Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Florinaldo
  • Like 4
  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

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, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

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?

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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 by AlleC17
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

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!

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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.  

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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?" 

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post
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 by Florinaldo
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

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?

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

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 by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Divorcees Who Can't Call It Quits-Plaintiff and defendant have been divorced for 18 years.   Defendant, and their adult son moved into plaintiff's house (2 months after divorce), there was an argument, and defendant and son left.   Former family home was plaintiff's father's house, and after divorce plaintiff stayed there, and two months later the defendant and son move in with plaintiff.    The trailer was 14 x 70, and bought fully furnished.  Over the years, plaintiff replaced the furniture, recarpeted, painted, etc.     Defendant and children (only one left), stayed there.   Then defendant bought another trailer in 2001, but litigants got back together, rented for a while, and plaintiff's parents bought a house for plaintiff.   House was unfurnished, and plaintiff furnished everything for the house.  Defendant paid $400 to $500 a month as rent.    

There was an argument in July 2019, with adult son, and plaintiff/father.   Defendant, son, his girlfriend, and their baby.   Defendant received an order of protection, that excluded him from his own house.   When plaintiff got the defendant, and rest of the cast of thousands, he found everything gone in the home, except the stove and fridge.    Defendant thinks she had the right to take everything with her.    Plaintiff's parents paid cash for the house, and plaintiff repaid them.     After the furniture theft by defendant, plaintiff bought a few items of furniture, and is transferring his job location, so doesn't need furniture.   Defendant is counter suing for a fridge, and title for travel trailer.   Plaintiff case dismissed.  Defendant gets nothing, and deserves less. Defendant told to negotiate a buy out on the travel trailer with plaintiff, that's not going to happen. 

Procrastinate Now-Plaintiff suing brother and sister/defendants for missing and damaged property.    The litigants were all living together, and about a year ago there was a fight with the brother.   There was an order of protection against plaintiff, and it has since expired, and plaintiff wants her property back.    Plaintiff was given the right to go with a police escort to get her property back, a year ago, but plaintiff didn't pick up her property.      Plaintiff says she had no where to take or store her furniture.   Plaintiff's items were put in a back storage area, and plaintiff never picked her property up in over a year.   

At the time of the argument, the plaintiff went in brother's room and destroyed his clothes. 

Defendant says the TV plaintiff wants back belonged to defendant's boyfriend, and it was picked up long ago.     Defendants are counter suing for property damage, and harassment.  Defendants have nothing belonging to plaintiff.    Everything dismissed.  

Second (Rerun)-

Woman Subjected to Lie Detector Test-Plaintiff suing cousin for refund for airline ticket, lie detector test, and hotel room (part of trip package).    Defendant claimed right before a trip to Miami, that plaintiff stole from her ($2600).   Plaintiff said defendant should pay for a lie detector test if plaintiff passed the test (she passed).   Plaintiff paid for her airline ticket, but didn't go, and defendant says it was non-refundable.   This was a hotel, air fare package deal.   $800 for airline ticket, and $159 for room.   I wouldn't go with the defendant after she called me a thief either.   

All three women who were accused took lie detector tests, and passed.  $325 for lie detector test (only plaintiff had one, and passed).    $147 was the concert ticket, each, and defendant wants to be repaid for the ticket.  Defendant gets nothing for concert ticket, and JJ has to tell her that "textes", isn't a word.     Plaintiff gets hotel cost back, but not airline ticket (plaintiff actually flew to Miami).   Plaintiff gets $159 for hotel fee.    

Hot Mess Sleepover-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for late fees, stolen money, damaged property.     Defendant wanted to sleep over at her place, and plaintiff claims the next morning her futon was ruined, and items were missing.    Actually, he slept with plaintiff, not on the futon.   

Plaintiff claims $525 was stolen from her purse, and plaintiff's daughter is the witness to the theft.  Daughter didn't immediately tell her mother about the theft, and I can see why JJ dismisses it.   (Tacky note to plaintiff, wearing a regular bra, and an off the should top is tacky, not fashion).   JJ should have told the plaintiff and her thieving, lying daughter to get out.   It was obvious to me that the daughter took the money, and then only blamed the man when the mother found out the money was gone.   

$525 for plaintiff (because defendant offered to "help her out" with the missing money).         

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims $525 was stolen from her purse, and plaintiff's daughter is the witness to the theft

I didn’t believe the plaintiff’s daughter, and I think her daughter stole the money. The daughter claims she saw the defendant rummaging around in plaintiff’s purse.  Her mom took her to school but the daughter never mentioned it until after school. Daughter pondered over the matter and all that the defendant had put her mother through.  Translation:  Daughter took the money and hatched a plan in school to make the defendant a scapegoat.  Defendant offered to help plaintiff out but claimed plaintiff paid her rent and that was the end of that. Translation:  He wanted a friend with occasional benefits and no emotional commitments.  He was working two jobs; why would he need to steal money?  The daughter is 13 going on 30.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Procrastinate Now-Plaintiff suing brother and sister/defendants for missing and damaged property.    The litigants were all living together, and about a year ago there was a fight with the brother.   There was an order of protection against plaintiff, and it has since expired, and plaintiff wants her property back.    Plaintiff was given the right to go with a police escort to get her property back, a year ago, but plaintiff didn't pick up her property.      Plaintiff says she had no where to take or store her furniture.   Plaintiff's items were put in a back storage area, and plaintiff never picked her property up in over a year.   

At the time of the argument, the plaintiff went in brother's room and destroyed his clothes. 

Defendant says the TV plaintiff wants back belonged to defendant's boyfriend, and it was picked up long ago.     Defendants are counter suing for property damage, and harassment.  Defendants have nothing belonging to plaintiff.    Everything dismissed.  

 

Damn her brother was sexy, until she let out at the end that he liked to wear her clothes which is why he stole them. Sorry Devon - I'll pass on that. LOL! 

Between this family and the first family - I wish the producers of 'FAMILY FEUD' would sign them up for their show. Can't wait for Steve Harvey to question Devon - "So you like to dress up in your sister's clothes?"  Harvey would have plenty of fun with the other family, as well...

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Pomeranians and the Police-Plaintiff was walking her two Poms. on the street, leashed, and defendant's Cattle Dogs jumped out of defendant's Jeep, and her dogs attacked plaintiff's dogs.    Plaintiff claims defendant has had two previous run ins with defendant screaming at plaintiff for walking her dogs on the public street.     Plaintiff took her dog to the vet,  and claims the abscess on dog's face was a puncture wound.  Defendant didn't pay her animal control fine, because she claims her dogs weren't out of her Jeep, and JJ advises her that the city will put a lien on her house.   

Defendant filed a restraining order against plaintiff walking on the street, and it was denied,    Defendant keeps laughing at inappropriate times, and denying reality, it's obvious something is wrong with her.   JJ says defendant needs psychiatric help, and I absolutely agree.   This is the kind of case that makes you thankful that your nutty neighbor (everybody has at least one), leaves you alone.  

$1500 to plaintiff for defendant harassing her, and for filing a false protective order,  but not enough proof for vet bills.   

Underage Drinking and Online Bullying-Plaintiff alleges defendant (former high school friend) kicked her car after a night of drinking.    Defendant claims she wasn't drinking (she's 20).    There was a verbal fight, mostly by defendant, and defendant kicked plaintiff's car, witnessed by two others in police report.  Plaintiff says defendant was very drunk.    $1600 for plaintiff, and defendant told to stuff it. 

Second-

Be Afraid... Or Not-Plaintiff left home of ex boyfriend and his nasty mother, and claims they destroyed her property (21 and they lived together for 3 years).  Plaintiff's mother is asked why she didn't ask her 21 year old daughter to come home to escape an abusive relationship.  Mother's answer is "because she's an adult, and lives on her own" .   

There are multiple police reports about malicious mischief, one report wasn't done until over a month later.  Plaintiff claims defendant has many police reports against him, and his loud mouth mother awful.  Plaintiff now gives up on everything but her car, that had domestic abuse (yes, a car had domestic abuse against it).  Case dismissed.  

DWI Disability Fail-Plaintiff suing former friend for false accusations of depositing a check.   Litigants were in the Military together.   When defendant went to jail for DWI, she told plaintiff to use the check for rent.   A check was cashed by plaintiff, and defendant told her bank it was false cashing of check.  Defendant wants $1000 back, has no proof of anything.  Plaintiff gets $1,000, defendant ridiculous claim dismissed.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Never Say a Judge Made a Mistake-(I hope this makes sense, because it was a very confusing case)    Plaintiff suing his daughter's mother for the return of child support (daughter is 15).    A child support order was in effect, and there was an additional $274 a month for child care, however, So in 2015 the child support child care portion was ended, but it was retroactive to 2010 (or something like that) to pay for previous years that no child care was paid.          Plaintiff quit working in 2018, and has gone to court many times to get child support reduced, or eliminated.   In 2018 daughter was getting some money from plaintiff's Social Security, so child support was reduced by  $180 a month, until the over paid child care amount is paid back to plaintiff.

Plaintiff (I'll call him Mr. Deadbeat) wants extra money, because there were $17k of over payments, and that can't be paid back before daughter ages out.   My guess is that daughter and daddy won't have any relationship after this.      In 2018 child support went to zero, so Mr. Deadbeat isn't getting his extra money back.   And Mr. Deadbeat says the judge was wrong, and says it to JJ.  Mr. Deadbeat stopped working in 2014, claiming he's 'being disabled', but started a company then too.   Mr. Deadbeat admits to four trips to court to reduce or eliminate child support, defendant says 

(Did I mention I loathe the plaintiff, Mr. Deadbeat?)

Plaintiff's witness stands up and interrupts.   JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.   Plaintiff's witness gets his stupid rear tossed.     Mr Deadbeat's case is tossed.  (By the way Mr. Deadbeat, child support is to support the child, not to bank it, especially at that minimal level of payments)

Teen Counselor Demands Payback-Plaintiff suing former roommates for his $767 for a month he was away at camp (he's a counselor).   Defendants got a refund for half of a month, because of an air conditioner leak, and plaintiff want's his part of the rent refund.   The entire rent was $2903, and there were only 3 people in the apartment, but plaintiff only rented the one bedroom.    $967 to plaintiff.   

Second (Rerun)-

Me Too Movement Nonsense-Plaintiff suing co-worker for loan ($719) to repair her car.   Defendant claims plaintiff hit on her, and would forgive the loan if she slept with him.    The litigants worked together for about 90 days, until she was fired.   She's also 'on leave' from Kohl's.   

Car was towed to mechanic, plaintiff paid to fix the car.   After defendant got car back, she refused to pay plaintiff for the work.     As defendant is making allegations of sexual harassment against plaintiff, plaintiff's wife is sitting right there (she's a witness).    JJ objects to defendant crying sexual harassment to avoid repaying the money.  

The defendant is a total scammer, and with her inappropriate giggling, and laughing, she seems totally out of control. 

Plaintiff receives $700, defendant gets nothing.  

Money Pool Takes a Nose Dive-Plaintiff suing for an unpaid round of a money pool/savings plan known as a Candena (spelling?).      Plaintiff claims you draw the numbers at the beginning, each person puts their money in, and get paid the $9k each month by month when their number comes up.    So number nine gets nothing, according to the defendant.  But plaintiff claims everyone puts in the money, and the ninth person gets $9k last.    No, I don't understand how this works, or why anyone would do this.    No one gets extra money, they only get their $9,000 back.    Text messages from defendant acknowledge that he stole the plaintiff's money. 

$5,000 to plaintiff, however, he's still $4,000 short.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Never Say a Judge Made a Mistake-(I hope this makes sense, because it was a very confusing case)    Plaintiff suing his daughter's mother for the return of child support (daughter is 15).    A child support order was in effect, and there was an additional $274 a month for child care, however, So in 2015 the child support child care portion was ended, but it was retroactive to 2010 (or something like that) to pay for previous years that no child care was paid.          Plaintiff quit working in 2018, and has gone to court many times to get child support reduced, or eliminated.   In 2018 daughter was getting some money from plaintiff's Social Security, so child support was reduced by  $180 a month, until the over paid child care amount is paid back to plaintiff.

Plaintiff (I'll call him Mr. Deadbeat) wants extra money, because there were $17k of over payments, and that can't be paid back before daughter ages out.   My guess is that daughter and daddy won't have any relationship after this.      In 2018 child support went to zero, so Mr. Deadbeat isn't getting his extra money back.   And Mr. Deadbeat says the judge was wrong, and says it to JJ.  Mr. Deadbeat stopped working in 2014, claiming he's 'being disabled', but started a company then too.   Mr. Deadbeat admits to four trips to court to reduce or eliminate child support, defendant says 

(Did I mention I loathe the plaintiff, Mr. Deadbeat?)

Plaintiff's witness stands up and interrupts.   JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.   Plaintiff's witness gets his stupid rear tossed.     Mr Deadbeat's case is tossed.  (By the way Mr. Deadbeat, child support is to support the child, not to bank it, especially at that minimal level of payments)

 

 

It was hard to follow, but I believe the plaintiff had a good case, and it was beyond Judge Judy's expertise for a half hour show. At one point she acknowledged he was owed $10,000 but she could only grant him $5,000 and he was fine with that - which pissed her off more. 

From what I gathered, he was paying his child support every month on time, as well as child care. His baby-mama was collecting both, but then left her job to be a stay-at-him mom, and was STILL collecting child care - even though she was at home with her daughter. Apparently, their family judge understood this and awarded the plaintiff a refund going back a few years, since he essentially 'overpaid' in child care expenses which no longer existed.

Judge Judy doesn't like responsible fathers like this. She abhors entrepreneurs of any kind (she's prove this time and time again). She doesn't like disabled people, either. So he had three strikes against him, and she allowed the wife to 'double dip'. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

My interpretation (this case almost put me to sleep) was that the man didn't pay child care for years, but then it was added on, and since the daughter was way too old for child care by then it was dropped.   However, I thought the judge (or maybe a previous judge did this) said that the man didn't owe child care for now, but did for about 5 years before, so he was having to pay that.   Then another judge looked at it, and realized that the man had over paid $17,000 in child support, so he paid very little for a couple of years.    The small amount of child support was supposed to catch up a lot of the over payments, but then the man went on disability, and there wasn't a child support to get credit for.   Then for a couple of years he not only wasn't paying, but wasn't getting credit for what he paid, because he went on disability.    Then he figured out that he would never get even for the over payment, and still was owed a lot, because in two or three years the daughter would age out of child support payments.      

The biggest mistake the man made was he should have gone back to the local jurisdiction, not small claims.     That's the only place that could help him, and for whatever reason, the family court didn't want to help him.  That's the only place that could do anything about garnishing the defendant's wages too, not JJ.      However, I hated the remarks that the child support should have been banked for the child to get when she's older.    Child support is to support the child, not for savings.   If there was some huge sum left over, then bank it, but I doubt what the man was paying really made a dent in the expenses for the daughter.    I bet there is zero relationship with the child by the father, and he acted as if it was someone else's fault he had a kid to support.   It takes two to make a baby.     I felt sorry for the girl, and I bet that she's spent years of her life hearing about what a burden she was to the father.    I bet everything was garnished from his pay, and I doubt he ever paid a penny voluntarily.    

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ yells a "Sit" order loud enough that I bet every puppy watching this show just planted their fanny firmly on the floor.

This made me laugh like a loon!  I could just picture little fannys hitting the floor and puppies across the countty thinking "WHAT did I do??"

Reminds me of the time I put a Thundershirt on one of my cats and she just dropped like a stone as if it somehow took away the use of her legs.  I felt so bad I couldn't get it off fast enough.  She also had to watch me box it back up and close the box before she moved again.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post

I think one reason JJ ruled against the overpaying-dad was that the amount he paid was so low.  $180 a month for regular child support and $224 when mom had to pay for child care.  She said a few times that you couldn't feed a hummingbird on $180 a month.

I wonder if he had any kind of relationship with his daughter.  I doubt it.  I also wonder about his relationship with defendant.  Was it a one-night stand or did they at least date for awhile?  Not that it matters -- it's just sad.  Everyone gets shortchanged.  Dad has to pay for a child he didn't want/doesn't care about, mom struggles to provide, daughter has no father figure, and JJ and Byrd help foot the bill for the WIC and Section 8 and other assistance over the years.

I waited for JJ to ask plaintiff the nature of his disability, but she didn't. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

I waited for JJ to ask plaintiff the nature of his disability, but she didn't. 

Me too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I think one reason JJ ruled against the overpaying-dad was that the amount he paid was so low.  $180 a month for regular child support and $224 when mom had to pay for child care.  She said a few times that you couldn't feed a hummingbird on $180 a month.

I thought it was reduced BY $180 per month. Not knocked down to $180. Too bad I  erased the  show. I double checked as I thought I read it that way, but JJ for the first half kept saying he was only paying $180. They could only knock down the amount by 20% to try to rectify the mistake. Anyone read the  paperwork???

I think he was paying child support until he made bad business decisions and went for disability. Now his child support comes out of that. Maybe they were saying they could only take 20% of that. I was confused as poor Byrd by the end of it. Didn't like either parent.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

First-

Revealing 911 Call-Plaintiff suing former friend, and two others for vandalizing his car (one woman is his cousin).   There is a 911 call from the plaintiff, with breaking glass on the tape.  Plaintiff has a protective order against his cousin for two years, but he says all three defendants attacked him.     Plaintiff claims the two women threw mustard on his car when he was stopped at a light, he was heading to work.   He pulled into a parking lot to call police, and that's when the two women, and the man, smashed the plaintiff's window.    Plaintiff's witness (a woman he didn't know before this) heard the rock smash the window and saw all three defendants in the parking lot.     Defendants claim they were in Chicago when the attack happened, but as usual, the witness couldn't make it.     Defendants are such liars.     I feel sorry for plaintiff's witness, she did the right thing talking to police, and coming to court, but I worry about retaliation by the three defendants.     $1170 for plaintiff, defendant told to get lost.  

Trust Your Instincts-Plaintiffs are landlords, and rented to the grandmother of defendant for 15 years, and grandma is still a tenant.    Defendant is granddaughter, and her witness is her mother (Daughter of grandmother tenant, mother of defendant).  Defendant was a tenant, given a three day notice to leave in January, 2016. According to landlords, didn't move until March 2016.    Defendant has a ton of reasons for not paying full rent ($800 a month), and didn't pay full rent after August 2015.     $4400 is owed by defendant according to landlords.  $4400 to landlords.   

Second-

Mechanic Crosses a Line-Plaintiff suing former friend for value of car, and money she paid him to fix it.    Plaintiff has teenage son, bought a car for son, gave it to mechanic to fix it, plaintiff moved to Houston.    Defendant towed car to plaintiff's father's house, it wasn't registered, had no bill of sale, no tags.   Defendant was going to register the car, by putting a mechanic's lien on it, and confiscating it.   The title was in a previous owner's name, not the woman that sold it to plaintiff.    Plaintiff paid only the money to put the mechanic's lien on the car to get a clean title, $190.   Car title is in defendant's name, and he will sign it over to plaintiff.    Defendant got car running, and told her it would cost her $200 to have car fixed.   The mechanics lien was a scam to get a clean title, because plaintiff didn't have the right paperwork.   Defendant will sign car over to plaintiff, and $200 to defendant.     

Unbelievable Car Deal-Plaintiff suing former friend for return of money she paid for a 2006 Chevy Impala.   Plaintiff bought car from defendant for $2200, and paid in full.   However, defendant needed to make one more payment on his car loan, and he would have a clear title.   A few weeks later plaintiff's car was repossessed by lender.   Defendant says she agreed to pay him $2200, and make the four remaining payments on car (he only bought the car a couple of months before he sold it to the plaintiff).   The Blue Book value is $6,000, he put $1500 down, and payments were less than $300 a month, so there were a ton of payments left.   

JJ says they were scammers, and plaintiff claims she didn't know the car was worth $6,000, that she thought she was getting it for $2200.    JJ gives nothing to either litigant, and that's what they deserve.   I think the defendant was hiding the car out at the plaintiff's place, and the lender found it and repossessed it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

First (New)-

Ex Wives on the Prowl-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend (Kentako Brown) for assault, security deposit return, and over paid rent.    They met on online dating site, and plaintiff moved in with him, put down security deposit, and signed two year leases, and moved out in 2019.    Plaintiff claims she moved out because of harassment from more than one ex-wife of defendant.  There was also one other roommate with the two litigants.     Plaintiff says when she left, she claims she paid rent until another roommate moved in, but claims defendant said roommate was paying less than their share.   Defendant says plaintiff moved in and out of the apartment several times.    Plaintiff's witness is Jeffrey the roommate after she moved out.   Jeffrey was paying $600, plus $100 for part of the utilities.   However, plaintiff was paying $900 for rent.   (I really dislike the defendant.   Is he stoned?)

So far plaintiff is owed $1300, for rent and security back.   

Plaintiff filed a police report for an assault by defendant on her at a cell phone store.    No medical. $2191 for plaintiff. 

How the Boxes in Men's Brains Work-Plaintiff suing former girlfriend for kicking his car, and denting it.   They were living together for three years or so, they had an argument, and defendant didn't like his explanation about where he was, so she kicked his car.  (JJ says the male brain has boxes in their brain, that aren't connected, and once something is discussed, it's over).  Picture of foot print on door of plaintiff's car is submitted.   

Plaintiff gets $2100.

Don't Be an Idiot in Front of Your Child-Plaintiff suing ex for return of rent, moving expenses, and damages from an illegal eviction.    The litigants got together, she moved into his house, they had a child (poor kid), and then they broke up.   She gave him $1,000 for a car, instead of paying for her own apartment (she only stayed 6 days).    The money came from plaintiff's car getting hit ($1600), and she kept the insurance money instead of getting the car fixed, and gave $1,000 to defendant.   Plaintiff flew to Houston, and wants the plane ticket money back.    $1,000 to plaintiff.   

Second (Rerun)-

Dalmatian Claims Victory Over Pit Bull-Plaintiff (Pit Bull/Beagle cross owner) suing defendants (Dalmatian) for vet bills for an attack by defendant dog.   Plaintiff has two dogs, and was walking them on leash, when defendant wife opened garage door, letting the defendant's dog out, and the attack happened.      All three dogs were injured by mace used by plaintiff to separate dogs.  Defendants claim plaintiff's dogs were actually on defendant's property when the attack happened.    It took four months for plaintiff to get the animal control report.    

Plaintiff said he was walking his dogs in the street, and defendant's garage opened, and their Dalmatian charged and attacked the plaintiff's Pit Bull.   Plaintiff maced the dogs to get the fight ended.  Defendant claims her mother opened the house door, and let the dog out.   Both defendants' statements contradict each other.   Plus defendant wife claims she was warming her car up, in June, in San Diego (why would anyone warm a car up in San Diego in June?).  (Defendant husband is obviously well-rehearsed, and wife is in charge of everything in that house).   Plaintiff dog looks like a Lab, not a pit.  

Defendant wife claims plaintiff was carrying a baseball bat, and attacked her dog while it was on their property.       Defendant's son claims to have seen other incidents involving plaintiff dogs, and defendant husband gets booted.   Defendant wife has video that she claims shows plaintiff walking on her property, but he's actually on the sidewalk and then the street.   $212.45 for vet bills.  I don't blame the plaintiff for carrying a baseball bat now when he walks his dogs.   

The Dalmatian attacks Lab case (the Pit/Lab looked like pure Lab to me) was very confusing, but a lot of that was the constant contradictions between the two defendants.   With the son chiming in, making stupid claims, it was even worse.     I bet the Dalmatian has more than one attack, and despite the Disney movie, I've known some really aggressive, nasty Dalmatians over the years. 

 The video showed the defendants, and their son were liars.    And if you don't want someone walking on a public street, and carrying a baseball bat, then keep your animal under control, and behind a fence.     My guess is the defendants let their dog outside a lot, in the front yard.        

The statement about the wife warming her car up didn't make sense to me.   It was June, in San Diego, and it couldn't have been cold.    

50K Bail and Seizures in Jail-Plaintiff suing defendant (her cousin) for an unpaid loan for bail.   Defendant was arrested for domestic violence, had been in jail for a few weeks before bail was posted.  Plaintiff says defendant called him collect from jail, and told her he needed $50k assured bail.   

Defendant counter suing for plaintiff posting his arrest record, which is apparently pretty extensive.     Plaintiff put up $3,000 for bail, he repaid $195, and JJ awards plaintiff $2805, and nothing to defendant.   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiff has two dogs, and was walking them on leash, when defendant wife opened garage door, letting the defendant's dog out, and the attack happened. 

I'm not sure if there was a language barrier, but it seems to me the defendant was trying to explain that she used a remote starter to start her car.  JJ went ballistic.  "YOU CAN'T START A CAR WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BRAKE PEDAL!!!"  Judy probably gets driven everywhere in a limo and is out of touch with remote starters and voice commands for a car.

Defendant's household was odd to say the least.  The answer they filed was corrected to say that instead of doing housework, she was leaving for work.  She was "warming up" her car on a June day.  The wife also testified that as soon as the garage door opened, or the front door opened, or bells went off, or something, her mother began doing landscaping in the front yard.  I watched the video where they claim the plaintiff's dog was in their front yard.  Geez, it might have stepped over from the sidewalk to put a foot in their yard.  My husband and I observe a man in our sub encourage his male dog to raise his leg and urinate on our brick mailbox, but when we've confronted him about it, he denies it.

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

JJ went ballistic.  "YOU CAN'T START A CAR WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BRAKE PEDAL!!!"  Judy probably gets driven everywhere in a limo and is out of touch with remote starters and voice commands for a car.

Plus push button start. And you can start a car without depressing the brake pedal, but you can't put it into gear. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

God, she's becoming such an embarrassment.  Poor Byrd.  He obviously still wants to hold on to this job.

I'm old enough to remember the Watergate Hearings.  This reminds me of Senator Montoya telling witnesses to "talk into the machine."  He meant the microphone, but he was too old to know what it was called.

  • Like 6

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