you 100%.  Not only that, but there's no definitive proof that the GSD was NOT on a leash/lead/etc.  The D witness said he thought the dog was leashed and the P said he didn't think he was.  I feel like if the dog had NOT been on something, that jack russell would have been dead and possibly even bit the girl or the father.  We'll be bringing our new GSD puppy home on Dec 10th (and already signed up for the next puppy training class) and even at 8 weeks, my kids will not be walking her.  

UGH - dear broadcast networks - you each have AT LEAST 1 cable channel in your parent company.  Move the impeachment reality TV over there.  

[Carolina Girl]

17 hours ago, funky-rat said:

Or the "He was alerting me to danger" part.

He "alerted her to danger" apparently by dragging her back towards it.  She was totally coached.

[Carolina Girl]

57 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

We'll be bringing our new GSD puppy home on Dec 10th (and already signed up for the next puppy training class) and even at 8 weeks, my kids will not be walking her.  

I have had GSD's all my life, primarily for my son's "protection" and my own.  I hope your new puppy brings you and your family as much happiness as mine have for me.  That being said, if I ever got another dog, it could not be a GSD simply because I'm in my late 60's and could no longer walk or control a dog that size.  And you're absolutely right in not having your children walk the dog. 

[Mondrianyone]

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

(I admit I routinely break that rule, but don't tell the boss.....)

Your secret is safe with me, I promise.  (And thanks for letting me take you off topic for a minute.  I love learning the inside details of how things work that I'd otherwise have no access to.)

18 hours ago, Angeltoes said:

We've either come a long way or the wrong way because these days people don't hesitate to get online and share with everyone they know, and total strangers who happen to be surfing by, every intimate detail about their life, body and relationships.  No discretion or secrets anymore.

I'd say it's a long way when women don't have to be embarrassed to shop for necessary items by speaking the words they have to speak in a drugstore.  Very different from not having discretion online.

I looked at the little boys in the vandalism case and saw Gary Busey and Brad Pitt (with a little dental work) in about thirty years, except not as themselves but as a couple of thugs on the run in a bad-buddy movie.  Gary's mom seemed like a total moron, and Brad's was enabling him in all the worst ways.  JJ really dropped the ball on those two.  Their potential for mayhem definitely scared me.

[Hellohappylife]

I don’t know if I’d go as far as saying ”future serial killers” towards the two boys.  But I do think they are very easily on their way to a life of destruction and stupid choices. 

Especially the Blonde boy. He just seems a little cunning and sneaky,with how they kept showing him telling the other boy what to say. They are both guilty but the other boy seems to be a “follower” who will do anything to “impress” his peers. Even tho that doesn’t excuse his actions. The parents need to be more aware of what their kids are doing,where they are.  I don’t care if they are “8” that’s still a child. If you’re not gonna bother checking on them keeping tabs. Sign them up for sports,find a hobby they like,something that can occupy their time and mind. If you can’t do that,Then keep them inside,where they are free to destroy your property not others. I’m glad they don’t live on my street. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Hellohappylife

[gingerormaryann]

The amount of vandalism those two hoodlums committed was staggering. They're under ten and they used crowbars on a car and attempted to steal it as well as a motorcycle.  I don't know if the contents of the trunk were placed in there by them, but it was as alarming as anything I've heard on JJ.  I would not at all be surprised that they're already torturing animals.

This episode was a monumental fail.  In the famous 60 Minutes piece, JJ said she was trying to scare a young defendant.  She didn't try to scare those two or their mothers at all.  Looking at the kids' reactions, they were amused and bored by the proceedings.  One of them was shown yawning incessantly and they were both talking throughout with no admonishment from JJ. No control whatsoever.

For whatever reason, in this episode, she turned into the exact kind of Judge she has been so outspoken against.

[funky-rat]

33 minutes ago, gingerormaryann said:

The amount of vandalism those two hoodlums committed was staggering. They're under ten and they used crowbars on a car and attempted to steal it as well as a motorcycle.  I don't know if the contents of the trunk were placed in there by them, but it was as alarming as anything I've heard on JJ.  I would not at all be surprised that they're already torturing animals.

This episode was a monumental fail.  In the famous 60 Minutes piece, JJ said she was trying to scare a young defendant.  She didn't try to scare those two or their mothers at all.  Looking at the kids' reactions, they were amused and bored by the proceedings.  One of them was shown yawning incessantly and they were both talking throughout with no admonishment from JJ. No control whatsoever.

For whatever reason, in this episode, she turned into the exact kind of Judge she has been so outspoken against.

I was shocked she didn't at least take the mothers to task, but maybe there was more that was edited out.  That's all I can figure.  That, or there are criminal charges pending, since the police were called.  Mr. Funky half expected her to yell at the Plaintiff a bit for having stuff out where kids could get at it, but thankfully she left that alone.  With the staggering amount of damage those kids did, there's really no innocent excuse for it.  Mr. Funky thought the blonde might have some sort of delay of some variety - his actions in court were....odd.  And yes, the other one seems like a classic joiner-inner.

I did find the comments they made to the witness to be a little chilling - so matter-of fact, like there was zero wrong with what they were doing.  I hope anything done by the cops included a visit to both homes by CPS, to find out why these kids are running the streets.  If one of them would have gotten hurt, you darn well better believe the moms would have sued.  Kids to get in to mischief, and are nosy.  I will own up to some of it.  Growing up, a friend's parents managed a mobile home park.  There would be mobiles sitting in a holding area of sorts, pulled off their lots due to lack of payment of rent, etc.  A lot of times, they'd be chocked full of stuff - they'd know they were getting evicted, and they'd take what they needed and let everything else behind.  It was really easy to get in and out of those mobiles.  Eventually, they'd either get claimed or sold, but we'd go in there and hang out.  One of them, we called our "clubhouse".  But we never stole anything, or vandalized anything.  Ever.  Seriously.  And we were pretty young too, but our parents taught us right from wrong.  We were under the mistaken impression that my friend's dad owned those mobiles.  Once we found out he didn't, we stopped going in, unilike last night's kids.

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff went out of town for three days, and when she came back home she claims someone fed her dog sugar, and she claims creepy friend of landlord was going to sleep with her.     She claims her property was thrown in the garage, and damaged, and the locks were changed.  Vet report says dog had pneumonia.   Plaintiff claims her dog was very ill, and it was defendants' fault.    She was supposed to pick dog up from vet at 5 p.m, but she showed up at 12:30 p.m., demanded to take her dog home, and did.  (Plaintiff should stop with the lip fillers, and Kardashian hair extensions).       Case dismissed.      

The dog case was really odd.  I somewhat believed the plaintiff that she had an agreement to cook and clean in exchange for a room, becuase the Defendant never asked her for rent, even though he claimed she was lying.  I also found his "friend" creepy as all get-out.  She didn't allege they gave the dog sugar, though.  The dog's name was Sugar (that confused me at first, but it was on the vet rport).  The vet report said the dog was fed goulash, and vomited up onion, which can be fatal to some animals - especially cats, who should hever have onion.  The dog had pneumonia, but I wonder if it ate the goulash, vomited, and aspirated, which could cause pneumonia.  Not sure why she was in a hurry to get the dog out of the vet, but it could be due to money, or she was trying to get home because she knew they'd kick her out.  Still, a bad idea to pull the dog from vet care early.

I also somewhat believe they fed the dog, because I can't fathom how a tiny dog could get at food, unless it was left low where it could reach, or the dog got it from the trash, but I don't recall hearing that.  I don't think it was necessarily malicious, but I do think they fed the dog people food.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The witness in the vandals case also said something interesting, she said between the first time she caught them destroying the shop, and trying to steal the car, she said the one kid (the now blonde one) had red hair.   Then it court it was back to blonde, bet one or both of the mothers thought they could claim their kid had blonde hair, so it was a lie that their kid did it.   The dark haired mother was the typical criminal mother, deny everything, claim the proof is fabricated, and gives her kid an alibi, it's the same thing she'll be doing at his murder trial in 10 years.   

Dogs should never have grapes, raisins, or other small fruits, and onions or garlic.    The woman in the dog case sounds like a terrible pet owner.  She was, dumping her dog in the back yard all of the time, in cold weather, and then wondering how the dog ended up with pneumonia.  Then she was out of town for three days, and mentioned nothing about where the dog was during that time.  

Edited November 20, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[bad things are bad]

Judy said something to one of those hoodlum boys about how telling the truth in court was the best thing to do. Those kids (and moms) need all the advice they can get about how to behave in court. They're going to be seeing the insides of a few of them. 

[gingerormaryann]

I agree that the kid having red hair in the photo and light hair in the courtroom was one of the other interesting and unexplored elements in the case.  It certainly merited the entire episode or maybe they just shouldn't have aired it.  

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, gingerormaryann said:

I agree that the kid having red hair in the photo and light hair in the courtroom was one of the other interesting and unexplored elements in the case.  It certainly merited the entire episode or maybe they just shouldn't have aired it.  

His mom was blonde.  It looked "red" red in the photos - like a fake hair dye.  Not like normal red hair, which is more ginger tone.  But still, there was so much shadiness there.  Hoping it's not a situation where the parents are encouraging the kids to break in to places (yes, it does happen - we had a dad here using his kids to sell drugs).

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Jealousy-Fueled Vandalism-Plaintiff claims defendant kicked her car on the way to the casino.  Plaintiff is rather vague on her facts, and she didn't report the incident until six days later.  Plaintiff gets $4317 for car damages.    Defendant claims plaintiff witness rammed him into the car, not happening. 

Fire Pit Craziness-Plaintiffs suing former landlord for return of a security deposit ($1789), landlord claims for lease violation.   There was a walk through with landlady.    There is a formal letter to plaintiffs for $1789 in damages, for a fire pit.  Plaintiff's claim it wasn't an active fire pit.   $1789 for plaintiffs.     IF the landlady wanted to break the lease, then she should have enforced it during the year, and evicted the tenants for having other people living there. 

Bitten Buyer-Plaintiff salesman went to defendant's home, and is suing over her dog biting him.    Garage door was open, with two large dogs in it, but a third dog came out of the house when defendant opened the door, and an Australian Terrier bit the plaintiff.   Defendant makes the usual stupid excuses.   $500 for plaintiff.

Second-

Most Wanted Shoplifter-Plaintiff suing for defamation of character after defendant put up a photo of him, labelled 'shoplifter', after a dispute over cheap cigars.    Defendant, and his brother both claim plaintiff is a shoplifter.    There is a police report about the March incident.    Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to fight him.    Plaintiff brought a witness who wasn't in the store during the incident, must have wanted the trip to L.A.    Case dismissed, and plaintiff is banned from the store.   

The Reluctant Landlord-Plaintiff suing former landlord-to-be for storage fees, and security deposit for a room he wanted to rent.   Defendant claims man signed the lease (no she doesn't), and backed out at the last minute, and she wants the month's rent.  $200 security was paid to defendant, and when he couldn't get a key early, he bailed.    Defendant said she couldn't give him a key until the lease is signed, and rent paid.    I think defendant dodged a bullet by him not moving in.    Plaintiff does not seem tied to reality.   Plaintiff gets his $200 back, if she would have had a signed lease it would have been different.  

[Florinaldo]

JJ really needs to better plan her bowel movemens so she takes them before going on-air. This might help her being less cantankerous and arbitrary than she has been recently.

She shoud also realise that when she portrays "how things were done in my days" as the better way to do it, she generally embarrasses herself. Are we supposed to think that she and her husband met thanks to the services of a shadchan? 

And is "Gue-linda" a character only found in in the deleted scenes from The Wizard of Oz?

Edited November 20, 2019 by Florinaldo

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Life-Saving Counselor Defends Against Attack-Plaintiff suing former employer suing defendant for unfinished work and breach of contract.   Litigants met through an online dating site, and she almost immediately wanted him to give her money for rent, in return for a marketing plan ($1000).   Defendant never did the work, and was canned by plaintiff.  Defendant is also married now, and they only met in July, met one time and didn't have a relationship.  Defendant is a Sainted Single Mother of ? (SSMO?).   Defendant says the work was worth $1,000, and plaintiff says it wasn't worth that.    The plaintiff is some kind of addiction counselor, he doesn't seem well suited to that, and JJ doesn't think so either.   Plaintiff gets $375 back.   

20K Salt Lake City Latin Dance Festival!  What Could Go Wrong-Plaintiff suing dance coach and partner for unpaid loans.    Dance venue required deposits for the festival competition, $ and plaintiff says she misbehaved so much at the dance studio (they had an intimate relationship), that defendant had to close the business.    Plaintiff paid $, during their affair, for the contest (does that mean she's not getting money back?).   Defendant wanted to put on the Utah Latin Dance Festival,   Plaintiff gets nothing, since they were living together. 

Second-

Judge Judy's Snoring Room-Plaintiff and defendant were (2004 to 2010)divorced from each other, then were engaged (2018-2019), and plaintiff is suing for a broken apartment lease.   Defendant claims the plaintiff was violent, broke into her house.  However, plaintiff says defendant never actually moved in, but signed the lease (May 2019), so she's on the hook.   Defendant claims she was released from the lease, but JJ says it's worthless.    Plaintiff asked his current roommate to move out, and then defendant didn't move in, and a month later plaintiff started looking for another roommate.   Defendant claims plaintiff broke into her place, but plaintiff says it was a check to see if the woman had drugs in her house.   $3750 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.   

Ungrateful Stepson-Plaintiff suing his estranged step father for insurance and registration fees for a car he purchased from step father.   Plaintiff says he paid in full, received tickets and fines for not registering car, but step father refused to give him the title.  Plaintiff has no proof, but claims he paid the step father for the insurance, and has been unable to register the car in his name.   Title currently is in plaintiff's hands, but he still can't register the vehicle. He has the title, but it took 9 months to get the title from step father.  Fines, and tickets supposedly make it impossible for plaintiff to register car in his name (nope, didn't understand a word about why). but car was $900, and it's worth double that, so case dismissed.

[SandyToes]

42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge Judy's Snoring Room-Plaintiff and defendant were (2004 to 2010)divorced from each other, then were engaged (2018-2019), and plaintiff is suing for a broken apartment lease.   Defendant claims the plaintiff was violent, broke into her house.  However, plaintiff says defendant never actually moved in, but signed the lease (May 2019), so she's on the hook.   Defendant claims she was released from the lease, but JJ says it's worthless.    Plaintiff asked his current roommate to move out, and then defendant didn't move in, and a month later plaintiff started looking for another roommate.   Defendant claims plaintiff broke into her place, but plaintiff says it was a check to see if the woman had drugs in her house.   $3750 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant. 

I would have bet money I'd seen this one before. I even checked the dates, since JJ has her RBG hair.  But soft!  It IS a new one! Maybe we've just seen this kind of thing so many times before.

And I agree. Snoring.....

[JD5166]

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dogs should never have grapes, raisins, or other small fruits, and onions or garlic.    The woman in the dog case sounds like a terrible pet owner.  She was, dumping her dog in the back yard all of the time, in cold weather, and then wondering how the dog ended up with pneumonia.  Then she was out of town for three days, and mentioned nothing about where the dog was during that time.  

THIS! I fear for those little dogs, she can clearly afford (botched) lip fillers, but not pet care. She’s almost too dumb to hate, standing there with her mouth hanging open in confusion, like she’s catching flies. I disliked this plaintiff more than most because she’s such a negligent dog owner.