Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts


Quote

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

 

He wasn't much better.

Was there any mention of kids? One hopes not, this is DNA the world doesn't need propagated

Edited by bad things are bad
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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.     

There is not a special visa given for those jobs, which is why the language used made it sound like she was in marketing and instead of saying she received salary/tips, hey indicated salary/bonus.  It definitely would have sent up a red flag if I was to approve the application. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Foster Care Horror Story-plaintiff is suing daughter for unpaid electric bill, in mother's name.   Plaintiff put her daughter into foster care when she was 10.    Then daughter reappears as an adult, with four kids, a couple of years ago she needed the electricity turned back on.   Defendant says she didn't ask the mother to pay for the electric bill, but it was a gift to the grandchildren.   Defendant says mother wasn't much of a mother, and owed her.   Vivian Hammond (the mother) has been on fixed income, disability for six years.   Mother is in a return to work program, under SS disability, and she can earn any amount for the nine months.    Then for three years, mother can't exceed her disability amount ($1300 a month) or SSD is cut off.   

Oldest son moved in with his grandfather, and daughter was dumped on the foster system at 10, because she misbehaved (daughter says she went into foster care at 8 years old).    Plaintiff claims daughter was expelled in second grade.   Daughter was sent to a hospital at 8 or 10, thne the county home, then foster homes (not relatives).  I'm not liking the mother at all, the daughter may have been a handful, but foster care at 8?   

Defendant claims her only income at the time of the electric bill was PTSD disability for a daughter, and she had no other income.   My view, so-called mother had no expectation of repayment.   Daughter apparently has a history of bad credit, and skipping on utility bills.    Plaintiff was actually babysitting the kids while daughter was in a previous apprentice program.   

Plaintiff had no expectation of getting repaid, and Byrd and JJ aren't paying that electric bill, so case dismissed.  

Lose the Ring If You Don't Like Him-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for his share of down payment ($2600), and fees for a boat the litigants purchased together, and the return of an engagement ring.   Plaintiff put down initial payment, and the litigants would finance the boat together.   Plaintiff's name isn't on the boat, and he's not getting boat money back.   Case dismissed.   

Second-

Online Dating Fail-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend (met through a dating website).   Plaintiff went from California to Arizona, defendant moved to Arizona, and then litigants moved in together a few months later, in plaintiff's rental house.  Plaintiff lived part time in her late mother's trust house in California, and in a rental house with defendant in Bullhead City, AZ.   Litigants only have a lease signed by them, not the landlord.    Plaintiff wants her items she bought for the house back, most of which are gone, so she's not getting money for those.    Case dismissed. 

Who's Telling the Truth?-Plaintiff rented room to defendant, he wants rent, a bike, and property defendant took with him when he moved out.     Defendant moved out because of on-going drug use in the house, and other issues.      Plaintiff claims defendant trashed the room, and had bed bugs.   Plaintiff claims the bed bugs got into the wall socket, and infested the light switch.    Defendant will return the bike, and plaintiff gets $500.  

Restraining Order Roommates-Plaintiff suing ex-roommate for return of rent, legal fees, and a false restraining order, plus belongings back.   Litigants rented a multibedroom place together, rented  bedrooms to other tenants.   Defendant claims he paid the entire security deposit, and landlord gave the deposit to plaintiff.   Plaintiff also wanted to move her boyfriend in, and a large dog (no pets was in the lease).    Plaintiff looks like a bunny boiler to me. 

Plaintiff claims receipts for a previous house were the receipts from this house in question. Plaintiff didn't pay for the last 4 months rent.    Fortunately, plaintiff moved after being a squatter for the last four months.    All of plaintiff's property is not with the defendant.    $250 to the defendant for the security deposit.   Plaintiff receives what she deserves, nothing. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Father Pulls Knife on Friend-Plaintiff suing defendant over purposely damaging his motorcycle.    Plaintiff claims defendant came out of his house with two 10" butcher knives, defendant claims plaintiff came after him with a pipe.   Motorcycle was $4500, and was stored at plaintiff's friend's garage, at friend's house.    Plaintiff claims defendant deliberately knocked the motorcycle over, after plaintiff claimed defendant's dog chewed up the motorcycle cover, and scratched the motorcycle.   Then the fight started (why can't there be a video of this one).  Plaintiff called 911, and picked up a pipe from his car truck for self defense, and put pipe away after defendant walked away.  Motorcycle is 13 years old, and plaintiff claims the bike value went up.  

Defendant claims plaintiff was screaming all kinds of filth, threatened him with a pipe or crowbar.    Estimate to fix bike is over $3k, but only worth $1500, so plaintiff gets $1500. 

Deceased Woman's Feuding Friends-Plaintiff/caretaker suing defendant / deceased patient's daughter.   (Another person to avoid in Reno, NV, including the Walmart parking lot slammer from the other day).    Plaintiff was caretaker over 5 nights a week, and brought groceries too (but paid for nothing).    Plaintiff wants to be paid for doing extra duties, outside of the five duties she was hired for.   Extra duties that plaintiff wants payment for include helping the patient in and out of bed, and changing her bandages.  There was no salary, just room and board in return for the five nights of overnights.    Plaintiff wants wages for the other two nights she stayed in the house, for free.    Plaintiff claims to have a contract proposal, it's not signed by anyone, and will be dismissed by JJ.    Case dismissed for rotten plaintiff.   Counter claim by defendant is for rent and utilities for staying in the house, after mother died, for several months, dismissed because there was no contract.    Plaintiff is despicable.  (Defendant should have had the attorney working on an eviction order, and presented it to plaintiff at the funeral). 

Second (New)-

Caregiver Cries Extortion by Disabled Senior-Plaintiff caretaker accused by her former patient of running a pet-sitting business on the side, the plaintiff  says the defendant committed extortion.   Plaintiff wants money for car tires, etc. she used on defendant's car, and defendant says plaintiff drove the hell out of the car.   Defendant doesn't regularly drive, and plaintiff took defendant's car to her house, and kept it there to drive to school, etc.    When plaintiff went back to school, she took the defendant's car for school, which is a 90 mile round trip commute, starting in August.     Defendant says plaintiff took her car, used it all of the time.    Defendant didn't drive any longer, but then plaintiff became caregiver, and took defendant's car to drive.     Defendant paid all upkeep, and insurance on her car too.   Plaintiff wants to be paid for tires, that went on defendant's car.  

Defendant says plaintiff wanted to become a pet sitter, and use defendant's car for that also.  Defendant said she never drove her own car, and pet sitting business started in April, using defendant's car for that too.      

Plaintiff keeps interrupting, and whining, but one glare from the wonderful Officer Byrd shuts her up.   Plaintiff put 3500 miles on the car, in 18 months, but defendant says it was more like 30,000 miles.  Defendant claims plaintiff put in for hours she didn't work.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant counter-claim dismissed.   

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 7:44 PM, AuntiePam said:

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

This brings up another point about funeral homes:  In my experience, they want their money pronto; perhaps they view insurance claims as an iffy proposition. 

It always makes us laugh when JJ gets on the phone.  I wonder how long it actually takes to film the scene of her calling someone, because she ALWAYS is able to reach someone within minutes, and no one ever seems to ask her for an authorization from a plaintiff or defendant to speak with her about anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone see the cases about the two caretakers?  One was a young woman accused of putting over 30K miles on her client's car and was suing for reimbursement for repairs she made to the car and tires.  Scammer.  It's a mystery to me why she had to drive her client's car, because according to her testimony, she and her husband owned 3 or 4 other cars. 

The other case was a "family friend" who was caring for an elderly woman in exchange for free rent.  She wanted to be paid for those nights off when she might have walked by and helped her client get out of a chair, or something.  The client's daughter was counter-suing for rent because the caregiver stayed in the house for a month or two after the patient died.  Judy would not even entertain the counter-claim.  Seems she has no patience to hear anyone's counter-claims.  Geez, I guess a billion dollars a year is not enough to hear counter-claims anymore.

Oh, and I saw 2 or 3 instances this week of JJ drawing the four corners of a contract in the air, so I was just giddy as always to see the illustration.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

World's Greatest Landlord-Plaintiff landlord suing defendant / former tenant for unpaid loan, bailing her out of jail.      Defendant arrested for DUI, and bail was $2,000.  Defendant claims landlord said he would buy her a car, and she says it would be included in the rent, it was always in his name, so he wants toll fees, impound fees, etc. .   Landlord swears he didn't have ulterior motives towards tenant.   As JJ says, he should have repossessed the car, or reported it stolen.    (He was shocked after the DUI that she came home drunk, kept drinking, and assaulted him).   He gets $2,000 for bail back.

Online Attorney Fraud-Plaintiff /former client suing former "attorney" for lying about being an attorney, ripping her off for creating a trust, and modifying a previous trust, and failure to return documents.   Defendant is not an attorney.    JJ had proof in a facebook message that defendant was asked if they are a paralegal or an attorney, and the defendant said she's an attorney.   Defendant claims plaintiff took binder of documents, and refused to sign for package.    $200 to plaintiff.

Second-

Rage Against the Door-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for her attempt to break into his house.    The attempted break in happened the day after they broke up,during a big argument at his house.   He sent her a text that he would bring her belongings to a meeting place, but if she came to his house he would call the police.   As usual, defendant's phone was accidentally destroyed, and she has no texts.     (Note to defendant, that purple lipstick makes you look ugly, and cheap).  Police were called when defendant tried to kick the door down.    Plaintiff lives with his daughter, and brother, and I'm sure that child was terrified when this happened.     Defendant also had a 1 year old child mixed in with this.   Defendant claims she lived with plaintiff, but contradicts herself in her statement.   She brought a one year old into this mess.    Plaintiff gets $600, defendant gets $0.

Convicted Felon Wants Guns Back-Plaintiff kept ex-boyfriend's (he says ex-boyfriend, but they went through a divorce, very confusing) truck, a TV, and other property.     They are divorced, and he wants more visitation, or custody.   Defendant claims he only has supervised visitation, and wants more.   

Plaintiff wants her truck back, and she signed the truck over to him.    Truck was never re-registered in his name.    Defendant given two weeks to re-register the truck, or plaintiff gets it back. 

As usual, the next wife is defendant's witness.     Defendant mostly lived in the shed behind the house.    Defendant wants his BB guns back, and they are in the shed.  Plaintiff is told to leave the BB guns at the local police precinct for him to pickup, and police will decide if they are legal for him to possess (he's a convicted felon).  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Drones, a Dead Goat, and a Drug Dealer-Plaintiff / landlord suing former tenant for breaching lease, and damaging his home.  Tenant has two special needs kids, with their service dogs.      Defendant says plaintiff flew drones over the property to spy on her, plaintiff claims defendant was running a day care in the home, illegally.   Plaintiff says in the three year tenancy that defendant damaged the home extensively, and she was dealing drugs.    Before pictures at move in were submitted by both litigants.  Defendant's move in pictures have no dates.    Microwave oven in home was trashed, and cracked.    Rent was $1400 a month, a double wide.   Defendant is now claiming something about tumors.   Defendant claims she hired a cleaning company to clean the home on move out.   

Plaintiff's pictures show tons of trash, even though defendant paid a cleaning company $500.      Defendant claims home was filthy on move in, so why did she stay three years?    Plaintiff charged $500 for the service dogs (on a registry?   Let me guess what kind of 'registry' they were on?   ).      Defendant claims neighbors were flying spy drones on her family.   One of tenant's 'service' dogs killed a pet goat on the property.     Defendant claims a neighbor used his own security cameras to spy on the tenants.   

Plaintiff kept the security deposit, and gets to keep it.   (I bet you anything that the reason the defendant family didn't live on base, is the 'service' dogs aren't really service dogs, and are banned breeds on post).  Defendant is counter claiming over the $500 for service dogs, because it's illegal to charge for service dogs.    The first two dogs (since deceased) went to a training school.   The last 3 dogs, were 'trained' by defendant.   Defendant claims dismissed, and plaintiff keeps the pet fee. 

The Totaled Takeover-Plaintiff owed on a car, (Chevy Cruze?) and defendant agreed to take over payments (total $10,300 or so), and defendant often paid the payments.   Defendant is claimed to have a bunch of tickets on car in plaintiff's name (transfer of title and registration couldn't happen until car was totally paid off).    Plaintiff repossessed the car, after an accident, and after defendant stopped paying for the car.    Car was undriveable after the accident (no hood, front fenders gone, and defendant rear ended another car or a tree-I've never confused the two objects, but defendant did).    Plaintiff receives $3,900+.   

Second (Rerun)-

Service Dog Scammer-Plaintiff claims his dog is a Service Dog, and is suing his former landlady for an illegal lockout, loss of property, and security deposit.  

Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's house.  Defendant claims false restraining order, property damage, etc, and claims his dog was not a service dog.   Plaintiff claims his doctor says the dog is a service animal, and claims the dog is a therapy animal (still not a service dog), and dog was needed for ?     Plaintiff claims his dog was a service dog, but means Emotional Support Animal-the doctor gives you a letter for that, or some online phony does.       (On a personal note, plaintiff's chin tattoo is hideous, but matches his awful hair dye job).  

Defendant says dog was not house trained, and did it's business all over the apartment.   Plaintiff filed for protective order after the 30 day eviction notice was issued. 

In the application for the protective order plaintiff claimed landlady was in a relationship with him, threw gasoline on him, hit him, made passes at him, and defendant lied under penalty of perjury.    (Landlady says plaintiff has done this before to other people). 

Plaintiff got a TRO, served the restraining order, and landlady couldn't evict him on time.      Landlady says on hearing for restraining order, plaintiff didn't show.   He claims he was hospitalized, but can't remember where or for what.   I feel so sorry for the former landlady.

Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves even less than that.  (I hope every landlord in Pennsylvania saw this case, and has a photo of the plaintiff on their desk).   Plaintiff gets what he deserves, nothing.  His case for illegal lockout, back rent, security deposit is dismissed.    Landlady put his items in a storage unit after eviction, and he claims she cut all of the cords, and threw bleach on it (is he kidding?).   

Counter claim by landlady starts now, over false restraining order.   Court extended restraining order, because of his 'hospitalization'.   He didn't show up for the second hearing, and protective order was dismissed.   $5000 for landlady for false restraining order.  

Defendant does best JJ Hall-terview ever.   The poor defendant says thanks to  Judge Judy, and says JJ is the best, and how she loves JJ.      

The Court Can't Help With Canoodling-Plaintiff and defendant were shacked up, and now want JJ to split up everything they bought or used during their canoodling.   She wanted him to pay for her car insurance after they split, and then she totaled the car.   Case dismissed. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I turned her off today, when she couldn't contain herself -- laughing at the 33-year-old who had only been able to live on his own for a few years.  Yeah, Judy, we're all losers.  Nobody ever has to move home after a divorce, job loss, health emergency, etc.  And we all have excellent jobs, wait -- not jobs, careers, and savings for retirement.  And cars that are paid for, and credit card bills that are paid in full every month.  No offense intended to everyone who has managed that level of success, but the fact is that 50% of the country can't come up with $400 cash in an emergency.  Doesn't she watch her own show?  People are paying hundreds of dollars rent for rooms with strangers!  What is wrong with someone living with family?

What a bitch. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I turned her off today, when she couldn't contain herself -- laughing at the 33-year-old who had only been able to live on his own for a few years.  Yeah, Judy, we're all losers.  Nobody ever has to move home after a divorce, job loss, health emergency, etc.  And we all have excellent jobs, wait -- not jobs, careers, and savings for retirement.  And cars that are paid for, and credit card bills that are paid in full every month.  No offense intended to everyone who has managed that level of success, but the fact is that 50% of the country can't come up with $400 cash in an emergency.  Doesn't she watch her own show?  People are paying hundreds of dollars rent for rooms with strangers!  What is wrong with someone living with family?

What a bitch. 

I commented that I hope she doesn't own rental property, because she hates renters.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

"Um is not an answer!" -- that's getting SO old.  Get some new shtick, Judge. 

If we know what you're going to say before you say it, maybe it's time for retirement. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Service dogs that attack and kill a goat?My money is on shitbull with fraudulent credentials.

My Uncle used to train Guide Dogs for the Blind. First the animals spent a year with a family and then if they were deemed suitable they started training them. Dog would wash out of the program if any issues arose.  I hate people who have "fake" service dogs. They just want their pets with them no matter the laws.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/26/2020 at 12:53 PM, laprin said:

There is not a special visa given for those jobs, which is why the language used made it sound like she was in marketing and instead of saying she received salary/tips, hey indicated salary/bonus.  It definitely would have sent up a red flag if I was to approve the application. 

Didn't she keep saying she was making $35 an hour??  I was so confused, she kept saying she was working in marketing at "Lanz An"and when JJ finally said "Lands End" I figured out what she meant, but then the whole "entertainment host" or whatever threw me off again. Sounds like she did not complete the application correctly or completely and that's why it was rejected, but that was not the defendants' fault.

On 2/26/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Estimate to fix bike is over $3k, but only worth $1500, so plaintiff gets $1500. 

I think he should have gotten the full amount, even Byrd said it was a custom bike, the plaintiff should have got what he asked for, even if both he and the defendant acted like thugs.

 

17 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I turned her off today, when she couldn't contain herself -- laughing at the 33-year-old who had only been able to live on his own for a few years.  Yeah, Judy, we're all losers.

I don't think she was laughing at all 33 year olds who live at home, my take was she was making fun of this guy who went from living with family, to buying a car that he didn't make payments on, and then having to move back in with family. In other words, an irresponsible, immature, lazy 33 year old who doesn't want to hold a job, pay his bills or be responsible for his own life.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/25/2020 at 1:45 PM, BexKeps said:

LOL - it was bizarre watching her pet her wig!

Yes, it looked like a horse's tail or something and she kept stroking it.  STOP IT!

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Cyclist in the Pedestrian Crossing Smash-Plaintiff bicyclist suing motorist for hitting him, while cyclist was in a crosswalk.  Plaintiff was on bike path, crossed crosswalk (it's part of a greenway bike path), stopped to check for traffic.   When plaintiff crossed defendant's SUV hit the bike.  There is a sign on crosswalk that says to watch for pedestrians, and cyclists.    There are no medical records of injury to the plaintiff.   Defendant doesn't care that he could have killed a person, just that he thinks he would have been right in his own mind.  Police report says plaintiff did nothing wrong, but defendant violated right of way for crosswalk.    Defendant was driving his sister-in-law's vehicle, and was insured.  Defendant claims he didn't hit the cyclist, and he's such a jerk.   

Plaintiff gets $550 for damage to his bike

Neighbor from Hell-Plaintiff suing neighbor for money owed for a car $500, and harassment.    Defendant claims car was a gift, and plaintiff was neighbor from hell, and wants $2,000 for plaintiff filing a false restraining order.   Defendant's car broke down, and plaintiff sold him a car for $500 (defendant says it was a gift).  Defendant has car, registered in his name, and JJ tells him to sign over the title, and give the car back.   Defendant given choice, either pay the $500, or sign the car back and return it.   (My view, plaintiff though befriending neighbor would work out much better for her than it did).    Plaintiff has several police reports claiming harassment, and applications for protective orders (dismissed after hearing).  In defendant's place, I would try to find somewhere else to live, not near the plaintiff.   I bet she's still bothering him, and his kids.    Plaintiff gets $500, nothing for defendant.  

Second-

Co-Parenting BBQ Snafu-Plaintiff says the father of her three year old child vandalized her car at a BBQ.   Defendant says he didn't do it.    After the BBQ everyone went to his house, and the two started fighting.   Defendant tried to get the tablet the child was using, and plaintiff got mad, and plaintiff called police on him.    Plaintiff claims the defendant was out of control.  Plaintiff claims defendant damaged her car, and she wants money.   JJ tells defendant to buy touch up paint, and fix the scratch on her car.    $50 to the plaintiff.  

Prized Tennis Shoes Feud-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for loan to buy Michael Jordan tennis shoes, as usual, defendant says they're a gift.   The defendant wanted the sneakers, said he would pay back the plaintiff, so plaintiff gets $190 for the shoes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, BexKeps said:

I don't think she was laughing at all 33 year olds who live at home, my take was she was making fun of this guy who went from living with family, to buying a car that he didn't make payments on, and then having to move back in with family. In other words, an irresponsible, immature, lazy 33 year old who doesn't want to hold a job, pay his bills or be responsible for his own life.

But, but, but, it's actually JJ's fault that he's irresponsible and immature, and she's a bitch because she's not sympathetic to his unwillingness to hold down a job and wants a car he can't afford. I mean, he's been coddled his whole life, so the mean old lady should give him a few million dollars so he doesn't have to face such hardships. Being so rich, it's really the least she can do. 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

22 hours ago, Burning Rubber said:

Service dogs that attack and kill a goat?My money is on shitbull with fraudulent credentials.

I'm totally against ''pretend" service dogs...... that said, and acknowledging I wasn't paying a lot of attention to case, I do wonder if JJ wasn't too quick to dismiss these dogs' credentials. First, seems first couple dogs WERE accredited after a 9 months training program. IIRC, woman claimed to be accredited as a trainer able to accredit other dogs due to training/working with the organization which accredited the first dogs (sounds suspicious, she may be accredited to train, but I would think dogs would need to pass texts administered by someone else).......... but JJ dismissed that out of hand without even asking how much training woman received or whether she had received any formal recognition/certificate/letter etc saying she could accredit additional dogs... BTW, is an example of how 'pretend service' dogs hurt the actual service dog - there have been so many fake dogs it's natural to automatically doubt one when you see it....... oh, and many 'alert' service dogs, as Woman claimed these were, are self taught and then accredited after receiving additional basic obedience training

A big problem most of us have with whether or not these additional dogs SHOULD be considered service dogs is the killing of the goat. I grant that killing another animal is extreme - but just like a human could claim a justified homocide in some cases, I can see calling killing a goat justified........ first off, all goats are not petting zoo friendly - some are downright MEAN, especially when hormones are up - second, if woman is to be believed, goat owner knew goats frequently visited her's yard and acted aggressively not only towards her dogs, but towards her children. The dogs were supposedly trained to help alert when children went out unattended, as thy could suffer anxiety, and presumably panic attacks. It's not too great a leap in my mind for the goats to detect a weakness in one of the children. After all, goats are herd animals who can be mean to each other when another is 'off'. And, yes, I can see an attack - especially if a scared the child screamed and tried to run away (not the best way to deal with attacking goat) - and for the dog to protect his charge, resulting in a dead goat - maybe an agreesive goat, maybe group of large mixed breed dogs forming a predatory pack - or maybe a service dog protecting charge/family.......

We'll never know what happened because JJ made her decision without sharing all the facts with us... in fact, entirely possible JJ had the facts, but didn't share because it was sushi day

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

That case with the older man who was suing his landlord and another resident in what appears to have been some sort of halfway house was really sad.  The plaintiff clearly had mental problems.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

That case with the older man who was suing his landlord and another resident in what appears to have been some sort of halfway house was really sad.  The plaintiff clearly had mental problems.

 

I actually wonder if he had some form of dementia. His anger issues were brought up several times. Personality changes such as newfound aggression can be early warning signs for the disease.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First (New)-

Airbnb Surfing Fail-Plaintiff / Airbnb owner suing former tenants for a cancelled trips, cleaning,  abuse of property,  and harassment.  Plaintiff claims tenants were a nightmare, used her vegan kitchen to cook meat, so she had to replace pots and pans.     Defendants stayed a month, but claim the plaintiff wouldn't let them used the air conditioner.    $436 was the payment for the 3 weeks.  Plaintiffs claim their rental property was so hot the toilet water boiled.   Airbnb is near Sacramento, and two defendants were long distance, trying to save money by surfing Airbnbs.  On arrival the defendant said they couldn't use the kitchen for meat, etc.   After 3 weeks they agreed on $800 a month.   Defendants paid only for the 3 weeks, paid for June, and in July or August they didn't pay for those months. (What kind of pension is defendant woman on?  $1800 a month for life, no adjustments).    Defendant claims it was so hot upstairs that the "toilet water boiled".     

Defendant woman claims it was too hot and uncomfortable, but stayed July and August without paying anything, and didn't move.    Oh no!  The "ate the steak" analogy again.    On June 18 defendant woman, and plaintiff had an argument, and defendants claimed they were leaving, and they didn't leave until the end of August.   

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer, and plaintiff lost in court already.   Court agreement was that squatter defendants would leave by 1 September, and plaintiff wouldn't sue for July and August rent.   Cases dismissed.  

When Trampolines Attack- Plaintiff is suing neighbor for her trampoline (Jessica Sunrise Shilquist) damaging his property, when a wind storm blew it on his property.   Trampoline landed on plaintiff property, against his house, and ended up on his  truck.     

Defendant claims her trampoline is innocent.    Defendant bought trampoline, and a big wind storm came up.   Defendant is a renter, and didn't have renter's insurance until after this.  $691 for roof repair, $65 for railing, $500 (deductible) for truck=totals $1255. 

(My guess is trampoline wasn't secured at all, and defendant is lying.  It's not an act of God either, God doesn't furnish trampolines).   

Second (New)-

Anger-Fueled Conspiracy Theory-Plaintiff /former tenant is suing former landlord/defendant, and another former roommate for filing a false restraining orders against plaintiff.     Plaintiff (Jeffrey Morgan) has not taken ordered anger management, because he doesn't need it.    There are up to 10 tenants in the house at one time.         Landlord was granted a temporary order, and plaintiff was evicted.    Then, the order was vacated, so plaintiff moved back in for a few months.   Then a 3 day to quit notice was taped on door of plaintiff's room, after plaintiff broke the window to defendant / tenant's room.   Defendant tenant is a hemophiliac, and the broken glass was next to him, and scaring the defendant, who got another restraining order against plaintiff.     

Defendant tenant filled out the protective order application, with the help of his mother, and another tenant.    Plaintiff's doctor sent text messages about plaintiff's anger management issues.    Restraining order trial was dismissed.    Plaintiff claims everything was a conspiracy between tenant and landlord, against plaintiff.    

 I hope defendant landlord has been able to get the plaintiff out.   (Plaintiff was evicted for non-payment of rent, and I hope they changed the locks).   (Sorry JJ, but a hemophiliac having broken glass hurled at him, is appropriate for a restraining order). 

Defendants are counter suing for an unreturned cable box, and damages to property.   As JJ says, defendant tenant had every right to file for failed protective order.    Plaintiff still claims the restraining orders were a conspiracy by the landlord, and this can't be proven, because it's garbage.     Plaintiff says he was evicted with a restraining order against him in 2012.   

I'm so glad the hunky, and protective Officer Byrd is next to JJ, because plaintiff is seriously out of control, and a few sandwiches short of a picnic.    Plaintiff was evicted through housing court for non-payment.   Both cases dismissed.  (JJ can't stand the landlord, because he rents to a lot of people?   If that house looks like what I think it does, I bet it has a ton of bedrooms, and is the only affordable housing for people that don't have the huge income to afford an apartment, or other home.      I bet it's not the only house with a lot of tenants either.     )

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

But, but, but, it's actually JJ's fault that he's irresponsible and immature, and she's a bitch because she's not sympathetic to his unwillingness to hold down a job and wants a car he can't afford. I mean, he's been coddled his whole life, so the mean old lady should give him a few million dollars so he doesn't have to face such hardships. Being so rich, it's really the least she can do. 🙂

Of course it's not JJ's fault, but she can tone it down a bit, the pointing and laughing at harmless idiots.  Sometimes JJ comes off like these slackers are the next Unabomber. 

She needs to remember that they are her bread and butter. 

And I don't think that occasionally moving home with mom is worthy of such contempt.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

I'm totally against ''pretend" service dogs......

I work at a college with about 6,000 students. You would not believe the number of students who now show up with 'Therapy Dogs', because these kids (18-22) are 'dealing with anxiety'. Keep in mind, this is the same generation who has been on prescription meds since the day they were born to 'deal with anxiety'.  It's gotten totally out of hand - the campus is a mess since no one picks up after their dogs, and there are 'housing issues' every semester (who's roomates are allergic to dogs, who's dog doesn't get along with the other dog in the room, etc,) SO long as you have a 'doctors note' , no one can tell these students they can't have a therapy dog - lest we see the parents and the college going at it on Judge Judy.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
  • Surprise 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 (Sorry JJ, but a hemophiliac having broken glass hurled at him, is appropriate for a restraining order). 

Did anyone else do a double take that the defendant hemophiliac’s name was Ryan White?

  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

"You ate the steak!"

"No, it was a vegan kitchen."

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *deep breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Amazing. A close second in that case was when the defendant said they had a "heated argument" about the air conditioning and the high temperature upstairs. Love it.

 

The trampoline defendant came off as kind of dumb, but the plaintiff was a dick in the hallterview, saying she should get out of his state and go back to the state she came from. Sorry she's sullying your precious Washington? I don't even know.

 

I agree that the second episode was kind of uncomfortable to watch, due to the litigants' serious issues.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, VartanFan said:

Did anyone else do a double take that the defendant hemophiliac’s name was Ryan White?

Yes! I thought I was the only one who noticed!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did it sound like JJ was having trouble with her teeth today?  As she was leaving the bench -- I think it was in the 10-tenant roommate case -- it almost looked like a bridge was coming loose or something, and it affected her enunciation.

 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

Did it sound like JJ was having trouble with her teeth today?  As she was leaving the bench -- I think it was in the 10-tenant roommate case -- it almost looked like a bridge was coming loose or something, and it affected her enunciation.

 

I wasn't looking at the TV so I didn't see what you did but I heard and I thought maybe she had a lozenge in her mouth and was moving it around when she decided to respond, causing the change in her voice. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Airbnb Surfing Fail

Defendant lady had the most annoying voice in quite some time. Too bad the plaintiff was just trying to get another bite at the legal apple because it means that leeching couple got away scott-free, with a free trip to L.A. as a bonus.

Landlady may have had regrets about the terms of her settlement with them, but I suppose getting them out fast was a major consideration at the time it was signed.

Fake or improvised service/support animals are indeed an apalling nuisance. The trouble is how to weed out the false claims. Even if an employer or an airline for example asks for certification from an established organisation or training center, this may be challenged in courts or human rights tribunals, which often seem prejudiced in favour of claimants.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

Defendant lady had the most annoying voice in quite some time. Too bad the plaintiff was just trying to get another bite at the legal apple because it means that leeching couple got away scott-free, with a free trip to L.A. as a bonus.

Landlady may have had regrets about the terms of her settlement with them, but I suppose getting them out fast was a major consideration at the time it was signed.

 

I like that when JJ told plaintiff air-bnb lady to stop interrupting, she really stopped.  The camera would pan to her and she'd be standing there, tight-lipped -- good job.

But didn't she also allege some damage?  After JJ learned of the unlawful detainer settlement, she refused to hear anything about damage to the property.  I felt sorry for her.  She under-charges for the rental (defendant even said she was surprised at how nice it was) and then loses rental income for three months. 

LOL'd at defendants claiming that water in the toilet bowl was boiling.  For pete's sake, people.  I doubt it even got warm.  Toilet bowls are always cold.  That's why dogs love 'em.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I live in the city where that Air B&B is located.  It gets REALLY hot here.  We live in a mobile home that has a swamp cooler, no A/C, and the summers are miserable.  And yet I have yet to see the water in our toilets boiling.

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/29/2020 at 10:51 AM, AuntiePam said:

I like that when JJ told plaintiff air-bnb lady to stop interrupting, she really stopped.  The camera would pan to her and she'd be standing there, tight-lipped -- good job.

But didn't she also allege some damage?  After JJ learned of the unlawful detainer settlement, she refused to hear anything about damage to the property.  I felt sorry for her.  She under-charges for the rental (defendant even said she was surprised at how nice it was) and then loses rental income for three months. 

LOL'd at defendants claiming that water in the toilet bowl was boiling.  For pete's sake, people.  I doubt it even got warm.  Toilet bowls are always cold.  That's why dogs love 'em.

Maybe it was a cauldron in the bathroom, and not a toilet ? LOL! 

Share this post


Link to post

The Airbnb lady should never have been allowed on the show, since the case was already settled in housing court, and with a signed agreement to leave the rent, and other matters out of court.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/25/2020 at 7:47 PM, Florinaldo said:

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.

Can you imagine her leaving her car window open enough for the process server to fondle her breasts? She would have rolled that window up so fast that his hand would have been trapped and then she would have most likely driven away and done donuts in the parking lot so she could watch him swing around - then she would open the window at maximum velocity and watch him fly across the parking lot and then run him over. THAT's the kind of personality she had. 

Quote

I work at a college with about 6,000 students. You would not believe the number of students who now show up with 'Therapy Dogs', because these kids (18-22) are 'dealing with anxiety'.

The problem is a difference between "Service Dogs" and "Emotional Support Animals".  Anybody can buy an orange vest on the internet and claim to have an "emotional service dog" (or peacock or miniature horsie or rooster). Guess what? We ALL have anxiety.  We all worry about whether we're going to have to live in a rooming house with 14 other weirdos when we get older and don't have the money to "uh, MOOOOVE" out. I personally worry about whether my house will ever get hot enough for the toilet water to boil and burn my heiney.  And I mostly worry whether Byrd is going to have to pay for childcare for my grandchildren when my kids won't fill out the paperwork so I can double dip and get money on the side from claiming them on my taxes so I can pay off my car title loan and get my new boo on my cell phone plan. 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 8

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

The Ever Changing Dog Attack Story-10 year old boy is attacked by defendant's vicious dog.   Defendant keeps changing how it happened, denies boy was bitten, and it was all boy's fault.   Defendant is another disgusting dog owner who blames the victim for everything.  

Defendant child sits in the chair of justice, and tells JJ what happened.   Child was walking home from school, defendant had baby stroller, and dog on leash.     Child was bitten, had four shots on the day of the attack, until the rabies shot record was discovered.     Defendant didn't ever tell about her dog attack, and someone from animal control/police found out who attacked someone else the next day, and it was also defendant's dog.   

Defendant's lie is that she saw child approaching, she claims (lies) that she told child to go around her other side, claims the child was only barking at the child, and didn't bite him.    What a despicable liar she is.    Affidavit by defendant directly contradicts her court statement, and claims child attacked her dog.     In the second case, nothing was done because the attack was on another dog.       (In many states, the attack or death of another animal does not lead to charges against the owner, no matter how predatory the animal is).  (JJ tries to get through to the defendants that their baby is in danger from this jealous dog, but they still claim that everything was a money grab by plaintiff's father, and nothing was their fault.).

Out of pocket is $1.346 for the child, and plaintiff gets that.    

Fumigation Fence War-Defendant had his house fumigated, and tented.   Plaintiff claims her fence was knocked over by the tent, and fence hit her car.   Plaintiff wants her $500 deductible.     Defendant claims the insurance for his homeowners, and the fumigation company should have worked this out between them.     Why didn't the defendant just pay the $500.    $500 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Icy Road Spin Scare-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for damaging her car while he was borrowing it.     According to plaintiff they had a huge, violent fight, over the damage to her car.  Then he moved in with roommates a few blocks from her house.    Defendant was driving plaintiff's vehicle, was on I-70, spun out, and pulled on the median with minor damage (plaintiff's photo shows major wheel well damage, and passenger side front fender and bumper damage).

Defendant claims his Jeep was damaged while plaintiff was driving it, and that was before the first fight about her car.   Defendant claims they fought over the car, but there was another fight outside his place, and that's when the second fight about his car happened.    Defendant claims they had a later fight, and she threw her phone at his car, and broke the windshield.    JJ tells them to fix their own cars, neither one had collision insurance.      Cases dismissed.  

Dune Buggy Bamboozle-Plaintiffs bought a dune buggy from defendant.   They claim it wasn't the one they wanted, and finally returned to defendant, and it was damaged (according to defendant).    Defendant wants money for repairing dune buggy.   Apparently, the defendant's company shipped the wrong dune buggy to the plaintiffs, and defendant says plaintiffs were fine with that.  Plaintiff say defendant is a liar. Defendants say main difference between two buggies is color, and side panels, plus buggy was a floor model.   Plaintiffs say they never used the buggy, but defendant says it was used.  Plaintiffs get money back $4921.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First (Rerun)-

Kidnapped and Tossed to the Road-Plaintiff claims defendant (Turquoise haired wastrel is a dance instructor, and does social media) kidnapped her during a Tinder date, then invaded her privacy by live streaming the event.  (As I've been informed by friend's kids,  Tinder is for hook ups, and not anything more than a hookup).   Defendant makes money from views of his event he live streams.   His Turquoise hair matches his tie, and makes a snotty remark about what a chore it was to go out with trolls like the plaintiff, and just said she's ugly.    Defendant witness is a giggling fool.   

Plaintiff could hear text to voice insults on his phone when he was driving her around, and he refused to let her out of the car (kidnapping or false imprisonment or both).    Byrd refuses to explain vlogs to JJ, and is laughing at the stupid defendant's statements.    Defendant was streaming video of plaintiff for the entire date.     

 When plaintiff realized she was being live streamed, and wanted out of the car, said she was being kidnapped, and he refused to take her back to her car, he finally dropped her off at a gas station.     I hope the plaintiff did file police charges against him.  

If the defendant rolls his eyes at JJ one more time, I hope Byrd beats him to a pulp with the Fly Swatter of Death.   What a total jerk the defendant is, and so is his witness, the grinning idiot.  $5,000 for plaintiff, nothing for the narcissistic idiot defendant. 

(My question is why anyone would climb into a car with someone they don't even know?   This could have ended a lot worse, as in an episode on ID channel about dead bodies).   

Second-

Call CPS If You Suspect Abuse-Plaintiff mother suing daughter, SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four) for unpaid utility bills.  I think mother just wanted the world to know there are two fathers each for the four children, have different fathers from daughter's current or past boyfriends , and no one supports these poor children besides Byrd.     Grandmother moved into place with defendant granddaughter, and was paying rent, some groceries, but the other utility bill was in mother's name, without plaintiff's/mother's  knowledge.    Mother/plaintiff found out the utility was in her name, and had to get a payment plan to pay the bill.   Lease was in grandmother, and granddaughter's name.    Grandmother says plaintiff never gave consent to put utility bill in plaintiff's name.     Defendant daughter claims mother tried to use fraud to get utility bill paid out of her bank account, but failed. 

Mother/plaintiff cut off the power when grandmother moved out, after she found out bill existed.   

Counter claim by defendant is for filing a false CPS report, that alleged the live-in boyfriend was abusing the children.    Defendant says FBI was investigating grandmother, and sadly, no one tells us what grandma was in trouble with the FBI about, and defendant wanted her to leave.    Defendant claims mother called CPS, after grandmother was booted out of the home.      $366 for plaintiff for utility bill, nothing for defendant.

Stiffed on $30K Rent to Own-Plaintiff suing defendant for money owed for Crown Victoria.  Defendant did some home repair jobs for defendant, and rented a house from defendant on a land contract (rent-to-buy on the property for $30,000 at 6%).    Defendant claims he paid his rent, but has no proof.   Defendant claims plaintiff gave him the Crown Vic. in return for driving plaintiff around, and she denies this.   Plaintiff decided to move back into the house, claims defendant only paid three payments, and still owes two more.   Plaintiff says she sold him the car for $1250, but defendant says it was free in return for helping her, and she signed the title over to defendant..   

Defendant and son drove 12 hours round trip to where plaintiff was living, loaded a U-Haul for her, hauled it to the rent-to-own house.   She didn't pay them a penny for this.   Plaintiff case dismissed.    It would have cost the plaintiff thousands to hire someone to drive a moving truck for her, plus the rental costs, and loading and unloading her stuff.  

Amazingly, they are all living together, but defendant is moving soon.  

Defendant claims plaintiff made false claims of domestic violence, and other criminal acts.   Defendant keeps the car. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just learned that someone from my childhood was on in December. Is there anyway that I can watch a specific episode? ( I know the date and the name of the case). Please and thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

Jurists,

We cannot discuss ways of viewing any show that are not fully legal.  If people are looking on guidance on old episodes, please PM them.   Thanks!
** takes out Judge Judy ponytail of judgement; puts in poster messy bun of snark **

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First (Rerun)-

Kidnapped and Tossed to the Road-Plaintiff claims defendant (Turquoise haired wastrel is a dance instructor, and does social media) kidnapped her during a Tinder date, then invaded her privacy by live streaming the event.  (As I've been informed by friend's kids,  Tinder is for hook ups, and not anything more than a hookup).   Defendant makes money from views of his event he live streams.   His Turquoise hair matches his tie, and makes a snotty remark about what a chore it was to go out with trolls like the plaintiff, and just said she's ugly.    Defendant witness is a giggling fool.   

I must say, the turquoise haired wastrel seriously had to be one of the best-looking guys which Judge Judy had on in a long time. Very sexy - and he knew it.  A rare breed who could get away with 'turquoise hair'.  They should nab him for 'the bachelor'. 

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Thanks for the Car! Now, Let's Break Up-Plaintiff suing defendant / ex-girlfriend for the return or value of a car, and an unpaid loan to move.     The litigants only dated for three months.    Litigants met as mutual tenants renting rooms in a private home, plaintiff still lives there, and defendant moved out.    In the list of gifts, defendant forgets to mention the car plaintiff gave her, and then she broke up him.     Car was purchased for $2900 from a friend of plaintiff.   (If this woman says "basically" one more time, I'm going to scream).   How rotten, the defendant was preying on a lonely man, who was willing to help her in return for the relationship.     Defendant admits she was going to pay the plaintiff back for the car.    

(What's wrong with the defendant?   She is leaning, and swaying, bowing front and back, and is nervous as hell).

 Defendant admits she paid back $800+ on the car.   Defendant still owes $2100 for the car.    Plaintiff gets $2100 for car, but nothing else because he had no expectation of repayment.   Defendant case thrown out. 

Painting Damage and Defamation-Plaintiff painting business owner is suing defendant for unpaid services, and defamation.   $3650 was the price, $2190 was paid by defendant.   defendant  still owes, $1460.     Defendant fired plaintiff's company, and hired another person to finish the job, for the same $1460.   JJ sees the photos of what plaintiffs did, and what the other woman defendant hired did, and plaintiff's work sucks.  Defendant wants a lien the plaintiff put on her home removed.  

Plaintiff case dismissed, because they do lousy work.  Defendant will not get money, because she's not out any additional money.  However, plaintiffs refuse to remove the lien, but JJ can't help with that.   Defendant will have to hire an attorney to get the lien lifted.    It will be cheaper to pay the plaintiffs off, then hire the attorney.  

Second (Rerun)-

Woman in Wheelchair Struck by Car-Plaintiff was in a mobility scooter, crossing a five lane road (middle lane is a turn lane, not a break down lane the way defendant calls it).   Plaintiff was jay scooting, in the turn lane, and defendant hit her scooter.  Scooter was destroyed, and plaintiff is so lucky to only have bruises, and road rash.    Defendant keeps saying they collided, but won't admit she hit the woman in the mobility scooter.  Plaintiff says it's 1/2 mile to the nearest crosswalk.  Plaintiff was halfway across from the bus stop, to the driveway of the plaintiff's home.   Defendant was going to her apartment complex, and she didn't see the defendant coming. 

Defendant claims scooter rider was too low to see from her SUV.   I have a neighbor with a mobility scooter, and they aren't that low that drivers won't see them.  Fortunately, for the plaintiff, the scooter was hit, and pushed away by the SUV.   If she had gone under the SUV, I doubt defendant would have ever stopped. 

Plaintiff mentions that defendant did not have insurance, and the police report says defendant does not have insurance.    Defendant says the lack of insurance allegation is a lie, and the police, district attorney, and everyone else is plotting against her, including her insurance company.    

Heartless defendant is sent to get proof that she had insurance on the date of the accident.   This is when we get to hear the defendant's conspiracy theory about everyone taking her right to drive away.    Defendant shouldn't be driving anything, she's obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic.    Defendant's car was impounded for lack of insurance, and it's still in impound after three months.   

Plaintiff is lucky to be alive after this loon ran her down.    $5,000 for plaintiff.

(What a horrible excuse for a human being the defendant is.    She really doesn't care that she hit someone with her SUV, had no insurance, and could have killed the plaintiff.    Defendant has no heart).

(On a personal note, where I live there is a heavily traveled road with a big grocery store, and other stores on one side of the three lane road, and across the road is a retirement home, with apartments.    I have seen people cross that road, during the middle of the day, one on a scooter, and the other using a walker.    I guess the retirement place doesn't have a van service, so they just take their chances on getting across the road in one piece.) 

Judge Judy Doesn't Believe the Case-Plaintiff purchased suites of rooms for a sporting event, for $13,500, (and $4500 was pay pal).      He's suing the defendant for selling him access to the luxury athletic event suites, and it turns out defendant had no right to sell the access.    JJ is suspicious of the receipt plaintiff has for cash, of about $6,000.   JJ sends case back to small claims in Boise.   

 

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ is suspicious of the receipt plaintiff has for cash, of about $6,000. 

i saw that episode tonight.  JJ refused to even look at it.  Maybe it was real?  Something about the case was fishy to her.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, plaintiffs refuse to remove the lien, but JJ can't help with that.   Defendant will have to hire an attorney to get the lien lifted.    It will be cheaper to pay the plaintiffs off, then hire the attorney.  

I really wish she would have done one of her 'do you want to get back to Alabama?' to force them into removing the lien.  That's BS and - as you mentioned - she'll have to pay more to get it removed legally - - - but i'm wondering if then she can force the painters to cover her legal costs.  I wonder how many other liens that company has file.  I'm guessing it's >1.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

i saw that episode tonight.  JJ refused to even look at it.  Maybe it was real?  Something about the case was fishy to her.

JJ acted as if she had never heard of PayPal.  I don't understand why she didn't even question the defendant about the transaction.  In his halterview, he said his defense was going to be that the plaintiff made an investment, and no investment is 100% secure.

As for the scooter/car accident, why doesn't that community put a crosswalk near the bus stop or allow the buses to go up the driveway to the apartment complex?  Why should any wheelchair-bound person have to risk crossing 3-4 lanes of traffic?  That woman is very fortunate to have not been seriously injured.  I work early in the morning and it's very dark outside.  Around my workplace at that hour, there are lots of people on bicycles.  They wear dark clothing and dark backpacks and I'm terrified I'll hit someone, because they dart in and out of traffic, cross against lights and drive on sidewalks (against the law here).  Look for me on an upcoming episode of JJ.  I'm going to put some masking tape on my forehead that says, "Brilliant."  When JJ gets snarky with me, I'm going to pull my bangs away from the tape and snarl, "Does it say 'stupid' here?"  Then Byrd will forcibly remove me from the courtroom and JJ will rule for the plaintiff/bicyclist.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff case dismissed, because they do lousy work.  Defendant will not get money, because she's not out any additional money.  However, plaintiffs refuse to remove the lien, but JJ can't help with that.   Defendant will have to hire an attorney to get the lien lifted.    It will be cheaper to pay the plaintiffs off, then hire the attorney. 

The plaintiff's husband shouting "The pictures are bogus!" made me wish Byrd would go pound his little head into his shoulders. Those pictures were atrocious, it's no wonder the defendant went with someone else. 

 

2 hours ago, VartanFan said:

I really wish she would have done one of her 'do you want to get back to Alabama?' to force them into removing the lien.  That's BS and - as you mentioned - she'll have to pay more to get it removed legally - - - but i'm wondering if then she can force the painters to cover her legal costs.  I wonder how many other liens that company has file.  I'm guessing it's >1.

Me too, I didn't know that could happen but my husband, who used to own a construction company, said it's a standard practice when you don't get paid. I hope they get an attorney.

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(What's wrong with the defendant?   She is leaning, and swaying, bowing front and back, and is nervous as hell).

I think the missing front tooth said it all, what a hot mess she was, and taking advantage of the plaintiff is probably not the only heinous thing she's done. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ilovecomputers said:

Around my workplace at that hour, there are lots of people on bicycles.  They wear dark clothing and dark backpacks and I'm terrified I'll hit someone

Near my workplace there is a trestle bridge that is quite narrow, two lanes, and mere inches between your side view mirror and the stone walls. In the winter when it's dark from 4:00pm until 8:00am, it's like a pit under the trestle, they did install some meager lighting but it doesn't help much. At least once a month there is someone walking or riding a bike under the bridge and you can't see them until your on top of them. Its gotten so I slow down to almost a crawl on the super dark mornings and evenings as I come and go so I have time swerve or brake if I see someone. I pray no one gets hit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, BexKeps said:

Its gotten so I slow down to almost a crawl on the super dark mornings and evenings as I come and go so I have time swerve or brake if I see someone. I pray no one gets hit. 

Well, Byrd will be dragging you out of the courtroom, too, alongside of me, grasping your cup of the water-no one-is-permitted-to-drink in your hand, sloshing its contents on Byrd's crisp, khaki uniform.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Assault of the Landlord-Defendant had the woman pet sit, and a year ago the woman claimed she was a general contractor, and paid her $25,000 to g.c. the roof.      He says she never did any work, isn't a contractor, and has been on disability since 1992.  She claims her disability ended in 2015, but won't answer any of JJ's questions, so her case is dismissed. 

Defendant says he let her stay in the spare room occasionally, since she lived so far away.  She left for several weeks, and when he noticed a bad odor from the room, he entered and found a lot of his stolen property.  He claims after he changed the locks, the woman crawled under the house and broke in.  Defendant filed a police report alleging assault by her, theft, and wanted a protective order. and changed the locks.   Defendant was granted a one year protective order against the plaintiff.     Plaintiff wanted a temporary protective order and it wasn't made permanent.   JJ advises the defendant to have his attorney ask a judge to file a vexatious litigant order against plaintiff.   Cases dismissed. 

Pedestrian Slam in a Parking Lot-Plaintiff claims the defendant hit him with his car in a parking lot.   Defendant says he didn't do anything wrong, didn't even put in a claim with his insurance company, because he thinks nothing is wrong with the plaintiff.   Plaintiff claims the defendant doesn't have insurance, but defendant claims he does.   Plaintiff gets damages $2100  for medical bills, and lost wages.   

Second-

Eye Witness Wow-Plaintiff suing brother,and his wife over damage to plaintiff's rental car.   Defendants were having marital issues, and husband/brother wanted plaintiff to rent a car for him to take his two kids to visit in Minneapolis.  Witness for plaintiff, former neighbor of defendants, saw defendant wife smashing the windshield.   Defendants were late returning vehicle, and didn't pay plaintiff, until she threatened to file theft charges, then the windshield damage happened.   $741 to plaintiff

Pack Your Bags...Guilt Trip-Plaintiff loaned a 30 year old truck to her son, claims it was trashed by the time returned, and she's suing for the truck value, and every penny she's ever spent on it, and that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims truck was her only vehicle, but her long term boyfriend has three vehicles she used.   Plaintiff/mother claims she had to junk/salvage the truck.   However, her son-in-law, and son/defendant say she sold it to someone they know.  Plaintiff wants $2300 for the truck, but she gets zip.

The plaintiff/mother is so full of it, and her phony poor little me routine in the Hall-terview is pathetic.   Crying works better with actual tears.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Vandalism, Eviction and a Death Threat?!-Plaintiff suing former co-worker/neighbor for stalking, harassment, and vandalizing her vehicle.   Plaintiff called police (no arrests), tried to get defendant evicted (they live in separate buildings, but the same complex), called CPS against defendant (CPS didn't do anything).         Plaintiff is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.    (I bet Byrd puts the crossword puzzle down, and watches plaintiff closely).    Police report is a cell phone photo of a 'police report', there is no other report, and witness to car vandalism apparently took a one way trip to Mars to get away from the plaintiff.   (I disagree with JJ plaintiff isn't a smart woman, she's a nut case).    Plaintiff claims former co-workers heard defendant bragging about the vandalism (witnesses are also not in court).  Plaintiff claims some man watches her apartment for defendant constantly.    Plaintiff filed in July for a protective order, no police report, no witnesses, no order granted. 

Plaintiff claims defendant threatened to shoot plaintiff in the head.    Plaintiff is proud of calling CPS, and claims defendant has her kid watching plaintiff's comings and goings (probably in a space ship).   CPS didn't even open a report.  

This is so scary!   Plaintiff has temporary custody of a relative's baby.   If CPS should investigate anyone, it should be the plaintiff.  

Everything dismissed (sorry JJ, but defendant should have received $5,000 for the harassment).      

Yes, plaintiff in the harassment case claims a man watches her comings, and goings from her apartment for defendant.   Plaintiff also claimed defendant's young son watched her too, and sometimes sat on the apartment steps waiting for her to do something he could report.    I am very upset that plaintiff is watching a relative's child full time for a year, while that person is deployed.      I hope plaintiff does move, but I've heard too many people on this show claim they're moving very soon, and it turns out they've been talking about moving for a long time, but never move. 

Bambi or Schindler's List-Plaintiff suing brother for balance of a car she sold him.   (The litigants are foster brother and sister).     Defendant bought 2003 Mercedes from sister, car had 209,000 miles.    Defendant stopped paying when car started having issues.   Defendant parked car outside plaintiff's place.    Defendant's affidavit to court varies dramatically from testimony in court (that's where JJ's analogy between Bambi v. Schindler's List comes in comparing the stories).          Plaintiff is only suing for $1500, and that's what she gets. 

Second (Rerun)-

Beware of Narcissistic Fools-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for furniture, credit card charges, and other stuff.      They were shacking up in his house with their children.  She wants to be reimbursed for her family vacation that he went on.   

Plaintiff gets dining sets back, desk, antique table, and she has five days to get a police escort, get movers to take everything back, or else it goes.   Plaintiff can't enter the house, just the movers.     Defendant is counter claiming for harassment, and trespassing by plaintiff.    Plaintiff likes to send nasty texts to defendant's new girlfriend, who is as usual, his witness.    (I don't think the plaintiff should get away with threatening anyone, and she has no room to talk about being a tramp).  

Defendant will pay his own insurance bill now.  Defendant claims his witness, his current girlfriend (she was married when they started dating) saw plaintiff come in his garage.  Plaintiff gets $2278, and her furniture 

 (Not one of these fools that warn everyone about their toxic exes, ever mentions the  effects on their kids of bringing someone new into their home on a rotating basis either.)

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

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