Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Because I am deeply shallow, I'd like to know what town it is where the guys who run the bait shop and whatever other redneck business that was look like male models for GQ.  It's enough to make you take up fishing.

  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post

19 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Because I am deeply shallow, I'd like to know what town it is where the guys who run the bait shop and whatever other redneck business that was look like male models for GQ.  It's enough to make you take up fishing.

I've visited a few bait shops was thinking how nice it was that both sides cleaned up for their tv appearance. Especially the P's witness - I was thinking that was the first time he wore a suit & tie in awhile. Only thing was that mop of hair - I just imagined dude getting fed up with getting all gussied up and flat out refusing the makeup person coming at him with a comb 😃

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

There are tons of bait shops near where I live, but I don't think any of our local worm purveyors would clean up that spectacularly.  I completely agree with you about P's witness, though--at some point he clearly reached his "enough is enough" point.  That hair had a lot of unrealized potential.  👱‍♂️

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

That mother and daughter duo were wicked in the he ate all the leftovers case. The mother was not able to cover up her conniving face. I hope that troubled (and I do believe he is troubled) young man continues to get guidance from his boss and is able to get a handle on his mental orders enough to live a healthier, more financially independent life. 

How anyone would trust that cartoon character brother with buying stocks (all that was missing from his con-artist face was a cartoon twinkle in his eye to go with that "trust me" insincere smile) is beyond me. 

If more women knew of the hunky, ravishing, unbearably handsome men from all walks of life that make up the fishing scene they would learn to fish. I snagged one a looooong time ago. I think if the plaintiff hadn't  fudged his sworn statement a bit that JJ would have given him the full amount of the repairs. 

Glad the vodka dogs are okay. I wish JJ had embarrassed the defendant's witness a bit more. 

 

 

Edited by LucindaWalsh
  • Like 4
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Chelsea Durham was being sued because she let a shopping cart get away and it hit the plaintiff's car.  That woman needs to get some lessons in lipstick application because the way she's applying it gives her a severe case of Resting Bitch Face.  She could also seek out a prescription for some industrial strength mood elevators, if talking about a runaway cart makes her look like she's on the verge of a flood of tears.  She also looks like she would be a major snot when confronted at the scene, exasperated by having to wrangle her mom, two dogs and chase a fleeing cart in a windy parking lot.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Man Enraged by Police Arrest-Plaintiff suing his mother and sister for falsely accusing him of assault and theft.  Plaintiff has many (over a dozen) violent crimes he's been convicted for previously, and claims they weren't drug related, just assaults.   Plaintiff was arrested for assault and theft, spent six days in jail, and bailed himself out.    Plaintiff refuses to discuss his past history, and so JJ says case is dismissed.  Plaintiff then says he's willing to come back to court. 

However, he's back, and all of his crimes are assault related.    Defendant mother says son has an alcohol problem.     Criminal complaint was man went into mother's home, stole a TV from the wall, assaulted sister (sister has since died), and police were called.   Mother says she came home to see her daughter holding an ice bag on her face, when she told mother what happened, and police were called.     The police report is awful.    Plaintiff was arrested, had a spit hood put on, spent six days in jail until he bailed himself out, and charges were later dismissed.     Mother had nothing to do with pressing charges. Plaintiff's case is dismissed.

The Biting Black Cat-Plaintiff, visiting nurse, wants former neighbor to pay her out-of-pocket bills for defendant's cat biting her, and lost wages.   The medical insurance already paid almost $6000, and plaintiff's part is $6,000 (ER bill co-pay alone was $3,000).    Plaintiff waited almost a year to file the case, because bills were sent to her very late.    Plaintiff had to get rabies shots after the bite.  

Plaintiff came home from work, and cat tried to get into her apartment, and then cat bit her.  Plaintiff went to Urgent Care, and police and animal control were called, and animal control report is submitted.      Defendant has two cats, the outdoor one is black.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant said her cat bites her sister fairly often (sister lives with defendant).  Defendant claims animal control went away after she gave them the vet's name, and that cat was up to date on rabies shot.   Defendant thinks that since plaintiff only had one rabies shot, and not the other three, that the bite isn't a problem.  Defendant claims he didn't bite the sister, but only nips her and never draws blood.   $3,000 to plaintiff.  

Second-

Security Deposit Snafu-Plaintiff/former tenant wants rent back, and for an unlawful eviction by defendant/landlord.   Plaintiff claims after the eviction he was told to remove his stuff from his room through the window to the room.   Rent was $750 a month.    Plaintiff claims the $750 he paid landlord in March was to cover 15 March to 15 April, and landlord says it was security deposit.    When plaintiff tried to move in by April, landlord wanted the $750 rent for April, and plaintiff refused to pay.   There was no written lease, just month-to-month.      On 5 April plaintiff tried to move in, and went to work, and returned to defendant's place that afternoon.    Landlord wanted $375 for the prorated March rent (plaintiff moved some stuff in on 15 March).   When plaintiff couldn't pay the $375, landlord called the police, and they told plaintiff to move.    

Plaintiff came back to get his stuff (with a police escort), and that's when he claims defendant told him to move stuff out through the window.   Defendant claims plaintiff broke his window.    Plaintiff gets $750, defendant claim dismissed (Defendant says man was trying to establish residency, and squat for eight months or more). 

Drunk Driving Excuses-Plaintiff suing former friend for wrecking her car when he drove it drunk.    The night before the accident the litigants went to a friend's house, and at the home both litigants were drinking.    Defendant was driving them home, in plaintiff's car, then he tried to pull over, and that's when the accident happened.  Defendant also hit another car, and a fire hydrant in the accident. 

Plaintiff claims defendant wasn't drinking or drunk, but defendant claims both had been drinking all day.   Defendant's license was suspended for drunk driving.   Plaintiff claims the car was worth $5000.   Plaintiff actually had insurance, and has estimates.   Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, first one new, second one a recent rerun (with a graphic mauling of a kitten by a neighbors dog)-

First (New)-

Taco Wedding Falls Flat-Plaintiff taco caterer for balance of food service at defendant's wedding reception, and for libel.    Plaintiff was hired to have a taco service at a wedding reception (hired for 130 people, about 100 showed up) and this was the only food.   There is an invoice, but no other contract.    $1094 is the catering bill, but the total cost is $2200 (about $22 per person).    Serving time was supposed to be 6:00 p.m., and defendant claims service didn't start until 7:45 p.m.    (Wedding was at 1 p.m., with just immediate family, reception was to start at 5:00 p.m. with the extra invitees).   Music was $2200 too.    Plaintiff offered $150 back for additional time, as compensation for being late).   Plaintiff set up at 3 p.m., and was to return at 6 p.m. to start service, but didn't return until 7:45.   

Plaintiff still doesn't want to say why he was almost 2 hours late.    Defendant owes $700, after $300 to plaintiff deducted for the late service.  

Runaway Shopping Cart-Plaintiff suing defendant for damaging her car bumper with a shopping cart.   Plaintiff was parked at a shopping center, and felt something hit her car, and it was a shopping cart      Plaintiff saw defendant running after cart, and saw cart hit another car also.   Then defendant went running after the cart, still talking on her cell phone the entire time.  When defendant retrieved the cart, plaintiff walked back to her own car, retrieved her mother, and another dog, and went into Petsmart.      Defendant says she loaded her one dog, was getting her mother out of the car, when the mysterious shopping cart that was parked in the next parking space, it started moving in the wind.   Short version, it was the wind that moved the cart, and not defendant's problem at all.    

JJ says woman got a cart, was assisting her mother out of the car, and then the cart got away from defendant, and hit the two other cars.  (I really wonder about the safety of both dogs, and her mother under the defendant's care.   She seems to have a very bad temper). 

Defendant refused to give her insurance information to plaintiff, because she was afraid of harassment by plaintiff.    Defendant is a total (supply own nasty expletive), $724 to plaintiff.  

Second (Rerun)-

Kitten Mauled by a Husky-(What are defendant's teeth?  Veneers?  They're huge, and ugly, and so are her giant false eyelashes.  )-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her roaming Husky getting in plaintiff's home, and mauling a kitten.     Defendant claims she was in bed, when neighbor called and said her dog was out. I think JJ is right, defendant or roommate let the dog out to roam, and that's when dog attacked.   

Plaintiff heard knock at door, and Good Samaritan brings lost Husky to their door thinking it might be their dog.   Dog charged in the front door when plaintiff opened it, and dog immediate charged cat, cornered it in the basement, and attacked kitten repeatedly.   Plaintiff threw dog out their front door after attack, and defendants are outraged that their dog was manhandled.       Plaintiff tried to present bills to roommate of dog owning idiot.  It was a very snowy night, and apparently foolish roommate let dog out, and dog was running loose.    The dog was taken to plaintiff's front door by plaintiff's witness/neighbor, and then took the dog to defendant's house, and it was her dog. 

  Dog owner finally contacted plaintiff by text, but refuses to pay.   Vet bill is over $6,000+ for poor cat, that survived.   Defendant claims her dog didn't do it, and seems incredibly stupid also.    $5,000 for plaintiffs.    Defendant is a moron.      

Dream Car is Friend's Nightmare-Plaintiff (foolish student) suing former friend for an unpaid loan for tires (he's not a student, but they met in a chat room for students at the local community college).    Defendant acknowledges in texts that he owes the money, and brought the giggling village idiot as a witness.   

JJ will now grill defendant, construction worker, and security guard sometimes.   What a shock, he has a 2017 Camaro SS, with huge speakers (JJ's guess about the speakers).  Defendant sold the car in March, and still didn't pay the plaintiff.    Defendant sold Camaro, and bought a Prius (I hope he proves the Prius as target of catalytic converter theft rumor is true, one man has had six stolen).   Plaintiff gets tire money.  $758 to plaintiff.

 

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Runaway Shopping Cart

Virago defendant joins the pantheon of despicable JJ litigants, determined to deny reality and facts at all turns to shirk responsibility. Even arguing she was afraid of the plaintiff, as if that mug was ever afraid of anyone as JJ pointed out.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Bitter Custody Battle-Plaintiff mother and new boyfriend fighting father / plaintiff of kid, for false restraining order and harassment.      SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Three) had baby with defendant (and has had two other kids with fiance/boyfriend), and lived in California, and have since moved to Washington, with the defendant's child also.    This move was without defendant's consent.   There was a custody fight by defendant to get child returned to California, and defendant won.   Defendant had custody, and now child is allowed to visit mother on school breaks, and some holidays.   Defendant lives with his grandmother for now.  Plaintiff fiance says defendant's family were harassing them, and threatening them in California, and he wants moving costs, etc. because he had to move (so much for plaintiff's saying "We moved for a better life").    Plaintiff fiance is a total jerk, and keeps running the plaintiff case, and claims the 7 year old made a video for them saying she wants to move back with mother.  

(My guess is mother has to pay child support, and travel for the child's visits, and doesn't want to.   I find it creepy that fiance is so fixed on getting the little girl back).    There was no child support order against mother, since the court couldn't locate the mother.    Plaintiff fiance keeps butting in, and JJ tells him to stop it.    Plaintiff fiance claims he didn't try to get a protective order, and defendant didn't get one either, so that part of the case is gone.   However, plaintiff fiance does have a restraining order against defendant's aunt (his witness).   (Plaintiff woman admits that they deliberately hiding the child from defendant.   Also, plaintiff fiance works in various states, so he doesn't have to live in Washington either).   Case dismissed.  

Mechanic Mayhem-Plaintiff suing mechanic for refund for uncompleted repairs, and an unpaid parking ticket.  Mechanic works out of his home, car repair is a side job for him.      Car was towed while the mechanic had possession, and plaintiff had to bail his car out of impound.  $1250 to plaintiff.

Second-

Friendly Neighborhood Road Rage-Plaintiff woman suing neighbor/ defendant man over a road rage incident (I already picked sides, I think the defendant is close to sane, the plaintiff not so close).   Plaintiff was backing out of her driveway, defendant was driving down the street and had right of way.   Plaintiff stopped backing, then she backed up into the driving lane, and defendant braked, and swerved.    Then plaintiff was yelling at him, and pulled up close behind him at the stop sign.   The defendant thought she wanted to "chat", so he got out of his car.   (Defendant should never have done that, years ago two friends were being harassed on the road, got out to "chat", and died right there).     Plaintiff is totally out of control in court.   On the roadside, both litigants were yelling like fools.   Plaintiff claims man hit her car with his hand, and didn't damage anything, or hit where the woman claims damage is from him.    Plaintiff is out of control in court, and claims defendant was swerving towards her car, (total garbage), and tried to hit her.   Plaintiff did not have right of way.  Defendant says woman was on cell phone, and smoking when backing out.  

 This happened on 7 September, and plaintiff didn't make the police report until 1 October.   Plaintiff claims defendant punched her car (let me guess, she had someone hit her car, and then decided to file report with police, blaming defendant).     $1637 to plaintiff, and that's wrong.   

Deceased Mom, Deadbeat Dad-Plaintiff former Mother-in-law suing former Son-in-law for social security checks going to the two daughters, after defendant's wife died.   Daughters went to live with grandmother, and are still there.     Plaintiff claims it was $800+ for each child from the beginning, and now is over $1100 each child.   MIL claims that former SIL illegally kept one daughter's SS payments for almost a year.   

However, the daughter in question was taken by grandmother when defendant wasn't home, and didn't have his permission.   He was thinking about filing kidnapping charges at the time.  The grandmother has legal guardianship of both girls for several years now.    SS Admin. paid $660 over to defendant, and grandmother will get that money.   Except grandmother didn't even have temporary guardianship when the daughters started living with him (my guess is that's about the time he remarried).   $6900-$1150 for first month, plaintiff gets $5,000.   

Horse Case-Defendant was selling horse on payments to plaintiff for 15 payments of $100 a month.   Plaintiff says it was a lease, not a sale, so she's suing for $2700 for board and feed.   Plaintiff says it was a lease to own (she was buying the horse on payments, another reason why I tell people to either keep the horse in your barn until it's paid for, or don't do payments).   $1400 to defendant for the horse, and plaintiff seems stunned.   The hall-terview is hysterical, where plaintiff has a meltdown, complete with crying on the bench of shame, and gasping.     Plaintiff thought she would get away with not paying for the horse.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't need to watch the shopping cart lady after catching bits and pieces of The Joker on the tv in the den while I was watching from the kitchen while cleaning it up. Horrible woman. I want to go get the dogs from her. 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/24/2020 at 9:44 PM, alegtostandon said:

Due to a neighbor who claims to have enough control over their pit bull  so there is no need to walk him on a leash,  I no longer take my girls for walks. 

We had,in our neighborhood, two pits climb a 5 foot fence and maul  a little Yorkie.  The cops were involved, this was not their first rodeo and they were put down.  The owners are in a wee bit of trouble.  We have several large pits, rots and mix breeds in the neighborhood and any walking I now do is at the gym on the tread.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Caught Cheating-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend/ defendant lived together for about a year, and she's suing him for unpaid rent (living together doesn't lead to rent), and for an assault.    Plaintiff claims she found boyfriend, drunk, naked, texting another woman, and plaintiff called other woman, and told her to pick him up.   Plaintiff claims he assaulted her, bloodied her nose. 

Defendant claims he didn't assault her, but was trying to walk by her, and she was blocking him.   He also claims he wasn't drunk, but only had the typical two beers (probably two 55 gallon barrels of beer).    All of the charges were dropped, and no restraining order.  Plaintiff had a protective order hearing, both litigants testified, and nothing happened.  Defendant got engaged, briefly, but that ended.      Defendant's charges were dropped.    $250 to plaintiff for the assault.  

Compton Police Drop-Off-Plaintiff suing defendant over car sale, and he wants $4,000.   He gave defendant a down payment, and $300 payments each week to pay off the car ($1800 was the total cost).   Defendant says plaintiff was supposed to pay $450 a week to pay off car, and there is a signed contract.    When man was incarcerated, the defendant still wanted her money, and was going to report it stolen.  Plaintiff was only paying $300 of the $450, was jailed for other charges.      Car was impounded, and defendant couldn't get car out of impound yet.    Plaintiff wants $1300 he paid for the car back, and money for upgrades he made to the car, and personal belongings left in the car.   Defendant says the personal property was left at the Compton police station.

As JJ says, plaintiff wasn't paying the full payments, and reporting the car to the police as stolen was right.    Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant has her car back already.   Defendant in hall-terview says plaintiff keeps threatening to shoot her house up, so she's going to the police station the second she gets back to Compton.  

Second (Rerun)-

Don't Get Involved With Your Son's Coach-Plaintiff loaned $4500 to son's baseball coach for his DUI costs.   She claims the coach scammed other parents too.   Defendant scum ball claims it was a gift, not a loan, and in return for extra coaching for son.   Amazingly, his cell phone plan changed, and he lost the texts .   Plaintiff has check defendant cashed.  $4500 to plaintiff.  

Diamond Heist-Plaintiffs suing jeweler for refund for engagement ring, and travel expenses. Plaintiff ordered ring, paid defendant, but it wasn't ready on time, and he also wants travel expenses for one of those special proposal trips.    Defendant isn't a real jeweler that produces rings, etc. but a middle man who buys from others, which is a shock to the plaintiff.    Plaintiff paid $7,000 to defendant. Defendant counter suing for restocking fees.

 However, JJ is right, the office had no stock, and they called up websites and jewelers to select the ring he wanted.   GIA certification for the stone would come with it.   Defendant spent the $7,000 he collected from the plaintiff.   When plaintiff said he was going to sue for non-delivery, the plaintiff stopped production from the jeweler he placed the order with.  Plaintiff does know anything about buying diamonds or rings.   Plaintiff gets $5k (he still lost over $2,000+), and defendant is a crook according to JJ, and we know she knows diamonds, and sales. 

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is embarrassing.

Not only do I routinely park near shopping carts, but I nearly always park near the cart return because it's convenient and the space is often free! Besides, it's probably the safest place from being kit by a cart, the worst place is probably just across the cart return.

The defendant was parked in the handicapped parking spot so didn't have much choice of where to park, it was weird how JJ was so amazed with her logical powers that she kept repeating it (an incorrect premise) ad nauseam.

I can't believe the plaintiff got $750 for barely visible damage.

Perhaps JJ doesn't like fluorescent red hair and matching lipstick, especially on a homely woman.

Having said that... it was her cart that got away from her.

 

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Compton Police Drop-Off-

  Defendant in hall-terview says plaintiff keeps threatening to shoot her house up, so she's going to the police station the second she gets back to Compton.  

 

Who could blame her?  Plaintiff was scary!  I do wonder if there was more to the story.  Was he in jail because defendant accused him of stealing the car? 

Then he complains that the rims were all wrong.   What do rims have to do with a car's driveability?  If he had money for rims, he could have paid the defendant.

What TV show was it where we saw people renting rims?  I can't come up with the title -- main character named Daniel, he's on death row for 20 years for rape and murder, then released.  His stepbrother opens up a rim shop and gets beat up when trying to repossess some rims.  What the heck was the name of that show?  It was excellent.  It'll come to me in the middle of the night.

Toaster Strudel, exactly, with the carts!  She's gonna park in the handicapped spot and the handicapped spots are almost always next to the cart return.  But yeah, her cart got away from her.  I had some sympathy for her though, schlepping around with her mom in a wheelchair and two dogs. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say (well, I don't actually have to, but I will) that watching the grocery-cart case I felt like the most morally superior person on earth.  (I feel that way most of the time anyway, but for once there was a justification for it.)

About ten or fifteen years ago, my husband and I were coming out of a supermarket in some other town, so not a store where we were known.  It was nighttime, and I was feeling . . . exuberant (which does not mean drunk), and I was doing a sort of cabaret act there in the parking lot, and at the climax I aimed the empty cart at the cart return with a flourish.  It missed and went careening off in the direction of an old crusty car.  I ran as fast as I could to catch it, but I wasn't as fast as the cart, and it hit one of the headlights and cracked the plastic cover.

My husband always carries a little notebook in his shirt pocket, so I took it and started writing a note.  And no, it wasn't one of those notes that say "People watching me think I'm writing down my name and insurance info, but they're wrong."  It was a real note with my truthful name and all the rest of it.  The owner of the car came out and headed over while I was just finishing the note, and I handed it to her and apologized for being a dope (but a dope who could really sing well in a parking lot), and I took her details in return.  When I didn't hear from her in a couple of days, I called her, and she told me to forget about it, that her brother had gotten her a new headlight cover for practically nothing and everything was just fine.

I'm not sure what my point is in telling this ridiculous story, except maybe that you shouldn't finish your cabaret act by jet-propelling a shopping cart at an old car.  And also this is how semi-normal people act when unfortunate things happen and don't always have to end up on TV in front of an audience of 10 million just to avoid paying 75 bucks for a headlight cover.  And also to let everyone know how morally superior I am.  😇

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 13

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I think JJ missed the mark with the shopping cart case. Sometimes I DO park right next to a loose shopping cart in the lot...so I can take that cart and not worry about having to track down another one. That said, I also believe that the defendant had "taken ownership" of the cart and it did get away from her, based on her chasing it across the parking lot. She had a bit of a nasty attitude that really came out in the hallterview, so even though I don't agree with JJ's logic here, I also didn't lose any sleep over the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2020 at 10:29 PM, Florinaldo said:

Virago defendant joins the pantheon of despicable JJ litigants, determined to deny reality and facts at all turns to shirk responsibility. Even arguing she was afraid of the plaintiff, as if that mug was ever afraid of anyone as JJ pointed out.

 

On 1/27/2020 at 4:35 PM, patty1h said:

Chelsea Durham was being sued because she let a shopping cart get away and it hit the plaintiff's car.  That woman needs to get some lessons in lipstick application because the way she's applying it gives her a severe case of Resting Bitch Face.

 

14 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Not only do I routinely park near shopping carts, but I nearly always park near the cart return because it's convenient and the space is often free! Besides, it's probably the safest place from being kit by a cart, the worst place is probably just across the cart return.

 

2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Yeah, I think JJ missed the mark with the shopping cart case. Sometimes I DO park right next to a loose shopping cart in the lot...so I can take that cart and not worry about having to track down another one

I think Judge Judy was emphasizing that no one would park near a stray cart on a WINDY day as the defendant had alleged it was, and I agree. I too always park near a cart coral, or even a cart if it isn't rolling around because that way I can just grab it and go rather than fight for one inside the vestibule.

@Florinaldo and @patty1h, that face was scary! Lipstick or not, she had a fully active bitch face, no resting there. She looked loaded for bear from the moment the plaintiff started telling her story, her lips quivered like she was about to spit nails. I'm positive that was not the first confrontation she's had, and likely most people would walk away rather than deal with that raging pitbull. 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Caught Cheating-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend/ defendant lived together for about a year, and she's suing him for unpaid rent (living together doesn't lead to rent), and for an assault.    Plaintiff claims she found boyfriend, drunk, naked, texting another woman, and plaintiff called other woman, and told her to pick him up.   Plaintiff claims he assaulted her, bloodied her nose. 

Those 2 deserved each other, she so desperate she'd let that pudgy, dumb Lothario move in with her and throw money at him like it was raining cash. And him so stupid as to get drunk, half naked, (ICK!!!) and then pass out while texting another desperate dimbulb.

Judge Judy's advice to the plaintiff at the end of the case probably went over her head as well. If you have to start paying his bills on the 2nd date, MOVE ON!!! 

Edited by BexKeps · Reason: too many words
  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

Chelsea Durham was being sued because she let a shopping cart get away and it hit the plaintiff's car.  That woman needs to get some lessons in lipstick application because the way she's applying it gives her a severe case of Resting Bitch Face.  She could also seek out a prescription for some industrial strength mood elevators, if talking about a runaway cart makes her look like she's on the verge of a flood of tears.  She also looks like she would be a major snot when confronted at the scene, exasperated by having to wrangle her mom, two dogs and chase a fleeing cart in a windy parking lot.

I have a non-drinking game that I play when watching JJ. At some point I watch the defendants and try and figure out if they are going to act like a 3 year old with a bad "you-can't-make-me" attitude, crossing of the arms, snotty nosed vocal affliction, etc. The Lipstick Lady would have made me more tipsy that Mondrianyone in a parking lot doing her dance routine (and I stand in solidarity with you as I have danced many MANY times in parking lots, mostly without the aid of liquid courage, and yes, a few times involving a shopping cart). Lipstick Lady got all snarky and I'm sure that didn't help her case at all. 

BTW, the majority of our cart returns where I live are far far away from the handicapped spots. (source: I have a handicapped placard and try to scope out a cart before I get out of my car - yes, I am one of those cranky old bats that uses the cart for a walking aid on many occasions). 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

How Do You Support Yourself?-Plaintiff suing ex-landlord for vandalizing and stealing her property, plaintiff's boyfriend moved in too.   Plaintiff wants $3000 for a 60" TV, laptop, etc.   Rent was $650 a month.    Plaintiff has her own home business, and boyfriend works with his mother as a dog groomer sometimes (he's been unemployed for two years awaiting surgery).    In six months the police three or four times, were called because of fights between the two plaintiffs, according to female plaintiff.    However, defendant claims there were 10 police calls, in six months.    On September 5th plaintiff, and defendant all called the police, and defendant received a Temporary Restraining Order against male plaintiff.    Plaintiff male has been in prison for drugs (2 years for selling meth).      

There were home window damages.   Plaintiff boyfriend broke a window, and claims as long as his girlfriend was living in the home, he was going to stay (that's why the Temporary Protective Order).    Defendant claims plaintiff male was using drugs in her home.    Plaintiff woman filed no taxes, because she didn't know she had to, and  how is she paying rent, and buying a lot of expensive stuff?   Defendant also had help pulling up, and destroying plaintiff males marijuana plants, and he's whining about that.    Defendant is counter suing for house damages.

Neighbor called defendant about the two plaintiffs moving things out over a four day period.   This was after plaintiff male was served with a restraining order to stay away from the house.     Plaintiff case dismissed.     Defendant case dismissed too, and she has a restraining order for three years against plaintiffs.   

Don't Cross the Yellow Line-Plaintiff and mother are suing defendant over traffic accident.   No surprise the defendant didn't have insurance at the time.  Plaintiff daughter was driving, (her car was insured).   Defendant is counter claiming for car damages on her uninsured car.  PLaintiff was driving home, was in the left lane, and defendant pulled out from the gas station on the right side of the street, and hit plaintiff.     Defendant says she was in the left turn lane, going the other way, was across the yellow line on plaintiff's side, and claims plaintiff hit her then.   Defendant was on plaintiff's side of the road, so she's going to lose.  Defendant took off after the accident.  Defendant received a ticket for no insurance, and should have been cited for hit and run.  

Plaintiff receives $2500

Second-

Blame it on Your Bro!-Plaintiff suing his former friend for damaging his fence when he ran over it with his car.   Defendant claims his currently incarcerated brother was driving, not him.  Plaintiff's  daughter witnessed the accident.   The fence, and a shed were the casualties.   Plaintiff saw two people standing by the car after the accident.   Defendant claims his brother handed him his driver's license, and then brother left.   Whoever was driving, the car is owned by the defendant.   Defendant's pathetic story is he was going out, so he drove to his mother's house, and left the car and his driver's license there, and that's when brother took the car.   JJ gets a real kick out of defendant's sworn statement, because it full of lies.  Defendant girlfriend claims boyfriend drives one of her family's cars, not his own, and his car has no insurance.   However, defendant isn't named on girlfriend's family's car insurance.     Plaintiff receives $5,000

Bulldog vs. Little Girl-Plaintiff suing neighbor over dog bite on her little girl, for medical bills, and pain and suffering.        

Defendant claims the girl provoked his dog before it bit her on the leg.    Plaintiff says his bull dog mix is about 40 lbs., and gets out of the yard many times, and has been brought back by the plaintiff at least 7 times.     Defendant Hea'venleigh Marshall (No, I'm not kidding, that's his name)  saw the bite happen, and claims the kids he was watching were chasing the dog with a stick, and the dog bit the little girl.      Animal control did not quarantine the dog.   The next day after the attack, the dog was loose again when the police report was being done, and on one other occasion.    Dog was moved to the cousin's house.        Plaintiff receives $248 for medical costs, and JJ doubles that to $500. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Water Birth Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing her former midwife for her fee, for staying with another patient who was in labor, and not dumping that patient to come to her baby's birth.  The birth was at a birthing center owned by the defendant, with two labor / delivery suites, and also do water births, like the plaintiff wanted.   

Defendant charges $5500 for a birthing center birth, and there is a signed contract by both parties.    Contract clearly says that midwife might be at another birth, and the specific midwife isn't guaranteed.     The other birth was a home birth, and then had to finish at the hospital (midwife couldn't work at the hospital).      Then plaintiff went into labor, and she went to the birthing center.   The other midwife was in attendance at the Birthing Center.   Plaintiff claims the second midwife wasn't qualified.   

Defendant stayed with plaintiff for about an hour, and left her with the other midwife.   Defendant went back to the hospital, because the other woman's baby died.  Plus, defendant had been up for almost 24 hours by that time.  Plaintiff stayed at the Birthing Center for 23 hours, and then transferred to the hospital.   Second midwife advised client to go to hospital, because her labor wasn't progressing.    

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry).   

$5,000 to plaintiff, who applauds loudly.   (Sorry, the contract was fulfilled.   Why would anyone want the first midwife there after she'd been on her feet for an entire day?)

Cheap Leash? Injured Dog-Plaintiff suing over injuries to his cute, but dentally challenged dog.   Plaintiff was walking his two Maltipoos, on leash, when one was attacked by defendant's dog.    Defendant claims their German Shepherd slipped it's collar, and then attacked.    Plaintiff was walking two dogs on sidewalk, defendant was with her son in front of her house, with her son, and two GSDs.    GSDs started barking, and plaintiff crossed the street.   Defendant son says dog slipped the collar, and attacked plaintiff's dogs in the middle of the street.    Defendant says attack was in the middle of her front yard, but plaintiff says he was on the sidewalk, and then was crossing the street when the attack happened.   Animal control was called, and there was no action taken.      

$3445 to plaintiff for the vet bills. 

Second (Rerun)-

Inheritance Riddled With Debt-Plaintiff foreclosure consultant is suing defendant over a real estate deal.    Defendant inherited a house (in 2012), but didn't realize that the house had $400k in liens on it (reverse mortgage).  It took 6 years to confirm the mortgage, and defendant tried to weasel out of the mortgage.   She negotiated a short sale with the lender, to sell to her daughter.   Plaintiff was hired to stop the foreclosure, and negotiate with the bank.    Foreclosure was stopped, but plaintiff was only paid $2k. 

Reverse mortgage was $400k, but defendant's father used over $200k.  Defendant settled for $348k, instead of $400k.     (I hate that piercing or whatever it is between defendant's eyebrows).   Defendant now says she already had a short sale agreement with the bank, so plaintiff is claimed to be in cahoots with the bank.  Plaintiff claims to have a signed contract, but doesn't-even I know that's garbage.   Contract submitted by plaintiff is unsigned.  Byrd has to go and tell defendant to shut up.   Both women whine like crazy when JJ dumps their cases.      Both women are cuckoos, and need to be booted out. Case dismissed for both litigants, and that's what they deserve. 

Fool Falls for Nigerian Stranger Scam-Plaintiff suing defendant for helping an online scammer steal from her.   Plaintiff saw apartment advertised on craigslist, and plaintiff wired money for deposit to defendant, which was three months rent.   It went to defendant's bank account.    Plaintiff went to get the keys, and she was told current tenant wasn't moving out, and she would get a refund.   Supposedly, scammer phoned plaintiff, emailed, and texts that tenant wasn't moving, and money would be refunded. 

Defendant says Nigerian scammer was in Texas, and would be her friend,  and give her a lot of money.    Defendant claims the $3,000+ went to a closed bank account.   Defendant still says she doesn't have the money, that the scammer took it out of her account.  Plaintiff says defendant was listed on the lease as attorney, and with the defendant's account information.  Defendant is either a fool, for giving the man her banking information, or a scammer.  My guess is that the defendant is in on the scam, and has some of the money that the 'boyfriend' is conning people out of. (I had to laugh when defendant says that man was traveling in Nigeria, and the woman behind her in the audience flinched).    

Plaintiff receives $3,150 

(I lived near a woman that fell for another variation of this.    The scammers charged hundreds of thousands in computer, and electronics, mostly prohibited for shipping overseas without a license, by stealing the identity of another man.   The packages went to the fool's house, and she would reship overseas, labelled something harmless.   Then the victim who had their credit stolen is out hundreds of thousands, the fool was paid a little, and lots of vital electronics went to people who shouldn't have them.  They feds proved she had received and shipped at least a couple of million worth of electronics, and computer hardware.   The feds hauled her away one afternoon.   People I knew that knew her said, she was dumb as a box of hammers).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

The Lipstick Lady would have made me more tipsy that Mondrianyone in a parking lot doing her dance routine (and I stand in solidarity with you as I have danced many MANY times in parking lots, mostly without the aid of liquid courage, and yes, a few times involving a shopping cart).

Who needs booze when you have talent!?!  Here's to all the crazy women singing and dancing in parking lots.  (I'm not sure my husband would raise a glass to that particular toast.)

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

And also to let everyone know how morally superior I am.  😇

and talented!

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Water Birth Gone Wrong-

After so many out-of control brides with unrealistic expectations, we now meet that rare but still related sub-species, the parturientzilla, whose loins as so precious and sacred that only the sole midwife of her choise can be authorised to work on them.

I could not understand how JJ sided with her, even forgiving her loud and vulgar clapping after the verdict. It should have been argued that by going back to the hospital, the senior midwife was simply continuing with an ongping birth procedure, as per the contract. Perhaps JJ would then not have made such a narrow and one-sided reading of the contract (although her mind was probably already made up). I agree that plaintiff was a fool to insist that a dead-tired midwife who had already been up for 24 hours should be the one assisting her. And JJ stupidily went along with her.

11 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I think Judge Judy was emphasizing that no one would park near a stray cart on a WINDY day as the defendant had alleged it was, and I agree.

Even on non-windy days, cars are not safe from runaway carts managed by irresponsible shoppers, whether one parks near a cart return or as far away from it as possible.

 

 

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 11
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry).   

As was she. What an entitled awful person, and again society says thanks for whelping out more of your subpar DNA

I agree with Florinaldo, JJ was way off. 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

As was she. What an entitled awful person, and again society says thanks for whelping out more of your subpar DNA

The most she should have gotten was a portion of her  money back (I supposed 5k is a portion of 5500...but still).  She hung out at the birthing center for an entire day.  I had a doula when I had my kids and she introduced me to another doula that she knew because of not being sure who would be there at the birth.  Turns out the woman I hired wasn't the one there.  Oh well.  The loud clapping made me hope Judy would reduce the award.  

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Bloody Assault at the Comedy Show-Plaintiff suing former friend for a false restraining order, and .     Plaintiff claims that defendant was sending her nasty texts (apparently another friend or relative was boinking someone they shouldn't have been), and threats.   Months later they ran into each other at the Orpheum Theatre (for a comedy show, to make the episode title make sense), and defendant walked up behind plaintiff, and assaulted her, and it's on video.   Plaintiff claims defendant bit her too.  Some bystander pulled defendant off of plaintiff, who was laying on the ground, and plaintiff called the police.    

Defendant swears the plaintiff started it at the Orpheum, and defendant claims she fell on plaintiff.    Both filed for protective orders, and both were granted TROs until the hearing, and only plaintiff was granted a longer term protective order.    Defendant brought no witnesses.   In the video, defendant is clearly on top of plaintiff, shaking and grabbing her.   Plaintiff has scars from the assault, a dent in her forehead, and because of another issue (Chiari Malformation) had two brain surgeries after this   (The poor person who bleeps things from the air certainly earned their pay with the voice mail from defendant).

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and defendant already was tried in criminal court, and was convicted.  (Defendant says in hallterview the plaintiff received what she deserved).

Wedding Chapel Catastrophe-Plaintiffs claims defendant owes for payments made by plaintiffs for daughter's wedding.    Plaintiff daughter was driving by, saw the venue, and reserved it. 

Defendant says he was in negotiations to purchase he building from the contractor who was remodeling the building.   There was never a contract with the remodeler/seller, and a sale to defendant never happened.     The defendant never owned the venue, but the flyers he printed say that he is the owner.    The flyer for the rental of the venue has defendant's cell phone written in by him.   The defendant accepted the reservation for the venue, and took a deposit for the first half of the rental fee ($3400).     In face-to-face meetings with defendant, the plaintiff bride says that defendant claimed he owned the venue.    It was in Kansas, and by the time of the wedding, there would have been no heat (defendant says that's wrong, but I don't believe anything he says).   Plaintiff mother of bride submits a flyer saying under new ownership, defendant's phone number.      Plaintiff bride and fiance saw a sign on the door of the venue about the boiler being off, and the place was closed.   

Plaintiffs receive $3400 from the lying, stealing defendant.  Why didn't the police take a complaint, and file fraud charges on this loser? 

Second-

Ex-Girlfriend Caught on Tape-Plaintiff suing former girlfriend (from when they were 17) for breaking into his apartment, and assault.   Defendant says roommate invited her in, and was going to give her $20.   Plaintiff said he was walking his dog, when his witness called him and said girlfriend was in his place, and wouldn't leave.   Plaintiff tried to get a restraining order a few months before , but was turned down.   Plaintiff is caregiver to his double amputee father, and paid by the state for this, about $1400 a month.    

 Plaintiff has a video of when woman broke in, he called police, and made a video of the girlfriend running away while he was calling 911.     The video starts with the 911 operator, and with defendant in the apartment, and defendant is singing (sounds high to me) while she's breaking out apartment windows, damaging other items, and the video shows defendant assaulting plaintiff.     

Defendant got a restraining order against plaintiff two years before this, and she claims the court applied for the order, but she didn't. (plaintiff admits this happened almost three years ago, and he did push her).   Plaintiff claims she crawled out of the bedroom window, and claims plaintiff and witness were in the apartment.       Defendant is such a liar.    $456 for window to plaintiff, and $500 for the assault, total $956.      

Show Me the Money Trail-Plaintiff claims contractor didn't do the work, and wants her $2500 deposit back.  Defendant claims when plaintiff received a check for $6500, she fired him, and got a cheaper contractor.  The estimate of $6500 was agreed to by the insurance company, with the input of the defendant/contractor.   Plaintiff went with a cheaper contractor, and paid $2500 deposit to defendant, and plaintiff wants the $2500 back.  JJ tells plaintiff since the job isn't finished, she has filed prematurely. because there is no price yet on how much the job will cost.   Plaintiff case dismissed without prejudice, so she can file locally when the job is done.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2020 at 9:32 AM, BexKeps said:

I think Judge Judy was emphasizing that no one would park near a stray cart on a WINDY day

I think people may have missed one key thing - there were no carts loose in the parking lot. The Plaintiff explained that you need to go into PetSmart to take/sign out a cart. By the sounds of it, the Defendant had already gone in (which is why she was already so agitated), had an issue with the paperwork for the dogs, and then came out to get the dogs. She would have taken the cart out at the same time as they needed one for the Chihuahua (I can't imagine why it can't walk on a leash??). So Defendant was lying about having just pulled in to the parking space, and about the cart just randomly being there.
 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, I missed the hallterview with the Akita owner. Did she acknowledge JJ's lecture about risky dogs or not? She seemed...unrepentant, shall we say. 😞 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

As was she. What an entitled awful person, and again society says thanks for whelping out more of your subpar DNA

I agree with Florinaldo, JJ was way off. 

At least we now know that Elvira Mistress of the Dark is capable of spawning.

JJ sure is inconsistent about the kinds of behavior she countenances in the courtroom.  I agree that for me the obnoxious clapping would've triggered an instant reversal of the judgment.  But then again I still have my hearing, so there's that.  Maybe JJ missed it entirely.

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both New!-

First (New)-

Burglar Caught in the Act-Plaintiff suing defendant for scratching his car, while defendant was in the process of stealing the chrome off of his car.  Defendant hasn't been arrested since he was 17, for smoking weed and he's now 56.      Sorry, no one really thinks the defendant was stealing Plaintiff Mr. Clean's rims.   Defendant told the police (called by plaintiff) that he had locked himself out of the car, and needed his hide-a-key to get into the car, and slipped while replacing the hide-a-key.     JJ wants Byrd to loan the plaintiff a pen to circle the damage on the car, but Byrd has to borrow JJ's pen.   Byrd and JJ can't see a scratch on the car.  Police report says car wasn't pristine the way plaintiff claims, and says the marks seemed to have rust on them.  

Akita Dog Owners Beware-Plaintiff suing neighbor Akita owner for a dog attack, and lost wages..     Akitas are huge, fluffy guard dogs, why do people keep getting guard animals, and acting like they're stuff animals?  Defendant used to have two Akitas, and now only has one Akita.    Defendant claims there is no proof her dog attacked plaintiff's dog.   Plaintiff was walking her dog in her yard, on leash, when Akita attacked her.     (Another dog owner that makes me want to punch them out).       After living next door to each other for three years, plaintiff certainly knows what the Akitas look like.    Defendant is trying to claim that it was probably a coyote, not her dog.    Landlord told her the dog had to go, so she found another home.    Homeowner's insurance doesn't cover Akitas.     

(JJ should save her breath about the danger of this dog to her children, the defendant will never back down.   Tell me I'm not going to hear another idiot defendant say their dog loves their kids, and would never hurt them).

Vet bills were $10,000!    Plaintiff dog is tiny.    $5,000 to plaintiff for vet bills.        (Hallterview shows defendant heard nothing JJ said, and thinks her dog is just fine, and didn't attack the plaintiff's dog).

Second (New)-

Shocking Jail Time-Plaintiff suing his ex-boyfriend for calling the police on him on Christmas Eve, after setting him up.    The plaintiff didn't have $30,000 for bail, and spent nine months in jail.   Defendant called plaintiff and asked him to pick up his clothes and shoes.    Plaintiff was driving a vehicle belonging to the defendant.     Plaintiff and cousin went to pick up the clothes, and shoes at defendant's invitation.     

Defendant and family members demanded the car keys back, and plaintiff left in the car, defendant reported the car stolen, and gun was found, along with drugs.    The plaintiff got pulled over by police, they found the gun, and plaintiff was jailed for nine months.   Gun belonged to defendant, but ownership of the drugs are plaintiff's.    Plaintiff was only charged with the car, possession of weed, auto theft, robbery, and gun possession.   Entire case was dismissed eventually.     Defendant is counter claiming for car being impounded, and his gun being confiscated.   

Defendant never told plaintiff to return the car.   It was an obvious set up by defendant.   Counter claim by defendant for car expenses, and gun is dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

(Ratings sweeps month is February, so both episodes are New! This should continue all month).

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

If you have to start paying his bills on the 2nd date, MOVE ON!!! 

This should be on bumper stickers or t-shirts.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Burglar Caught in the Act

The plaintiff is really much too emotionally invested in his automobile. I would tell him that it's only a car after all but that would probably launch him on a rant about how often he has it washed, detailed, coiffed and permed.

14 hours ago, bref said:

Hey, I missed the hallterview with the Akita owner. Did she acknowledge JJ's lecture about risky dogs or not? She seemed...unrepentant, shall we say.

Of course she showed no remorse and was still arguing that her dog did not do it. Another irresponsible idiot owning dogs and endangering others.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

The plaintiff is really much too emotionally invested in his automobile. I would tell him that it's only a car after all but that would probably launch him on a rant about how often he has it washed, detailed, coiffed and permed.

Maddox was a nutjob.  Right, dude, he was stealing your chrome rims.  Or the chrome OFF your rims.  You have a huge dent but the invisible scratch over "1,000 coats of wax" was the problem.  

And I'm confused.  Were the POLICE called or was security called?  Because I'm pretty sure a police department wouldn't fire someone based on the say-so of this lunatic.  I'm also pretty sure that even if it was a "security cop" that he wasn't fired either.  If I were the manager that this kumquat complained to, I would have said ANYTHING to get him out of my office.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Sorry, no one really thinks the defendant was stealing Plaintiff Mr. Clean's rims.   Defendant told the police (called by plaintiff) that he had locked himself out of the car, and needed his hide-a-key to get into the ca

I was rolling on the floor with his "I'm a member of Jim Bob's car wash club!" as if that somehow makes him royalty. And his halterview "Look how I dress and look at how he dresses!" Yes that totally negates the fact that you drive an old rust bucket and want to sue for dings, dents and scratches put on from years of use. Omg, priceless.

 

On 1/29/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry).   

$5,000 to plaintiff, who applauds loudly.   (Sorry, the contract was fulfilled.   Why would anyone want the first midwife there after she'd been on her feet for an entire day?)

I'm with you, I don't want an exhausted midwife half awake while I'm trying to deliver a baby! Wth? Hopefully she changes her contract to specify that not only if she's with another patient, but if she hasn't had 8 hours rest prior to said birth. Yikes. 

Just my opinion, I gave birth twice, first time in a Naval Hospital in CA in 1990, the second time in a state of the art hospital in upstate NY in 1994. For the second birth they offered up the 'birthing room' complete with birthing tub. My first delivery was excruciating (back labor) and I knew the second time I'd be opting for the epidural so I let them know that, which made the birthing tub unavailable for me. For your first birth you really don't know what to expect, I would want every medical option on hand just in case. The ultimate goal is for mom and baby to be healthy and safe, and there is no extra points for enduring what can be ridiculously painful and exhausting. 

14 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

At least we now know that Elvira Mistress of the Dark is capable of spawning.

 

LOL, Someone should tell that wannabe Elvira it ain't workin', the over done cat eye and the choker that made her double chin even more pronounced was not flattering at all. Love how mom and dad were there but no mention of baby daddy, who probably looks like the Crypt Keeper. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

I am so, so, so grateful for everyone's comments as my local channel continues to pre-empt JJ for the trial.  Is it possible to go through withdrawal from a t.v. show?  Even when I really disagree with her, and believe that at times she's maybe ruder than I would choose to be, I still watch everyday.  I even reference her at times when talking about civil law with my students.  Of course, I always reference her as "my friend Judge Judy..."  Yes, maybe it is a sickness...

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

s it possible to go through withdrawal from a t.v. show? 

Yes, but soon you'll be back for one of the three most important months of the viewing year, sweeps month.    Every show, on every channel for all of the time periods 24/7 is measured.   This means JJ has two new episodes a day.    

One thing about JJ being crankier is that she sees the evidence before the case, and the sworn statements of both sides.    I think her tolerance for lying, delusional twits is getting smaller.    However, that doesn't mean I agree with all of her decisions, such as in the midwife case.   I would have given the entitled fool nothing.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Buckle up everyone cause I have a pit-bull story for you. A friend of mine had a five year old pit, he was a family pet and they have had him since he was a puppy. The pit lost his mind a few weeks ago and managed to get out of the house, he promptly tried to bite a neighbor who was able to get away. The next day, this family dog mauled and killed my friends 10+ year old dog, he had lived with this other dog his whole life and without provocation he went at the other dog and killed it in what was a horrific attack- this "family pet" was around small children every day and although I feel terrible for the older dog at least he did not kill a baby.

  • Like 1
  • Surprise 4
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

Today's new cases, boy was JJ cranky today. I really did not like the way she handled the repo case for a bunch of reasons. As always she may have seen a lot more of the evidence before the case but she seemed to have decided at the beginning that she didn't like the defendant car dealer. She completely ignored his assertion that the receipts showed signs of doctoring (maybe yes, maybe no, we didn't get a chance to see them). She dismissed his counter claim without any discussion, even the damage the plaintiff did to the defendant's car (which the plaintiff admitted to in the hallterview). She refused to listen when he tried to explain that even if the disputed receipts were accepted, the plaintiff was still short (again maybe yes, maybe no but it wasn't addressed). Finally, in spite of years of hearing both JJ and JM explain that written contracts cannot be altered by subsequent oral agreements; JJ ignored that fact that the plaintiff did not make complete payments on time as explicitly called for in the contract. Regarding the missing "business associate" who may have pocketed the disputed money, if the business connection between the defendant and the missing guy had been severed (as the defendant tried futilely to explain, JJ wasn't listening) that would make the plaintiff the victim of the missing guy's fraud, not of the defendant.

Overall, I think the case was handled very sloppily by a cranky judge who didn't really want to spend any time and energy on it.

I skipped the second case, it looked boring.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Unbelievable Lawsuit-Plaintiff /uninsured driver is suing the driver she crashed into.    Defendant was insured, and in a brand new car.    After the accident the plaintiff was supposed to meet defendant at the police station, but didn't.     Defendant's car insurance paid for her car, but defendant wants her $1,000 deductible from the plaintiff.   Plaintiff gave defendant a phony phone number too.    Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized her car, and has a police report from plaintiff.    Report says plaintiff's car tires were slashed (bet there are a ton of suspects for that crime), and claims there was vandalism on three occasions, over the span of months.    Plaintiff brought two 'witnesses' who claim to have seen the vandalism.     

Funny!   Plaintiff claims she missed the police the day after the vandalism, because she was driving her kid to school.   On flat tires.   Also, plaintiff's license was suspended too (don't they ever arrest anyone anymore for driving suspended?)    The accident happened in May, and plaintiff didn't get insurance until July.      Plaintiff's license was never reinstated.   Defendant receives $1,000, and plaintiff gets nothing.

Cheating, Guns and a Stolen Laptop-Plaintiff is suing his ex-girlfriend for a stolen laptop ($3,000), defendant claims he was cheating.    Plaintiff claims he paid the defendant for the laptop.  Defendant claims she wasn't living with plaintiff, and she was.    She also claims she didn't have a laptop while completing her two year program at Virginia College.  Defendant can't keep any of her dates or times right.     $400 to plaintiff for the laptop.  

Second-

Shh...Don't Tell My Husband-Plaintiff wants a loan repaid $1850), but he made the loan to the defendant only if his husband didn't find out, he wants money for the loan, and an assault.  Defendant needed money for security, and first months rent, and expenses to move out of a bad situation at home (it was a bad neighborhood, and dangerous).      Defendant claims he didn't ask for money, so it was a gift, not a loan.  Defendant said he needed assistance to move, and $1850 was needed.  Defendant is toast, he paid $200 to plaintiff, so still owes $1650.    THe husband found out about the loan when defendant came to the house, and assaulted the plaintiff.   Defendant claims the plaintiff was hitting on him. 

Plaintiff gets $1850. 

Cash Up Front Friend-Plaintiff is suing  Clinton Duncan for unpaid car payments, and lost wages.    Plaintiff sold her SUV to defendant for $1,800 with $1,000 down payment.    However, plaintiff let defendant have the vehicle before he paid in full.    Defendant did pay $200 more to plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims the online KBB is higher than Byrd's price of $960, and she's right it's over $2,000.  Defendant says he withheld the other $800 to pay sales tax, and registration fees.    Defendant started having mechanical issues for the car, so he stopped paying for the car.    Defendant wants the signed title.   Plaintiff will receive $600 for the loan, and defendant gets the title when car is registered.    

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says Nigerian scammer was in Texas, and would be her friend,  and give her a lot of money.    Defendant claims the $3,000+ went to a closed bank account. 

Obviously she never sent him a picture or skyped...

 

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both New-

First (New)-

Slick Business Partner-Plaintiff suing car dealership owner for return of car payments, and wrongful repo.     Plaintiff bought a used car for $4,732, and a $1000 down payment paid, and $1800 more on the down payment.   Plaintiff was supposed to pay a $1,000 payment, but only paid $500.   Plaintiff only gave $2300 on the $2800 down payment.    And claims she paid $500 more in July.    Payments were supposed to be $500 a month for four months to pay the remainder (no, I have no idea if that adds up, this is confusing).   

Defendant claims he only received $1800 of the $2800 down payment, and never received the remaining $3,000.    Defendant is suing for the rest of the down payment, vandalizing the car, and non-payment.. Defendant claims the receipts of payments are forged.   Car was repo. in September.    Business associate that plaintiff claims received her cash was terminated by the defendant.    Defendant claims that business associate did not have control of the financial systems, and never dealt with the plaintiff.   

There are pictures of the bad shape of the car when the repo occurred, by the repo company.   Car was full of broken glass, and trash.   Of course, plaintiff says defendant trashed the car.     The purchase contract says that repo will happen if payments aren't made, or if full insurance isn't in effect at all times.    Defendant says that text messages about payments are after other man was fired.     

Plaintiff gets $4300 from JJ for the car.  (JJ says to sue the former business partner).   I think plaintiff is a big liar.  (Note to plaintiff, you don't get the title until you pay the vehicle off). 

Short Vacation Bust-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit return ($2500).     Defendant is suing for removal of trash, and other damages.   Water heater burst in the home, and home owner's insurance should have paid for that.   JJ won't accept the combined bill for everything that was done.    Plaintiff gets $2500.   (Why do landlords come on this show, or The People's Court?) 

Second (New)-

Food Truck Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant over not completing her food trailer, supplies, and labor costs.   Plaintiff bought a used trailer, and wanted to open a food truck (hot dogs, etc), and her previous experience was running an ice cream truck.    Plaintiff claims the estimate was $1200, plus materials, $1400, totals $2600.      Defendant says he was not going to do the work himself, but his partner would do the work.    Defendant is a caregiver in a group home, and doesn't do remodeling.    

Trailer was never finished, and in unusable.     Trailer is sitting on defendant's property, in pieces.    Plaintiff will receive $4,000 for the trailer, and if defendant wants to repair the trailer and sell it, he can.     

Maltipoo on the Property-Plaintiff/landlord suing defendant /tenant for unpaid rent, and damages to his property, caused by her dog.   Plaintiff rents rooms in the main house, and his family lives in the back.    $635 was rent, including utilities, and only paid the first month, and no receipts, as usual.    Amount withdrawn by defendant on month two is way short of the cost for rent, or utilities.     On month two, after no rent, plaintiff gave her the eviction notice (she lived there August to October).     Defendant baby sat a dog (Maltipoo), and there is a huge hole in the wall, bad carpet damage.   Plaintiff gets two months rent and utilities.   Pl

Plaintiff Defendant is counter claiming for constructive eviction (what she didn't learn to say unlawful detainer yet?).       Defendant claims she paid two months rent, without proof of bank withdrawals or receipts.      Defendant claims she was given a 30 day notice, and was thrown out illegally. 

 Plaintiff claims some of the damages were done by defendant's dog siting dog.    Plaintiff will receive two months rent and utilities.       $1300 to plaintiff.    (I think plaintiff should have received more, for damages). 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/30/2020 at 5:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant and family members demanded the car keys back, and plaintiff left in the car, defendant reported the car stolen, and gun was found, along with drugs.    The plaintiff got pulled over by police, they found the gun, and plaintiff was jailed for nine months.   Gun belonged to defendant, but ownership of the drugs are plaintiff's.    Plaintiff was only charged with the car, possession of weed, auto theft, robbery, and gun possession.   Entire case was dismissed eventually.     Defendant is counter claiming for car being impounded, and his gun being confiscated.   

Defendant never told plaintiff to return the car.   It was an obvious set up by defendant.   Counter claim by defendant for car expenses, and gun is dismissed. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000. 

By the time it was ready for JJ to rule, I really couldn't help but like the plaintiff.  I'm glad he got his money and hope he did something wise with it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2020 at 2:47 PM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I have a non-drinking game that I play when watching JJ. At some point I watch the defendants and try and figure out if they are going to act like a 3 year old with a bad "you-can't-make-me" attitude, crossing of the arms, snotty nosed vocal affliction, etc. The Lipstick Lady would have made me more tipsy that Mondrianyone in a parking lot doing her dance routine (and I stand in solidarity with you as I have danced many MANY times in parking lots, mostly without the aid of liquid courage, and yes, a few times involving a shopping cart). Lipstick Lady got all snarky and I'm sure that didn't help her case at all. 

BTW, the majority of our cart returns where I live are far far away from the handicapped spots. (source: I have a handicapped placard and try to scope out a cart before I get out of my car - yes, I am one of those cranky old bats that uses the cart for a walking aid on many occasions). 

Shopping cart runaway clown case: 

I kept wanting to reach through the TV and adjust defendant's bottom lip into a smiling, or at least, slightly upwards position. 

I also was coiffing her hair into a softer shape and color.

But her mom scared me off.

Those two are probably a barrel of laughs at home.  Sure. 

That's said,  I fucking love shooting my cart into the cart holding storage as fast as I can when I'm done shopping. I missed once though, with no damage,  but I get closer now so my aim is better. 

BTW Mondrianyone, I used to do my song and dance INSIDE the grocery store. Those long,  empty aisles were begging for a Broadway-style tap and swing dance, loud singalong to the music selected by the Employee of the Month Stocker/Shelver Extraordinaire. 

Yes, it was later at night when my boyfriend-at- the-time and I shopped for absolutely necessary snacks and yes,  I was high.  

Good times ( at the Kroger Market.)

 

Edited by Tosia
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm the person who makes sure that my shopping cart ends up in the shopping cart corral.  I even gather the other carts and place them so they're all fitted together in a nice snugly line.  It's my thing.  I've seen too many shopping carts standing in the middle of the lane when I'm trying to find a parking space.  I've seen people just aim the cart at the cart return and push off, not caring that the cart hit a car parked nearby.

I also usually grab a cart from the lot and take it inside, both to reduce the number of carts sitting in the lot, and to make sure that I have one once I get inside.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(on a tacky note, plaintiff's makeup is hideous, and so is her dress, and jewelry). 

The necklace must be what is popular now because the mid twenties nurse (?) who gave me the gauze and irrigation thingy before they took my son in to have his wisdom teeth pulled last week was wearing one. It was a cat. I couldn't tell what the plaintiff was wearing. I also can't remember what the nurse said because I was all "that's the same necklace from Judge Judy!" in my head.

 

Edited by LucindaWalsh
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2020 at 1:23 AM, Mondrianyone said:

People watching me think I'm writing down my name and insurance info, but they're wrong.

Raises hand in shame.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Today's new cases, boy was JJ cranky today. I really did not like the way she handled the repo case for a bunch of reasons.

I pegged it at another day of "missed scheduled bowel movement syndrome"; she seems to suffer these more and more frequently.

She refused to listen to evidence and ruled in favour of the plaintiff who was a big liar and was utterly annoying, behaving as if she were at a Reival meeting with her repeated chanted "Tell the truth!". She missed payments, left the car in awful condition, and JJ rewarded her for it...

JJ was equally unfair to both landlords in the other new cases. Atlhough the bearded one made the common mistake on the shows of litigants bringing pictures that are taken in extreme close-up; it robs the evidence of context and of an idea of scale, and eventually of meaning. People who have seen the damage in situ can reconstruct the missing info, but not an outside adjudicator. One should always take a combination of wide shots, medium shots and close-ups of the alleged damage, as well as extreme close-ups if really necessary.

As for the food truck case, I could not understand JJ's shrill moral indignation at the guy being the middle man and not the person actually doing the work. He did his estimate sloppily because he is not knowledgeable enough, but there is nothing inherently wrong with having the work done by an employee or associate, unless the contract mentions specifically who will do it or what their qualitications and diplomas need to be. JJ just wanted another excuse to scream at a litigant; she always manages to find one.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I don't remember seeing any shopping cart corrals next to the accessible permit-only parking. 

  However, where I live often people will wait, and take the cart to a corral for someone that has no where to put it safely, or for the ones who are loading kids, and groceries, and would have problems getting the cart back.   

I doubt everything the cart woman said, since she kept getting her story mixed up, and refused to take responsibility for her actions.   It's good the plaintiff was in her car, because if defendant could have grabbed the cart, and returned to the store, or where ever she was going when the cart hit happened, then both car owners would have been out of luck.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
SilverStormm

Community Manager Note

Official notice that the topic of Sean DeMarco is off limits. If you have 1-on-1 thoughts to complete please take it to PM with each other.

If you have questions, contact the forum moderator @PrincessPurrsALot.  Do not discuss this limit to this discussion in here. Doing so will result in a warning. 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size