All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[AuntiePam]

10 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

As for Friday’s case, didn’t the defendant give an estimate for the cost before starting?  And what happened to his acknowledged, frequent 7-Eleven gas purchases?  If he underbid the costs, and there was a contract, tough.  He’s the expert.  It’s like the plaintiffs ordered a steak from the defendant, and then, after cooking the steak, the defendant raised the cost.

Good point.  But she'd wasted so much time -- she's terrible at repeating herself -- she was tired of the case and wanted it to go away.

That case was one where JJ needed to use her listening ears.  She didn't give anyone enough time to explain the deal they'd worked out, what the defendant did, and how much he was paid.   I wonder how much of her confusion is on the producers.  I assume they interview the parties, and don't rely solely on the papers filed in the local courts.  ??

[CrazyInAlabama]

My understanding is that the litigants give a statement with their case, and maybe supporting evidence, and then have to sign the statement.    I'm sure in the gun case, that the statements were much more lurid about daddy's reasons for wanting the guns back, and that's how the yoga instructor remark ended up on tape.    I'm guessing that the cases are actually longer, then are cut down a lot.   

I don't blame the adult children for being upset at their father, who seemed very vindictive over the divorce.    I think the son was exactly right about the father's reasons for wanting the guns back.      I wonder if the father really expected the ex-wife, and kids to accept everything he's doing after all these years of marriage?    

[Florinaldo]

Considering how often litigants seem unfamiliar with the statement they filed, I would say it is quite probable that the show's staff edits and puts their words (written or verbal) into some coherent shape (as much as it can be done from their ramblings and confused stories), and then have them sign it.

Which many of them apparently do without even reading it.

[DoctorK]

47 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Which many of them apparently do without even reading it.

If they can indeed read.

[Guest]

On 1/8/2020 at 4:24 PM, patty1h said:

After she leaves the courtroom, her real stank facade came out when she she admits that she took his money and it appears that she was hoping to get over on Boche using "the pretty girl excuse".  I really saw red when that bitch got all shady after the case and and stated that " money is money. green is green, and I needed my rent". 

Jennifer Needham is traaaaaash. I mean, my jaw was on the floor when she flat out admitted in the last snippet of the hallterview that she purposefully scammed the guy. I mean, how much more amoral can a person get? And then try to get him fired from his job for "stalking" her? And I loved how she was crying poor all while claiming she bought a new phone and showing off her $100 manicure. She should spend some of her money getting rid of that basic bitch hair color that needs some refreshing from 2016. 

 

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

During a case today, JJ called one of the plaintiffs "Rip Van Winkle" because he said he was asleep during a drunken party.  When there was no reaction from the courtroom at that nickname, JJ polled the audience to see who didn't know Rip Van Winkle is.   There were hardly any response, and JJ says "it's time to die" after realizing that much of the court room didn't know this storybook character. 

I'm not sure if it's sad or funny that JJ feels that way.

I do medical transcription and one of my clients was dictating in a room with a 95 year old patient and he said "the patient will return in four months" and I could hear the patient say in her little old Jewish lady voice "IF I'M STILL ALIVE". I think that's the humor JJ was going after, lol. 

Quote

Jennifer Needham is traaaaaash. I mean, my jaw was on the floor when she flat out admitted in the last snippet of the hallterview that she purposefully scammed the guy. I mean, how much more amoral can a person get? And then try to get him fired from his job for "stalking" her? And I loved how she was crying poor all while claiming she bought a new phone and showing off her $100 manicure. She should spend some of her money getting rid of that basic bitch hair color that needs some refreshing from 2016. 

First of all, my station is always messed up. I get cases sometimes three or four days after the rest of you lucky ducks, mostly because they get preempted because of the news (car chases, tornado warnings, presidential stuff, etc, etc). 

That said, how desperate does the plaintiff have to be to need a dating app to get JNeed ? I had to google Bumble (just to make sure it wasn't like Tinder) and the women make the first move on that app - which means JNeedy was out scouting for chuckleheads with low self esteem who were attracted to LimuEmu-ish chicks with loooong eyelashes and no moral compass. Ugh. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by ItsHelloPattiagain

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Limo Driver Thief?-Plaintiff suing former limo driver over damage to his limo, auto repairs to her car (plaintiff owns an auto repair shop), and stolen limo fares.   Defendant claims there wasn't an accident, and she doesn't believe there is any damage.  Plaintiff has two limos, and defendant was an independent contractor driving for him five years ago, left for a while, and a year ago she started driving again for him.  Plaintiff claims she went on a job, and didn't bring the limo back for several days, and JJ says if she was on duty, then his insurance should have covered it.   Plaintiff says the rules are explained to the drivers, he thinks damage happened between gigs, when defendant was driving limo for her own purposes.   

Defendant claims she was driving clients for plaintiff when whatever happened occurred.    Defendant claims hitting a marker in the parking lot isn't an accident.   Limo photos are a dent and scrape all along the passenger side, from front to back wheel wells.   $1000 to plaintiff, because that's his deductible, fares thrown out (due to eight month time span between limo drives, and court).    Also, after this he kept using her as a driver, and did three repairs to her personal car, pending settlement from family inheritance.    Case dismissed, no proof, no sense by plaintiff. 

$50,000 Truck Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid car payments, and car upgrades, defendant counter suing for the usual cellphone, a bed, two sofas, and other junk.     Plaintiff bought truck, made payments, and truck was in defendant's name.  Plaintiff wants his payments back, but would have to get refinanced, and get truck in his name.   (It's been a long time since I saw two unlikable litigants like these two, and their witnesses look angry too).  Plaintiff paid all of the payments, but defendant just started making payments in November.    Case dismissed, the litigants are arguing like they're on Jerry Springer or Maury.  

Burn, Baby, Burn-Plaintiff suing former friend for cost of her car after it caught fire on his property.   Plaintiff had car accident, towed car to defendant's property, and she paid nothing.   She wants $5k for her car, claims she's disabled, doesn't work, and can't pay for repairs (then don't just get liability).     Two months later the car was burned in a fire on the lot.        Plaintiff standing there looking stunned about JJ not paying her $5,000.   Defendant was claimed to be burning rubbish in a burn barrel, and her car supposedly burned.    Defendant had told her to get her car off of his lot.  Plaintiff is outraged that JJ told her to stuff it.   

Second-

Pregnancy Complications-Plaintiff suing defendant after she found out he was cheating on her while she's pregnant.    Plaintiff suing for car loan, medical bills, damage to her credit.   Apparently defendant is paying nothing for their baby either.    Plaintiff claims she put down two car down payments for him, and took over car payments.   Plaintiff says the medical bills were while they were broken up, and claims the hospitalization was from catching syphilis from defendant.   She also says baby is at risk of death from the congenital syphilis (Don't all OBs do STD tests, especially Syphilis?)       Defendant admits the Syphilis allegation.   

Plaintiff repossessed the car, and gave back to the finance company.   Defendant's claim is dismissed for car.      The baby is a year old, and plaintiff is only applying for child support now.        Plaintiff had medical insurance, and out of pocket is $80, and upcoming bills are the jurisdiction of the family court.     Punitive damages for ruining her credit, are another thing she wants.     The two parents are at total odds, and I doubt this is going to change.  JJ also has nothing to do with visitation.    Case dismissed.   I bet the future court date in family court was spectacular.  

12 Year-Old Shih Tzu Scare-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills after his Shih Tzu was attacked by defendant's Border Collie.  Plaintiff's vet records are June, and defendant says it happened in September.    I guess defendant is trying for the stupidity defense?   Plaintiff was living in a studio apartment, in a home and was the only resident.    Plaintiff came home with the dog, entered his own yard, when defendant said that his B.C. was in the back yard, and plaintiff should pick his dog up, and B.C. attacked the smaller dog without provocation.   Defendant claims he was moving into the house, but never did.   Vet bills added up to almost $9,000.     Poor Shih Tzu had a broken jaw among other injuries.   Defendant also claims the landlord was there, and defendant was going to sign a lease, but didn't, and landlord isn't in court either.     (I remember this case, the defendant is scary).

Shih Tzu is perfectly behaved.    $5,000 for vet bills.  (Defendant stomps his way out of the courtroom, and in hall-terview defendant remembers everything now).

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Do the Hustle-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan.    Defendant swears everything is a gift, not a loan, and he's a hustler, or as JJ says 'hustla'.    Plaintiff has never worked any job for six months total.  Plaintiff looks half asleep, or something.    Defendant lost his job, and wanted to sue the employer, so plaintiff gave or loaned him $3,000 for the attorney.  Case was dismissed because defendant had no evidence.   Defendant previously paid back $500 out of $1,000 to send to his mother back home.    Somehow I can see that plaintiff wouldn't be a good waitress, since she's bare conscious in court.  Plaintiff says defendant blocked her on all social media, and only found out defendant lost the lawsuit through word of mouth.    JJ says defendant is not a nice man, and a hustla.    Defendant claims letting plaintiff stay at him home rent free was expensive.    JJ mentions woman has 'challenges' and I think she looks stoned.  Byrd does not like it when the defendant tries to charge the Sacred  Chair of Justice.     I really think Byrd would like to drop kick the defendant's phone accidentally.  Plaintiff gets $4500, and defendant is still a hustla.    (Hall-terview plaintiff says she found out defendant had another girlfriend, in another country, and was supporting her with plaintiff's money). (Amazing, plaintiff seems a ton less 'challenged' in the hallway).

Child Welfare Feud-Plaintiff suing the father of her child for filing a false restraining order.    Plaintiff has another boy (10 years old), plus the 3 year old with defendant.   Plaintiff's only source of income is making soaps and lotions at home for sale.    JJ asks if while they were living together that plaintiff ever saw any inappropriate conduct with her son, and she says No.    However, the plaintiff did call the police for a welfare check on defendant when he had visitation with their daughter, and said she thought he was abusing her.   I can see why he got a restraining order.   

When the couple separated, plaintiff would leave the son, and their daughter with defendant, and they frequently spent the night (once a week).    One day after the separation, woman took son and daughter over to visit, and she saw another woman leaving the apartment.   The son was picked up by her, but the daughter stayed with the man for about three weeks.    The plaintiff kept calling the police to make welfare checks on the daughter over the three week visit, and claiming abuse.    The defendant says one time he called for a welfare check on plaintiff, because plaintiff wouldn't give him his daughter on the scheduled visitation.       

Plaintiff case dismissed, because restraining order was legit.  JJ calls this abuse of police time, and she's right. 

Second (Rerun)-

Ex-Girlfriend's Bulldog Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend over the dog that was purchased while they were together.  Plaintiff wants the dog back, and is suing over unauthorized use of a credit card, an assault, and a false arrest.   Defendant says the dog is her registered therapy animal over the assault PTSD.   Plaintiff purchased the dog will all of her money, not defendant's.   The dog is a French Bulldog., and defendant claims the dog was a gift to her.  Dog costs $1400.    Women broke up, plaintiff went to get her belongings, and the dog.  Plaintiff was removed by the police after the complaint of assault by defendant, and defendant was granted a restraining order, and charges were dismissed.  This means the suit over false arrest is dismissed.    Plaintiff gets $1400 for the dog.  The defendant wants to be paid for cat expenses.   Plaintiff says her sister/witness picked the cat up, and gave the cat to someone else.    Defendant hid the dog with a friend, and claims the two women came to her home at midnight, threatening her, and that's when the assault happened.    However, the arm scratches look very minor, and I think defendant could have done them herself.       

Plaintiff gets $0, and defendant gets $2500.           

Are You Buzzed?-Plaintiff suing his sister in law for causing his car to be impounded, and junked.   Defendant was driving the car, was driving while suspended, and was pulled over for ?.     No way she was pulled over for her warrant (pending drug charges), since license traced back to plaintiff.    Police report says she was pulled over for ?.     Plaintiff didn't have the money to get the car out of impound so it was eventually junked (I guess no one wanted to buy it at auction).      As JJ rules, only plaintiff could get the car out, and he didn't, so case dismissed.   

(JJ tells the defendant that she looks buzzed, and she's so right, she's actually swaying in the hall-terview).

Edited January 14, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Do the Hustle-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan.    Defendant swears everything is a gift, not a loan, and he's a hustler, or as JJ says 'hustla'.    Plaintiff has never worked anyway for six months total.  Plaintiff looks half asleep, or something. 

 

I'd really like to know how plaintiff saved thousands of dollars to give to defendant.  Her demeanor made me think she has a mental disability of some sort.  And JJ seemed to recognize that there was something amiss.  Did she say plaintiff was "challenged" or "vulnerable" -- something like that.  She was a bit more animated in the hallterview.

And the plaintiff in the second case, whose only income is making soaps and lotions at home?  Nuh uh.  She's getting some kind of assistance or child support, or she has a regular job but doesn't want anyone to know. 

[parrotfeathers]

19 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

And the plaintiff in the second case, whose only income is making soaps and lotions at home?  Nuh uh.  She's getting some kind of assistance or child support, or she has a regular job but doesn't want anyone to know.

I thought the same thing.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The one with the hustla ex certainly seemed challenged in court, with the droopy eyelids, and dull demeanor.   However, when she was out of the courtroom for the hall interview, she was perky as hell.    I think she played us.     

[Florinaldo]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Limo Driver Thief?

Another egregious ruling by JJ, screwing another business owner. Granted the plaintiff was bad at explaining and presenting his arguments. but his main sin was not agreeing to JJ's reworking of the chronology since she got lost in the sequence of events because it did not fit her preconceived notion of the facts. And then she arbitrarily decides not to award him the money she had said he was entitled to. It seemed obvious that based on a preponderance of the evidence and in light of ther shifting lies, the defendant did drive the limo for her own purposes. He should however have been more strict after the accident and her failing to hand over her fares, for example by refusing to assign her new jobs until she gave him the money.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff's only source of income is making soaps and lotions at home for sale.

Unless her products are so good people pay insane prices for them, the volume of sales necessary to generate income sufficient for a small family would be so high that an apartment could not contain the necessary production facilities.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think a lot of the issue with the limo case is the limo owner kept employing the woman, and did her car repairs on multiple occasions after the accident.      I'm really wondering if he had full coverage too, or just liability.    I was amazed that after the accident when the defendant kept the limo between hires, and didn't pay him the fares, that he kept her as an employee. 

[bad things are bad]

so did anyone else get a political ad featuring JJ during yesterday's show? 

[AuntiePam]

46 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

so did anyone else get a political ad featuring JJ during yesterday's show? 

Was it for Bloomberg?  She's endorsed him.  I fast-forward the ads so if there was one, I didn't see it.  And I live in Iowa -- we've been bombarded with political ads for more than a year.  I'll be so glad when the caucuses are over and the politicians can ignore us again.

[bad things are bad]

I'm in Michigan, our primary is in March, so we are seeing ads but not the onslaught yet.

Yes, it was for Bloomberg. I just thought it was interesting ad placement to run it in the middle of her show (are they doing Bloomberg ads on Bloomberg News, LOL). It was only shown once IIRC 

[KittyMom4]

On 1/13/2020 at 9:56 AM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I had to google Bumble (just to make sure it wasn't like Tinder) and the women make the first move on that app

I had to explain to Mr. Keps what Bumble was, sadly I'm sure JNeed* has had other victims besides this poor schmuck

*tm to @ItsHelloPattiagain

On 1/11/2020 at 7:47 PM, nora1992 said:

Throwing a homemaker out on her ear after nearly 40 years of not working is physically harmful. How will she support herself?  Even if she can claim plaintiff’s SS income in retirement, does that mean SS pays out twice as much as was put in, since he’ll claim his own SS too?  I’ve always wondered how that works.  If 2x as much gets paid out, then his divorce is harming all of us

I do believe, if she has a good lawyer that she can get a pretty good 'spousal support' payment, or a lump sum of some kind. Also, if Mr. Yoga Instructor Lover has any form of retirement pension/savings, she is entitled to 50%, I'm pretty sure. I know when I went through my divorce in NY 20 years ago my attorney advised me to go after my ex's government pension, I declined. I worked full time and had my own 401k, plus we had already been through 6 months of mediation and I didn't want to restart it all again. 

On 1/10/2020 at 4:17 PM, Bobby88 said:

I also meant to add that I thought JJ was way off about the adult children keeping their nose out of their parents' divorce. I didn't get the impression that these defendants were needlessly butting into their parents' relationship problems just to stir up trouble. Their father, after nearly 40 years of marriage to their mother, leaves her for another woman (do we know if that's really what happened or if JJ was simply using the yoga instructor thing as an example to make a point?). They're rightfully angry with him and are probably just trying to help their mother cope with the betrayal.

I agree with you in this case. Sounds like the wife may have been blindsided, and that can cause a lot of issues with adult children. Most of the time, if it's just been a bad relationship and both parties are unhappy, I would agree with JJ, but in this case I can see where the kids might rightfully have some animosity for their idiot father. 

[KittyMom4]

19 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I'd really like to know how plaintiff saved thousands of dollars to give to defendant.  Her demeanor made me think she has a mental disability of some sort.  And JJ seemed to recognize that there was something amiss.  Did she say plaintiff was "challenged" or "vulnerable" -- something like that.  She was a bit more animated in the hallterview.

I did wonder if she may have gotten some sort of SSI payout.

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The one with the hustla ex certainly seemed challenged in court, with the droopy eyelids, and dull demeanor.   However, when she was out of the courtroom for the hall interview, she was perky as hell.    I think she played us.     

I think her demeanor in court may have been shame and embarrassment, I felt like she realized how dumb she looked when she kept handing over money to that twat and then finding out he was sending it to his girlfriend. I think he totally snowed her into thinking they could have a relationship and she was probably so flattered that him asking her for money didn't make her question his motives. She wasn't too bright, hopefully this will make her think twice the next time some guy calls her pretty and then asks for a loan.

6 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Unless her products are so good people pay insane prices for them, the volume of sales necessary to generate income sufficient for a small family would be so high that an apartment could not contain the necessary production facilities

Yep. I have a friend of a friend who actually does natural soaps and lotions, not only is it a tedious and involved process, you also need basically an extra kitchen to make everything and a space to store it all and then package it. That girl with her dinner-plate-sized hoop earrings had way to much time to call the police to make welfare checks, there was no way she was busy slaving over a pot of soap rendering....

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

$100 Basketball Bet Turns Violent-Plaintiff suing defendant an assault over a basketball game bet, and missing property.    Two years before there was $100 bet on the game, plaintiff lost, and never paid up.   The two men started arguing over the non-payment, and a fight resulted.  Plaintiff claims he was badly injured, and his gold cross was ripped off (cross was found by police and returned).   Police report is presented.    Defendant was arrested, but is suing for a false police report.    Defendant claims plaintiff attacked him.  Defendant's case was resolved, and he plead out for a lesser charge, (he was originally charged with five charges) so his counter claim is dismissed.   Next time the plaintiff should pay his bets.   Since defendant plead guilty, his claim is gone.   Plaintiff gets $2500.

Quick!  I Need a Pizza Oven-Plaintiff contracted with defendant to have an outdoor pizza oven, and other items, and it had to be finished in a week, and it wasn't finished.  Plaintiff hired someone else to finish the work.   Defendant claims it rained 5 out of 7 days, and he was in the hospital too.   Defendant will have to return the money for the job.  However, defendant claims plaintiff paid by check, and put a stop payment on the check, and he never received any money from plaintiff.    However, JJ has proof that the check was cashed already.          $4,000 to plaintiff.  (In the hall-terview the plaintiff says the defendant wasn't in the hospital, but was arrested).   

Second-

French Bulldog Breeding Battle-Plaintiff suing defendant over a French Bulldog breeding.  Plaintiff (stud owner) was supposed to get pick of litter, between the two puppies from defendant's female.  This is the one where plaintiff keeps whining about DNA tests on the dog, but seems to have no basis in reality.    Plaintiff picked up her puppy six weeks after birth,  Plaintiff was selling the puppy a buyer, and they were going to breed the dogs.   Puppy was $15,000 and pick of litter from her first litter, to plaintiff.   She was going to mentor the buyer in how to breed and sell the puppies.    DNA lab sent results, and plaintiff decided something was wrong, this is not in the contract.    The DNA part of contract is only to prove parentage, not for whatever reason the plaintiff is alleging.   

Defendant wanted that puppy back, and he brought another puppy to the plaintiff's home.   Plaintiff claims defendant took both puppies, and claims the DNA didn't show what she wanted, not parentage (this is wrong).     The plaintiff took the other puppy, and sold the second puppy for $10k.    Plaintiff says contract says man can't sell his puppies with future breeding rights to them.    Contract says pick of litter, and parentage DNA.   Then plaintiff wanted some other DNA test.     Everything dismissed.    Apparently, she's whining about color DNA.  

DUI Meets the Company Credit Card-Plaintiff suing former employee for bailing himself out of jail for DUI with a company credit card.    The job is working on police radar.    Defendant went to work, was busted for DUI, plead guilty for a lesser charge to avoid license suspension.    The defendant looks kind of drunk in court too.    Defendant says bail bondsman had to get authorization from the plaintiff to use the credit card, and claims that happened, but plaintiff says he's lying.    $2245 was the total bail, plus fees, and plaintiff received none of this back from the bondsman.   Defendant has a counter claim, and claims he wasn't paid for two days he worked after he quit.    However, a couple of days ago the bondsman refunded is $1,950, leaving $295 for plaintiff.     

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Project Getaway-Plaintiff suing suing ex-boyfriend for an airline ticket, Airbnb costs, and damages after she financed his trip to NYC for Fashion Week.     He's a draftsman, and model and show biz entrepreneur.  They usually met in the park, and only went out one time.  Defendant was supposed to be getting a client into Fashion Week, had no money so he borrowed his expenses from plaintiff. Plaintiff receives $1,088.

Teen Harassed for 20 Bucks- Plaintiff claims he lost his job for not paying $20 back to defendant.   Plaintiff claims the relationship turned ugly when he refused defendant's advances.   Plaintiff is also married, so not open to other relationships.   Plaintiff's witness gets smacked back to her seat.  Plaintiff claims he didn't have $20 to pay the defendant back, so defendant came to his job and made a scene that resulted in plaintiff getting fired.  Case dismissed.   Nice try to get a bunch of money from the show, but not happening.  

Second (Rerun)-

Mothers to the Rescue of Adult Children-Plaintiff was shacked up with defendant's daughter, in an apartment that both parents co-signed for, and wants the return of a security deposit, and a false restraining order.  The young couple lived in the apartment with plaintiff's mother, and mom moved out.   Then the couple lived with defendant mother, and plaintiff claims they didn't get along, and mother evicted him, filed for a false restraining order.   Plaintiff was arrested at the apartment from a complaint by defendant mother, and he was arrested for drug possession.   Drug case is still on-going, and it's for intent to sell.    Since defendant mother was on the lease, she wanted the plaintiff out.   Plaintiff's father is his witness, and tries to make excuses for his idiot son.  Defendant's son was also living there, and was arrested, and his case is pending.   Defendant mother denies her son was arrested.  Defendant and her husband claim her son doesn't have a pending case, but plaintiff says they're both pending trial.   The house at one time contained plaintiff, girlfriend, defendant and husband, defendant's son, and plaintiff mother lived there for a few months too.   House still has defendant, husband, her son, and daughter.  

Security deposit proof comes from plaintiff.  Defendant mother claims she paid cash for the security deposit, and has no proof, JJ says you lie about the court case, you're a liar.    Defendant mother wants attorney fees for the protective order, instead of getting plaintiff evicted.    Plaintiff filed for protective order also, and both orders were dismissed. 

$2542 to plaintiff for the security deposit.    Nothing to idiot defendant.   

Traffic Circle Mishap-Plaintiff suing defendant motorist for causing an accident in a traffic circle that damaged his car.   Defendant had no insurance (in New Hampshire you don't need insurance, but you have to have proof that you can meet financial means to self-insure).     Defendant claims she's not at fault.    Plaintiff gives estimates, and photographs of the damages.    Plaintiff says he was hit head on by defendant,   Plaintiff was in the left lane that also turns right to exit, defendant was in the exit only right lane.   When plaintiff exited, defendant apparently didn't want to exit, and she hit his car.  

$809 to plaintiff.  

 

(Tomorrow sounds like fun, another wedding dress lawsuit)

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Carolina Girl]

Okay, what the HELL was that last case yesterday with the $20?  Am I the only one who thinks we were watching some elaborate charade bordering on dinner theater to get a $5000 payday from the show?  Worse than those TV/cat crazies from a couple years ago?

I know they used to pull these cases from actual small claims filings (primarily in California) but now it appears they are doing direct solicitation of cases?  You know - "SCAMMED by a Family Member?  Call 1-800-JudgeJudy"  Because I can't conceive of someone actually filing a lot of these cases in a real court.  

[parrotfeathers]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

Okay, what the HELL was that last case yesterday with the $20?  Am I the only one who thinks we were watching some elaborate charade bordering on dinner theater to get a $5000 payday from the show?  Worse than those TV/cat crazies from a couple years ago?

I know they used to pull these cases from actual small claims filings (primarily in California) but now it appears they are doing direct solicitation of cases?  You know - "SCAMMED by a Family Member?  Call 1-800-JudgeJudy"  Because I can't conceive of someone actually filing a lot of these cases in a real court.  

Was the defendant wearing a woman's wig?  Or was that his real hair?

[KittyMom4]

11 minutes ago, parrotfeathers said:

Was the defendant wearing a woman's wig?  Or was that his real hair?

If it was a wig, he should return it and get his money back, if it wasn't, someone should help him find a comb. The halterview was hilarious, those 2 were WEIRD! 

Edited January 15, 2020 by BexKeps

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, parrotfeathers said:

Was the defendant wearing a woman's wig?  Or was that his real hair?

Oh definitely a wig.  Not even a good wig.  A hank of hair he stuck on his head.  

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

2 hours ago, BexKeps said:

2 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Was the defendant wearing a woman's wig?  Or was that his real hair?

If it was a wig, he should return it and get his money back, if it wasn't, someone should help him find a comb. The halterview was hilarious, those 2 were WEIRD!

I was glad I wasn't the only one totally confused by the defendant's hair-don't. Perhaps it was a dare. . . maybe somebody bet him $20 that he wouldn't wear a wig on JJ.

And that's why they call it Wild Wonderful West Virginia. 

I just watched the bride that ripped the seams on the dress. Brides are cray-cray in general. One of my children went for her final fitting three weeks before the wedding and had a total meltdown at the seamstress because there's  NO-WAY!!!!! she could wear that dress. Long story short, we ended up driving to David's Bridal and bought something off the clearance rack that made her feel beautiful. Dress #1 with the bad ju-ju is still sitting in her closet. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Zip Line Rip Off-Plaintiffs suing a vacation cabin renter for nonpayment.    Defendant refuses to pay because the zipline attraction (separately owned from cabin) that was on a list of amusement in the brochure was closed.   Defendant's children couldn't go ziplining, so they "had nothing to do", and so they left early ("children" are two adult daughters, plus 15 year old twins).   They were supposed to stay four full days, and only stayed two, disputed the charges with their bank/credit card company, and it was all refunded, $1045+.    Trip was in August, so the skiing mentioned in the brochure wasn't available either, as well as snow shoeing, or anything else winter related.     It would only be partially the cabin owner's issue to notify the renter, if they knew exactly why the vacationers were renting for only one activity.  

What an entitled brat the defendant is, and her four children too.     You can't tell me there is nothing to do at the cabin for four days.    THey also stayed two days, so even if they had a refund it should have only been for half of the rental, minus fees.    $842 for plaintiff. 

Teen Purchase Pickle-Plaintiff purchased a car for $3,000 from defendant, she has a bill of sale (2007 Saturn), and was unable to register the car because it wouldn't smog.   However, she had the car for two weeks before going to the mechanics.   Plaintiff assumed that the car had passed smog before, and she was wrong, because car hadn't been registered in California before.    Plaintiff claims the part to pass smog is permanently out of stock (they stopped making Saturns years ago), so the car can never pass smog.   Car is registered in Guam.    Defendant says plaintiff was in a hurry, so refused to wait on car deal.  

Plaintiff just parked the car, and can't get it smog tested because it's in defendant's name, I hope defendant's plates aren't still on it.   Plaintiff should have taken it to a mechanic before purchase, since it was as is.   However, plaintiff refused to wait, so she's stuck.    Plaintiff obviously drove the car before she went to the mechanic.  Case dismissed.  

Second-

Seizures, Shopping and Smashing-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend, who she threw out when she found out his wife was having twins.   Plaintiff is suing because he wrecked her car, apparently has a history of seizures, and claims he had one when he totaled the car.   Plaintiff also wants unpaid utility bills.   Accident report from Memphis P.D. is submitted.   Defendant says plaintiff came home from store, they started arguing about the wife's pregnancy, and plaintiff told him to leave.   Defendant threw his clothes in her car, and left, missed his exit, claims another car cut him off, and he hit the roadside barricade, spinning out, and hit a tree (2012 Jeep Compass, $13,000 paid off purchase price).   Car only had liability insurance.    Jeep was bought with plaintiff's inheritance.   

Plaintiff claims boyfriend was mad she was gone too long, they argued, and her car was gone.   Then the accident occurred, and plaintiff denies man drove her car before, and says man has seizures, and wasn't supposed to be driving.    Plaintiff claims his license is suspended.     There is no way in hell this man wasn't driving her car a lot.    Though man is married, with children, he is a day worker, but claims to make $8,000 a week.    Insurance said her car is totaled, and refused to pay because it was only liability, and being driven by an uninsured driver.    

Jilted Jail Bride-Plaintiff wanted to marry her incarcerated boyfriend while he was in jail awaiting trial (it was attempted murder, and he was convicted), and she wanted to marry him in jail.   He's the father of two of her young children, and she has another kid too.  Defendant regularly does jail weddings (over 100 times).    Defendant told the plaintiff they had to exactly follow the jail rules for visits, visitors list, time of arrival, and visitor's hours, and even though plaintiff screwed this up, she wants a refund.   Notary was paid $500, and after the plaintiff received $200.    Plaintiff was supposed to put defendant on the visitor's list, meet her at Noon, for a 1 p.m. visit.    Plaintiff didn't put defendant on the visitor's list, so the wedding never happened.     As JJ points out plaintiff had to add defendant to the list, and didn't.      Plaintiff claims it was defendant's job to fix the visitor's list, and it isn't.    Defendant also officiated a wedding for someone else that day at the same jail, apparently that bride followed the rules.  Defendant told plaintiff how to fix the ceremony and visit, and plaintiff is still pissed.    Case dismissed.  

(from the previous airing, the man was convicted of attempted murder, not his first arrest, and I think the couple did marry.) 

Edited January 15, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AlleC17]

On 1/12/2020 at 5:45 AM, Florinaldo said:

Considering how often litigants seem unfamiliar with the statement they filed, I would say it is quite probable that the show's staff edits and puts their words (written or verbal) into some coherent shape (as much as it can be done from their ramblings and confused stories), and then have them sign it.

Which many of them apparently do without even reading it.

Par for the course given how often the litigants sign contracts without bothering to read them  lol

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Here Comes the Disgruntled Bride-Plaintiff wants her deposit back for a custom wedding gown, defendant/shop owner wants the rest of the money for the gown because she claims the bride damaged the dress.    Plaintiff says her custom dress arrived torn, was not new, and soiled.    Plaintiff bought a replacement dress, and wants her deposit back, and more money too.   Defendant has purchase order, receipt from designer of gown.    Defendant ordered a replacement gown after they saw the gown ripped, they claim the plaintiff did it.  Designer only charged for one dress, not two.   Paperwork shows designer had another gown on order, so they sent it to the defendant quickly, and they were in the return process over the other gown with the designer.   Mother of bride won't give straight answers about anything, and is overly dramatic.  Two or three weeks later the other dress came in.     Store personnel check the dress twice when it arrives.     There is no way that the dress was dirty or ripped before that bridezilla tried it on.   I'm wondering if she got a chest enhancement, and that's why the top didn't fit?  It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of that happening. 

(As a long term viewer of Say Yes to the Dress, I totally believe the defendants.    I think the plaintiff found another dress either cheaper or one she liked better, and that's why she didn't want the original dress.    They don't give refunds either). 

The mother of bride also tried three times to dispute the charges with the credit card company, and the credit card people said no to a refund.   

Bride was told two weeks later that replacement dress arrived.  However, bride already bought the other dress before the replacement dress arrived.    JJ is not giving deposit back, and I totally agree with her.    Case dismissed. Defendants won't get more money either.   (defendants say plaintiffs reported them to the Attorney General too, and that's still going). 

Second (Rerun)-

Crying Jag Over Family Money-Plaintiff aunt and grandmother are suing niece for money loaned to defendant niece from  grandmother ($1500).    Grandmother loaned the $1500, and when daughter found out about it, she assumed the loan repayment.    Grandmother is long retired.     Niece lived with grandmother her whole life until she turned 21 and moved out.    I feel sorry for the grandmother and aunt, but there was no expectation of repayment from the niece/granddaughter.    I'm sure the niece will get every penny she can from the grandmother.    Case is dismissed.  

Surgery Craziness-Plaintiff suing defendant over medical bills she loaned him, ($5,000), after he had surgery.    Defendant went for a cheap plan with poor coverage, and paid cash for the surgery instead of putting it through insurance, JJ sends them back to their local court because she doesn't believe any of this. 

Ghost Dating Heartache-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for $1105 loan she didn't repay.   Loan was to prevent an eviction.    Defendant claims they kept making plans, and then she wouldn't hear from him for quite a while.    Defendant told plaintiff she needed money, after she saw an eviction notice on her door.     As usual, defendant claims it was a gift, not a loan, and man spontaneously paid her back rent.     Plaintiff has text message say he will make a loan, but she has to pay it back quickly.    Plaintiff receives $1105 (and I hope he's not still in contact with her).   

Edited January 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[configdotsys]

The timeline was so easy to follow in the Brizezilla case and showed the plaintiffs for what they were. I'm glad they got nothing. I know zero about wedding dresses but found it hard to believe that a dress designer would send a soiled, ripped dress to the shop and no one in the shop would have noticed that. That picture of the plaintiff's mother pawing at the dress made me think they may well have ripped something.

 

[khyber]

Count me in on those that think the bride and mother ripped the dress trying to stuff those giant cans into the correct spot.

[KittyMom4]

3 hours ago, khyber said:

Count me in on those that think the bride and mother ripped the dress trying to stuff those giant cans into the correct spot.

Me too, and I think she bought a new dress not because she didn't think the other one would come in time, but because she didn't like how that dress looked on her. I wish we could have seen a pic of the dress she wore.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Judge Judy's Message to Congress-Plaintiff suing her parents for opening a utility account using daughter's social security #, and name, this ruined her credit.      This account was opened four years ago.   Plaintiff has been on her own disability since 18, the account happened when she was 20, and she's now 24.   The account was opened in plaintiff's name, and she shut it down (parents have delinquent debts), and the mother reopened it a year later.   Father was ticked at Mommy, and he wrote a letter to daughter telling her the account was reopened.    The daughter lived on her own, not in the parent's home.    (Considering what the defendant mother's hair looks like, I might have some sympathy if she stole the money for hair repair services, or a decent dye job.   Her hair looks like I dyed it for her, which is terrible),   

Counterclaim by defendant father he was incarcerated for violating a protective order with the mother, and was also receiving SS disability (a big no no, and he thinks no one pays for his SS, and for prison costs).     Father says daughter was his payee for SS, and she kept his money.    As JJ points out, the man could do some job on the outside, the way he wanted to in prison.     Defendant so-called mother claims daughter borrowed $500, from an inheritance, and never paid her back.   Daughter says mother gave her $20, not loaning $500.   

 JJ takes this opportunity to tell Congress that this should be corrected, and being incarcerated should stop welfare, and SS, etc, which actually is currently enforced I hope.    JJ gets a huge round of applause from the audience.    

Daughter gets $1235 for the utility payment.    Ridiculous counter claims from parents are dismissed. 

Homeless or Helpless-Plaintiff suing former friend and landlord for stolen money, and destruction of property.   Defendant owns a few rental properties, and he let plaintiff store stuff in the apartment, but wasn't supposed to be living there, until defendant's contractor started to remodel it.    At that time the plaintiff was supposed to move his stuff out.  Plaintiff said he couldn't leave, because defendant didn't help him move his stuff out. 

Defendant finally put everything out in the backyard carport, and plaintiff stayed there for over three months, he says he slept on the floor.  Like all of the professional squatters, plaintiff was trying to sue for unlawful detainer, so wasn't paying any rent.    Defendant case dismissed.  Defendant gets $750 for unpaid rent.   

Second-

Don't Keep on Trucking-Plaintiff suing defendant/former partner for unpaid loans.    Defendant claims harassment.   Plaintiff can't decide if defendant was his partner, or an independent contractor.    Plaintiff says he loaned $3600 to defendant, as a part of their trucking business.   First truck was in defendant's name, because plaintiff didn't have a CDL license, and couldn't register it in his name.  Defendant says he quit the company, and then plaintiff cashed the $3600 check.    A truck was damaged, and plaintiff wanted defendant to pay the deductible.     Then plaintiff deposited the undated check.     Case dismissed, because plaintiff is full of ca-ca.  

Consignment Chaos-Plaintiff suing defendant for storage of consignment items.   Plaintiff sent a certified letter to defendant, saying to pick up storage tubs or they'll be considered abandoned.   Plaintiff was supposed to pay $570 to defendant a month earlier, and then they had the dust up over the storage tubs.   Defendant collected $570.    Defendant has three days to pick up his property with an escort, and if not picked up the items will be trashed or sold by plaintiff.   No money changes hands, defendant just gets his property back.      

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Don't Make a Baby if You're a Baby-Plaintiff is suing her son's wife's father for an assault when he slammed his truck door on her.  Defendant is counter suing claiming plaintiff filed false police, and CPS reports.  Plaintiff's witness is her daughter in law, and is still friendly with her mother-in-law, who says defendant has been violent before.   Daughter-in-law was living with plaintiff as a minor, before she became pregnant by her son, and they married, and are now divorcing.    Plaintiff witness needed a Social Security disability payment she received as a minor ($540) on defendant father's SS Disability.    Once she married, daughter wasn't eligible for SSD payments.   

When defendant and daughter met to get the SS paper signed, the fight with the father happened.  Defendant father didn't want to sign paper (they covered up the husband's SS#) so father couldn't get it.   The assault shouldn't have happened, but the plaintiff sticking her nose into everything isn't her place either.   Especially since plaintiff was sheltering her daughter in law as a minor when she became pregnant.    Assault was when defendant either opened or closed his truck on plaintiff, there is a report, and photos from the next day.      Plaintiff had court date already, and didn't want medical bills to the insurance company, and wanted defendant to pay.   JJ will only consider pain and suffering, because plaintiff needs to submit bills to her insurance, and then sue man for her deductibles and co-pays.  (I suspect that reunions, and Thanksgiving dinners with both sides of the family involve a lot of police officers in riot gear).    

Sadly, to be continued tomorrow, and is for the full half hour.

Second (Rerun)-

If It's Too Good to Be True...RUN!-Teenager buys two used dirt-bikes, and one turned out to be stolen property.  Plaintiff paid $4,000 for the two dirt bikes (KBB on the bikes are over $6,500).   Plaintiff bought the two bikes, and listed one for sale for $2550.   It turned out the prospective buyer was the real owner who proved it was his stolen bike, and bike was given back to him by police.    Defendant bought bike six years ago, and never had a title for it, and only paid $2,000 for a bike that should have sold for $4-6,000.   

JJ compares the 'great deal' on the dirt bike with the scammers selling fake Rolexes in NYC on the street.    Defendant claims getting a good deal on a used dirt bike is normal where he lives, but I bet not that good of a deal.   Case dismissed, both got great deals, and were fools.     Plaintiff sold the other bike for $2k or claims he did.   Case dismissed. 

Termination Blues-Plaintiff apartment manager, suing neighbor for causing him to be fired.  Neither side have witnesses.   Both litigants still live in the same apartment complex.   Plaintiff was manager for 16 years, and he claims he was fired because of complaints from defendant to management.  However, the person who fired plaintiff is not in court as a witness.     Defendant is self-employed, lives off of investments, hasn't filed tax returns in years, and has been replacing ex-wife as roommate by renting rooms (Please tell me an IRS person is watching this).     Plaintiff has no proof or witnesses, but is pursuing wrongful termination locally.   Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant told to stuff it.  

[Florinaldo]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Make a Baby if You're a Baby

JJ spent much time and effort getting out details of this sordid family situation that are outside of the legal issue directly at hand, stuff she usually dismisses by saying "this it for another show; go on Dr. Phil if you want to talk about it!" She obviously was just looking for more material to further excoriate the mother-in-law, since she obviously took a strong dislike to her and her decisions. And then the case gets continued to another episode! What a waste of time.

Will she be equally hard on the father, who did not say much but still came across as a superior asshole?

[AlleC17]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

JJ spent much time and effort getting out details of this sordid family situation that are outside of the legal issue directly at hand, stuff she usually dismisses by saying "this it for another show; go on Dr. Phil if you want to talk about it!" She obviously was just looking for more material to further excoriate the mother-in-law, since she obviously took a strong dislike to her and her decisions. And then the case gets continued to another episode! What a waste of time.

Will she be equally hard on the father, who did not say much but still came across as a superior asshole?

I hope she is hard on him.  The plaintiff kept her cool really well I thought.  JJ definitely took a huge dislike:  can't tell if she read something in the paperwork that we haven't seen that caused it, or if she is just being a bitch.  Its hard to tell.  I was thisclose to just not watching and may not bother with part 2 since JJ was just getting on my nerves.  Why does this boring case get two parts?

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Trust the Judge, Get a Lawyer-Plaintiff / landlord is suing former tenants for stolen property, unpaid rent, and damages.    Defendants rented an apartment above a pizzeria, after a job loss they stopped paying rent, (landlord says $2200, def. say $4,000).   Defendants say that new owner of building was going to cover their back rent, about $800.    JJ tells plaintiff to get a lawyer, for the building transfer with his witness (buying the apartment and pizza shop).   (Sadly plaintiff seems very confused, and lives alone after his wife died, he needs a lawyer).  Pizzeria closed after water damage, and after the plaintiff's son the manager of the pizzeria collapsed and died.      The damage to the apartment was caused by defendant's ferrets, including rug damages.    JJ declines to see pictures of the ferrets from the defendant.    As usual, tenants claim plaintiff harassed them, and I guess that's what she calls asking for your rent.      Plaintiff is very confused about unpaid rent total, and fortunately his adult son is in court to help.    Defendants were $4200 behind on rent, and plaintiff gets that. 

Pigs Don't Live in Houses-Plaintiff landlord suing defendant/former tenant for damages to home, and unpaid rent.   Defendant says it wasn't damage, but normal wear and tear.   Defendant also stayed an extra week, so owes for the month ($1200).    There was no walk through with tenant (she moved out suddenly), and plaintiff submits pictures of damages.   Pictures show tons of left over items in room, and defendant claims someone else did that, and says it's not that bad.   There was an $1100 security deposit, covering the unpaid rent.  House is filthy, holes in doors and walls, etc.   $5,000 to plaintiff.  

Second-

My Brother Did It-Plaintiff suing her brother for wrecking her car while he was driving drunk.   He says he was taking his 6 year-old niece to lunch.   Plaintiff was looking for her car, it was at her mother's house.  Plaintiff  realized car was gone, then found out brother had car (he went to visit some girlfriend), and he left a bottle of booze in the car.   The text to plaintiff was from his mother's phone, and doesn't say it was the man, instead of the mother that wanted the car.         The girlfriend/baby mama he visited is plaintiff's witness.   

Defendant claims his baby mama was worried because plaintiff said she texted that she couldn't find her car or her niece.   Defendant claims sister climbed in her own car, backed into a mailbox, and is trying to blame him.   Defendant claims he knows nothing about the alcohol spilled in the car.     Plaintiff gets $811. 

Suits, Safety and Flipping Cars-Plaintiff suing former roommate for an unpaid loan for clothes, an insurance deductible, and a loan for clothes.    The litigants made the mistake of trying to flip cars as a business, and actually flipped two.   Plaintiff made nothing off of the cars, and defendant made $500.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was kicked out of the apartment for her safety, but still wants his portion of furnishings and rent.  Plaintiff says for their business that defendant had to dress a certain way, so she loaned him money for clothes.  HOwever, nothing in the texts say he will pay her back.   Plaintiff also alleges that defendant took advantage of her mental illness to convince her to open credit accounts for him to use on her credit.    Defendant claims to owe $150 for clothes, and plaintiff says over $450.   Plaintiff says defendant never had her credit card, but she was there when he charged it.  Also, defendant says landlord helped plaintiff trash everything purchased by plaintiff, so that claims gone.    Plaintiff wants deductible for car accident, she claims defendant did on her car.    

Protective order application is interesting, and full of lies.    There is no police report.   Apparently the landlords are plaintiff's parents.    Case dismissed.  

[Brattinella]

Mrs Deckard is among the most vile and revolting plaintiffs I've seen.  Lying the whole time, whispering lies to her daughter to repeat.  Presenting a legal document for the dad to sign, with cardboard covering everything on the paper except for the signature line.  Of course he refused to sign it that way!  Daughter was insisting she HAD to have the signed document the next day so that SHE wouldn't have to pay the loan back to the defendant!  The son corroborated the defendant's story that he was going to slam his legs in the door!

I had NO sympathy for the mammoth plaintiff.  She kept overtalking JJ and not listening or answering JJ's questions.  She is used to getting her own way and was determined to get it.  And calling CPS on Dad was beyond the pale; there's a REASON he got sole custody of those children.

 

[AuntiePam]

5 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

I hope she is hard on him.  The plaintiff kept her cool really well I thought.  JJ definitely took a huge dislike:  can't tell if she read something in the paperwork that we haven't seen that caused it, or if she is just being a bitch. 

I think it's partly the unnecessary CPS call and partly allowing her son to shack up with a teenager and make a baby. 

How bad must the girl's mother have been that the father gets custody of the other two girls?  Damn.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, first one new (continued from yesterday, for the entire half hour), and second one a recent rerun-

First (New)-(Continued from yesterday) (This case is so bizarre, the plaintiff is the soon-to-be ex Mother-in-Law of her witness, and is suing the defendant,  who is the father of her witness, DIL).   (I'm not very nice, I wish the defendant had slammed a truck door on everyone on the plaintiff's side).   

Teen Parents File for for Divorce-Plaintiff is daughter of defendant, and called complaints into him to CPS.   Defendant has custody of younger sisters of plaintiff witness.    Defendant's side of the door assault is plaintiff daughter wanted defendant to sign paperwork, but paper was covered up with cardboard, and his daughter wanted it signed anyway.      Defendant had his two youngest daughter with him (kids are 9 and 10, mother lives elsewhere).   Plaintiff Susan Deckard (mother of the son married to defendant's daughter, and a total buttinsky).        As JJ says, none of the confrontation was the plaintiff's business, and she should have stayed out of it.     As JJ says, plaintiff took in a minor girl, non-pregnant, and now she has a baby, useless husband, and an idiot for a MIL.    Police report totally contradicts the location of the bruise on plaintiff (groin/thigh as opposed to left side).    

Plaintiff and witness (DIL) called CPS on defendant/father, and tried to get the younger sisters taken out of his custody.  Plaintiff submits pictures of 'living conditions' at her father's home, except it's a place he hasn't lived in for almost two years.    Kayla (plaintiff witness/daughter) talked to her therapist about the younger sister's living conditions, and then called CPS in 2018, and again in 2019.  Defendant owns home, but doesn't live there, and says only the daughter and her loser husband lived there sometimes (over his objections).    I don't know who made that bruise on plaintiff, but it wasn't the defendant.  The second CPS report was over the phony assault being in front of the defendant's daughters.    CPS did visit and left after he showed his current address, and that he didn't live in the home in question, though he still owns it.     Complaints were dismissed. 

The plaintiff's son (soon to be ex of Kayla, the plaintiff's witness), made a statement to the CPS worker saying he was "going to slam the truck door on the defendant's leg if he got the chance", after Kayla said it's time.   

The only injury photograph doesn't show the plaintiff's face, so who knows who it's of, when, or anything else that proves anything.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant gets $1500 for CPS false reports.  (Defendant hasn't learned, because he says he wants his daughter back in his life.  That would be a big mistake). 

Second (Rerun)-

Bed and Breakfast Fraud-Plaintiff rented a room out for B 'n B (Home Away short term rentals), short term rental to defendant.    Defendant wants a refund for his four nights.    Plaintiff says defendant damaged his garage door by closing the garage door on his trailer.    Plaintiff had a truck, trailer, and another vehicle, and was supposed to have one bedroom/one tenant.   Defendant claims he rented the entire townhouse, and garage, for four days for $200+.     Defendant was told he couldn't park the trailer, and truck on plaintiff's property.   

Defendant was catering an event, and wanted to use the townhouse kitchen to prepare food for a commercial job (totally illegal).   The meal was craft services, and defendant claims it was legal (no, it's not).   Defendant parked his truck, and trailer in the townhouse garage, and damaged the garage door.        Defendant says house owner said to park trailer in garage, but park truck on the street.  Defendant claims it was too far away to park the truck. 

Then defendant waited until plaintiff left, and parked truck partially in the garage.   Then another  long term tenant uses bedroom, and garage, and she pushed the garage door button, so door went down (it's always left up, because it's the home entrance).     When door went down it hit truck, and damaged the door.  At first defendant said he would fix door, but lied.    $800 to plaintiff.   Defendant claim dismissed.

10K Custody Battle-(The litigants hair dye is so wild)  Defendant borrowed money from plaintiff for her eventually unsuccessful custody battle.   She lost in mediation, because children picked the other mother.   Defendant borrowed $4k from plaintiff, and paid back about $500 (still owes $1500).   Plaintiff's witness is the ex-wife, and defendant says the other $2,000 should be the ex-wife's responsibility.     Ex-wife can't find bank records since it was two years ago.   Case dismissed for lack of evidence. 

 I was distracted by all of the interesting hair coloring jobs, and by the sadness of the case.    I hate custody disputes, for the sake of the children. 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

Plenty of hair don'ts abound!

The $20 wig personage looked EXACTLY like Senor Wences' fist puppet ('s'alright, 's'alright) -- google it, folks, I'm old!

Those rainbow irridescent hair colors totally prove that extreme hair dye bleeds through the skull and melts brains!

[littlebennysmom]

That daughter in law/mother in law duo were some real dim bulbs.  The girl's father is well shed of her vindictive foolishness.  And the plaintiff mil is going to get exactly what she deserves out of this -- at least 18 more years of nonsense and heartache by enabling these 2 young idiots.  That poor baby.

[nora1992]

I actually feel sorry for the plaintiff.  I think she’s totally overwhelmed by son and soon-to-be-ex DIL, but still has to be the brains of the household.  She’s wrong about so many things, but I get the feeling she really doesn’t know better.  

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

2 hours ago, basiltherat said:

Plenty of hair don'ts abound!

The $20 wig personage looked EXACTLY like Senor Wences' fist puppet ('s'alright, 's'alright) -- google it, folks, I'm old!

Aye, you are correct - wasn't Senor Wences from Topo Gigo? 

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Parents File for for Divorce-(Continued from yesterday)

Devoting two episodes for that case was, as expected, a colossal waste of time. The meager relevant substance of the incident could have fit in 2/3rds of a regular episode.

JJ should have felt some sympathy for the date-challenge young plaintiff because she too has trouble with time perception: today we heard she has been "doing this" for 50 years, while at other times she has said 35, 40, etc.

It’s a good thing the father was finally allowed to speak because he lost his self-satisfied smirk and presented some useful facts, although JJ let him off lightly by not examining him more closely. I suspect he may have contributed to fanning the fires of the incident (and of the continuing situation as a whole); he certainly inspired little, if any, sympathy from me.

On the other hand we did not need all of this berating of the plaintiffs over their life or residence choices; granted they were far from making uniformly wise decisions. For example, instead of blocking most of the form to be signed they could have masked just the sensitive information (the husband’s social security number). And calling CPS on the defendant was a clear abuse of process.

I suspect however that there are many aspects of the case which we did not get to hear because JJ was too busy acting as the Grand Moral Arbiter, criticising the plaintiffs for things that had little to do with the central legal issue.

[DoctorK]

57 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

I actually feel sorry for the plaintiff.

Sorry, I don't,. she has been an accomjplice in abetting the mind numblingy stupid behavior of her son and the dim bulb girl friend in shacking up  and creating a child (poor kid). She was also repeatedly lying about DCS and other stuff. The defendant (who under court order got custody of the two little girls) came across as fairly reasonable. The plaintiff 16 (or 17) year old mother was a complete wreck and I really believe the defendant father (who seemed to be the most normal litigant) was trying to save his ungrateful daughter from sinking into the abyss of reality show court litigants.

[seacliffsal]

I think that the daughter and her husband were trying to get the father to sign a document that would make him pay the over-payment back to social security and that's why they covered most of the paper and why the mother-in-law was trying to force the defendant to sign the document.  There's no way the daughter would willingly pay back the overage herself (IMO).  She probably thought that she was so smart by covering most of the document; or the mother-in-law thought of it.  JJ was on the money when telling the MIL to stay out of it.  

[Brattinella]

6 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

I think that the daughter and her husband were trying to get the father to sign a document that would make him pay the over-payment back to social security and that's why they covered most of the paper and why the mother-in-law was trying to force the defendant to sign the document.  There's no way the daughter would willingly pay back the overage herself (IMO).  She probably thought that she was so smart by covering most of the document; or the mother-in-law thought of it.  JJ was on the money when telling the MIL to stay out of it.  

Exactly!

[AuntiePam]

If they were going to be that shady, why didn't they just sign his name?  I doubt anyone at the SSA would take the trouble to dig out something else he'd signed and compare the signatures.

But it's unlikely that the cover-up was to protect the husband's personal info.  What's dad gonna do?  Memorize the SSN and open some charge accounts? 

And why would his name (the son-in-law) be on those papers anyway? 

[Guest]

On 1/17/2020 at 9:54 PM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

On 1/17/2020 at 7:13 PM, basiltherat said:

Plenty of hair don'ts abound!

The $20 wig personage looked EXACTLY like Senor Wences' fist puppet ('s'alright, 's'alright) -- google it, folks, I'm old!

Aye, you are correct - wasn't Senor Wences from Topo Gigo? 

OK. I couldn't pay attention to this case because I was laughing too hard. I didn't get his name, but I did take a pic:

CLASSIC.

As for the two-parter case, I loved when JJ called the Plaintiff out for not taking a picture that included her face. That image could have been of anyone at any time -- particularly considering that she, at first, claimed the door hit her in her inner thigh. 

[stitcher73]

I've been a Judy fan FOREVER.  Literally since she first started.  Lately, though, I have found her to be incredibly nasty and for no real reason.  Often it's beyond nasty and is bordering on just plain vicious.  Finding it harder and harder to watch.