Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Zahdii said:

Had a family that lived a couple miles away, and they couldn't be bothered to contain their dog, who was known for roaming, although this dog was just after impregnating other dogs.  After years of this, I saw the owner in a store crying that her dog didn't come home one night and the family found his body dumped in a nearby ditch.  He'd been shot.  She was begging for someone to baby her, and the most she got was a "sorry that happened.  Do you know who did it?"  She sniffed out that it could be anyone, people were always telling her to keep her dog home.

The only thing I feel sorry for here is that poor dog. Idiot owners should be shot and dogs should be rehomed to responsible, caring owners. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

In the trailer case, plaintiff was allowed to speak at length about what he was told by DMV when he tried to register the trailer.  JJ usually shuts that down as hearsay, but she didn't like the defendant, so plaintiff talked as long as he wanted.

Maybe its because his witness was with him at the DMV and could corroborate what was said.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, khyber said:

Maybe its because his witness was with him at the DMV and could corroborate what was said.

Maybe, but it's still hearsay.

JJ may have allowed it because what plaintiff said was exactly what the DMV would have told him, and JJ knew that.  He wasn't trying to blow smoke. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Add another profession to the list of businesses JJ hates: travel agents. I think it is quite reasonable that the agent's booking fee would be non-refundable. He did the work after all. However, it should certainly be made more explicit in the written exchanges with customers. Not that it would have made a whiff of difference with JJ because her mind was made up from the very start.

Absolutely - travel agents provide services irregardless whether the customer ever takes a trip.

Problem is that this is another area where JJ has no clue how folks without private jets and multiple homes live. Guess that's what happens when you own multiple mansions on both coasts (plus a couple in Italy, IIRC) along with a private jet to hop on when you want a change of scenery.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Professional Driver Crash-Plaintiff suing defendant for car insurance deductible, over a car accident, when defendant made a U turn in front of him.         Plaintiff was going straight, defendant was behind the plaintiff, went to turn right, then made a U-turn instead, and when defendant crossed in front of plaintiff, and defendant was hit.       Both litigants were insured on the date of the accident.  

Defendant was a school bus driver at the time.   Defendant witness (passenger with defendant) swears she saw the cell phone light on plaintiff's phone reflecting on his face.   She testifies she could see him looking down at his phone while he was driving.    Defendant's insurance declined to pay his deductible, because he was on the phone.   Case dismissed.   

The Ultimate Sister Betrayal-Plaintiff suing sister for unpaid dental work charges.   Plaintiff opened a dental care charge card, to pay for defendant sister's dental work, and defendant refuses to pay.   

Defendant says the extra dental work was the plaintiff's fault.   The care credit bill is $7,013.    Defendant admits that the bills are hers.   Defendant claims she paid $550, but left the proof at home.    Defendant's defense for not paying the dental charges is that sister punched her in an argument over defendant boinking plaintiff's guy.   Actually, the argument with plaintiff was when defendant was in the hospital having the plaintiff's boyfriend's baby (this is defendant's second kid with the same man).  After the dental work, defendant refused to pay after she found out plaintiff was seeing the sleazy boyfriend again.   Plaintiff is still seeing the father of defendant's kids.   

Plaintiff receives $5,000, leaving her still $2000 in the hole.   

Second-

High at Work?  You're Fired-Plaintiff /former part-time employee was fired by defendant for coming into work high.   Plaintiff is suing for a motorcycle, and tools that he stored at defendant's business warehouse.      Plaintiff worked off the books.    It was three weeks after the termination that the plaintiff finally contacted the defendant about his stuff.   However, defendant claims plaintiff stole a lot of auction inventory that defendant had purchased, and defendant returned half of the items before the termination.   

Plaintiff case dismissed, after the photos are shown of the junk left by plaintiff, including used syringes.  

I'm Just Trying to Get Home-Plaintiff suing fellow motorist after defendant crossed into plaintiff's lane, and hit his car.   Defendant claims plaintiff caused the accident.    Both drivers were legally turning left (multiple, legal turn lanes), and plaintiff was going to the gated entrance to where he lives, about 300 yds. down the road after he turned left.  Entrance was on the right side of the road.    Plaintiff was in the middle left turn lane, driver ahead of him put on flashers and stopped.   Plaintiff went into the far right turn lane, and did his turn.   Defendant (from the left side left turn lane) says plaintiff hit the left side of his car during the turn, and kept pushing his car until he hit the curb.   After the accident, defendant says he wanted to get into his gated community, and didn't want to stop.    

Defendant claims nothing is his fault, and he's wrong.   Defendant should give up driving, he's a menace. 

Plaintiff receives $1722

Raise Your Hand if You Were Sober-Plaintiff and defendant were both drunk, and defendant was supposed to be less drunk, so he was driving plaintiff's car.   Plaintiff claims she was drunk, but didn't realize the defendant was drunk too.   

They hit a parked car, and plaintiff claims they left a note for the car owner.   Insurance never said anything about the other car, so they obviously didn't leave information for the poor car owner.    Case dismissed.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Absolutely - travel agents provide services irregardless whether the customer ever takes a trip.

Problem is that this is another area where JJ has no clue how folks without private jets and multiple homes live. Guess that's what happens when you own multiple mansions on both coasts (plus a couple in Italy, IIRC) along with a private jet to hop on when you want a change of scenery.

Exactly. Judge Judy needs to realize that this is the man's livelihood - he's not being a travel agent 'for sport', he's doing it to survive. He should have service fees like all the other big agencies. If the woman was suing AAA Travel for the same thing, you think Judge Judy would rule against them? Of course not. So treat the little business man the same way !

 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

You're Not Cute, You're Obnoxious-Plaintiff is suing former friend for crashing her motorcycle.  There was a party at the plaintiff's home, and defendant's car was blocked in.    So defendant claims plaintiff told him to take her motorcycle, of course she claims he's a liar.    Defendant didn't have a motorcycle license, and crashed the bike.   Sadly for the citizens of New Hampshire, defendant is a contract state employee.   It would be a Kawasaki Ninja, and motorcycle was under 'storage' insurance, because owner had surgery, and it wasn't supposed to be driven.     Plaintiff gets her money.   

Newlyweds vs. Dueling Piano Show-  Plaintiff/musician is suing defendants for the balance of money, for performing at their wedding (they do dueling pianos), for $4,000 paid up front.

  The wrong date was on the contract (plaintiff had it down for October, but defendants put a date in September, so it was defendants' fault).   It was hard to get substitute musicians, but plaintiff did, and they performed.   However, JJ thinks because all plaintiff did was find other musicians, and paid them $1200 extra, that plaintiff received money for doing nothing(Wrong JJ, in my opinion).     JJ says since new musicians cost $1200, and defendants paid $4,000, JJ says plaintiff profited $2800.    

JJ says plaintiff wasn't obligated to help the defendants, and his case is dismissed.  

Second (New)-

Family Unprepared for Father's Sudden Death-(Judging from the glares between the two litigants, Byrd and the security guys need to be ready)-Plaintiffs (sisters) are suing other sister over funeral costs for their father.   Mother couldn't afford it.    Plaintiff sister is suing for defendant's share of father's funeral costs ($2733).    There are four sisters, and with the mother were at the funeral home.   One sister said she couldn't kick in, and mother had no money, so the other three sisters paid for it, pending the insurance company review.  Policy was for $100k, and policy is still under review (life insurance, but father died before the two year vesting period, Lumico is the insurance company, and another policy lapsed).    

JJ is using the sacred phone of Justice, calling the insurance company for information, and policy has been under review since the father died in November, and this was filmed in February.    JJ threatens to go to the State Attorney General, for insurance issue.  (I hope it's not the kind of policy that only pays if the person dies in an accident during the first two years).    The insurance company is being nasty, and trying to weasel out of answering.   Mother of women did the policy.     The insurance company has received medical records, and they claim that is something still outstanding.     Bet the company is going to claim that the blood clots that killed the man were a pre-existing condition.    Twin sister of defendant (a trial attorney) testifies that she'll sue if claim is denied.   Defendant will file a complaint with the State Insurance Commission where this company operates.   Plaintiff doesn't want the mother to pay for the funeral, even if she receives the $100K.     The daughters paid for an autopsy.   (If they can prove the father had blood clots before, then this insurance payout will be history, or if he lied on any questionaire to the insurance company).

Defendant sister attorney just said Lumico is a s$*% policy.    And she's so right.  There are a lot of complaints against Lumico, including one that is very similar to the claim in question.   The person on the review says that because the policy hadn't finished the two years, they only received 10%, so the most the mother will get is $10K.  One source I looked at said that for some policies, there is a three year period from getting the insurance, and that they won't pay a penny if you die before the three years is up.  This company actually has an A rating by A.M. Best that rates insurance companies.   Lumico doesn't require medical exams, but a medical questionaire (don't know if applicant does it, or medical provider does this), so if who ever filled this out omitted something that's a disqualifying condition, or outright lied, then this will never be paid. 

Plaintiff gets $2733.

Everything but the Kitchen Sink-Plaintiff sister (a child care teacher, age 33) bought a car in her name for her sister (she's the oldest 36 year old I've ever seen), who had bad credit (and probably a bad driving record, or no license is my guess).   So plaintiff is coming to court with dirty hands.  Defendant sister had her last car repo'd (2 years ago), and another recent repo in the last 3 years.    Defendant had an hit and run accident with the car in question, and that car was repo'd, and plaintiff wants JJ and Byrd to pay her for this.     Plaintiff case dismissed, because she has some of the dirtiest hands in court ever.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

There are a lot of complaints against Lumico Insurance on the Better Business Bureau page, that sound very similar to this case.

 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

There are a lot of complaints against Lumico Insurance on the Better Business Bureau page, that sound very similar to this case.

I thought the one that said if the person doesn't live through the vesting period (which is either two or three years), that you receive 10% was interesting.   So my guess if they can't find a disqualifying condition or pre-existing condition, that the pay out will either be $0, or $10k

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Defendant sister was so annoying in that funeral case.  She kept haughtily smirking throughout the case.  I wanted to pull her braids. 

In the hallterview her twin put her in her place!

 

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wanted to reach through my TV and smack the smirk off that sister's face! 

I felt bad for mom, hearing her daughters talk about how they have to take care of her, like she's this pitiful creature.  They were so patronizing, and I think mom's feelings were hurt.  If they managed to be successful, it was because of their parents. 

A friend lost out on a life insurance policy on her husband because there was no autopsy.  The man was 80 years old and had been undergoing treatment for cancer and COPD, heart ailments, diabetes.  An autopsy would have been a waste of time and money. 

By the time the payment was denied, the man was in the ground. 

Edited by AuntiePam
  • Like 4
  • Surprise 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've mentioned this years ago, and I need to mention this again: I doubt very much that the phone call was real.

First, there is NO WAY JJ would get through to a representative that fast (and this was not edited). She dialed the phone and right away said 'Hello, Cindy, this is Judge Judy...'  Sorry - I'm quite sure she would have listened to a an auto-response first, then listen to a menu of options, then be put on hold with music, then finally speak to someone.

Second, I doubt very much 'Cindy' would be giving private info on this account to 'Judge Judy' or anyone else. I'm sure the only one who has access to this is the man's widow as she's the beneficiary -  no one else. This info is confidential, and like other confidential information, it's not free to anyone who calls and says "I'm Judge So-and-so".  (If it was that easy, anyone can do it.) And they wouldn't be giving this info out without a court order or subpoena. 

That said, I did copy Judge Judy's responses in the 'fake phone call' when she said she was being given 'rote responses' and needed more info - I'm going to use her dialogue  when I deal with a CSR on the phone who delivers rote answers. 

By the way, this is a response from them last week in a BBB complaint:

"Keeping policy owner information secure and private is one of our top priorities. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we are required to restrict access to policy information to the policy owner. We are allowed to disclose information only as authorized in writing by the policy owner or as otherwise permitted by law. "

NO WAY did they give any information to JJ about this policy over the phone. No way! 

Edited by ThePurpleArcher · Reason: Edited for update of response from company on BBB.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Considering I just spent over a year dealing with my health insurance company over some bills and it still hasn't been 100% resolved, it was satisfying to hear JJ yell at the life insurance company over the phone. I was pissed off enough that I eventually wrote to my state senator and a staffer even started calling my insurance company on my behalf. Fucking insurance companies, man. (Though I'll add the caveat that the one time I had to file a claim with USAA when a tree fell on my car during Hurricane Sandy, they were easy to work with and I didn't have any problems at all.)

 

I kind of saw both sides in the wedding musician case. On the one hand, no, the guy didn't have to do anything to help them out, since I don't think the defendants disputed that it was their fault the dates got mixed up. On the other hand, he did make $2800 for not actually playing that day. If he himself wasn't available to play that day, I'm guessing it's because he had another gig booked, meaning he actually got paid twice that day. And since there was a month between the two dates, it's also possible he could have booked another gig for the original incorrect date and gotten paid for that as well. Originally, I thought the case was going to be about the defendants not paying the agreed upon price because it was different musicians, but when I heard that the original contract was for $4000 and they paid $4000, I kind of lost sympathy for the plaintiff as well. Again, I get where he was coming from, that he himself didn't actually pocket the full $4000, but it's like they were all sort of throwing the original contract out. Also, it seems like it could have been a great opportunity for him, if the couple told everyone how he came through for them at the last minute, possibly getting him some new customers in the future, but instead, he dragged them to court and now they'll be telling everyone to stay away from him.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

I've mentioned this years ago, and I need to mention this again: I doubt very much that the phone call was real.

First, there is NO WAY JJ would get through to a representative that fast (and this was not edited). She dialed the phone and right away said 'Hello, Cindy, this is Judge Judy...'  Sorry - I'm quite sure she would have listened to a an auto-response first, then listen to a menu of options, then be put on hold with music, then finally speak to someone.

 

 

I thought I noticed some editing, but I could be wrong.  A staffer must have gotten a CSR on the phone for JJ, so we didn't have to sit through the recording options, etc.  I don't think JJ would fake a phone call, especially one that put the insurance company in such a bad light. 

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

A staffer must have gotten a CSR on the phone for JJ, so we didn't have to sit through the recording options, etc.  I don't think JJ would fake a phone call, especially one that put the insurance company in such a bad light. 

I've had this discussion with a RL friend who often discusses the 3 court shows I watch regularly  (JJ, Hot Bench & TPC). I think all three are edited to a degree, but are about as 'real' as can be expected on an entertainment show. BTW, JJ is the judge we find least 'real' as she is most apt to make off the wall rulings to meet her America.

as far as the calls made by both JJ and MM - we stop short of declaring them fake, but neither of us believe they happen as shown. If they were 100% real, more often than not we'd hear "stop f*ing with me.... click" & "who is these really?" As far as whether or not an actual CSR respond as shown..... we know the judges are given access to records/statements etc before coming out to film - we also know that there are big staffs off camera who research cases (I think I heard/read somewhere JJ has around 60 staffers who research, brief her, help her get ready etc) - my point here is that she probably knows long before actually taping that she might be calling ACME Insurance, and she has the staff on hand to get signed permission from litigant and to ACME prior to taping, and have staff phone ahead and have an agent who already has signed permission from client who has had time to pull & review files, and probably has list of questions JJ will be asking before JJ  picks up her phone. OTOH, since we never hear other end of JJ calls they coulld be totally bogus and the staff already made the call and have given her herm answers. Fake or real? Well, fake as in call we see is not happening as shown. But, also the information JJ gathers in the phone conversation may be real. Even though what we see may be a reenactment of call staffers made week before. MM is more real when she makes calls from bench, we hear both sides, and at times she either doesn't get through or gets unexpected answer...... not totally real though, as sometimes, we hear professionals answering questions you KNOW would NOT be answered.

Really, the amazing thing is when we learn of cases where litigants have managed to fake out the staffers........ remember the case where big sis is suing deadbeat daddy for not paying debt/rent/whatever and she couldn't afford Christmas for her younger brothers........IIRC, she got caught in her lies by JJ when JJ had boys wait outside, then when Byrd called them in the brothers forgot their lines and told JJ what presents sis hot them - sis got nothing from JJ, but then appeared without brothers on TPC and won........ that's not the only time litigants have faked a case, but most memorable in my mind

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

By the way, this is a response from them last week in a BBB complaint:

"Keeping policy owner information secure and private is one of our top priorities. In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we are required to restrict access to policy information to the policy owner. We are allowed to disclose information only as authorized in writing by the policy owner or as otherwise permitted by law. "

They use the exact same response to every BBB complaint.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYGirl said:

In the hallterview her twin put her in her place!

That was the only enjoyable part of that case. And the lawyer twin had a better sense of how to dress, without letting unsightly bulges show up at random on your boby, a skill the defendant has yet to learn.

Of course the call was edited; whenever JJ goes back into her office and even during the examination they take out bits here and there, for pacing or to eliminate boring waiting time or transitions. In this case, I agree that a staffer most probably got in touch with the representative, which always takes a long time, put her on hold, and JJ then faked dialing the number before she picked up the call. Unless the staffer had the whole conversation with the insurer and JJ just reeenacted it.

If that insurance company so freely discussed the details of the claim with a third party, they must operate in a state that has very lax laws for protecting personal information. Unless those statutes have a "JJ exception" clause.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, JJ thinks because all plaintiff did was find other musicians, and paid them $1200 extra, that plaintiff received money for doing nothing(Wrong JJ, in my opinion).

Her faulty reasoning was similar to the one in the travel agency case from yesterday.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I was a travel agent for 30 years - never had a contract for cancellations except for those of the airline, tour company or crusie company.....etc.

There was never a signed contract with this jerk.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

11 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

They use the exact same response to every BBB complaint.

Exactly - and there's no way some CSR is going to discuss the case with Judge Judy. They'll tell her to send them a subpoena.  I think the phone call was a made up script based on what the widow told them before hand and telling the producers how her phone call went with them. This was NOT a real phone call - and JJ had her mind made up to tear apart the company. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

On the BBB site, and others with reviews of the insurance company, there were different levels of when you receive payouts.   The highest level is after the 2 or 3 year vesting period expires, and you get the full payout pretty soon.    Then if you die before the vesting period is up, like the father did, your beneficiary is only paid 10%, or in this case $10K (the policy was $100K).    The lesser levels of pay outs, depending on your medical history, have a graduated payout period over several years.     I really don't see how this company gets an "A" rating from the rating company for insurance.     

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Ex-Lover's Expensive Mistake-Plaintiff and ex-boyfriend bought a $28000 car on payments, and then she dumped him.    Defendant has no drivers license, and hasn't for years.   Plaintiff used her car for a trade in, and she wants payments from defendant.   Defendant was driving when they were pulled over for speeding, and since defendant has no license, they received a ticket.  Plaintiff will not get paid for the traffic ticket.    When plaintiff started do payments, and insurance from defendant's bank account, he reversed the charges, and dumped her. 

Defendant says when his brother got out of his unfortunate incarceration, defendant and brother got an apartment together.     Defendant says he discovered that plaintiff was making the car and insurance payments without his knowledge, but he says that he couldn't reverse the charges.   Plaintiff made the $1,000+ payment from defendant's bank account, and then dumped him.   Plaintiff gets nothing for the traffic ticket, because she let defendant drive without a license.     Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Shoot My Dogs If You See Them-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills, after dog attack,on her dog.  Plaintiff wants to be paid for her ruined garden, from his cows escaping and violating her garden.    Defendant has American Bulldogs, the attacking dog got run over a couple of months before the court case.      Defendant claims his dog couldn't get out because of his world-class fencing, and that's a lie, because his dog got run over.    When plaintiff let her dog out into her yard, she saw two of defendant's dogs savaging her mini Schnauzer.   When she came out, the two dogs ran back to defendant's yard.   Plaintiff says part of the fence is two rails, not full wire.   Defendant told plaintiff his dogs didn't do it, and if she saw them on her property again, shoot them.      Poor attacked Schnauzer had a lot of problems, and huge vet bills.   

$2600 to plaintiff for her dog's vet bills, and nothing for her garden. (If plaintiff is smart, she'll move away from the defendant).

Second-

Sick Cat Travel Alert-Plaintiff wanted a specific kind of cat, for a specific female cat from the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff didn't want the specific cat, but it was sick so it couldn't be sold.   Plaintiff flew from California to Minnesota, there were 2 females, and 1 male in the litter.    The plaintiff's witness is holding the cat.   Devon Rex is the breed.    Defendant says the cat had a cold, and she never offered the female cat for sale.   Defendant was not offering the other female for sale, because she kept her for breeding.    

Picture of cat is of the male, and text says it's the boy cat.   That she's buying the male is clearly stated by the defendant's text to the plaintiff, and plaintiff's response.   

When she arrived, the plaintiff demanded the sick female, and now wants to be paid for the medical care.     Plaintiff given choice of keeping cat, or giving the cat back, and getting a refund.    Plaintiff keeps the cat, and gets nothing else. 

96 Year-Old Wants What She Wants-Plaintiff is suing his mother's granddaughter.   For a time the granddaughter was responsible for grandmother's care.    Plaintiff claims defendant stole money from grandmother, before she went in a care home.  Plaintiff took mother out of the NC assisted living,  Plaintiff didn't visit while his mother while she was in NC.   Plaintiff says defendant wouldn't provide the grandmother's beloved Club Crackers (grandmother wants exactly 19 with each meal), and other items grandmother wanted.     Grandmother is in a care home within driving distance from plaintiff/son.  Plaintiff visits his mother three times a week. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Mother/Daughter Take Down of Used Car Salesman-(I bet this will be worth watching for the video)-Plaintiffs bought a used car from defendant salesman, and are suing him for selling her a bad car, and for an illegal repo.    When car was repo'd the two harridans are shown on video attacking and chasing the defendant.  Plaintiff bought a 2013 Ford Fusion with over 102,000 miles.    Plaintiff claims she paid over $19,000 for it, and owed $9,000 on it (actually paid $3500 down, and owed was just under $8,000).   The loan was over 26% interest.   Quamish Elder is the plaintiff.   The first payment was a month late, and car was repo'd a couple of weeks later.    Because of the late and missed first payment, the borrower/plaintiff now owed almost $8,000, because the loan came due.   With the interest, the car total for all payments equal $19000, for a $12000 car.   

Plaintiff claimed car went in the shop, because extended warranty she purchased didn't cover what was wrong with the car.   Defendant paid for the first repair, and refunded the second repair to plaintiff.     (Note to plaintiff: If you have decent credit, you won't have to pay 26.75% interest).     As JJ points out, for $3500, plaintiff should have bought a used car for that amount, and not financed the car.      

Video shows the two harridans coming after the defendant, and him running, and locking himself in his office.  JJ will discuss the assault for the counter claim.    Defendant claims the plaintiffs attacked him on three occasions.    First time was a tirade over the phone.   Second time was when plaintiff came to the dealership, making threats,  and she called someone to kick defendant's fanny, and police escorted plaintiff off with some man who showed up at the same time.   Third time is the video of the assault with mother and daughter trying to pull the door to defendant's office open.       Defendant didn't see a doctor for his injured finger.    

Plaintiff case is dismissed, defendant receives $500.    

Second (New)-

Recipe for Childcare Disaster-Plaintiff is suing son for damaging and stealing her belongings, after he locked her out of their shared home.    Plaintiff claims the son, and his current wife have custody of Noah (one of his children), after a CPS case in Colorado.    Plaintiff says she saw signs of abuse on Noah (small bruises, etc), after son and his children moved out of the shared home with plaintiff, wife, son, now wife, and the passel of children.    Plaintiff was worried about Noah, so they sent money for Noah's mother to come where they live (in Indiana).   So there are four children less than 4 years old, with defendant wife taking care of her infant twins, two kids under four by someone else, and Noah.    So defendant wife was a stay at home mother to all five kids, and some kids went back to the other parent or to defendant wife's mother, leaving her with Noah, and infant twins.   

Defendant claims plaintiff and wife were getting into illegal activities, but they all moved in together in mother's trailer, and mother and wife moved into a camper trailer.   Defendant claims one plaintiff tested positive for meth use, after a domestic at the home.  

The child Noah is now in a foster home, and supposedly coming back to defendant's home. One other child of defendant wife, is with wife's mother, and the twins are with the wife's mother too.    Plaintiff suing for two sports jackets, a sports gumball machine (branded with some team's colors and logo).    There is no proof of the missing items value, so plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant case is dismissed, because he's a jerk.   

Frat Brothers Fight-Plaintiffs are suing former fraternity member and roommate for moving out of their frat house, and breaking the lease. .    However, you don't have to be a member to live in the housing, and the plaintiffs didn't try to replace the defendant.   Defendant's grades were below fraternity requirement, and he was booted out of the fraternity,  However, defendant signed a lease, and was still obligated to pay for the housing.   

(On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows).  Defendant's daddy whines that his son signed the lease, but never moved into the frat house.   

$3950 for plaintiffs for broken lease.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows).  Defendant's daddy whines that his son signed the lease, but never moved into the frat house.   

$3950 for plaintiffs for broken lease.  

 

Yeah, one of the plaintiffs looked like David Spade as Teen Wolf, and the other had spectacular cheekbones, which almost made up for the too-defined eyebrows. 

I worked for a short time at a community college, and a required course was Life 101.  One of the subjects was money and credit.  Looks like this should be in the high school curriculum too.  I'll admit to making stupid money decisions even into my 50's though, so I was kinda sympathetic to the plaintiff -- until she went bonkers.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother/Daughter Take Down of Used Car Salesman

Mother probably thought that a little pastel bow in her hair (or was it a flower?) would make her look sophisticated and civilised. Or prehaps it was to counteract the effect of her and her daughter having been recorded charging like raging banshees at the poor car salesman.  I do not believe her story that she was trying to calm her offspring. She was also enabling her daughter's stupidity by finding all sorts of excuses; it is working very well because in the hallterview the plaintiff showed she did not understand a single damn point that JJ made to her. Not surprising from someone who chose to pay such outrageous interest charges when there was a more reasonable alternative.

Didn't she say this was not the end of it? Defendant should consider getting a protective order.

I also think he should have received more in punitive damages.

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

On a personal note, I hate the beard, and funky hair on one plaintiff, and the other plaintiff shouldn't have done whatever he did to his eyebrows

Considering how well behaved they were and adressed the judge very respectfully, as well as presented their arguments and the facts cogently, I will give them a pass on their appearance since they were a refreshing change from so many rude and inarticulate litigants.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Frat Brothers Fight-Plaintiffs are suing former fraternity member and roommate for moving out of their frat house, and breaking the lease. .    However, you don't have to be a member to live in the housing, and the plaintiffs didn't try to replace the defendant.   Defendant's grades were below fraternity requirement, and he was booted out of the fraternity,  However, defendant signed a lease, and was still obligated to pay for the housing.   

If I were that defendant, I would have been embarrassed to have my daddy come with me to fight my battles for me.

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Didn't she say this was not the end of it?

I am always amazed at how many of these litigants are so ignorant that they don't know what binding arbitration means, especially the ones who proclaim that they will take it to the Supreme Court.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

I am always amazed at how many of these litigants are so ignorant that they don't know what binding arbitration means, especially the ones who proclaim that they will take it to the Supreme Court.

I think she may have meant she intends to continue harassing the defendant, perhaps at his place of business, on the Web, etc. or again using the guy she sent around early in the story.

But considering how stupid she is, she may indeed not have understood that the agreement she signed with the show makes this her last kick at the can. If she attempts it, defendant will have a strong argument for a quick dismissal as well as legal costs involved.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case. I was right there with JJ - we went through a million kids with five million parents and grandparents and who lived where when, all for two jackets and a gumball machine? Not that I had plans to visit Indiana anytime soon, but it's definitely been crossed off the list.

 

Someone backing out of a lease at the last minute is how I found my living situation my senior year of college. We were all lucky it worked out so well. Ah, those were the days. It was a shithole, but it was our shithole.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case. I was right there with JJ - we went through a million kids with five million parents and grandparents and who lived where when, all for two jackets and a gumball machine? Not that I had plans to visit Indiana anytime soon, but it's definitely been crossed off the list.

 

 

And as it happened, not one bit of it was relevant to the case.  I'll admit to being slightly impressed that the defendant dad seemed to know where all those kids were at all those different times. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, augmentedfourth said:

Dude, what the hell rolled out of Indiana in that case.

I was fixated by the defendant’s tattoos once I noticed the red 81 on his hand. That number and script may have meant that he was a “supporter of his local Hells Angels.” I was trying to read the other tats, but could only read the word “Outlaw” in his left forearm. 
 

With all the odd details in the case, I was wondering if it was fake. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

I wanted to reach through my TV and smack the smirk off that sister's face! 

You and me both AuntiePam (the sister with the braids in the insurance case). I was waving my arms menacingly at the TV set cos she was so smirkable. 

Did anybody catch where the case where the woman and her mother chased the used car salesman into his office was from? Because I swear it must have been Florida. It's such a Florida thing to happen. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

 

Did anybody catch where the case where the woman and her mother chased the used car salesman into his office was from? Because I swear it must have been Florida. It's such a Florida thing to happen. 

I want to say Minnesota but I don't remember.  Minnesota is getting almost as bad as Florida.

One of the late night talk show hosts (forgot which one, or maybe it wasn't even them) said if you want to be entertained, Google "Florida man" and let Google fill in the rest. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

Did anybody catch where the case where the woman and her mother chased the used car salesman into his office was from?

Yes and I do believe JJ should have punished her monetarily.  Had they gotten to him it definitely would have been assault.

15 hours ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

I wanted to reach through my TV and smack the smirk off that sister's face! 

Plus she was so certain she was going to win!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Marla Randle was suing her son's baby mom for sitting fees, etc.  All during the case, Marla had me saying "Oh, honey no" in my head.   

Marla was a tragic mess with her many rings, bracelets, talon nails, eyelashes and wandering eye.  The icing on the cake was that her choice of wig was a joke - half of her head looked like she had massive alopecia but the other half had the luxurious waterfall of curls glued on tight.  Gurl, you gotta choose your wigs for better coverage.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Infant Breaks Leg in Day Care-Plaintiffs parents suing day care owners for medical bills after their four month old son broke his leg at the day care.  Plaintiff had several old children in the day care for a few years, and then put the baby at the day care from 7 weeks, to 4 months, when the injury happened.     Defendant was watching between 10 and 12 children, (4 to 6 child care children) without helpers.    Defendant was actually licensed, and still is. 

Plaintiff dropped the baby off, and a few hours later the day care provider called, and said the baby wouldn't stop crying.    The defendant is blaming the injury on the 9 year old sibling (plaintiff's kid), she says the baby cried, and told the 9 year old to pick up the baby, and claims the kid was swinging the baby by the legs, and that's how this happened.    Defendant claims she told the 9 year old to "play nicely".   

How on earth can the defendant still have a license to run a day care?   As JJ says the Idaho authorities are idiots for not yanking this woman's day care license.  

Then the defendant called the plaintiff mother to pick up the baby, and the baby was in surgery for a broken leg.    Plaintiff $5,000 ($4,000 medical bills, and $1,000 for pain and suffering). 

Hair Straightening Trauma-Plaintiff suing former hair dresser for causing her hair to fall out (Note to others, if the hair dresser that's going to do your hair has a hairdo that looks like the defendant's, don't do it!).      Defendant claims the plaintiff had her hair straightened, and then had someone else braid the hair, and that caused the breakage.    Plaintiff had her hair straightened for years at the salon, stopped and went natural for three years.   Then went back to defendant's salon for a straightening.   Defendant is suing for slander, and defamation of character.  

Hair was relaxed in October, and two months later was the first complaint to defendant about breakage.    This was after several wash, and roller sets on the hair, and plaintiff claims there were no other chemical, braiding or other procedures on her hair.      Plaintiff wanted her hair relaxed more often than the two month gap schedule the defendant recommended, but she demanded that her hair needed relaxing more often.     There is no way plaintiff didn't have a more immediate reaction from the relaxer.      (My personal guess is that plaintiff dyed her own hair, or did something to her own hair). 

Plaintiff will be getting nothing.     Defendant has no proof of plaintiff's slander (though JJ says plaintiff has been talking all over town about her hair loss)..   Cases dismissed.

Second-

Auto Accident with a Twist-Plaintiff suing defendant/ fellow motorist after defendant rear ended his car, and over failure of defendant to pay for car accident damage.     Defendant offered his car title to the plaintiff to pay for damages, because defendant had no insurance.  Plaintiff had the defendant's car title, and the agreement, and a month later the police were called when plaintiff came to get the car.    Car was taken to impound after the police arrived.    Defendant wants money to pay to get the car out of impound, and that's not happening.     Plaintiff gets $1,000.   

Mother Son Drama-Plaintiff/mother suing son, for the unpaid balance of furniture she sold him, and the unpaid balance of a car loan ($1,000).    Defendant says he's square with the mother on the furniture, and the car is totaled, and not his problem.   Plaintiff sold living room and bedroom set to her son.    Plaintiff also has full time custody, and supports two of defendant's children, without help from defendant.   Defendant hit a deer, and totaled the car, so he thinks he doesn't have to repay his mother, besides the defendant claims the car loan was a gift.      Plaintiff receives $1,000.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Honey, Can My Ex-Lover Move In?-Plaintiff's ex needed a place to stay so he let her move in, he's suing his ex-girlfriend for unpaid balance on a car, tow fees, and .     Plaintiff's ex-gf is the defendant, and they were living together.   His prior girlfriend/fiance (she's plaintiff witness today) was his former live-in, needed a place to stay, so they all moved in together.   Defendant bought plaintiff's car, was making payments, and plaintiff claims def. stopped making payments.   Defendant says she paid for the car in full.    Plaintiff claims def. agreed to pay $5K for car, but def. claims it was in poor condition, and worth $1250.    

Plaintiff lost the paperwork on the car sale, but has some video of the sales agreement, and defendant signing the $5,000 sales contract.    Lying idiot defendant is now toast.  

Car broke down, and tow truck driver has the car.   Defendant owes $5,000 minus $1225, she already paid.   Defendant owes $3775.    

Grandmother Charges for Day Care-Plaintiff /grandmother, suing her son's ex-girlfriend for loans made to her while son was incarcerated, and for babysitting for defendant's child.    Defendant was supposed to apply for state childcare subsidy, and didn't apply, so plaintiff doesn't get that.    Plaintiff rented a car for the defendant to drive, and to visit son in prison.   Defendant paid some on the car rental, but not all.    $500 loan to defendant.   Defendant is being obnoxious, and threatened with the Byrd boot.   

$785 to plaintiff (if defendant would have kept her mouth shut, it would have been less)

Second (Rerun)-

I Live to Pay Your Vet Bills-Plaintiff paid for defendant's dog's bills for tests, and expected to be repaid, sadly dog died.   Defendant suing for $5,000 for harassment.     Defendant claims plaintiff donated money for tests, because she has a history of donating to dogs in need.   

Defendant posted online about need for money for dog tests, and called plaintiff about a loan.    Plaintiff paid for dog's tests.   All texts are from defendant's phone, she promised to repay plaintiff,  and she denies all of them.  Defendant's lying witnesses, are so full of it.   $481 to plaintiff.    

Park City Park Problem-Plaintiff moved into a rented, furnished loft rented from defendant, defendant lived there too, and moved out 19 days later.   She alleges defendant was constantly partying, random visitors, front door left unlocked, etc.   Plaintiff paid $1200 first and last months rent to move in.   Defendant denies all payments.   Defendant seems rather vague, bet it's been a lot of years of partying in Park City for defendant.  

Plaintiff also wants her iPhone, passport, social security card, and other items back.   $600 to plaintiff.   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

11 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

Yes and I do believe JJ should have punished her monetarily.  Had they gotten to him it definitely would have been assault.

I thought she did! If memory serves, the defendant got $500 on the counterclaim to teach the bratty plaintiff (and her mother) a lesson.

 

JJ and Byrd were great together today in the "ex-fiancee needs a place to crash" case. And interesting move, filming the signing of the contract.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, patty1h said:

Marla was a tragic mess with her many rings, bracelets, talon nails, eyelashes and wandering eye.  The icing on the cake was that her choice of wig was a joke - half of her head looked like she had massive alopecia but the other half had the luxurious waterfall of curls glued on tight.  Gurl, you gotta choose your wigs for better coverage.

I think the half-head wig was on purpose.  She thought that it looked good.  But defendant's wig/fall wasn't much better.  She kept stroking it like it was a kitten.  Or a furry snake. 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Honey, Can My Ex-Lover Move In?

JJ obviously ended up appreciating the plaintiff's cleverness and foresight in recording the signing of the agreement. It is indeed a good precaution against documents being misplaced; of course, phones can be dropped and contents can be lost in so many ways as litigants often demonstrate, unless one makes a backup copy (which few ever do).

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, augmentedfourth said:

JJ and Byrd were great together today in the "ex-fiancee needs a place to crash" case. And interesting move, filming the signing of the contract.

I was appalled by what Judy was saying today. The man's ex-fiance (whom he still has a friendly relationship) must've been in a very dire situation if he invited her to come and live with them - and he acknowledged it was discussed with his (then) current girlfriend before he invited her to come live with them. There was no romance going on that anyone brought up, as it all seemed innocent.  I think it was rather nice that he opened his home, rather than leave her homeless or in a dangerous situation. It could be his religious belief or personal belief not leave someone out in the cold, and JJ laughs at him ???? Really???

Then she brings up her husband's ex wife "Suzanne" who is the mother of his children in Judge Judy's blended family. She acknowledged that they are cordial with each other - even friendly, but if her husband opened their "very large" home to her, she would think he's crazy? Why? Assuming their all in the same age range (JJ is 77, her husband is 86 - I'm assuming Suzanne must be an octogenarian) and JJ has been married to her husband for decades - what is she so insecure about to have an 80-something year old woman move in?  I was shocked to hear her response - is she that cold-hearted to leave someone stranded than opening her door to that person?  WOW. 

  • Like 7
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

I believe Judy would show Suzanne to the Guest House or pay for a suite at the Waldorf.  Its not a matter of anyone "gettin' buzy" its simply a matter of decorum. 

Dude in the case was stacking up women like an air traffic controller and there was no one's grandma or elderly Uncle Edwin in the bunch.  

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, basiltherat said:

I believe Judy would show Suzanne to the Guest House or pay for a suite at the Waldorf.  Its not a matter of anyone "gettin' buzy" its simply a matter of decorum. 

I agree, I get along well with my husband's ex-wife and he gets along with my ex-husband, neither of us would be comfortable with either of those two living under the same roof as us. I would offer a couple months at an extended stay before I'd ever let them live with me. I don't know what the plaintiff's thinking was but it wasn't a good idea, regardless of the car loan.

 

16 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I think the half-head wig was on purpose.  She thought that it looked good.  But defendant's wig/fall wasn't much better.  She kept stroking it like it was a kitten.  Or a furry snake. 

LOL - it was bizarre watching her pet her wig!

21 hours ago, patty1h said:

Marla was a tragic mess with her many rings, bracelets, talon nails, eyelashes and wandering eye.  The icing on the cake was that her choice of wig was a joke - half of her head looked like she had massive alopecia but the other half had the luxurious waterfall of curls glued on tight.  Gurl, you gotta choose your wigs for better coverage.

This is the best description of poor Marla! My husband said she should have had her 'fall' on the other side, kind of covering that wandering eye, instead she had it on the bald side with 3 inch fake lashes making it even more distracting!! 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 2/18/2020 at 8:14 PM, littlebennysmom said:

These idiots are the kind of people that sue because their kid, Lil' Bitchface, breaks into a secured yard and injures themselves on someone else's property.

Belated thanks for providing me with my new rap name, Li'l Bitchface! 

  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post

How does someone rent a car at Hertz for only $70-100 a week? Last time I had a rental, my insurance paid $50 a DAY. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Creative Estate Planning Bust-Plaintiff is planning for her demise, suing daughter for unpaid loan, and a mobile home title.  Defendant / daughter (as JJ says a lousy daughter) told plaintiff that when the case is over, daughter will throw the mother out on the street.   Daughter says mobile home title was put in her name, to keep mother's assets hidden from government.   Plaintiff wanted daughter to take trailer title, and when mother dies daughter could sell trailer, and split the proceeds among the four children.   However, because the title is in daughter's name, plaintiff has no claim to the trailer now.    There is no reason to believe the daughter will split anything with anyone else, ever.   

Daughter/defendant claims she didn't say she will evict the mother  right after the show (I'm not believing what the daughter says).    JJ asks daughter if she'll sign a life estate for the trailer the mother lives in, daughter says no.     Mother pays lot fees, and owns trailer outright, and rents some of it out.   Daughter paid nothing on her own trailer, and nothing on the mother's either.    

When JJ says the daughter is a lousy daughter, the audience applauds, and Byrd doesn't say anything.    Daughter not only has the title to the mother's trailer, but the daughter sold the other trailer the mother bought for the daughter, and daughter apparently lives in another trailer in the same park.    Daughter now claims she'll sign for the life estate for the mother to live in the part of the trailer that mother signed over to the daughter.    (I'll believe that when I see it).

Watch Out for the Deer-Plaintiff suing defendant for damage to his property when defendant drove onto plaintiff's lawn during a traffic accident.   Part of defendant's truck was recovered from plaintiff's tree, and a police report.  Defendant claims he was avoiding a deer, had the accident, and left the truck in the ditch after meandering across the plaintiff's property.     Defendant's truck was towed by the police.    Defendant didn't have insurance, but was able to get his truck out of impound without insurance.  Defendant received two citations that day, one for driving without insurance, and one for leaving the scene of an accident.    Truck is still uninsured.     Plaintiff receives $4200.  (Hallterview with plaintiff is fun, he called it the "phantom deer", and says the defendant drove through several ditches, before and after driving through his yard)

Second-

Fear In a Cramped Rental-Plaintiff is suing ex-roommate for breaking their lease.    Plaintiff claims defendant moved out four months before lease terminated.    Defendant had financial reversals, and couldn't paid for utilities, and rent.    At some point, plaintiff found out defendant had moved his boyfriend in, and no one was paying the bills except the plaintiff.    Plaintiff 'lost it', and confronted the defendant about the extra tenant.   Plaintiff and defendant got into a 30 second pushing match, and physical altercation (punches), and plaintiff punched first.   Defendant moved out after the altercation.     Defendant still owes for November, December, and January.   Plaintiff's assault gives defendant reason to move out.   Plaintiff will not get the 3 months rent paid, because he assaulted the defendant.   

Clueless Landlord-Plaintiff suing former tenant (of 9 years) for damages.  Plaintiff claims they owed for October, and November.   Defendant had property in the home during October, and November ($2600).     Defendant claims all house damage was normal wear and tear.  House was newly built when defendant, and family moved in.     JJ calls damages normal wear and tear.      Plaintiff does not get to keep her security deposit, but defendant gets $1600 for the unpaid rent, minus the $1,000 security.    (Hope defendant's next landlord saw what their property will look like after defendant finishes with it.  Sorry, my opinion is the stair carpet is way beyond normal dirt).

Security Deposit Abuse-Plaintiff suing former tenant for leaving rental like a dump.   It took 54 contractor trash bags to clean out rental, and defendant claims that he didn't leave the place trashed, and wants his security deposit back.   Plaintiff says tenant lived there for 4 1/2 years, and she kept the security deposit for the last month's rent.   (Rent was $2200, security was $1800).    Bills and photos of damage are submitted.      (Door damage is from the police kicking down the door, when wife was the legal tenant).    The bathtub picture is disgusting, and fool defendant is trying to tell JJ the tenant laws in New Jersey. 

$1800 to plaintiff

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (Rerun)-

Good Luck Molesting People-Plaintiff suing defendant for slamming her door into his parked vehicle.    This should be fun, defendant gets mouthy with JJ, and Byrd boots her (sadly, not literally boot).   When plaintiff was sitting in his parked car at Walmart, and defendant pulled in next to his car's passenger side.    Then plaintiff heard her door hit his car, and damage the mirror.   Defendant simply won't shut up.     Plaintiff says she apologized, and says defendant will get the car fixed cheaply.     However, defendant says she never hit the man's car, or damaged his mirror.   Plaintiff wrote down defendant's information, without success.  Plaintiff hired a process server (his witness, who defendant calls a molester in court).  

Defendant goes off in court, and JJ boots her husband, and then her, but only after Brittany the car bashing liar goes on and on.   Brittany finally gets the boot.   (So if you're in Reno, NV, at a Walmart you may run into her, because she apparently works there.   Run far away).

I feel so sorry for the process server the plaintiff hired, that woman certainly accused him of everything.   She keeps calling him a molester.   Process server finally got lucky, and lying Britany pulled up in front of her house, claimed her name wasn't Britany, but  her name was on her shirt.   Process server cost $49.00, plus car damage (they tried to serve it three times at her house, husband denied she lived there), and finally served her in the parking lot in front of her house.    

(My suspicion is the woman shoved the driver's door open, jammed it with her foot against the plaintiff's car.   Then went forward into the parking space, scraping and denting the entire side of the man's car.   I bet defendant has the metal edge guards on her car door edge, just so she can do maneuvers like this against other cars).  

Plaintiff gets $2691.   

Collateral Damage-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, put down $1,100 in cash, and drove off with car, and title.    Plaintiff was told about the issues with the car by the mechanic, plaintiff paid $1100 cash,    After going to the mechanic, plaintiff said there were $4k in repairs needed.      Plaintiff wanted to return the car, and defendant said no.  Plaintiff dumped the car in defendant's yard, and left it, but she took the title with her.    Plaintiff gets $1100, and defendant gets title back.  Bet defendant resells the piece of junk car by the next day.    JJ says the defendant is a scammer after reviewing text messages between litigants.    $1100 to plaintiff, and scammer defendant gets her title back. 

Second (New)-

Homeland Security Fraud-Plaintiff suing defendant's over their failure to get her a special visa approved (no, I don't understand why people fall for this scam).     Plaintiff (originally from Slovakia), paid the defendants to complete her visa application to stay in the U.S.    Defendants have a visa facilitating business.     Plaintiff received a special visa, and it was going to expire in a year, after a DUI by defendant, but DUI was before the paperwork was put in.    Visa renewal was not approved, because of an incomplete application.   Plaintiff paid $1,000 to defendants for their assistance in the renewal, but that was after the application was submitted.   Plaintiff had to get a sponsor, and job to submit with her application.    DHS returned the application because it was incomplete.     The first application through the defendants was approved, it was the renewal that was denied.   

Why is someone being given a  visa to be an entertainment manager in a bar?   As JJ says, it's a waitress job.     Plus, a DUI is a disqualifying reason for visas.   I hope someone from DHS was watching the visa episode.     I couldn't stand the plaintiff, and the way she was blaming her mistakes, on the defendants.      

Plaintiff's case dismissed.   

Where's My Rottweiler Puppy-Plaintiff suing dog breeder for his deposit for a Rottweiler puppy.   Plaintiff wanted a puppy, and a $495 deposit would hold the puppy.     Defendant lied about due date, and never gave the plaintiff a puppy.    $495 to plaintiff. 

 

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Her Honor: "I already heard about you breast twice."

Defendant: "He deserves to hear about my breast three times."

Later, as defendant is leaving because JJ kicked her out: "Good luck molesting people."

No, good luck to your husband because he has to live with you. What a weird broad.

 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Homeland Security Fraud-

Plaintiff must have been in dire strait if she trusted the defendants to do the job, especially the dour-faced long-haired one; I would have run away as soon as I spotted her, but perhaps she is not the public face of the company and does not have direct contact with customers.

It was difficult to reconstruct the facts and the chronology. but if the visa application was rejected because the consultant did not fill out he form properly, they might have some liability, unless the info provided by the plaintiff was at fault. 

42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

a DUI is a disqualifying reason for visas.   

Shouldn't the rejection have said so it that was the reason for the denial?

43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Good Luck Molesting People

Logorrheic defendant is so obsessed with her precious breasts being touched that she was the one who kept banging them during her rant. I feel all viewers should have been awarded a pain and suffering compensation for having to watch her and listen to her ramblings.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 10

Share this post


Link to post

I think they said that the first approval was through the defendants' service.   

 

I think the initial rejection of the visa renewal,  was from the lousy application.    The information listed seemed to be from the plaintiff's information she gave the defendants.

Then I think that the DUI, and who knows what else came up during the reapplication for the renewal.   If I had the timeline correct,  the DUI happened after the first application for renewal.    I can't believe that anyone is given a special visa to be a waitress in a bar, or probably a bottle server.     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I almost fell out of my chair Laughing at the Dog breeder, Defendant’s comment  

“ He doesn’t understand the process judge, Breeding isn't exactly a science”

Sweetheart, YES IT IS . 

Someone should throw her a picture of The Periodic table chart that contain’s the elements needed to create anything Living on Earth.

Edited by Hellohappylife
  • 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