All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[Carolina Girl]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff said that the trees were on his property, and when he put the fence up (after a survey, complete with cemented in corner metal pins) it was inside the property line to accommodate the trees.    The worst thing is that there is no way for the plaintiff to fix this situation, unless one of the litigants sells.   No way will anyone buy the plaintiff's house with that defendant living next door.  

The defendant didn't trim anything from the trees.   He would have had the right to trim branches overhanging his property, but that's not what he did.    He had them all cut down to the ground, including the ones the day before he came to court, and all of them were the plaintiff's trees.     I would plant Bouganvillea (or however it's spelled), since you can only cut that off with a chain saw-it had hard, long wooden spikes on it.    

Thank you for the clarification.  I was under the impression he had trimmed on what he perceived was HIS side.  I had no idea he'd cut them down completely.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, in the tree case, he chopped the plaintiff's trees down to the ground.   Defendant did a bunch more the day before the court case too.    Defendant should be on a Neighbor From Hell story site.  

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

My husband thinks when plaintiff goes to pick up her dog that the dog will have disappeared.

Same here.

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Yes, in the tree case, he chopped the plaintiff's trees down to the ground.   Defendant did a bunch more the day before the court case too.   

Plaintiff seemed like a bit of a pushy bully, but defendant was a total dick and appeared very pleased about it. Cutting the trees to the ground the day before the hearing was a clear act of defiance and provocation.

[parrotfeathers]

I'm not defending the pomeranian defendant at all.  She absolutely did not need any more poms.   I don't know if he hunts, but hunters keep packs of beagles even in these times.  And they don't stay in the house.

[Ilovecomputers]

1 hour ago, parrotfeathers said:

I'm not defending the pomeranian defendant at all.  She absolutely did not need any more poms.   I don't know if he hunts, but hunters keep packs of beagles even in these times.  And they don't stay in the house.

Well, with 18 dogs, two small children and a household to maintain, defendant must excel with time management skills.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Let's Do the Bad Math- Plaintiff suing former friend for return of car down payment, emotional distress, and slander.     Defendant sold his nephew the same car, for $1098.   Then sold car to plaintiff for $745, because nephew went to jail, didn't finish paying for it, but plaintiff had to repossess it himself.    Defendant still has the title, but plaintiff has the car.   Defendant wants $5,000 for return of the car, lost wages, and car damages-this man already collected more than double the blue book of the car.      Plaintiff gets car signed over to him, and defendant gets $730 back.     Nephew told to sue uncle/defendant for his $1098.  

Contractor Scam-Plaintiff suing contractor for return of payments for home remodeling.    Defendant is a licensed contractor in Orlando, Florida, and was hired to redo a shed.  Plaintiff bought the land, and shed (more like a hunting or fishing shack type) for $22,000.   The contractor was supposed to redo the shed into quarters someone could live in,  from the studs out, and did very little.  Plaintiff paid def. $3400, to buy and install windows, drywall and texture, tub, toilet, and tile, all wiring, all plumbing, painting (interior and exterior) flooring.   Defendant violated the written contract, and has no receipts for anything.    $3400 to plaintiff.     

Second-

Single Woman Snafu!-Boyfriend/plaintiff, and girlfriend/plaintiff are suing the ex-girlfriend defendant.   Plaintiff man let her use a joint debit card to rent a car, and is suing for rental fees, towing fees, and a false restraining order.     Plaintiff man claims the defendant is a friend of many years, not a girl friend.         Plaintiff girlfriend wasn't happy about lending the defendant their car.    

Plaintiff says defendant has spare vehicles, and felt sorry for the defendant, and wanted the car out his name.   The car was loaned to defendant in July, for four weeks, and then it was traded in by the plaintiff girlfriend, for another car.   When the plaintiffs broke up, they had joint cars, individual cars, and she wanted it cleared up.     The credit card for the rental car was a joint plaintiff card, and man didn't discuss paying for the rental car, or loaning the other car to defendant.     Plaintiff girlfriend was really ticked about defendant/not a girlfriend's car use, and credit use.   Plaintiff man never mentioned the repayment of rental car fees, and car use by defendant.   

Rental car fees included toll fees, $442 in collections, plus almost $300 not in collections, plus $90 from Hertz, rental car fees outstanding($840).    False restraining order claim by defendant is denied by JJ.    

Defendant filed for restraining orders against both plaintiffs.     Defendant is a realtor, so the burglary, and theft charges hurt her career.     There are Facebook messages acknowledging the debt for the car, and tows, etc.     $2038 to the plaintiffs. (I find it interesting the old friend defendant, and plaintiff's live in look remarkably alike).  

My Sister the Moocher!-Plaintiff sister, and her man bun wearing boyfriend are suing her sister for mooching.    Of course, sister claims it was all a gift.   Defendant moved in with sister, and agreed to pay rent for $500 a month, stayed for 11 months.     Defendant moved out after a verbal altercation with man bun.   Plaintiff girlfriend bought a gun membership for man bun, and they want money for a mini fridge for the defendant.     Nothing for either set of litigants. (Defendant says she moved out because "of a lack of disrespect" by plaintiffs).

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Homeless Man Kicked Out-Plaintiff suing his former roommates for a false restraining order, rent, and other stuff.    One defendant is the owner/roommate, two other roommates are renters from first defendant, and plaintiff rented a garage space from defendant.   Plaintiff rented garage space, with separate bathroom facilities, instead of being homeless.   Who the hell in Boise government allows rentals of garage spaces without bathrooms for living space?    Garage space was unfinished space.   Plaintiff put down carpet, and paint, pictures on wall, and other items to make space better. 

 Defendant woman is another tenant, and is retired/disabled with a terminal illness.     Woman tenant/defendant has a temporary restraining order against plaintiff.   Woman blames plaintiff's drinking and belligerent attitude, and threats, against her for the TRO.   Another former tenant and girlfriend moved out, blaming the plaintiff.   However, plaintiff has since moved out of the rental property.   Defendant woman claims the day after plaintiff was removed by police to a hospital, and woman claims plaintiff demanded she buy Meth for him.   Plaintiff claims he complained to management, and police about defendant woman dealing drugs on the rental premises.  

TRO put plaintiff out of the residence/garage, until TRO hearing.   TRO was dismissed when defendant woman didn't show in court.    JJ's guess is that landlord wanted plaintiff out, and used TRO by defendant woman to get rid of plaintiff, without going through legal eviction proceedings.  Both defendant tenants went to get the protective order for the woman, but male tenant didn't show up.   Defendant tenant kept the security deposit, but didn't return it to the organization that paid it.   Since man was booted out by the TRO, and had no time to clean, but landlord kept the furnishings that plaintiff put in the garage space.    When plaintiff returned to the garage space, after the TRO was dropped, there was someone living in it, with his furnishings.   $950 to plaintiff, in lieu of going back to that snake pit to get his stuff.  

(This is such a sad case.  It's pretty obvious that the plaintiff, and woman defendant are very compromised, so is the other tenant, and the landlord is a big jerk.)    

Second (Rerun)-

Mystery Tire Slasher-Plaintiff claims former boyfriend slashed her tires, but has no proof, so that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was storing two of her bicycles in the defendant's mother's commercial building basement, and she wants them back.   Defendant says he gave bikes and other things away, because plaintiff wouldn't pick up her stuff.  Plaintiff receives $100 for the two bikes.   (In court after defendant's claim is dismissed, he wants his medication that was at plaintiff's house, and worth $1,000 back.   Plaintiff says "You mean your Viagra").

My In-Laws Stole My Dog-Plaintiff claims ex-in laws stole his dog, and other property.  However, he can't say what the other property was, or have proof, except for his car.  As usual, in-laws have nothing belonging to plaintiff, and marital property needs to be split by the divorce judge.   Sorry, he doesn't get dog back either.   (Plaintiff stomps out of the courtroom when he loses).  

[ThePurpleArcher]

After watching today's episode (homeless man evicted from garage) I have to wonder:

Did Judge Judy really go to post-graduate school for 7 years to hear a bunch of meth heads fight over an eviction? I guess she did. 

[khyber]

I'm guessing it is not legal for them to rent out the garage, but if no one catches them....  Also, the boy who moved in with his dad in Eagle and didn't want to go back to the house..... Eagle is an upscale community, I'm guessing the dad may have given the boy his portion of the money to buy the house to get him out in the first place.

[AuntiePam]

I questioned the end-stage emphysema disability.  If she was that sick, shouldn't she have been using supplemental oxygen? 

Didn't like the defendant who did all of the talking.  He was quite rehearsed, and probably hoped to impress Judy with correct grammar, an occasional big word.  The other defendant had godawful vocal fry. 

If anyone in Boise's government was watching, I hope they look a bit closer at the housing that they're subsidizing. 

[khyber]

11 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

I questioned the end-stage emphysema disability.  If she was that sick, shouldn't she have been using supplemental oxygen? 

This! I've known 3 people in that situation & each of them was tethered to oxygen 24/7.

[TresGatos]

I thought both the Pom Plaintiff and the Pom Defendant were total garbage people but at least the Pom Plaintiff (whose dogs had produced "six or seven" litters in less than three years) took the dog back rather than take the money. The Plaintiff was also alleging that the male Pom belonging to the Garbage Defendant had birth defects and Garbage Defendant was very cagey ("Mary") when asked who she got her other Poms from. I'm guessing Craigslist. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Dirty Drug Test Bail Out-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for unpaid bail, and credit damage.  Defendant failed drug test, again.      They were actually living together for a while, because otherwise she would be homeless.   Her children were taken by the state in 2005 after a DUI, and plaintiff has custody since 2005.  She was arrested in 2008 for petty theft, 2005 DUI, and this time 2013 for a dirty drug test.    She tested dirty for meth, and prescription drugs.    Defendant paid child support from her disability.   

Remaining bond amount is $4786, or she would have to go to jail for six months.   She claims to be sober for six months, but she's been arrested many times in El Dorado county, California.   Defendant's mother claims she didn't know daughter was busted again.     Too bad for plaintiff, the phone number for bondsman is wrong, no contact to verify.  Case dismissed. 

Teen TV Custody-Plaintiff and defendant lived together, bought a TV two years ago, and plaintiff wants $300 for half of their joint TV.   (Defendant has a "Once Upon A Time" Disney tattoo on her upper chest, and between that and her green hair, and numerous facial piercings, it's not a pretty picture).   Defendant offered $300, and plaintiff accepted it, so he gets the money.   $450, for plaintiff, $150 for the phone defendant broke, and $300 for the TV. 

Second-

Father Shields Negligent Teenager-Plaintiff suing 17 year old driver, and his father for automobile damage from teen hitting her car.    Plaintiff was turning left off of highway, and teen pulled out from stop sign, and hit entire driver's side of plaintiff's car.  Both cars were insured, and everyone had a license.     Father of teen arrived at accident scene, and asked plaintiff to not call police, and said he would pay for damage.     Then when defendant's father refused to pay for car damage, lied to his insurance company about the accident, so his insurance rates wouldn't go up.   

Teen driver also stands up at the display board and lies about the accident too.    After this the car was rear ended, and car was totaled, but it was a reduced amount because of previous accident damage.    JJ awards nothing, because woman received more money that car was worth.  

Shouting Out Not Allowed-Plaintiff suing ex roommate for theft of his property.   The two litigants were just roommates, matched up to rent house by realtor who rented the house.   Defendant locked plaintiff out of the house, and he couldn't retrieve his property.    Only defendant signed the lease with the realtor.   Plaintiff claims he was never served with counter claim by defendant, so she has to refile in their location.    Defendant received a TRO, and plaintiff couldn't go back into the residence.       

JJ is right, defendant should live alone.    Defendant saying how scared she was of wimpy plaintiff is so unbelievable.     Defendant says man only left trash behind, and she disposed of it all.   $0 for plaintiff.  (Plaintiff won't shut up, and gets his case dismissed, after he says defendant is a meth user).  If he kept his mouth shut, he would have been paid, but too bad. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Lesbians Call it Quits-Plaintiff (U.S.),and defendant (Canadian) met on the internet.   Then they had a fight, and broke up.   Plaintiff bought an iPhone, tablet, and other stuff.   After the breakup the defendant sold the phone, and iPad.    Defendant shipped clothes to the plaintiff, through defendant's business, and those cartons will go to the defendant after court case.  (Defendant's fake eyelashes are so huge, and long).    Plaintiff's car was driven by defendant, and left in Buffalo, after the fight.   Defendant was supposed to pay car payment, but plaintiff did.  

Defendant counter claim ended with the clothes carton return, and the car issue dismissal.  Because defendant sold the phone, and iPad, plaintiff is told to keep the clothes defendant shipped to her, and sell them.   Phone was $1099.   (iPhone 11), iPad was $1006.  Plaintiff gets $2,000 for the iPhone, and iPad.   Defendant will now get her cartons of clothing back. 

Custody Battle Ends With New Girlfriend Daycare-Plaintiff and defendant were in a relationship, not living together, and defendant couldn't  pay his rent for a months and day care bills.   So plaintiff gave defendant the rent money, day care funds, and other items.    Defendant added plaintiff to his car insurance, but never actually paid the insurance, so plaintiff paid the insurance after taking defendant off of the policy.     Defendant was in a custody battle over his daughter.   Plaintiff says she gave defendant a loan for rent for 1 month (August), day care costs,   ('Getting to know each other' is apparently the new dating phrase).  

Sadly, defendant's daughter's mother died, and that is why the custody battle ensued.   In September they had a big argument, and plaintiff figured out the defendant is a fool, and deadbeat.   Plaintiff gets $3216

Second (Rerun)-

Don't Drink Water Now!   I'm Speaking!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (who is married) for a truck she claims she paid for, but he kept.  Plaintiff's Mommy gave daughter money to fix the truck, for almost $1,000.   Defendant's worse sin is he's trying to drink a lot of the Sacred Water That Must Not Be Drunk, while JJ is talking.   Truck was registered in defendant's father's name, but is driven by defendant and wife.   

Before the breakup with plaintiff, defendant and plaintiff used the truck.   (Dating is now called "Dealing With").   Defendant says he can't drive the truck because he has Epilepsy.      Plaintiff paid for truck (bought from defendant's father), and litigants drove truck together.   

JJ says plaintiff should sue the father, because he didn't give her title to the truck, so she needs a judgment against the father for the truck.   Plaintiff says the father refused to come to court.   This is when JJ tells defendant to leave the water alone.    Defendant is counter suing for destruction of property.     Nothing for anyone.    

Follow the Money-Plaintiffs suing defendant / boat mechanic for return of a deposit, repairs, and property damage.   Plaintiffs took boat to mechanic in late October 2017, left a deposit of $5,000 to fix the boat.   Plaintiff claims she put the money in checking,  then withdrew money, but nothing shows money went to defendant a couple of weeks later.     Plaintiff claims she gave the mechanic $5,000 cash, but didn't get a receipt.       Case is dismissed without prejudice to go back to a local court.  

Edited March 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[khyber]

If they filmed Judge Judy without an audience, what would you miss the most?

[bad things are bad]

I think JJ doesn't play to the audience as much as other stars, so I don't think it would be a huge deal

Re: being repaid for TVs people bought more than 6 months ago--anything older than a few months is worth a tiny fraction of what you paid for it. TVs are basically prizes in the Cracker Jacks box anymore. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Crock of Baloney-Plaintiff suing defendant/former roommate.      Defendant hasn't paid rent in over five months, still lives in the apartment, and landlord has finally started eviction proceedings.    Plaintiff, his fiance, and defendant shared an apartment, all three signed the lease, and both sides want lease breaking fees.   Plaintiff and fiance moved out early, but paid the last two months rent as a lease breaking fee.     

Plaintiff also claims defendant damaged his car.  (Defendant needs to cover up her ample hooters, hanging out in court.  One sneeze and we'll get to see all of her assets).    (Plaintiff's fiance is named Purple Herzig, no I wasn't drunk when I typed that name).      No one claims to be present when car was damaged.  Defendant Suarez is another reason I'll never be a landlord.    Defendant hasn't paid rent in five months.   Defendant had plaintiff's car, and she sent a text and photo, and says the car was hit while she had it.   Plaintiff gets $3,000 rent from defendant (That pays for his rent shortfall, and the car, even though JJ said she wouldn't pay for the car damages). 

Pit Bull Chomps Chihuahua-Plaintiff suing defendant for pit bull chomping on her Chihuahua (6 year old dog, 13 pounds) while 8 year old owner watched in horror.    Defendant claims the tiny Chihuahua ran into her apartment, and her dog was being protective (Total Bull pucky).    Cute plaintiff's kid was leashed Chihuahua, when Snickers the Pit Bull charged out of defendant's apartment, and attacked the tiny dog.      Little girl testifies the dog is off leash outside the defendant's apartment, and growls when the girl and her dog pass.     The apartment complex needs to boot the defendant, and her vicious dog, and I hope they did.   

Lucky for the little girl and dog, the plaintiff was watching them out the window and saw the attack.   Little girl says defendant was sitting outside the complex, when the Pit Bull charged the girl and the dog.    Defendant now has muzzle on her vicious animal, and has this dog around her two year old child (she has four kids, 8,7, 6, and 2 years old). 

 Defendant got the dog only two weeks before, and bought for $20.     Defendant claims Chi charged inside her door, and Snickers the Pit Bull attacked the poor little dog.     Total garbage.      My guess, even though Snickers the Chi. chewer is supposed to wear a muzzle, I bet it doesn't happen.    Defendant gave dog to man who lives in Idaho (they live in Spokane). (I really wonder about Snickers the Chi chewer, I've heard the 'moved to the farm, and has lots of room to run' too many times, to actually believe it)    $800 to plaintiff. 

Second-

Parking Insanity Caught on Tape-Plaintiff suing defendant for medical bills, and damages from parking lot fight caught on video.    Plaintiff was arrested, and video shows plaintiff was the aggressor, and assaulted the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff whacked her car door into defendant's car, twice.  Lori Hansen, (she's the one on the ad for the show with JJ saying she's not scary),  plaintiff parked almost on top of the parking space line, you can clearly see that on video.   All of this apparently happened in front of the liquor store.  Defendant claims plaintiff started choking her, and broke her phone. 

On video, poor feeble Ms. Hansen isn't using her cane, and claims she doesn't always need it.    Defendant has police report, and JJ saw on video that Lori H. struck the first blow, and kept hitting and trying to choke the defendant.   Plaintiff case dismissed.  For some bizarre reason, hall-terview is with plaintiff's husband. 

Single Mom Mess-Plaintiff was being evicted, and defendant agreed to let plaintiff and her children move into her house.   Rent for two rooms was $600, and claims she paid $694.  Plaintiff moved stuff into the garage, and defendant said plaintiff couldn't stay, and plaintiff agreed to pay utilities.    Plaintiff demanded to do more than month-to-month to save more money to move on.     Plaintiff decided not to move in, and was going to get her stuff out of the garage, but wanted her money back.    Plaintiff wasn't arrested on the day in question, but was on parole.   Defendant signed agreement in front of police officer that she would return the $694.    Plaintiff is suing because defendant filed a complaint for assault against plaintiff.    They did mediation first, and defendant didn't appear.    Defendant claims plaintiff damaged her garage door.  $694 for plaintiff, defendant claim dismissed.

Edited March 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

New Year's Ever Airbnb Destruction-Plaintiff /landlord condo owner, suing former Airbnb renter for cleaning costs, damages.  Plaintiff owns two condos at one site, and three other condos.    Defendant (23 years old) rented plaintiff's rental for one night, New Year's Eve.   Rental was $460 for one night, for eight people, for 3 bedroom condo.    Defendant's usual home is a rented house, with roommates.    The condo group turned out to be more than eight.    Defendant claims ten strangers showed up, wouldn't leave, police were not called, and he's blaming damages on the others.      

Plaintiff was contacted by the condo neighbors (the other condo he rents out, a very nice, quiet family group), and he went to the condo, and saw 20 people walking out of the condo and getting into Ubers.      There were even more drunken hooligans inside the condo.   The plaintiff brought a video of the booze fest, with at least 40 or more people in the three bedroom condo.      Plaintiff says everything was sticky, scuff marks on the sofa seats, spilled booze on the rug, two tears in the sofa.      Clean up was $210.  Video is of a bunch of 40 or more 20 something drunks, in a packed condo .   Plaintiff gets extra clean up fee, the neighboring rental price for one night (he refunded one night of rent to the nice renters in the other condo), extra guests fees, etc.  $1171, and will get $350 security deposit forfeited by defendant.    

Foolish Love Affair-(I'm not sure I'm getting all of the switches, etc. in the right order, but these litigants are lucky they didn't end up on ID channel as victims).    Plaintiff and defendant (they're step sisters) moved in together, defendant and her boyfriend broke up, and he left.   Plaintiff met some loser, moved in with him, and that lasted a week.   Defendant and her kid moved in with some boyfriend too.      Plaintiff and defendant's boyfriend signed the lease, so defendant woman and her kid could have a place to live.    Defendant was going to pay 2/3 of the rent, plaintiff 1/3, both wanted to move out to live with boyfriends, (neither boyfriend stayed around for long), and plaintiff wants more of the break lease fee from the defendant.   Plaintiff gets $100 for the washing machine, and I think that's it.  

Second (Rerun)-

Teen Hospitalized After Cat Attack-Plaintiff teen was attacked by the neighbor's cat after it broke through the plaintiff's window screen.      Plaintiff had a lot of scratches, and was hospitalized.   Defendant's cat did not have rabies vaccine either, and defendant claims it wasn't her cat that attacked.   Defendant is suing for moving expenses, because she was harassed over the cat attack (actually, fool was evicted).    Defendant's boyfriend was home that day, and lies that the cat was with him all day.   Defendant witness says "Sorry Miss Judy", and I wish Byrd would kick his lying fanny out.       

Plaintiff was home with her own infant son, and her mothers 1 year old, and her own boyfriend, and the window was open.     Defendant never took her cat to the vet for shots in the two plus years she had it.    Plaintiff went to shut the window, when the cat came through the screen, scratched her arms severely, bit her,  and was later hospitalized for I.V. antibiotics for infection from the cat scratches.     Defendant claims cat was indoor only, but plaintiff said the cat was wandering often.  Cat had no inoculations.   Defendant's lying boyfriend is a total liar.   Plaintiff submits pictures of defendant's cat, and says that's the cat that attacked her.    

Defendant's mother and boyfriend saw the teen's injuries, and later boyfriend told the girlfriend about the attack.  (I would love to punch the defendant, and her boyfriend right in their lying faces).      $4,000 to plaintiff.   Defendant was evicted.    

Daddy Down Payment Drama-Plaintiff father suing daughter and fiance, for unpaid loan for house down payment.    Defendants claim it was a gift, and she owns nothing.    Defendant and fiance wanted to get a place of their own, and they went to talk to plaintiff about financing them.  Defendant fiance says he had enough income to pay mortgage, but not enough for the down payment.   For a $90,000 house, and needed $9,200 down payment, and father loaned them $4,100.  The defendants paid $100 to plaintiff.   

Counter claim is defendants say father called CPS to get listed as an alternative resource for the child, after someone made a report to CPS that defendants were using drugs in the home.   Defendants one payment means it's a loan, not a gift.  $4100 to plaintiff, defendants' counter claim dismissed.

Edited March 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ilovecomputers]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New Year's Ever Airbnb Destruction-Plaintiff /landlord condo owner, suing former Airbnb renter for cleaning costs, damages. 

Sounded like the defendant was contractually bound to pay a per person penalty for the number of guests over eight.  Judy refused to consider that because "the plaintiff was just asking for trouble renting his condo to a young man for New Year's Eve."  Excuse me?  They had a contract. The defendant was an adult and should have to face the consequences of allowing strangers into the premises and trashing the place. Can't stand how JJ says, "We're done!" whenever she's decided it's her sushi hour.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, Ilovecomputers said:

Excuse me?  They had a contract.

You are forgetting this fundamental JJ legal principle: "only what is inside the four corners of a contract counts and is relevant and it can only be modified in the same manner it was initially agreed to, unless JJ in her infinite wisdom decides otherwise and goes outside the contract or simply throws it out the window."

Edited March 17, 2020 by Florinaldo

[Carolina Girl]

33 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

You are forgetting this fundamental JJ legal principle: "only what is inside the four corners of a contract count and is relevant and it can only be modified in the same matter it was initially agreed to, unless JJ in her infinite wisdom decides otherwise and goes outside the contract or simply throws it out the window."

That pissed me off as well.  "You should have known better."  HE SIGNED A CONTRACT.  Her decisions are getting to be more and more trash-can worthy.  

[bad things are bad]

AirBnB has clearly turned into something it wasn't intended to be, if that plaintiff is renting out so many places

[Ilovecomputers]

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Defendants one payment means it's a loan, not a gift.  $4100 to plaintiff, defendants' counter claim dismissed.

There is much more to the story than was said. I was actually surprised to hear defendant say she wants her father to have a relationship with her son; I expected the usual “you’ll never see your grandchildren again” ploy. 

[DoctorK]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

One sneeze and we'll get to see all of her assets

We all have our preferences but to me those were more debits than assets.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Double Baby Daddy Drama-Both litigants have a kid with the same man.   Idiot baby daddy is witness for plaintiff, so I guess she got custody of baby daddy.   Plaintiff is suing for damage to her car, and an assault.  Defendant claims harassment, and vandalism of her car by plaintiff.       Right after midnight plaintiff, and baby daddy were boinking, a call keeps hitting his phone, and plaintiff answers the phone.   Caller is defendant who is pissed.   RIght after call, defendant is at the door at plaintiff's home.    911 is called, defendant assaulted plaintiff, and police report was filed.    Plaintiff's car's back window was smashed.  According to police both litigants were drunk, and so is baby daddy.       Defendant had a friend with her at the assault, and claims she never touched plaintiff, or the car.  Defendant claims she wasn't at the plaintiff's assault, but was at her mother's home, out of town.     

$1500 for plaintiff for car window, and assault.  

Go Bang Your Heads Against a Wall-Plaintiff suing ex boyfriend over unpaid loans, a car and utilities.     However, she committed fraud when she registered the car, by forging defendant's name.   Defendant was loaned $700, to buy Audi to flip, and for half the profits, but car wasn't sold.    Plaintiff claims she paid for the Hyundai, but defendant bought it for $500, and it was registered in his name too.    She registered the car in her name, (Hyundai wasn't in either litigant's name), and so they each have a car with a title in each name.   Plaintiff committed perjury (for signing a false statement on a government document), and forgery when she registered the car in her name.   $700 to plaintiff.  (Plaintiff had baby, and claims it's not defendant's kid.   They'll have to fight that out in Family Court after DNA tests).

Second-

Rottweiler Puppy Fail-Plaintiff was selling a Rottweiler dog (18 months old) that was getting aggressive towards his wife.   Plaintiff bought the puppy for $400, and wanted to sell dog for $800.   Defendant offered $300, and one puppy, pick of litter (defendant breeds lots of Rottweilers).  Defendant wasn't told about the aggression.  Defendant says dog isn't aggressive in his home, and he didn't breed them.  Defendant's mother had cancer, and he sold the adult dogs, and gave the puppies away.   Defendant claims he couldn't get in touch with the plaintiff to give him two puppies.   

Plaintiff wants $1600 for the puppies, for his unregistered female he sold for $300, and one puppy that he never picked up.   He actually wanted to train the first aggressive, disobedient Rottie to be a certified service dog.  Plaintiff gets $400.

Pro-Bono Publicist Scam-Plaintiff was hired to do publicity for defendant, and defendant says she was never supposed to pay plaintiff.    First requirement was flyers, and social media for defendant's management company.    Defendant claims plaintiff wanted to create a magazine to promote the performance artists she promotes.   Defendant claims she had 300 clients, but it's all pro bono (she's on disability, and lives off of her spouse's wages).   There is no signed, written contract.   Plaintiff claims she was to be paid $60 per leaflet produced (=$600), and also says defendant wrote horrible allegations on social media about her.  Plaintiff gets $600 wages.   Plaintiff filed for a protective order against defendant, but it was never served on defendant.    

Plaintiff had nothing to do with the music business before the defendant.   So her magazine she started about the music industry was from her experience with the defendant.   As usual, defendant claims her accounts were hacked, and everything was someone else's fault.       The defendant says plaintiff shouldn't make money off of the music industry, because she's not doing it pro bono, and claims plaintiff stole her identity, and bullied her, counter claim dismissed.       Plaintiff gets $600 back wages, 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

I'm the Father of That Child-Plaintiff suing defendant for attorney fees, and lost wages when defendant filed for a paternity test.     Litigants were boinking about the time the child was conceived.     Plaintiff says the DNA test was frivolous.   Defendant's case was dismissed with prejudice, and time has expired to refile.   Plaintiff claims child is her husband's, and husband died since child was born.   Plaintiff was boinking defendant, they separated, she met and married husband, they separated many times, and she was separated from husband when he died.   This all happened in 2008 or so.   Plaintiff had friendly relationship with defendant after son was born.     In the paternity case, the defendant waited too long to reapply to get the DNA test.   I didn't like the look of the plaintiff's new boyfriend either.   

Plaintiff actually got a protective order against the defendant.   Plaintiff case dismissed against defendant.   JJ gives a very wise lecture to plaintiff, about children needing fathers if possible.  

Musical Festival Mayhem-Plaintiff suing defendant for return of property withheld after an argument at a music festival.    They were at Bonnarro festival in Tennessee.    Plaintiff's stuff ended up in trunk of defendant's car, and at the end of the festival (they're from two different cities in Virginia), the litigants argued, and defendant went home.      Defendant made it to her in-law's house, and set the property down on that front porch. (defendant car ran out of gas), wanted to go home, dumped plaintiff's stuff on the in-law's door step, and left.    Defendant is counter suing for the festival ticket costs.   

Plaintiff has a list, and photos of her makeup, clothes and other stuff that disappeared.   There is a picture of defendant wearing a shirt that belongs to the plaintiff.       Plaintiff will receive $2,000 for her items that defendant ripped off.    Defendant case dismissed.  

Second (Rerun)-

Car Scammer Held at Gunpoint-Plaintiff suing defendants over a car trade.  (Defendants claim they barely knew plaintiff, but plaintiff claims she knew them for years).  Litigants traded a Chrysler for a Mercedes, signed and exchanged titles.   There were outstanding loans on plaintiff's vehicle, defendants were ticked.      Lien on plaintiff Chrysler was $12,000, and a week later car was repossessed by lien holder from defendant's house.  Plaintiff says lien was $8,000 or $9,000, but it was actually $12,000 owed.  

Defendants reported Mercedes Benz  stolen, plaintiff was pulled over by police, and a meth pipe was found during the subsequent search.  Plaintiff also had an active felony drug warrant, and lied about her name to the police.     Plaintiff claims she tried to register Mercedes, but couldn't.     Plaintiff claims defendants knew about the $12K lien, but they say they didn't.   

However, JJ claims since the title was signed over that they illegally reported Mercedes stolen, however, it was over 30 days since the sale, and not reregistered in plaintiff's name.    Plaintiff is getting what she deserves, nothing.    Defendant wife gets the boot.   As JJ points out the plaintiff committed fraud.   Chrysler is only worth half of the lien value.   Defendant is suing for towing and impound fees.  Defendant claims plaintiff lied about everything in the police report.   Mercedes was retrieved by defendants, he fixed it up, and resold it.   (The audience is certainly enjoying the plaintiff's stupid statements to JJ).   Case dismissed, nothing to anybody in this case. 

Oops! I Hit It Again-Plaintiff suing defendant for backing into his car in a parking lot, and it's on video.   As usual, defendant denies he did it, claims he wasn't at the location when it was hit, and doesn't believe the accident happened, in spite of very clear video.   The video shows in wonderful detail defendant backing into the plaintiff's car, and the plaintiff's car being shoved back several feet.   Can the defendant even see?     Plaintiff receives $1,038 for car damages.    (Defendant is awful in the hall-terview).

Edited March 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[augmentedfourth]

The overly-giggly defendant in the music festival case managed to perfectly match her lipstick AND eyeshadow to her shirt. (That may or may not have belonged to the plaintiff? Dunno.) Too bad it didn't make her any less obnoxious or more trustworthy.

[nora1992]

Regarding the paternity suit/protective order case, is it known whether or not the defendant is the father?  I left the case without an answer, but did catch the comment about defendant’s thinking the plaintiff would need financial support.  Was it ever said if the child is receiving SS benefits because the plaintiff’s husband died?  If the child is, then wouldn’t a paternity case throw those benefits into doubt?

[parrotfeathers]

17 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

Regarding the paternity suit/protective order case, is it known whether or not the defendant is the father?  I left the case without an answer, but did catch the comment about defendant’s thinking the plaintiff would need financial support.  Was it ever said if the child is receiving SS benefits because the plaintiff’s husband died?  If the child is, then wouldn’t a paternity case throw those benefits into doubt?

No nothing definite.   The plaintiff was one nervous nellie.  Nothing was mentioned about benefits by anyone.

[AuntiePam]

55 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

Regarding the paternity suit/protective order case, is it known whether or not the defendant is the father?  I left the case without an answer, but did catch the comment about defendant’s thinking the plaintiff would need financial support.  Was it ever said if the child is receiving SS benefits because the plaintiff’s husband died?  If the child is, then wouldn’t a paternity case throw those benefits into doubt?

Interesting point, but what did JJ say?  That the name on the birth certificate is presumed to be the father?  Unusual that someone would ask to be tested, and potentially be made financially responsible.

Based on appearance alone, however, I'd much rather have the defendant in my kid's life than that slobby fiance.  You could tell by the way he slouched that he has attitude.

JJ had me all confused, asking about this and that date that plaintiff and defendant were together.  Why not just ask when the baby was born and then ask if they'd been together 9-10 months prior to that?  I was totally confused about when the baby was born, when her husband died, when she was with defendant, and when she started hooking up with that hulk.

 

[Ilovecomputers]

Plaintiff said her husband absolutely adored his boy, so he was clearly alive and married at the time of the baby’s birth. In my state there is a presumption that any children born of the marriage are the husband’s. Don’t know why the defendant kept missing court dates if it was so important to him. Yes, JJ’s questions were very confusing (“In the nine months between the time of their separation, the second full moon of any given month and Thomas Edison’s birthday, were you intimate with the plaintiff?”) but the defendant didn’t seem like a bright guy. Plaintiff’s morbidly obese fiancé seemed like another heart attack waiting to happen. She’s probably some sort of black widow, marrying unhealthy males and insuring them with policies that don’t require examinations. 

[bad things are bad]

The baby daddy people live some terrible, complicated lives. When someone mentioned they lived in a trailer, I laughed out loud. Props to the audience for not howling as well. 

Quote

she’s probably some sort of black widow, marrying unhealthy males and insuring them with policies

Seems like a lot of unpleasant work to pick up a few grand here and there

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Dangerous Drinking-Plaintiff and defendant were both drunk, but defendant is proud of the fact she wasn't as drunk as the plaintiff.   Plaintiff is suing ex-girlfriend for false police report and arrest, and stealing his stuff.   Defendant filed petition to get restraining order.  Plaintiff claims defendant filed exact same allegations to get restraining order against ex-husband, but has no proof. 

 Defendant's mother seems to think allegations her daughter is a drunk is somehow amusing.  There is no proof of plaintiff's abuse on defendant.   Defendant claims after plaintiff's arrest, she moved the truck to guest parking.   She left everything in the truck for his mother to pick up, with the keys near the truck.   However, she couldn't find his truck keys, and a lot of property disappeared out of the truck.  Plaintiff even has a receipt for the rifle.   

Defendant's uncle claims he saw items in the truck when defendant moved the truck to the guest parking spot, and she had the keys to the truck then.   However, defendant 'lost' the keys, so plaintiff's mother had to get AAA to tow the truck.   

Defendant's mother is just as pathetic as her daughter, and just won't shut up.     Defendant still claims the rifle was a gift to her.    Both sides need a group rate to rehab.   $800 to plaintiff for the rifle.  Defendant's ridiculous counter claim dismissed. 

Second-

Knife Fight Threat-Plaintiff claims defendant threatened him with a knife, in front of his little daughter.    Defendant apparently sees nothing wrong with taking a knife to threaten people at their home.   Defendant claims plaintiff punched his younger brother, and the threat with the knife was justified.  Case dismissed.   

Meter Fraud-Plaintiff, and adult daughters are suing for meter fraud, harassment, false restraining orders.   Plaintiffs rented property for one year.   Now they're claiming the electric service was only one meter, but it was used to power one light bulb in the work shop, and trailer.   It says in the written lease that rent was reduced $50 a month to compensate for the electric bill. 

 Defendant did not bring paperwork about the electricity, then says it was an oral agreement.   $600 for electricity for plaintiffs.   Plaintiff upset because the one daughter had a restraining order by landlord for the entire year. (personally, after seeing the daughters in court, I would never have rented to any of them.  They seem very mean).       

$600 to plaintiffs, and that's all. (In the hall-terview he sounds like every person I know that rented out and had issues.  Quote "I'll burn it down before I rent it again"

Edited March 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AuntiePam]

The defendants in today's loose dogs case looked like Joanne Woodward and Tom Petty. 

So plaintiff's mother's dog was loose long enough to impregnate defendant's dog. 

Was that plaintiff's wife or his mother? 

The little girl was cute as a button, and the "Awwww" when she saw the photo of the puppies made everyone laugh, even Byrd.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (new)-

Off-Leash Dogs Result in Puppies-Plaintiffs (mother and adult son) suing neighbors/defendants for their dogs, being dogs, and having cute little puppies.  Plaintiffs are suing for vet bills after their dog was attacked on their property, by defendants' dog.   Counter claim by defendants is for threats, and harassment.   Both houses are side by side, but on sizeable lots (plaintiff's yard is 4 lots together).  Dog incident happened in plaintiff's driveway, dogs were off leash, but on plaintiff's property.   Plaintiff was in his mother's house (next to the driveway), and daughter was letting dogs out of gate, to go to plaintiff's yard.    Plaintiffs have a Chiweenie, and a Papillon, and two other dogs (1 more Chiweenie, and a Pit cross).   Defendants claim the plaintiffs dogs are on their yard constantly, and the Pit cross actually came into defendant's home several times.    

Plaintiff was in his mothers house, saw his four dogs, and defendant's small dog getting into it.    Defendant claims her dog was bitten, and later had three cute puppies.   60 days after incident, defendant's dog had five puppies (one puppy died).   Some of plaintiff's dogs aren't neutered, because idiot plaintiff grannie wanted to breed him (the Papillon).    Byrd gets a kick out of the puppy pictures.    Plaintiffs get zero money, for vet bills, or anything.   However, defendant's dog was on plaintiff's property (they claim no leash law in their locality).  Defendants still don't keep their dog out of plaintiff's property.   

I don't think anyone should get money for anything, but defendant's didn't keep their dog penned either, and still don't.    Actually, I hate everyone in this case, but the plaintiffs more than defendants.    Defendants claim plaintiff man harassed them by coming over, there was another dog attack.  Plaintiff son came on defendant's property, threatened to kill plaintiff's dog if it came on his property again.   Police report is submitted.   Defendant claims woman plaintiff blocks the road and won't let her pass, screams at defendant's 14 year old daughter, and other nasty things.    All claims dismissed, with advice from JJ to defendants on how to make police reports to 

Even Officer Byrd Thinks This is Funny-Plaintiff suing neighbor for cost of a vehicle, and punitive damages for stealing the car.  Plaintiff bought a junk car to fix up, and give to his son.   Some men came to the defendant's shop, claims car had liens, and they took the car.   There were no liens on the car, and car disappeared (a mechanic named Tony gave the car to the 'repo men', Tony was fired after this, he's incarcerated).    Defendant offered to give plaintiff a good deal on another vehicle, which makes Officer Byrd laugh.    (My guess is defendant sold the car).     Plaintiff paid $816 for parts for the car, plaintiff receives $1,016. .  

Second (Rerun)-

Inappropriate Pistol Posting-Plaintiff former tenant suing former landlady for the return of rent, security deposit, hotel costs, and an illegal lockout.   Defendant claims she didn't know tenant had a criminal record (released from prison two years before, after a 15 year sentence), but plaintiff claims she knew about his history.  Defendant wanted a part time tenant, not someone who was at the house all of the time. 

Landlady's copy of the lease has alterations, about no women, no over night visitors, but that's in the landlady's handwriting, so she's the forger.    Landlady in tears when JJ finds out who is the forger.    (Note to defendant, when you're in tears, actually producing tears is effective, not producing tears is a dead give away you're a phony).

Defendant tried to get a protective order against tenant, who never did anything to her.   Judge issued protective order without a trial, and the application for protective order is many pages long.   Defendant also claims someone broke into her house, and she suspects plaintiff.      

The plaintiff posted a picture on a dating site, with him pictured with a pistol, saying he's hotter than a pistol.   Defendant filed for protective order, and kept accepting rent before that.  Defendant told plaintiff to leave in April, and filed for the protective order in May.    Defendant keeps citing the lease provisions that are obvious phony additions.  (Defendant is slurping the Water that Must Not Be Drunk).    Defendant claims to have a 10 year protective order against plaintiff, plaintiff says she tried, but failed to get the order.   

 $300 security, plus $1200 (two months rent), a total of $1500 to plaintiff. 

Edited March 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

That "landlady" was so hysterical, she would have had a conniption fit if she had a nun for a tenant!  If you don't want your tenant to, you know, have a life and only sleep there one day a week, the landlord life is not for you!

[AlleC17]

On 3/17/2020 at 4:29 AM, Florinaldo said:

You are forgetting this fundamental JJ legal principle: "only what is inside the four corners of a contract counts and is relevant and it can only be modified in the same manner it was initially agreed to, unless JJ in her infinite wisdom decides otherwise and goes outside the contract or simply throws it out the window."

I hope that when she violates this stipulation, that once, just once, the person throws it back in her face, as I would like to see if she would spontaneously combust.

Edited March 19, 2020 by AlleC17

[Ilovecomputers]

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

  Defendant claims her dog was bitten, and later had three cute puppies.   60 days after incident, defendant's dog had five puppies

I don't understand why Judy dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.  Their dog suffered injuries, and they had an unplanned pregnancy.

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The plaintiff posted a picture on a dating site, with him pictured with a pistol, saying he's hotter than a pistol. 

Google says plaintiff was convicted of shooting and killing his ex-girlfriend with a shotgun.  How is it he's walking around a free man?  Is he not being supervised?  How he is permitted to travel outside of his jurisdiction?  Who were the people he brought?

Sounded like he was renting a room down the hall from the landlord and she had one bathroom for both to share.  Her rules (no alcohol, no women and no overnight guests) seemed like something out of the 40s.  I imagine her and the convicted murderer sitting around the breakfast table spreading jam on toast and I have to laugh. 

[Brattinella]

I think the people who have a female dog that's in heat MUST isolate that dog completely.  It is certainly not the male dog's fault that he impregnated her!  It is pure selfishness to let your fecund dog be loose outside.  Suppose a mastiff had sniffed her out!

 

[SRTouch]

9 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

I think the people who have a female dog that's in heat MUST isolate that dog completely.  It is certainly not the male dog's fault that he impregnated her!  It is pure selfishness to let your fecund dog be loose outside.  Suppose a mastiff had sniffed her out!

 

From what I remember, the female was 2-3 years old and this was her first litter. Also, IIRC, the neighbors with multiple dogs had only lived there a few months. Who wants to bet that this was first time the female went into heat since the intact neighbor's dogs arrived? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Artwork vs. the Car Wash!-Plaintiff and wife claim the car wash workers ruined his $3,600 painting (plaintiff does 'interesting' art work) that was left in the vehicle's trunk.    I remember this one, and the painting was unprotected, and there is no proof that the car wash people did anything to the painting.     I suspect the wife /plaintiff damaged it,  and they needed a fall guy to pay for it.    

The car wash defendant claims the woman slammed the trunk, and hurt the painting herself.   There's a bunch of garbage about missing phone chargers too, and according to the car wash manager the woman claimed her phone charger was missing, and said it was in the trunk.   When the woman slammed the trunk she hurt the painting.

Nothing for the plaintiffs, and I wish they would have had to pay the defendant's company for the harassment, and defamation from their false claim. 

Second-

Puppy Choking on Chicken Bone Drama?!-Unfortunately, I remember this one too.   

Plaintiff took a puppy to the vet, for $557.    After owners were letting 'nature take it's course', when puppy choked on a chicken bone, plaintiff took the puppy to the vet.     Plaintiff was 'fostering' the puppies, when defendant's Chihuahua had puppies.    Defendant woman also claims the mother Chihuahua is 25 pounds, and was only 8 months when she dug out of the yard, and was knocked up.   Defendant knew dog was in heat, but it wasn't house trained, and so they left the mother dog outside.     Plaintiff had previously fostered the puppies for September, and October.

Plaintiff saw the puppy the defendant's kept looked thin, and sick.   Defendants left the dog laying alone outside to die, so a couple of days later plaintiff took the puppy to the vet.  Vet report says puppy had bone in throat, that was surgically removed.     Defendants claim plaintiff stole the dog, and they called the police to get the puppy back.    I wonder  how many litters the mother has had by now?    

Sadly, the defendants still have the dog in their possession, and called the police to get the puppy back.       Defendant/ owner refused to pay the vet bills, and neighbor wants to be repaid.  Defendant's wife's defense is they had only had the puppy four days, and that's a bogus reason, because the puppy was born in that house.     

Plaintiff gets $557, too bad she didn't get the puppy too.  

[Florinaldo]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Inappropriate Pistol Posting

I think that the defendant fully deserves to be granted an order of protection. Against her own crazy self!

Her weepy performance was 95 % fake and 5 % neurosis. Plaintiff was stupid to post that picture considering his past (even though he has done his time and has been rehabilitated into society), but it certainly did not warrant that slobbering display.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Truck Driver Cries Thief-Plaintiff /truck driver suing former employer for stealing money from his pay check.    Truck driver drove a semi flatbed truck and trailer, and there was an accident.    Plaintiff picked up load, an airbag in the rear end blew out, that could cause brake failure in the truck, but not the trailer.   JJ steps out to call the mechanic that works for defendant, and that plaintiff talked to about the air bag.    Mechanic says he remembers the brake issue, and fixed it.     Accident was plaintiff driving, parked, pulled the brake on the truck,   Thirty minutes later and sees his truck going down the hill, plaintiff ran after the truck, climbed in, and put the brakes on, and stopped truck after causing damages to a car.   

Defendant took $2374.00 out of plaintiff's paycheck, instead of turning the damages into the insurance company.  Plaintiff receives $2,374.00, and defendant gets nothing.

Judge Judy Makes the Dreaded Call-Plaintiff is suing her former roommate for damages to the apartment, and unpaid rent. (moved out 3 months early).  However, but only one month was without another tenant, and didn't pay one other month.    Police were called on several occasions by plaintiff, when defendant and his boyfriend were having drunken fights.   Plaintiff says the $500 security by defendant will be needed to cover damages (defendant blames plaintiff's incontinent dog for the stains).   Defendant claims the police were called once on him, but also called on her own mother, a neighbor, and other times.    

Defendant claims that plaintiff moved someone in immediately, and that plaintiff said if he would move immediately, she would forget the one month's rent.   JJ is going to make the dreaded phone call to the new tenant.    Phone call results in the roommate ratting out the plaintiff to JJ, and there was no vacant room at the apartment.   $1600 for plaintiff for one month's rent, and $400 for something else.  

Second (Rerun)-

Teenager Suffers Miscarriage-Plaintiffs suing family friend for stolen identity, theft, unpaid loans.  Defendant is distant cousin/family friend of plaintiff man.   The three signed a lease on a two bedroom apartment, and then defendant left, to move back in with parents and pregnant girlfriend, barely out of high school, and girlfriend later miscarried the baby.    Defendant paid 1/3 of the rent, because there were three apartment residents.   Then defendants girlfriend moved in, and paid nothing, and then defendant stopped paying.   

Plaintiffs say defendant only paid rent in full for one month, then borrowed $300 from woman plaintiff for car insurance, and bought a $13k car, and then lost his job.   Defendant wants his $400 bed back.   Car insurance was paid out of plaintiff woman's bank account without her knowledge, for an additional two months.   Plaintiff woman made a report for identity theft, so she was repaid the two months of insurance.   $700 to plaintiffs.

Teen Cyclist Slams Car-Plaintiff suing defendant for her son damaging her car by crashing into it with his bicycle.   Son was going with the flow of traffic, and when plaintiff made way for the kid on the bicycle, and he hit the passenger side of her car.   A witness said the young man was trying to make a U turn.   The young man lives right across the street (so now we know where he was turning to), the mother took the child to the hospital.   

JJ is saying that since it's a two lane road, that she should have given him more room.  I think he turned into her car, and I bet he wasn't going to school, or was stopping at home first.   If he was going to school, then why was he turning right across from his house?   He should have been starting from his house, not going by it.       (My guess is kid was weaving in and out of traffic, and that he did hit the car.   And where was he coming from?   He wouldn't be across the street from his own house if he started from there to go to school).

JJ still says the kid wasn't at fault, and plaintiff is lucky young man wasn't injured, and she didn't get sued by the mother.     Plaintiff case dismissed. 

[ThePurpleArcher]

Ahhhhhh....Judge Judy made a few phone calls today. One was 'Joe' the mechanic, who concealed his identity to Judge Judy. She didn't like that! Sorry Judy, I do the same when some stranger calls my phone and addresses me by name - I always deny I'm the person, since I don't want to confirm to telemarketers.  

How I wish the mechanic would've responded, "No you reached Michael Bloomberg, what can I do for you Judy?" 

[Florinaldo]

13 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Sorry Judy, I do the same when some stranger calls my phone and addresses me by name - I always deny I'm the person, since I don't want to confirm to telemarketers. 

But shouldn't the words "This is Judge Judy Sheindlin" be a powerful enough incantation to open all ears and untie all tongues?

Edited March 20, 2020 by Florinaldo

[howiveaddict]

She wouldn't be able to get a hold of me. I don't answer the phone unless I know who is calling. If you need me text.   That's what my family does.  I guess I would miss out on becoming famous by talking to JJ.

[Ilovecomputers]

Two phone calls!  Wow!  Who knew she spent three years in post-graduate work to make crummy phone calls from her fake office with dusty silk plants, an empty blotter and no sign of even an extra paper clip on the desk.  She needs a photo collage of Jerry and all the grandkids on the desk—faces blurred, of course.

Unbelievable that she’s able to reach anyone. No one I know answers a call from an unknown number.  

I dreaded hearing the bicycle case. Judy fancies herself to be an accident reconstructionist and police reports be damned. Bicyclist had a Cindy-Brady-hypnotized by the cameras demeanor.  JJ seemed baffled about the witness statements, too.

JJ:  “Where are the witness statements?”  

Plaintiff:  “On the bottom of the police report.”  

JJ:  “Here?  Where it says, ‘Witness Statements?’”

Plaintiff:  “Yes.”

JJ:  ”You can’t tell me that.  I don’t know that.”

Huh?

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-Truck Driver Cries Thief-

Judge Judy Makes the Dreaded Call-

We totally missed the new episode here. My JJ provider broke in with breaking news to for the mayor of their city, which is about 45 miles south of us, to announce that he was ordering the city to start closing down resturants, bars, etc. Really kind of old news for us here, as our mayor and city counsel announced similar closings here 2 days ago. News conference began at beginning of episode, and lasted 20 minutes - so just saw very beginning of first case and last couple minutes of 2nd

[Ilovecomputers]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

We totally missed the new episode here.

Oh, you missed one of her typical, "If you can't keep quiet, I'm gonna throw you outta here and find for the plaintiff!" warnings.  In all the years of watching JJ, I've never actually seen her rule in anyone's favor just because the opposing side wouldn't be quiet.

Since next year is JJ's last, I think the producers should compile a series of "best of" shows, and the first one should be a compilation of best phone calls.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

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

First-

Tinsel Town Abandonment-Plaintiff Geoffrey Weigman ($665 requested) is suing ex-landlord over a bag of Christmas decorations that he left at her house after she (he rented in the winter, in California) re-rented to others.   Defendant says relative of plaintiff picked up the leftover bags from her attic.   Plaintiff throws in a nasty remark about new renters (apparently Middle Eastern renters).     Yes, plaintiff is suing over used cheapie Christmas ornaments.    How dare the plaintiff treat a seasonal rental as his own home.       He's suing for Christmas decorations, a handheld can opener, and some coffee mugs.    Plaintiff's daughter signed for the Christmas decorations already.   After the daughter picked up the stored items, defendant found another bag of cheap ornaments, and never picked them up.   Defendant gave the leftover bags to the neighbor who was the former pet sitter to plaintiffs.  Pet sitter doesn't know where the bags went.    Case dismissed.  After this dust up, defendant sold the house. 

Nothing for plaintiff. 

Courtroom Kickout-Plaintiff suing defendant for credit card dispute over motorcycle rental.   The rental in question was for $390, for three days.   Defendant made reservation, rented the bikes, and called to cancel two weeks before the rental time.  Plaintiff refused to refund the money, and defendant disputed the charges, and he had the money refunded.   Now plaintiff is suing him for the rental costs.     Plaintiff won't shut up, keeps talking over JJ, and gets the boot, and case dismissed.  

Second-

Break-Up Fit of Rage-Plaintiff and ex-girlfriend lived together for about a year, and plaintiff loaned girlfriend money to buy a car ($1000).     He can forget the car loan, that wasn't a loan at all.   After she smashed his car window, he bonded her out of jail, and they still kept living together.   

Case dismissed.     

No Backsies-Plaintiffs were roommates with defendant.   They told defendant to leave and find her own apartment, defendant did that, and now plaintiffs want back rent.    Defendant did exactly what the coven of roommates told her to do, so she owes nothing.     

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Edited March 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama