All Episodes Talk: All Rise

SRTouch · February 5, 2020

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

My JJ episodes are all goofed up from being preempted and rescheduled,. RE: the case of the Tinder date photographer with the "motivational speaker? How obnoxious was that guy? Did he motivate any of you to want to kick in your TV screen? He certainly motivates JJ to declare that she didn't like him. And the plaintiff reminded me of a poor man's Zooey Deschanel with her big eyes and long bangs. Do people really admit they meet people on Tinder? Isn't that kinda . . . desperate?

For me, I missed 90% of this case because of the Iowa caucus problems - not that they actually told us anything, just repeatedly telling us there was a problem and that they'd eventually get the numbers. ...... I really wouldn't mind - I think elections SHOULD be big news in a democratic republic - what I mind is preempting regular programing for 20 minutes at 4pm to say nothing and ending with "more on regular 5 o'clock news"

CrazyInAlabama · February 5, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new- (I missed the 3 pm 2016 reruns, thunderstorms are coming through).

First (New)-

Trainer Abuses Horse-Plaintiff/horse owner suing over an underweight horse, that was full of bite, and hoof marks. Plaintiff is suing a horse trainer for rehabilitation costs. Plaintiff sent horse to trainer (boyfriend of trainer), and was supposed to pay training board, including food. Training board was $750, she paid for June, July, but sent nothing in August ($400 was finally paid in September, and $320 later). The change in agreement in August went to $650. Someone else picked up the horse about the end of September. Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay her for a full month. When plaintiff only paid $400 in September, defendant wanted money to buy a round bale (a giant bale of hay), and plaintiff had a puppy vet bill, so plaintiff didn't pay for the extra feed. Plaintiff was sent videos and photos, all the way along. Plaintiff is saying all kinds of allegations about physical abuse, that cannot be substantiated. ( Is this the first horse this plaintiff owned? She doesn't seem too knowledgeable about horses). Defendant sent a message about the trailer being unsuitable to carry the horse safely. It was a trailer for cattle, and a lot of wires sticking up.

Plaintiff was out of town for four and a half months, didn't pay her bills, and wants the horse 'fixed', even after someone else had horse for over two weeks, between defendant, and plaintiff return. Case dismissed, and that's right.

I used to ride, and I've been around horses for years, so to me the horse looks like he's the low horse on the pecking order, and the other horses beat him up. Also, if plaintiff wasn't sending feed money, and horse was just in pasture, not with extra feed then he could lose weight very quickly. This looked like a big horse, and he wasn't all that filled out in the before picture either, he was just shiny. Also, when is the last time the horse's teeth were floated (rasped) by a vet? Plus, defendant wanted to have an extra feed for the horse, but plaintiff refused to pay for it. The horse has marks from other horses, and there is no record of when that happened.

And JJ is right, we don't know how he was kept between when the horse was picked up in that shoddy trailer, and when the plaintiff finally got him back two weeks later.

Divorcee Stiffs the Bank-Plaintiff suing his ex-wife for damages to his home, from her incomplete renovations to the home. Plaintiff received home in divorce, and doesn't live there, but ex-wife lived there for several years with the kids, and her new husband. Since defendant, and her love muffin (new husband) were living in the home, plaintiff wasn't paying mortgage. Mortgage was joint during the divorce, and after. Ex-wife filed for bankruptcy right after divorce. Plaintiff home is about to go into foreclosure, unless he can sell it.

Defendant and new husband wanted plaintiff to co-sign a mortgage for them to buy the house (are they crazy? Who would ever be stupid enough to do this?). How can a woman with a recent bankruptcy think she's going to get a mortgage?

Plaintiff says he allowed the defendant access to plan what she would do to the home, if she was able to get financing. However, plaintiff claims the defendants started renovating, and damaged the home. New husband's name was on a quit claim deed that defendants wanted plaintiff to sign.

JJ tells them to stuff it. Case dismissed.

Second (New)-

Tell Me Cheating Details or I Toss Your Stuff-Plaintiff suing former co-worker, and love object for a TV, and a laptop she smashed. Litigants worked together at a real estate office. Plaintiff left the job, defendant is still there. TV was at defendant's place, and plaintiff claimed it was loaned to her, and when he wanted it back she told him to stuff it. Plaintiff wants value of TV, and JJ says if he doesn't want it back, then that's dismissed.

Plaintiff says defendant smashed his laptop, after a fight, after defendant accused the plaintiff of cheating on her. Plaintiff says defendant threw the laptop across the room, and said if he didn't tell her about his cheating, that she would keep breaking stuff. (The plaintiff is a serial abuser of the word "conversate", I really hate both of these litigants). The people were together for over six months after the laptop incident, and in between he gave her the TV to keep for him. They both claim they weren't dating any longer for a month or so, and defendant claims plaintiff was harassing her at work, and wouldn't stop sending her personal texts, and emails. Plaintiff was fired from the company, because of his harassment of defendant.

Plaintiff just won't get it through his head that defendant isn't paying him for the laptop, or the TV. I find him scary. Plaintiff gets $1,000 for laptop, and I don't know why, I bet so he'll stop harassing the woman.

Edited February 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · February 6, 2020

On 2/3/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

(My guess is that plaintiff didn't follow instructions about care

That was my first impression also. I think she was thoroughly cleaning it.

Just now, One Tough Cookie said:

That was my first impression also. I think she was not thoroughly cleaning it.

LAgator77 · February 6, 2020

On 2/4/2020 at 3:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Off-Leash Attack of Accident-Plaintiff / video photographer was supposed to take videos of defendant's dog, and ended up being run over by the dogs, plaintiff is suing for medical bills, and lost wages.

I guess this wasn't covered by her health insurance from the Lollipop Guild.

Tosia · February 6, 2020

On 2/3/2020 at 10:39 AM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Y'all are my spirit animals. I am one of those random people that sings ALL THE TIME. I swear I should have been born in the 50s when all the musicals came out. I gave birth to two children, one who is very rigid and easily embarrassed but my second is just like me and we used to grocery shop and toss things into the cart while we were dancing randomly to "Wake Me Up Before you Go-Go". No pharmaceutical help involved.

I refuse to use my cane at work so when I come in from the employee parking lot I have to step up on a very high curb and I use my co-worker's car to boost me up EVERY DAY. I always have my hand on her hood. That's what she gets for parking right by the door.

The midwife case confused me - how could a midwife GUARANTEE to be at the birth of the Dracula-inspired Mother? It's common practice for midwives to have back-up for this exact reason.

My dad loved Wham! Esp " Wake me up before you gogo."

I sing along to the Muzak too!

I'm old and I don't care what anyone thinks.

I love it when other people sing in public, too!

Tosia · February 6, 2020

On 2/4/2020 at 8:26 AM, LucindaWalsh said:

I think in the midwife case it came down to how the contract was worded. It said that the defendant was the one guaranteed to be at the birth unless she was at another birth. So I think the defendant needs to consider updating her contract. That said, the plaintiff was an idiot drama queen.

In the annoying plaintiff repossessed car case I understood what JJ did. The text messages were from the employee who was embezzling money from the defendant. So what I gather is that JJ was telling the defendant he needed to go after the employee with criminal charges to recoup the money that I do believe the plaintiff paid (to the employee). Plaintiff had no way of knowing that the employee was stealing her money, that is on the defendant. I feel for him but he has to go after the thief in a criminal court, in my opinion. I do think if the defendant didn't have his employee issues that he would have been able to repossess the car outright. While she did pay the money, she breached the contract terms by not paying on time. That is what so many people do at those places. They are all about signing the contract knowing that if the least little thing, or even a big thing, comes up that they are going to pay when they want, how they want, what they want and expect the car person to just accept it. It is the mind set of some people, whether it is cars, furniture, rent, whatever. She is lucky that there was a bad guy in the situation or she would have lost her money and the car.

Kicks in the door sublet case. Ugh, she was scary. What irritated me more though was that the defendant was indulged in just calling out continuously during the case. I wish JJ had reeled her in and told her to stop. I prefer a more professional by the book case more than the talking out over each other case. I love when JJ gets the litigants focused and asks many many questions and gets them to have to listen and answer and eventually the story comes out.

Re parties on either side calling out during the case. I believe they are prompted by director to do so to make the show more confrontational.

Many times I see either the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses glance to the side before speaking up. Not exactly professional actors.

I think their speaking/yelling/muttering as well as facial expressions are coached to liven up otherwise dull cases AND give JJ a chance to put the hammer down because people love that smackdown shit. And JJ likes looking tough.

Florinaldo · February 6, 2020

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Trainer Abuses Horse

JJ said she is not a professional in the field and therefore cannot assess the harm to the horse.

Odd... being ignorant of technical details usually does not stop her from passing judgment.

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tell Me Cheating Details or I Toss Your Stuff

Plaintiff was an idiot for getting into an office romance. I think JJ sort of tricked him into giving up the TV when he did not realise that it was a take-it-or-leave it deal, no redo.

Defendant probably is not the innocent she was playing and there is a good chance she took advantage of his unwise decision to go out with her.

Toaster Strudel · February 6, 2020

The multiple wounds on the poor horse looked fresh enough to have happened under the defendant's care, I was crushed that the plaintiff lost.

Ilovecomputers · February 6, 2020

6 hours ago, Toaster Strudel said:

The multiple wounds on the poor horse looked fresh enough to have happened under the defendant's care, I was crushed that the plaintiff lost.

10 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Odd... being ignorant of technical details usually does not stop her from passing judgment.

We were amazed the usually omniscient JJ confessed to ignorance about horses. I know very little about horses, but that horse didn't get those cuts and sores riding around in a trailer. Do I understand the caretaker cut back on the horse's feed because the owner was two weeks behind in fees? Great! Let's make the horse suffer through no fault of its own. I wanted to punch her smirky little face. The first picture of the horse showed it in natural light with the sun shining on it, but you could see some ribs. I'm concerned the horse is ill. Why is no one having a vet come out? The owner needs to find a new home for the horse. Signing on for any animal or child's care means that I go without food before they do.

SRTouch · February 6, 2020

4 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

We were amazed the usually omniscient JJ confessed to ignorance about horses. I know very little about horses, but that horse didn't get those cuts and sores riding around in a trailer. Do I understand the caretaker cut back on the horse's feed because the owner was two weeks behind in fees? Great! Let's make the horse suffer through no fault of its own. I wanted to punch her smirky little face. The first picture of the horse showed it in natural light with the sun shining on it, but you could see some ribs. I'm concerned the horse is ill. Why is no one having a vet come out? The owner needs to find a new home for the horse. Signing on for any animal or child's care means that I go without food before they do.

I'm definitely not an expert. Got my DVM the same why I received my license to practice law (watching court tv) - watching the many vet programs on Animal Planet and Discovery. A couple things that stood out for me - I understood that - at least once - P paid extra for horse's hooves to be trimmed - but oh my, the pix surely don't show a horse who has been seen by a farrier in a long while........

Which had me thinking about the horse's diet and fact that it is still skinny. Horses evolved with teeth that grow throughout their life. Grazing (and hay) helps wear down the teeth. With proper diet a horse still needs regular teeth cleaning and floating (floating is when teeth are filed). P talked about grain and pellets, but texted D not to bother with hay. Well, grain and pellets do NOT wear down the teeth. It can actually become painful for the horse to eat because of overgrown teeth, so the horse ends up spitting out or dropping its food and losing weight. As someone else mentioned, horse looked thin even before D started boarding it. From my rudimentary knowledge, I believe that horse needs a vet to look in his mouth (Google says teeth should be examined every 6 months and floated annually).

Edited February 6, 2020 by SRTouch

ItsHelloPattiagain · February 6, 2020

Quote

I guess this wasn't covered by her health insurance from the Lollipop Guild.

Oh bless her heart. She must be in terrible shape if she was run down by a couple of dogs and fell on the grass. I'm old and fat with a bad back - I flew off an ottoman the other day and did an alligator roll onto the ceramic tile and I managed to get up verrrrry slowly and go about my business the rest of the week without any Tylenol. I guess it's my Pennsylvania Dutch stubbornness.

20 hours ago, Tosia said:

love it when other people sing in public, too!

I work in an area where I pass by the scheduling department and the next area over has a station playing the 80s and 90s overhead. I'm always singing randomly to whatever music is playing. (amazing how those lyrics come right back to ya).

I'm watching the cases today (blue haired lady that found the cheater's phone at the campground, weird old guy with the wall in the house where the guy got murdered, truck driver with the neck tattoo that took the $1800). What a bunch of stellar individuals! I feel like I need to take a shower after watching them.

CrazyInAlabama · February 6, 2020

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

First-

Abuse of the Justice System-Plaintiff suing former co-worker, and roommate for lost wages, rent, and deposit. The litigants worked at a Ramen restaurant, and decided to be roommates. They roomed together for two months, The next month the plaintiff went to a party at defendant's place, and they argued. Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted him. The next day defendant said he was taking plaintiff to small claims (as usual, plaintiff's cell phone is new, so he doesn't have the text messages). Plaintiff files small claims case in October, and service about the case was the plaintiff's mother giving him the paperwork, the two men still worked together.

The day after the small claims notice, the defendant filed a protection order Defendant was granted the TRO, alleging the incident at his house. As JJ says, the defendant abused the system in filing the protective order. The protective order barred the plaintiff from going to work, because they worked together. JJ will give the plaintiff lost wages, because the false protective order filing prevented the plaintiff from going to work, $1500.

You Should Know Better by Now-Plaintiff suing defendant for getting rid of her property. Plaintiff left her property at some kind of transitional shelter for women, and she left it behind for seven months. PLaintiff had no lease on the storage area, and never paid anything for using the area. When new renter rented the property, he found pieces of furniture, deteriorated furniture, so defendant got rid of the trash. Plaintiff claimed that she called the defendant and told him she was getting her stuff. Defendant had the previous owner notify everyone who had items in the storage area, or housing to get their items out before 1 November. When defendant took possession of the property, he got rid of leftover junk, JJ calls the woman a hustler, and dismisses the case.

Second-

Child Hit by Car-Plaintiffs suing defendant for hitting their seven year old child with a car, when she ran in front of his car. As JJ rightly asks plaintiffs, why weren't they supervising their child? Initial claim was for medical bills, and they were all covered by insurance (Medi-Cal), so they're now suing for lost wages, and pain and suffering. The plaintiffs were having a cookout during spring break. Plaintiffs consulted an attorney the day after the accident. They hired an attorney five months later, and they dropped the case.

Defendant lives in the neighborhood, and moved since. Defendant lived across the street from plaintiff's, and was visiting a friend at the end of the street, past the plaintiff's house. Defendant says child ran out between two parked cars, going across the street to a friend's house. There were groups of kids on both sides of the street, and there were cars parked on both sides of the street, when the little girl ran out from behind a car. Defendant wasn't speeding, and the accident wasn't his fault. Defendant's insurance cancelled him later. Defendant's car was actually owned by his parents, and they gave him their old car, a day or so before the accident, and he was supposed to register the car in a few months. Defendant wasn't named on the insurance. Since the insurance didn't cover the defendant, there was no expectation of receiving money, so that's why JJ thinks the attorney dropped the case. Parents were not supervising the kids, and other parents weren't either. (My personal guess, the plaintiffs discovered that defendant is a medical student, and thought bonanza). Plaintiffs do not get lost wages, and plaintiffs get $1,000 for kid's pain and suffering.

patty1h · February 6, 2020

I was curious about the case with the murder in the overcrowded house, so I did a Google search for it, but nothing came up using the keywords Paul Walhaus murder. I was premature because the plaintiff told what happened during her hallterview - one tenant beat the other one to death. Brutal. I wouldn't want to live there either and that landlord is one heartless tightwad if he won't give the deposit back after that mess.

That Tinder date case with the missing phones made me feel kinda dirty, even though both parties are above the age of consent and are perfectly free to meet up in a hotel in the middle of the afternoon and that app was designed to make it easy to hook up, but still, blergh.

AlleC17 · February 6, 2020

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I'm definitely not an expert. Got my DVM the same why I received my license to practice law (watching court tv) - watching the many vet programs on Animal Planet and Discovery. A couple things that stood out for me - I understood that - at least once - P paid extra for horse's hooves to be trimmed - but oh my, the pix surely don't show a horse who has been seen by a farrier in a long while........

Which had me thinking about the horse's diet and fact that it is still skinny. Horses evolved with teeth that grow throughout their life. Grazing (and hay) helps wear down the teeth. With proper diet a horse still needs regular teeth cleaning and floating (floating is when teeth are filed). P talked about grain and pellets, but texted D not to bother with hay. Well, grain and pellets do NOT wear down the teeth. It can actually become painful for the horse to eat because of overgrown teeth, so the horse ends up spitting out or dropping its food and losing weight. As someone else mentioned, horse looked thin even before D started boarding it. From my rudimentary knowledge, I believe that horse needs a vet to look in his mouth (Google says teeth should be examined every 6 months and floated annually).

I have had horses since 2003, so not an expert, but not a novice. The plaintiff paid board of $650 (down from the initial $750) and should have gotten something back because that horse was not well cared for. If the plaintiff is to be believed, and I think she was credible on her payments, she was LATE by a week for a partial payment and then paid the remaining amount a week later, so she was not behind at all. No way would a horse lose that much weight in such a short time. Also the cuts were recent but not TOO recent, so the defendants blathering about being injured on the trailer were most likely false. JJ was an idiot. You don't have to understand horses. Plaintiff paid for a service that was not provided and should have gotten some money back. Not the Plaintiff was also a bit of a jerk for not researching where she leaves her horse more thoroughly. I love where I have my horse now, as it is mostly do it yourself, so you are in total control. JJ missed the mark here, imo

CrazyInAlabama · February 6, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Woe to the Woman Who Hacks Her Lover's Phone-Plaintiff suing defendant for an assault, a false arrest, bail, and vandalizing his property. Litigants met online, and after only two months plaintiff moved in with girlfriend at her mother's place. Plaintiff moved out, to a campground., and they tried to reconcile, and defendant stayed at his camp sometimes. There was a fight at the campground between litigants. Plaintiff was asleep and woke up to defendant punching him in the chest, and she had his phone, and accused him of cheating. Defendant kept fighting, police told him to leave. Plaintiff was arrested by local police, defendant says she didn't make a complaint. Plaintiff's police report has a false name by defendant, and later all charges were dismissed by prosecutor. False arrest is dismissed, because police wanted the charges, not defendant. Sorry, plaintiff should get some money for her lies. Bail is also not defendant's fault.

Vandalism of property was of items at defendant's mother's house. Defendant sent him pictures of the destroyed property. Defendant thinks it's funny that she destroyed his property. They were doing drive by booty calls at defendant's house for two months after the assault. Between the last encounter, and the destruction of property, it was only a week. $4,000 to plaintiff.

College Student Witnesses Murder-Plaintiff suing her former landlord for return of rent ($420), security deposit ($420), and hospital bills. Plaintiff was a witness of another tenant being murdered by another tenant. Before the murder, defendant split the kitchen in half, to separate the two tenants, and one of the tenants was killed by the other. Landlord/defendant still thinks plaintiff should have stayed for the term of her lease.

(I bet this is the case: https://www.statesman.com/news/20190604/police-bastrop-county-man-stabbed-suffocated-tried-to-cut-off-roommates-head )

$840 back to plaintiff. (Her parents didn't want her to move home, but to cope with the situation herself. ) (Sadly, the plaintiff's parents were as heartless as the landlord was).

Second (New)-

Reasons You Should Live With Your Mother-Plaintiff suing her former boyfriend for a loan to buy a truck, car insurance and the return of stolen property. The litigants lived together at an apartment, and then her mother's house, from 2017-2019. Plaintiff paid his car insurance. Plaintiff received an insurance rebate check, and plaintiff loaned money to defendant to buy a truck ($1100). Defendant says the $1100 wasn't a loan, but a down payment on a future income. JJ asks defendant if he's on drugs, and he says no. Money wasn't put down on truck, but spent on random spending. his car payments. When defendant left, he took a lot of tools, and they were purchased by plaintiff before they were a couple. Defendant is either stoned, or whacko, or both. Plaintiff submits invoices for the tools. $1200 to plaintiff, and I hope she found someone better than the loser defendant.

Hotel Tinder Date Fail-Plaintiff suing his Tinder date for two cell phones, hotel charges, and damages. They couldn't meet at home, so they met at a motel. They met at 12:30 in the afternoon, went to the room. Plaintiff says he paid defendant $80 for the room, which she denies. (JJ says she'll read the plaintiff's statement so the adorable Officer Byrd won't have to make the effort to walk to and from the plaintiff's desk, because Byrd had a birthday, and he's getting older. Plaintiff couldn't find his phone, so he called it, but it was on vibrate, so he couldn't find it.

Who would think that someone you only meet one time for boinking will be nutso? The answer is anyone with a brain. Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant claim dismissed.

ButYourHonor · February 7, 2020

In an extra bit of tragedy, I googled the murdered boy and he was the only son of a woman who immigrated from Europe to Canada and then down to Texas after giving birth to him. No mention of what happened to the father. She wrote a heartfelt obituary for him. Then I found HER obituary from September. She was literally the last member of her family. I can’t help but think that her son’s murder contributed to her passing. 😞

Frankly, I wish the girl had been given 5k for emotional pain and suffering.

SRTouch · February 7, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Woe to the Woman Who Hacks Her Lover's Phone.

Weird couple - I was fine with decision, but the real funny was hallterview where P states what he learned from this mess was never date a girl with blue hair....... and what was with D's parting line about P going for swim in river supposed to mean

Quote

College Student Witnesses Murder$

$840 back to plaintiff. (Her parents didn't want her to move home, but to cope with the situation herself. ) (Sadly, the plaintiff's parents were as heartless as the landlord

I had no problem with returning rent and security - if there was ever legitimate constructive eviction it was landlord adding walls to cram in additional tenants after renting to the girl - and that bit about adding a wall made zero sense - didn't he say most tenants living there at any time was 6, and house supposedly had 7 bedrooms and 1 of the tenants lived in a trailer - so why did he need to build a wall (or use a bookcase) as a divider in the living room or was it the kitchen

2 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

Frankly, I wish the girl had been given 5k for emotional pain and suffering.

I was almost there with you. I thought JJ was wrong to dismiss the PTSD diagnosis and therapy bills based on no expert witness - to me it would be fairly normal for the girl to need therapy. So, my problem wasn't lack of expert witness to say she had PTSD and needed counseling/therapy so much as whether landlord should be held liable because of the criminal act of a tenant. Did he have prior knowledge the tenant was a violent whacko?

Quote

Reasons You Should Live With Your Mother

Not sure of this one. Agreed with the $1100 as dufus D took money under false pretenses..... still if he had not be quite so honest - or dumb - he could have just claimed the money was used on shared expenses like the insurance...... speaking of the insurance, I wasn't on board with JJ there - when couples have a plan on how they're dividing expenses and one has to cover what other agreed to pay, they ought to get that money back - here they were supposed to be taking turns with each covering 6 months insurance at a time - P paid her 6 month, but D didn't, so P had to cover his turn or she would have had no insurance on her car....... last thing was the tools - apparently tools are another of those things JJ doesn't know - she asks what tools were taken, and D admits to a wrench set, deep sockets, crescent wrenchs, and who knows what else - when I heard these were Snap-on tools I knew JJ would not know the value - first she discounts value for age - hey, snap-on are quality, and type of tools they were they probably have life time replacement warranty as long as they are owned by purchaser - so, JJ awards a fraction of what the tools are probably worth, not knowing about the lifetime replacement warranty, and awards $100 and says buy replacement at a garage sale - with no warranty

Quote

Hotel Tinder Date Fail-Plaintiff suing his Tinder date for two cell phones, hotel charges, and damages. Who would think that someone you only meet one time for boinking will be nutso? The answer is anyone with a brain. Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant claim dismissed.

Knew how this was going as soon as P couldn't give straight answer on when they met for their boinking. Geez, dude quick to give date, but not sure what month - when it decides on month, he has to be asked whether it was 12:30 am or pm.... come on, don't these people ever watch these shows to learn what to expect before agreeing to come on shows...... anyone who comes on JJ to complain about Internet hookup gone wrong already has a couple strikes against them - especially when they have trouble answering simple questions - and extra-especially when your testimony doesn't match your complaint...... oh my, don't even need sound on to know what JJ is going to say - but fun to watch P melt down when case tossed...... doesn't help that we're talking about cell phones - JJ's hackles go up as soon as she hears 'cell phone'...... dude's only evidence that D took phone is 'she told me she took the phone' and JJ says she doesn't believe D said that (neither do I)..... when JJ asks if he had any proof he admits he doesn't, she dismisses case, and he begins mumbling under his breath as we move to counter suit for harrassment & threats. .... uh oh, when D passes up texts it certainly doesn't sound like D told him she had phone - anyway, not sure what happened with countersuit as P gets lippy and JJ gathers her folders and leaves - maybe I missed her dismissing the counter

Edited February 7, 2020 by SRTouch

7isBlue · February 7, 2020

I found Blue-Haired Psycho’s affect very disturbing. She thought she was completely justified. You know she learned absolutely nothing from this. I hope all the single guys in Rhode Island watch Judge Judy!

Jaialaiguy · February 7, 2020

On 2/3/2020 at 3:58 PM, SRTouch said:

Absolutely - my take was that D was promising that her service would have a midwife there - not that she, personally, would be there. One of JJ's mystery rulings where I have no idea WTH she was thinking. Even after the testimony and JJ determining that the service provided a licensed midwife, I don't think it ever penetrated P's thick skull - her mind was made up that the provided midwife was an inexperienced trainee and no amount to of testimony changed her mind

Have no idea how both of you could be confused by this. The contract states "I will be at your birth UNLESS at the BIRTH of another client's baby" which she was for 7 hours. Then she wasn't and showed for dracula's birth but LEFT again due to the DEATH of the child she had just assisted with. Her leaving for that reason is not covered in said contract and was a breach. Abc contract law, not a mystery and not hard at all to follow.

KittyMom4 · February 7, 2020

13 hours ago, ButYourHonor said:

Frankly, I wish the girl had been given 5k for emotional pain and suffering.

Me too, that poor thing, that has to be horrifying to have as a memory.

On 2/5/2020 at 9:22 PM, Florinaldo said:

Plaintiff was an idiot for getting into an office romance. I think JJ sort of tricked him into giving up the TV when he did not realise that it was a take-it-or-leave it deal, no redo.

Defendant probably is not the innocent she was playing and there is a good chance she took advantage of his unwise decision to go out with her

I think she was cray-cray all the way. He wasn't much better, but JJ did not trick him, she told him several times he wasn't getting the money and if he wanted the TV he could have it but he kept replying "I want what it's worth." like a stubborn idiot. First of all, if it was broken as he claimed then it wasn't worth anything.

10 hours ago, 7isBlue said:

I found Blue-Haired Psycho’s affect very disturbing. She thought she was completely justified. You know she learned absolutely nothing from this. I hope all the single guys in Rhode Island watch Judge Judy!

Another crazy ass woman who doesn't see anything wrong with her vindictive, insecure, jealous rage behavior. . And if it was true that the post she was referring to when she woke him in his tent was from prior to their relationship then HE'S the idiot for not kicking her to the curb then.

Lesson #1 Ladies, if you feel the need to snoop through your guy's phone then this is not the man for you.

Lesson #2 Ladies, if your guy lives in a tent down by the river, there is something wrong with you!!!

ItsHelloPattiagain · February 7, 2020

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(I bet this is the case: https://www.statesman.com/news/20190604/police-bastrop-county-man-stabbed-suffocated-tried-to-cut-off-roommates-head )

Yikes, that was brutal. And I live in Florida where people on drugs bite other people's faces off. The plaintiff was def suffering PTSD but I agree with SRTouch that the landlord may not have known the guy was such a wackadoodle. And sometimes it's drugs that send a person over the edge.

Is it just me or are the researchers at JJ combing Tinder cases for fodder lately? It makes for interesting viewing as I have always wondered what kind of people actually use Tinder.

16 hours ago, LucindaWalsh said:

My mom is Pennsylvania Dutch(!) and she was pushing the wheel barrow down to the branch the other day, unloading yard trash. She is 77 and when the doctor's office calls my husband with results he always says to me "tell granny she is going to out live us all" or "tell granny she is going to be able to draw survivors benefits off my social security one day".

LOL, this sounds like my father - he was ex Army, tough as nails, and Penn Dutch. I remember one day he had a swollen finger and he got out his trusty pocket knife and some rubbing alcohol, poured alcohol over his finger and just CUT where the joint was. He started milking the finger joint and out popped a huge thorn and pus from inside the knuckle (apparently he had gotten a puncture wound when he was clearing brush earlier in the week. He then pours alcohol IN the opening and then goes about his merry way without even a band-aid. They just don't make em like that any more.

CrazyInAlabama · February 7, 2020

My interpretation of the roommate murder is the idiot landlord put up a wall at the end of the living room to make another bedroom. One tenant slept in there. The kitchen was divided by a bookcase, to keep two warring tenants apart, and one tenant was later murdered by the other, and that's what the girl in the court case witnessed. I loathed the landlord, but I loathed the girl's parents more. According to her testimony, when she told them she couldn't stay in the murder house, and they told her to cope with it.

I find it ridiculous that a landlord who would build a wall in part of the living room to make a bedroom, claims that the seven bedroom house only had six tenants.

Edited February 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

basiltherat · February 7, 2020

I reiterate -- stop dying your hair some freakish color not found in nature -- it will seep through your skull and eat whatever brains you have left!

If its a day ending in -day, it must be a Tinder case! JJ joins the millennium AND knows about those booty calls!

quarkkm · February 7, 2020

On 2/4/2020 at 1:56 PM, augmentedfourth said:

(And I have to admit, as a "I am absolutely giving birth in a hospital where they have all the good drugs and life-saving measures" kind of mother, I am a little morbidly curious about whether the first client might have had a happier ending had she not been laboring at home all day with the midwife.)

I gave birth to my son a couple weeks ago. My son would definitely not be here had I not been in a hospital when the shit hit the fan, and there's a very good chance I wouldn't either. He's doing well in NICU now. I skipped this case.

CrazyInAlabama · February 7, 2020

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

First-

Basketball, Lies and the Police-Plaintiff suing neighbors because their 11 year old son kicked her car. There is a police report that the son states that he kicked the car, and he then lies to JJ. 11 year old claims woman called him nasty names. The plaintiff didn't return the ball that was on her lawn, and sorry JJ that is her right as a property owner. Plaintiff says she picks up jackets, trash, and balls on her lawn regularly. (Trust me, if some kids were using JJ's yard as a playground, she would be livid. Plus my insurance agent said that if someone gets injured on my property, I'm liable, so I don't put up with kids or anyone using my yard). $700 for plaintiff.

Wedding Kiss and Make-Up-Plaintiff make up artist suing former client for a false charge back on Pay Pal. Plaintiff and defendant signed a contract to do defendant's wedding party's makeup for a year later. $905 was the deposit. Date of wedding changed earlier, and told makeup artist about the change, but funds were non-transferable, or refundable. The contract was not signed, but plaintiff says the payment equals signing, no it doesn't work like that. Nothing in the contract says non-refundable, and non-transferrable to another date. Defendant has the $931 back already, and keeps it (Pay Pal reversal was paid to her).

Second-

Angry Brother Vandal-Plaintiff suing brother for getting mad in an argument over Halloween candy, and claims he destroyed a TV, and slashed plaintiff's tires. Plaintiff let brother host a crab dinner at her apartment, and there was an argument with the sister over the phone . The argument was about him eating her kid's Halloween candy. Plaintiff witness says man was angry after arguments with sister, and poured a full pitcher of water into the TV, and then he slashed the sister's tires. Plaintiff says front door was propped wide open, two TVs were full of water, and the police were called.

Defendant brother says the plaintiff's witness is lying about seeing him do this, and claims witness is an ex-friend with an axe to grind (or maybe he took her candy too). $1500 to plaintiff.

Don't Give Away My Cat-Plaintiff suing for defendant stealing his cat, and giving the cat away. They are both long haul truck drivers, plaintiff went to visit his fiance in the Philippines, and needed a cat caretaker for the 30 days. They were supposed to meet up in May, and plaintiff would get the cat back. They were talking on the phone when plaintiff returned to Phoenix, Defendant claims plaintiff didn't contact him for over two weeks after returning, and it ended up being two months caring for the cat. Defendant told plaintiff that he had to go on the road to get more money, and his pregnant fiance couldn't change the litter box. So the defendant found a lovely home for the cat, and plaintiff gets nothing. Plaintiff is counter suing for lost wages, and pet supplies, for $3500.

The defendant and fiance advertised for a home for the cat, and it apparently has an owner that doesn't leave the cat for two full months. Defendant will not get pet sitting fees, no contract with plaintiff. Instead of three weeks, the cat was there eight weeks. Defendant has no receipts, so no money. The defendant actually cancelled several trips to stay home and scoop cat litter. Both cases dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · February 8, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Beatdown for BMW-Plaintiff /mechanic suing former girlfriend/ customer for assault, robbery (she reached in his pocket during the assault and took money), and vandalizing his car. Defendant claims they didn't date, but plaintiff says they did date for a while. Plaintiff is defendant's brother's best friend. Plaintiff sold defendant a BMW for $2500, with a signed Bill of Sale.

Defendant is as phony as her cheap wig, from the Bozo collection. Her lemon yellow fingernails are ugly too.

Defendant claims she paid $5k for the car, and the $2500 was just on paper to avoid car sales tax, and license plate fees totaling almost $1,000. Defendant is torpedoing her own case, claiming she cheated the government. Coming to court without clean hands is stupid.

Two months later she dropped car off at his garage for a brake repair, in June. Defendant drove the car from April to June, without an issue. Plaintiff gave defendant a loaner for four hours while he worked on the BMW brakes. Plaintiff claims when defendant returned to pick up the car, the back windshield broke, and he told woman he would fix the back windshield. Defendant claims the windshield conversation never happened. Defendant claims she paid to fix the windshield, but has no receipt.

Plaintiff claims defendant assaulted him, grabbed money out of his pocket during the fight, and trashed the loaner car he gave her. Plaintiff claims the defendant's new boyfriend tried to pry her off of him. Plaintiff plays the 911 call (he was in his car with the woman's boyfriend, locked in, and you can hear woman hitting the car). The loaner car was a Corolla, and the car is full of trash. Defendant is counter-claiming for false arrest (that's not happening). She should be arrested for crimes against fashion, with the tomato red dress, yellow talon nails, and burgundy cheap wig.

Defendant gets told to stuff her counter claim, the charges were justified. Plaintiff receives $750. (I bet she only dated him to get a car).

Second (New)-

Gun-Brandishing Ex-Lover-Plaintiff suing vengeful ex girlfriend for having him falsely arrested for brandishing a gun, and vandalism. Defendant's witness is another ex of plaintiff, who claims he does have a gun. Defendant filed a police report about the gun incident on July 14. Plaintiff filed for a protective order against defendant after the police report was filed. Plaintiff claims defendant vandalized more than one of his cars, and was harassing him. Plaintiff dumped defendant, and moved on to someone else. Then defendant is alleged to have kicked his car, and vandalized another car, before defendant filed the gun brandishing report. Defendant claims plaintiff is married (his wife is plaintiff's wife), has 12 children, Defendant claims she dumped plaintiff, and he's trying to get back at her (not believing that).

Defendant's witness is supposed to have been married to him since 2007, and they have four sons, and aren't divorced. Police arrested and held plaintiff for one day, and all charges were dropped. There is no protective order against plaintiff, because application was dismissed, but plaintiff has a one year protective order against defendant. In the protective order hearing, defendant consented to avoid testifying. Defendant just won't shut up, and as you probably guessed, I would like to punch her out. The complaint by the defendant about the gun was filed the same day that defendant allegedly smashed plaintiff's windshield.

$3,000 to plaintiff for false arrest.

One Tough Cookie · February 8, 2020

On 2/5/2020 at 9:22 PM, Florinaldo said:

Plaintiff was an idiot for getting into an office romance.

well.....that's how Mr. Cookie and I met 37 years ago. But back then, as I was the female I had to leave the company.

VartanFan · February 8, 2020

58 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff suing vengeful ex girlfriend for having him falsely arrested for brandishing a gun, and vandalism

I don't know - I'm sure the defendant busted out the window but I got annoyed at JJ for cutting her off every time she asked a question. She's trying to answer and then getting yelled at for answering and then yelled at for not answering. The Plaintiff was also annoying because he was playing 'Broadway face' and acting for the audience. Also, in the hallterview - it's not exactly a great compliment to call your girlfriend a dime....

Florinaldo · February 8, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Beatdown for BMW-

Defendant was an amoral unrepentant liar and thief. I think the plaintiff should have gotten more of what he claimed.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Gun-Brandishing Ex-Lover

On any other day, the defendant would have easily claimed the cup for the most repellently dishonest litigant, but she fell short of the lady in the case just referred to.

21 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

The Plaintiff was also annoying because he was playing 'Broadway face' and acting for the audience.

That annoys me every time, even from litigants who are in the right.

1 hour ago, One Tough Cookie said:

well.....that's how Mr. Cookie and I met 37 years ago.

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Probabilities are that an office romance will turn sour because most dating relationships eventually peter out, and that the conflicts or resulting dislikes will tarnish the work atmosphere. In some cases it works out; you obviously belong to that minority where the risks paid off.

SRTouch · February 8, 2020

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Beatdown for BMW-PlaintiffDefendant is as phony as her cheap wig, from the Bozo collection. Her lemon yellow fingernails are ugly too

Oh my, that girl was scary - I would not be at all surprised to hear she pulled out a weapon....

Edited February 8, 2020 by SRTouch

CrazyInAlabama · February 8, 2020

The BMW case was wild! When the mechanic/ex-boyfriend, and the current boyfriend lock themselves in the plaintiff's car, and call 911 while the defendant beats on the car, then you know the woman was totally out of control.

Edited February 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

patty1h · February 10, 2020

This case got a bit muddled for me with the dual dog owners, so a few facts may be janky, but here's my take. Maybe Ashley Aghilipour really loved the dog(s) she co-owned but I had no sympathy for her dramatic blubbering without tears during the hallterview. She was ready to neuter the dog as a bargaining chip, which seems unreasonable. She was so busy being angry, she couldn't see that JJ's proposal to split up the partnership would be best for all parties.

Edited February 10, 2020 by patty1h

CrazyInAlabama · February 10, 2020

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

First-

Daughter Steals $10K from Mother?-Plaintiff suing daughter for her settlement ($18,000) she entrusted to her daughter, so mother wouldn't spend it foolishly. Daughter claims mother told her to spend on daughter's wedding, mother says that's a lie. Plaintiff received a disability settlement for COPD, and Asthma, woman has been off work since 2002, and applied for disability after quite a few years on welfare. Plaintiff was turned down the first time she applied for disability, hired an attorney and received disability the second time. Plaintiff says she called daughter to hold the $18,000 check so mother wouldn't waste it.

Plantiff has a lifelong history of alcoholism, and finally went to rehab for a month in 2016, and has repeated failed attempts to get and stay sober. Plaintiff claims the $10K was not a disqualifier for qualifying for disability. Plaintiff gave daughter cash, wanted $8000 to bank for CD, and daughter was supposed to hold cashier's check for $10k, $5,000 to CD, and keep the rest held back, and $4k for daughter's wedding. Case is dismissed. Sadly, daughter's hall-terview where she says she's over being her mother's parent, and putting up with mother's lies is probably the best way to go forward.

Hawaiian Cash Flow Fail-Plaintiff suing daughter's former friend for a expenses paid for a group trip to Hawaii. There have been several other previous trips with plaintiff, her daughter, and friend going along without incident, or loans. The arrangement was defendant paid for airfare, and that was paid by defendant's parents. There were no extra hotel costs, and defendant paid for her own food.

Defendant and plaintiff's daughter had an argument, and are no longer friends, so now the money was a loan, not a gift. Defendant says argument was because plaintiff, and her daughter kept making remarks about defendant's mother, and other personal issues.

Idiot plaintiff advances on the Sacred Desk of Judge Judy, and Byrd has to stop her. Doesn't she ever watch this show? Unfortunately, there are texts about owing money for dolphin excursions, etc. totaling $375, but some aren't really separate costs. Plaintiff gets $250.

Second-

Heartbreaking Mother/Daughter Identity Theft-Plaintiff daughter (23) suing her mother for identity theft, ruining her credit. Daughter lived with mother for a year at about 17, before that stepmother, grandmother. When daughter was 17, she lived with the mother, and that's when the identity theft happened. Mother/defendant admits to being incarcerated on three counts of identity theft, and was incarcerated for two years. Defendant claims she never stole daughter's identity, or signed up for an apartment lease, or utilities, using her daughter's name. The daughter found out about the identity theft when she received an eviction notice on her mother's apartment, when daughter was 17, using her social security number, and name. There is also a utility bill in daughter's name, but she never lived there. The credit report for daughter is full of evictions, past due utility charges, and other financial items, totaling $10k. Daughter lives with stepmother, paying $100 a month, and Section 8 pays the rest, at the time of the show filming. Daughter doesn't qualify for a car loan, to drive Uber, but was refused because of credit report. Daughter can't even get a bank account with many banks because of the back charges.

$5,000 to plaintiff. Defendant should be ashamed, but never will be.

Deer Takes Another Car Down-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for unpaid loan to buy a car. Defendant needed a car, so plaintiff took out a cash advance/loan for loser ex. Defendant also says he has no loan on the car, because he pays the dealership every month (that's called a car loan you idiot). Byrd seems to think defendant is funny, and stupid. What a shock, car was bought in July, and stopped making payments in November after he hit a deer, and had no gap insurance, and a $500 deductible. Defendant never paid the down payment back, $1800, $1937 with first month's insurance. Six weeks after the car purchase, defendant dumped her,. However, plaintiff says she dumped him after he became controlling. Car was repossessed after defendant stopped paying, after the wreck in November. $1900 to plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · February 11, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Siberian Husky Breeding Battle-Plaintiff suing her Siberian Husky co-owner, and landlord for assault, deposits on dog, punitive damages, and dog costs (or something like that). Plaintiff claims defendant said if she didn't give the dog back, that defendant would claim plaintiff assaulted her. Plaintiff rented a home on defendant's property. At six months the litigants entered into a co-ownership breeding agreement, with unlimited breeding rights, and AKC papers will be given to co-owner after all payments are made, and have physical custody. Plaintiff was given physical custody in January of 2018, and still has the dog, and dog goes to defendant. (Since when are Huskies a solid color?) Payments are complete, so defendant gets the dog, and should receive AKC paperwork with both names on it. If either litigant breeds the dog, which ever one owns the female keeps all of the puppies.

There is another puppy, that was from defendant's litter, and plaintiff sold one puppy for $1,000, and kept the entire amount, instead of paying defendant $500.

These people are a registered puppy mill, with 20-30 puppies at a single time on the property, with both litigants.

Assault was late at night in plaintiff's rented home, and defendant, husband, and son were already in the owners home, demanding the dog, and defendant said she would tell police plaintiff assaulted her. Then plaintiff claims defendant pushed her down, and plaintiff was injured. Defendant wanted the dog, after being at plaintiff's home for breeding. Defendant claims she wanted dog back early because plaintiff was threatening to neuter the dog, unless she bought the dog's share of the breeding stud. Plaintiff was going to sell the dog, and do an emergency neuter the next morning. Plaintiff claims dog was not to breed standard, and defendant is running a puppy mill. The reason the threat about assault was effective is because plaintiff has a past arrest record. Defendant is counter suing for dog (she has that), and for a false restraining order. The one puppy from a litter that plaintiff sold for $1,000, and didn't tell buyer that the other four in the same litter died of Parvo.

Plaintiff claims defendant landlord has cut chains on her part of the property, put holes in the roof, and other harassment, but still lives on the defendant's property. (Note to plaintiff, that's why JJ is going to tell you to move, now). There is a stay away order from plaintiff against defendant in place. Defendant will do paperwork, so plaintiff can sell her puppies for $7500 total.

JJ says they should split ownership up, and defendant will pay the plaintiff (actually JJ will pay) $650 for the dog. Plaintiff can sell the five puppies she has, and still is whining about the stud dog ownership. Plaintiff will get $650 for the stud dog, and when paperwork is done by the defendant, then plaintiff can sell her puppies, and defendant gets full ownership of the stud dog.

(Co-ownership is very common for show dogs, or breeding animals, usually because they have a proven competition record in the show ring, making them more valuable for breeding).

Second (New)-

Freak-Out Video-Plaintiff suing landlord (I think it's a house with two sections) for a false restraining order, changing the locks, and return of rent. Plaintiff lived with her children, and a niece. in the unit. Plaintiff claims the defendant's live-in girlfriend's cat got into plaintiff's quarters, and she claims the cat is vicious (I think the cat is the only sane one) There's a fascinating, psycho level video of plaintiff shrieking at defendant. Plaintiff claims defendant changed the locks, with her children, and niece inside. Defendant claims her keys didn't work, but they did when she returned after a protective order put her out, the keys worked. JJ thinks plaintiff was lying about the lock change.

Part of the protective order proof is the video made by defendant of plaintiff going nuts, threatening defendant, and his girlfriend. Plaintiff wants security back, October's rent (while she was out from the protective order, but her relatives stayed). Plaintiff is still living in the same place. Plaintiff's garbage is all dismissed. (I hope plaintiff and her relatives are actually moving out in a week).

Stolen iPhone, Guilty Teenager-Plaintiff suing defendant for her child stealing her son's brand new iPhone, and breaking it. Plaintiff used the phone tracker to trace the phone to a schoolmate's home (the defendant) on the same day, the 19th. Phone was stolen from plaintiff's son back pack.

When plaintiff went to the house on the 19th, but no one answered the door. When plaintiff and husband came back the next day, the 20th, defendant asked why she was there, and plaintiff said she tracked her son's phone to the house. Defendant said, "What makes you think the iPhone is here?", except plaintiff didn't say what kind of phone it was. Plaintiff says the defendant got loud, and defensive.

Defendant's story was her son found a broken iPhone, and she told him to turn it in at the school office, but phone was still at her house. Defendant son's story is he found a broken phone, brought it home, and threw it in the back yard, and never took it to school to turn it in. On the 20th, both set of parents, and defendant child went to the principal's office, and defendant son was pulled out of class. When they went to the home, plaintiffs, the defendant mother, and son went back to the home to get the phone out of the back yard. Plaintiff receives $1400 for the iPhone.

Edited February 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

iwasish · February 11, 2020

If that dog wasn’t up to the breed standard, why was the plaintiff so anxious to have breeding rights? 5 puppies at 1500 a pop and the daddy doesn’t meet standards for the breed. Clearly plaintiff was in it for the money too. It was a gorgeous dog. I’ve ive never seen a pure black husky, there was a bit of dark brown on the leg feathers. Neither “owner” was all that much better than the other.

Florinaldo · February 11, 2020

15 hours ago, patty1h said:

She was so busy being angry, she couldn't see that JJ's proposal to split up the partnership would be best for all parties.

It's something I have seen a few times in grievance procedures or during a mediation. The person involved is so fixated on the one solution that will bring JUSTICE! to this wicked world, that they do not see the advantages of the proposed solution; it's often as if they prefer to lose everything instead of achieving the best possible result. Paragmatism is not the dominant trait in such conflictual situations.

I did not know that co-owning a dog was a thing. But since it's possible for racing horses, I suppose it stands to reason that it would also be so for breeding dogs. But these two should never have gone into business together, especially the plaintiff who seems to be permanently blinded by anger. The dog was beautiful though.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Stolen iPhone, Guilty Teenager

That young phone thief may well be on his way to juveline delinquency, enabled by his mother. She should get used to court appearances unless she changes her parenting ways. Although his attitude was so bad, it may already be too late.

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant should be ashamed, but never will be.

Considering how matter of fact and "it's no big thing" she was when admitting to a few instances of identity theft, I think you are quite correct. She made it seem like it's an everyday activity that every normal person indulges in.

Ilovecomputers · February 11, 2020

16 hours ago, patty1h said:

This case got a bit muddled for me with the dual dog owners, so a few facts may be janky, but here's my take. Maybe Ashley Aghilipour really loved the dog(s) she co-owned but I had no sympathy for her dramatic blubbering without tears during the hallterview. She was ready to neuter the dog as a bargaining chip, which seems unreasonable. She was so busy being angry, she couldn't see that JJ's proposal to split up the partnership would be best for all parties.

I told my husband that I hoped Ashley and her husband didn't have any children, because she would clearly use them as a pawn if things didn't work out between them just as she used that beautiful dog as a pawn. We couldn't help but notice the dog was VERY happy to see the defendants, so I have to believe he went to the right home.

$1,500 per puppy...wow. The son of a friend of mine raises some kind of mountain dog and he sells the puppies for the same price. They had a litter around Christmas time of 8 puppies. I assume one is supposed to report this as income to the IRS?

iwasish · February 11, 2020

7 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

I told my husband that I hoped Ashley and her husband didn't have any children, because she would clearly use them as a pawn if things didn't work out between them just as she used that beautiful dog as a pawn. We couldn't help but notice the dog was VERY happy to see the defendants, so I have to believe he went to the right home.

$1,500 per puppy...wow. The son of a friend of mine raises some kind of mountain dog and he sells the puppies for the same price. They had a litter around Christmas time of 8 puppies. I assume one is supposed to report this as income to the IRS?

I doubt the IRS sees a dime. I worked with a woman who had 2 female labs. She bred them every year to produce Xmas puppies. Each female had at least 6, as many as 10 puppies and she sold them for 800 each. She said since it was a “hobby” she didn’t have to declare the income.

CrazyInAlabama · February 11, 2020

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

First-

Child Support Feud-Plaintiff grandmother suing grandchild's mother (former daughter in law, with two of her grandchildren), and her husband(they have three children) for an unpaid loan. Defendant and wife were behind in a mortgage from plaintiff's son, and defendant man wanted to use child support for the mortgage. Plaintiff's son gave defendant $400, and was going to pay him $1100, but didn't do the $1100. Defendant wife and plaintiff talked, and they borrowed it from the plaintiff, $1000, and $1100 the next day. On the way to pickup the money, the defendant was told there was an issue in the house purchase, but the deposits were made anyway. Defendant claims the $2100 was for back child support for plaintiff's son. Repayment was supposed to be from defendant's tax refund, that would be credited to the son's money owed for child support.

Latest dust up was grandson wanted to live with the father, over Christmas vacation, but son didn't return to his home. Defendant took police to get grandson from father and grandmother's house. When grandson was picked up at father's house, son was high as a kite, and so was the father. Grandmother lies about trying to sign that same grandson out of school illegally. Plaintiff case is not going to get cash, but defendant will send $2100 through the child support office, to pay back the loan, and reduce the plaintiff's son's child support bills. Everything dismissed. Grandsons live with ex-con plaintiff's son, and the grandmother .

Don't Prey on My Daughter-Plaintiff suing former neighbor for a damaged storage shed, and property. Plaintiff's late mother owned two properties, one was bought by the defendant. When mother went into rest home, and later died, plaintiff moved out and rented a room. Plaintiff says the neighbor talked the druggie daughter into selling neighbor the wrecked shed, and contents for $75. Plaintiff claims she couldn't live in mother's house, after mother died, except the city of Clarksburg condemned the house. Neighbor who bought house, bought shed from plaintiff's daughter, and shed was on condemned property.

Plaintiff wanted shed back, so defendant returned it, it was in back shape, and didn't survive the move. Plaintiff wants $4,000 for the shed and contents. Plaintiff claim dismissed, because it's garbage. Counterclaim by defendant is that plaintiff wanted the shed back, and police were called to mediate. Defendant didn't even get the $75, and JJ gives that back to defendant. Plaintiff mother is a real jerk. The only one who is preying on the daughter is her own mother. Plaintiff just wouldn't stop talking about the daughter's drug issues.

Second-

Exotic Fish Mass Funeral-Plaintiff suing tropical fish seller over a dozen diseased tropical fish she purchased from him. In a matter of days, plaintiff's fish were decimated by the disease from the sick fish. Agreement says that any fish that arrives dead, then they will replace the fish by sending a replacement fish. They only replace fish that arrive dead. The agreement also says new fish should be quarantined for two weeks, and gradually acclimate the fish to the new tank. The fish guarantee only says they replace fish that defendant sells them, and arrive dead. The only issue are the nine new fish purchased from defendant, so either they get replacements or $270 back (bet defendant changed the contract FAQs about guarantees since this case). $270 to plaintiff

That's No Excuse for Driving Drunk-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for stealing money from her purse, and car damages (defendant is plaintiff's on/off boyfriend, who is also married to someone else). After the drinking at the club, defendant drove the plaintiff's car to his home, and plaintiff claims some money was stolen from the trunk of the car, from her purse. Defendant didn't want to drink any more, but drove plaintiff's car home after the accident. The next morning, plaintiff went to pickup her car, and caused a scene, and claims he damaged her car. Plaintiff receives $575 for car damages, and that's it.

Edited February 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 11, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Don't Let Your Parents Watch This!-Plaintiff suing defendant over a used car, plaintiff put down a deposit, and defendant sold car to someone else. Plaintiff saw car online for $5499. Defendant is irritating as hell. JJ and the audience want to punch the smart Alec out. Plaintiff was going to see car in person, and car was taken off the sale site for a week, and plaintiff paid a deposit of $750. Plaintiff didn't arrive on the correct day, because interstate bus was seven hours late, and claimed he would be there in a week. JJ tells the defendant he's irritating, and advises any future fiance to think being married to defendant will be awful.

What kind of idiot irritates the judge or arbitrator? The answer is Ryan Grubba, village idiot. Defendant sold car for $500 less than list price, but kept deposit of $750, so plaintiff gets $250.

Stolen Bouncy House-Plaintiff bouncy house owner, suing defendant who rented her bouncy house, and claims defendant gave it to thieves, (my guess is she sold it), and not returning it to plaintiff. Defendant rented bouncy house for $175, did bouncy house set up at defendant's home, for her kid's birthday party. Defendant claims pick up was supposed to be later in the day. At 9 p.m. bouncy house fan had been unplugged by defendant, and defendant claims she called plaintiff at almost 10 p.m. (or at 6 p.m., defendant can't keep her stories straight) for pickup. Plaintiff claims defendant never called for pick up.

Defendant says after 9 p.m. some men came, claimed they were from plaintiff's company, and took the bouncy house. Defendant says bouncy house theft wasn't her problem. Plaintiff receives $2200 to replace her bouncy house.

Second (New)-

Nine Grandchildren and a Pit Bull-Plaintiff suing neighbor/pit bull owner for vet bills, and hospital bills. Three years ago there was another attack by same defendant's dog, and on the plaintiff's dog she had then, and now. The vet bills were from the previous attack on plaintiff's dog, that eventually caused the plaintiff's dog death (no vet testimony). Plaintiff wife was walking her dog, on leash, to the designated dog area in her neighborhood. Plaintiff heard barking, decided to go home, when defendant dog attacks. Plaintiff picked up her little dog in her arms, to protect her. Defendant Pit Bull/Boxer mix jumps on plaintiff's back, and plaintiff pushed dog off and tried to run home. Plaintiff managed to get her dog in her home front door. (This attacking dog is the replacement for the defendant's previous attacking dog). (Here comes the Grandpa letter, and PB owners can stop writing JJ). Defendant claims her 9 grandchildren are safe around the dog. Defendant also claims that she didn't know Pit Bulls are banned in several countries, and not covered by most homeowner's insurance.

Dog looks like straight Pit Bull to me, but bigger. JJ tells court about a 4 year old that was killed by a Pit Bull, while child's parents were dog sitting.

Plaintiff's previous dog was banned from the area by animal control, and the HOA, and plaintiff says dog that attacked her three years ago wasn't a Lab, but a Pit. Previous dog was rehomed to plaintiff's daughter, and then given to pound when daughter moved to a non-dog or Pit complex. Defendant never reported dog attack to homeowner's insurance, and JJ warns State Farm about the dog's history. I bet State Farm cancels her policy tomorrow morning, because of the dog attack history. JJ says she would have awarded the full $5,000 to plaintiff. Plaintiff is only suing for hospital bills, and receives $1300. Idiot defendant says her dog didn't attack, but was only jumping around, and playing. (State Farm doesn't ban breeds, but does drop coverage on dogs with a bite history, such as defendant's dogs)

(Yes, when the pit bull owner said, "Nanny Dog", and said how pits protect kids, I knew she would never admit that her dogs attacked anyone. The fact that she dumped the previous one on her own daughter told me what the woman values, and it's not her family's safety. Situations like this are why I say all bites, or attacks should be reported to animal control (if you live where there is animal control).

The Nanny Dog phrase makes my blood boil. Pits were breed for dog fighting in the pit, not to baby sit your helpless children.

Political Paraphernalia Problems-Plaintiff suing defendant for deposit for election materials, such as T-shirts, yard signs, a banner, etc. Plaintiff received 15 T-Shirts, for $250, and did not return them, so that's gone. . $462 was the total deposit, leaving $212. Banner, and yard signs were both the wrong sizes, and returned. Plaintiff receives $212, plus the $75 banner deposit, totaling $287.

Edited February 14, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

AuntiePam · February 12, 2020

I thought that JJ was getting through to the pit bull owner, but nope -- in the hallterview the defendant says that claims pit bulls are dangerous aren't "substantiated". Woman must not read the newspaper, ever. There was another case just last week, in Indiana, where a pit bull killed a month-old baby. The dog had gotten excited while playing with another dog, and when the owner separated the two dogs, the pit bull went after the baby.

A neighbor across the street has a pit bull, not a year old yet. The dog seems really well trained -- won't leave its yard, comes when owner calls, etc. But I still won't let the grandkids play outside if Stella is out. It's just not worth the risk.

We don't even let our dog Sadie (see avatar, a golden-doodle) get close to babies. We're more comfortable when the kid is old enough to move away from the dog, but a helpless infant, nope, not even Sadie. You just never know what any dog is going to do.

Chalby · February 12, 2020

8 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I thought that JJ was getting through to the pit bull owner, but nope -- in the hallterview the defendant says that claims pit bulls are dangerous aren't "substantiated". Woman must not read the newspaper, ever.

I agree with you! When she claimed that pit bulls are known for being good at 'watching children' (I think she meant 'protecting'?) Anyways, the Plaintiff interrupted and said "that is not true!" because it even sounded ridiculous the moment she said it. The hubby was being kind by pointing out it's more the owners than anything, but even with his gracious comment, she still ranted that her dog was playing, etc. I hope Statefarm issues her a letter stating any dog attacks are NOT covered.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Chalby

Chalby · February 12, 2020

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says after 9 p.m. some men came, claimed they were from plaintiff's company, and took the bouncy house. Defendant says bouncy house theft wasn't her problem. Plaintiff receives $2200 to replace her bouncy house.

Great summaries - thanks for the memory tug. The above case both infuriated me and gave me satisfaction. I was annoyed because the defendant behaved as though she was entitled to do as she wished with the bouncy house, even if it meant handing if off to "strangers" who have no identification? (Yeah... right. I think she got herself a bouncy house.) The satisfaction came when the bouncy house owner had offered (to the defendant) to reduce the replacement price to $1500.00 because it was 3 years old. But nope... defendant didn't feel she owed, so Judy ordered her to pay the $2200.

Chalby · February 12, 2020

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Prey on My Daughter-Plaintiff suing former

Plaintiff wanted shed back, so defendant returned it, it was in bad shape, and didn't survive the move. Plaintiff wants $4,000 for the shed and contents. Plaintiff claim dismissed, because it's garbage. Counterclaim by defendant is that plaintiff wanted the shed back, and police were called to mediate. Defendant didn't even get the $75, and JJ gives that back to defendant. Plaintiff mother is a real jerk. The only one who is preying on the daughter is her own mother. Plaintiff just wouldn't stop talking about the daughter's drug issues.

Another excellent job with the summaries. Your posts help me stay focused when I am writing my responses because you've tracked everything I am watching, in the same order I watched them.

My concern was the "don't prey on my daughter" because that mother was a whack-job. I am sorry, but when a parent publicly defends or coddles her child (or his child) and excuses the child's behaviour and decisions because the child is an adult drug addict, you've lost any of my sympathy. The home was condemned, daughter sold mom's shed for a quick $75.00 and the mother flipped when she discovered this and turned on the defendant for buying the shed. Mom also accuses her of not paying $75 because mom never saw it. No wonder some kids grow into dysfunctional adults who aren't able to own their behaviour.

Chalby · February 12, 2020

On 2/10/2020 at 1:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

Do you do summaries for Hot Bench as well, crazyinalabama?

Chalby · February 12, 2020

On 1/28/2020 at 6:52 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

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.

This is when JJ frustrates me. Often she reasons a situation using 'herself' as in ... what would Judge Judy do? But she is not reasonable in her views. When she states she doesn't believe people paid cash; people write 'checks'. I have taken out cash for landlords, friends, etc. because it's easier and there's not a 10 day wait with bank etc. Same with her declaring it 'stupid' to park by carts. Well that is usually close to the front doors, as well as handicap parking etc.

Chalby · February 12, 2020

"Doctor's report says plaintiff did have second degree burns, was wearing a hospital gown, and was altered by PCP use."

I appreciate the fact that JJ still listened to the Plaintiff, regardless of Plaintiff's obvious drug and memory issues. I appreciate her because despite the plaintiff being too high to be fully coherent, she was consistent in her story of how she got burned, and who did it.

Carolina Girl · February 12, 2020

9 hours ago, Chalby said:

I agree with you! When she claimed that pit bulls are known for being good at 'watching children' (I think she meant 'protecting'?) Anyways, the Plaintiff interrupted and said "that is not true!" because it even sounded ridiculous the moment she said it. The hubby was being kind by pointing out it's more the owners than anything, but even with his gracious comment, she still ranted that her dog was playing, etc. I hope Statefarm issues her a letter stating any dog attacks are NOT covered.

I have State Farm insurance on my home. When I first obtained it, my agent asked me if I had a dog. I did, and told him it was a German Shepherd. That was fine. He told me, however, that if I owned a Pit Bull, my rates would almost DOUBLE for the year, if they were willing to issue the policy at all. Apparently, they check with animal control and local P.D. to see if there have been complaints against the dog and if so, no policy.

CrazyInAlabama · February 12, 2020

deleted

Edited February 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · February 12, 2020

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

First-

Playing House With a Baby-Plaintiff cousin is suing the cousin's ex-girlfriend, and baby mama for unpaid rent. The cousin/sort of nephew couldn't rent an apartment, after their baby was six months old, and plaintiff co-signed. Six months or so later the defendant moved home with her mother, and plaintiff wants two full months, and part of another month's rent. Baby daddy has never paid child support, but like all deadbeats, brings diapers sometimes. Plaintiff cousin/baby daddy works sometimes, while defendant is a bar tender. Defendant says she paid more than half of the rent every month, and plaintiff baby daddy lied about working.

Plaintiff baby daddy gets paid under the table, so no wage garnishment for him. There is a 50/50 custody arrangement, so I doubt any child support will be happening for the mother. Plaintiff case dismissed.

Bad Tempered Landlord-Plaintiff leased a room from defendant and his wife, and he moved out during the last month and wants pro-rated rent back for his last month, and moving costs. Plaintiff contends that defendant landlord had a bad temper, and defendant wife says only with plaintiff. Defendant says plaintiff called police after plaintiff complained about his monthly rent shortfall. $150 to plaintiff for pro-rated rent. (Defendant landlord sounds like a total jerk). Defendant and wife are leasors of the house, not the owners.

Second-

Muzzle Your Pit Bull- Plaintiffs suing neighbor defendant/Pit Bull owner over an attack on one of plaintiff's Pit Bulls, for vet bills, punitive damages over the attack. There was a minor dust up on day one. The next day, defendant's roommate was walking one dog (plaintiff girlfriend was walking the other dog too), when defendant's dog attacked the Pit walked by the plaintiff's roommate. Defendant is getting the grieving grandfather that warned his kids about having a 3 year old grandson around a Pit, that mauled the baby.

Defendant dog attacked the plaintiff's dog two days in a row, and muzzles her dog, and still keeps the animal, because "it's her best friend". Day two, roommate was walking the dog on leash, the defendant's dog attacked the plaintiff's dog. Defendant claims her dog was in her apartment, and attacked her dog inside her apartment. $422 for vet bills, to plaintiff. Defendant wants her medical bills, and boarding for her dog until her lease runs out (A landlord that has guts! ).

Rebellious Grandson Rent Control-Plaintiff suing her step granddaughter, and daughter's boyfriend for rent, and return of property. Plaintiff grandson went to live with his step sister (the defendant), and plaintiff is payee for grandson's Social Security payments, and she gave the step-granddaughter some money, but kept the rest. Grandson was an issue at defendant's apartment, and was told to leave, and the rent refund is gone. Defendant has already packed up grandson's stuff, ready for pick up. Plaintiff / grandmother lies about threats from defendant step-granddaughter. Defendant told grandma she was not welcome on her property, and that's her right.

I wonder if any of the grandson's money is left? I bet it's all gone right in grandma's pocket. As soon as grandmother sends a $575 money order to plaintiff, she will mail the grandson's stuff back. If the money order isn't received in 15 days, the matter is over and defendant's can trash the grandson's stuff. $575 to defendant, or property is trashed.

Unpaid Move Loan-Plaintiff suing defendants for a $1,000 loan to move, after they were fired from job at mobile home park. About 10 days before the defendants were fired, they were looking for a place to live. Defendants had two days left to move, and borrowed the money from plaintiff. Defendants claim that plaintiff engineered their firing, because he wanted defendant's job. $1,000 to plaintiff, and defendants absurd counter claim is dismissed.

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment