All Episodes Talk: All Rise

howiveaddict · April 22, 2020

Hard to believe the guy getting the Iphone, would even want the package just thrown over the fence. When we have an expensive package delivered, hubby will have it left at UPS or a nearby Walgreens. We would never trust it to not be stolen off our porch. I guess that is why he has a pit bull. To keep his packages from being stolen. Hopefully the next delivery person will just throw this man's packages like a foot ball, crashing on the porch, or landing in a puddle.. Or maybe the pit will bite the package. Maybe the mail man should just throw his mail over the fence also. Especially in the rain.

Did the driver sue for pain and suffering? If not, he should have.

Ilovecomputers · April 22, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

They selected an $850 headstone, ordered from defendant, and it was completed. There is actually a signed contract.

In my line of work I used to see a lot of itemized funeral and burial expenses, and I was amazed that beautiful, large headstone cost only $850.

JJ did not illustrate the four corners of a contract in the air, which was a huge letdown for me.

Don’t like JJ’s Ruth Bader Ginsberg haircut. JJ has too long a widow’s peak for it, and her other hairstyle made her look younger.

CrazyInAlabama · April 22, 2020

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

First-

Teen Child Support Woes-Plaintiff suing defendant (ex-wife) for child support (they have 2 kids 17 and 14) and extra curricular activities for the 17 year old. Defendant is now unemployed, but plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay when she had a job. Plaintiff's witness is current wife. Plaintiff was divorced while he was incarcerated, and no child support order was in place, and each litigant had one kid living with them (plaintiff's child lived with grandmother during the unfortunate incarceration), until last year.

Defendant agreed to split dental bills, and extra curriculars, for the kids that both live with plaintiff. Plaintiff wants over $3,000. Defendant is unemployed, and she's getting paid to go back to school (phlebotomy), and for the four month course will be broke. Plaintiffs claim woman isn't unemployed, and hasn't been.

There is no formal family court order for support, and JJ says they should go back to court. Defendant says plaintiff is taking her to court for child support soon.

Plaintiff gets $1133 for the kid's braces.

Baby Car Seat Slip-Up-Plaintiff suing defendant (they were roommates for a few months). Defendant put her two year old in a high chair/booster seat, not a real car seat for the baby. Plaintiff got a ticket for driving slowly in the high speed lane, and her fines were $484, and a ticket was for plaintiff as a driver, for having a baby unsecured in the car.

As the driver, both tickets were issued to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had to pay late fees for the tickets, so she wants $900+ total. As JJ says, plaintiff got a ticket for driving improperly, and allowed the defendant to use an improper car seat.

Case dismissed.

Second-

God's Gift to Women in the Hot Seat-Plaintiffs (loser ex-boyfriend, and his current fiance) suing defendant (his former girlfriend, and roommate, along with a cast of thousands) for false arrest.

Defendant used to live with plaintiff man, they shared a bedroom for two years, and raised their three children together, in a one bedroom apartment. The three children slept in one bed, and the two litigants slept in the same bed, with both beds in the same room. New fiance has one on the way with loser plaintiff, and she has other kids too.

Plaintiff man moved out two years before the case. Plaintiff man went from defendant's place, and right into his current fiance's place. There was a kerfuffle at kid's school, on open house night, and where at least two of the kids go to school, and man was arrested, after defendant received restraining order against defendant man. For the two years, plaintiff man, and defendant texted back and forth, and that stopped when defendant filed for restraining order.

Plaintiff man says he only boinked defendant once, in his brother's truck. How classy for both litigants. Plaintiff claims he never keyed defendant's car, or slashed her tires. Defendant claims there's security camera footage of man vandalizing car, but of course, there's no copy. Plaintiff told defendant his current fiance isn't fat like defendant is (OK he said his current, beautiful fiance is 'regular size' unlike the defendant).

Protective order against plaintiff man was granted for 18 months, and he claims defendant drives by his house constantly. Plaintiff mommy was also granted an order against defendant man too. Bar must be pretty low for that to happen in their jurisdiction, for the equivalent of 'he looked at me funny', and when the defendant assaulted the plaintiffs.

Defendant case dismissed. Plaintiff case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · April 22, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

The German Shepherd and His Live Terrier Chew Toy-Plaintiff suing ($2256 vet bills) defendant for an attack on his dog. Plaintiff's 8 year old daughter was walking the Jack Russell Terrier, leashed, on the front lawn, when the defendant's German Shepherd dog attacked in the plaintiff's front yard. Plaintiff says a year ago they adopted the JRT, and the dog got out, and chased the defendant's witness's cat. Byrd cracks up about Black and White TVs.

Defendant witness claims plaintiff dog was on defendant's front lawn, and girl was standing on the sidewalk, but it was a 4" leash. Defendant's German Shepherd (GSD) was on his front lawn, but witness claims GSD was on some kind of lead. Defendant's witness went outside when the child was screaming, and saw the plaintiff father running down the street. The little girl testifies that the GSD picked her JRT up in it's mouth, and chewed on it like a chew toy.

I think since the JRT was on the grass in defendant's front yard, the plaintiff's claim is ridiculous. Plaintiff says GSD didn't have a leash on, but it was the defendant's property. JJ's question is if plaintiff has no responsibility in this fight. I don't think the little girl should have been walking the JRT, they aren't big, but they're often hostile to other dogs, and strong.

Plaintiff claims when he arrived at the attack, that GSD didn't have a leash or restraint, and was unattended, but never left the owner's property.

I think the little girl should never have been walking that dog, and the plaintiff should have been told the vet bill was all his. The little dog was trespassing, and paid the price, and his owner should have paid the price also.

I shudder to think what would happen if the JRT wanted to get in the face of another dog, and dragged the girl in front of a car, or into the reach of a human aggressive animal. JRTs are called Jack Russell Terrorists (instead of Terriers) for a good reason. They are dog aggressive, never back down, and even fight with other JRT's in the same household sometimes.

The plaintiff learned nothing from that, because from what he said the little girl is still walking Cujo, the JRT by herself.

Plaintiff gets $1100 (half of vet bills, because some of this was his fault).

Second-

You Can Put Lipstick on a Pit Bull-Plaintiff suing for attack by defendant's two pit bulls (at the time he had two female adults, and six puppies, or maybe more). Plaintiff (has a Labrador Retriever) heard a dog fight, and saw three dogs (American Bull Dogs, aka Pits) attacking his Labrador Retriever. Plaintiff saw his dog right at his back door, being savaged by the defendant's dogs (he has 4 acres). The plaintiff tried to give the photos, and vet bills to defendant, who refused to care. Defendant's dogs are American Bulldogs, and he keeps whining they're not Pits, but close enough the way they act.

Defendant, after a visit from animal control was told to put his pits down or pay vicious dog registration fees, increase his insurance, and would have special requirements to keep other people and dogs safe. Defendant has his dogs put down. (Any one want to bet he replaced the dogs, and what breed they are?)

Plaintiff had to pay $6,000+ for vet bills, nurse the dog back to health after horrific injuries, and paid a ton of money for surgery and treatment for his Lab. If the defendant shakes his head again like a bobble head doll, I wish Byrd would punch him out. The nasty smirk on the defendant is just as irritating to me, as it is to JJ. Plaintiff saw defendant's dogs, with blood on them, run back to the defendant's house. Defendant still claims it was a wandering coyotes, strays, or Martians, not his dogs.

Plaintiff $5,000 (bill for dog exceeded $6,000).

Daddy's Little Pageant Girl-Plaintiff (pageant hair and makeup person) wasn't paid by pageant Daddy from Hell, for her services. The first time it cost $600 for the hair extensions, and makeup.. Plaintiff was supposed to do hair and makeup six times, for two to three hours each time for a pageant, and sometimes for photo sessions. There was supposed to be a hotel room included, but didn't happen.

The plaintiff says payment was supposed to be $2500. Plaintiff says defendant actually paid her only $100, and defendant says she didn't do a good job on the first day, but still employed her for the rest of the week. (Whatever the defendant is doing to his eyebrows, he needs to stop before they disappear completely).

$2400 to plaintiff.

Defendant is counter suing for breach of privacy. Counter claim dismissed.

Ilovecomputers · April 23, 2020

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think since the JRT was on the grass in defendant's front yard, the plaintiff's claim is ridiculous. Plaintiff says GSD didn't have a leash on, but it was the defendant's property. JJ's question is if plaintiff has no responsibility in this fight. I don't think the little girl should have been walking the JRT, they aren't big, but they're often hostile to other dogs, and strong.

Exactly! It's possible the homeowners had an invisible fence, although the defendant said his wife had trained the dog well. The German Shepherd never left its own yard. Sorry about the other dog's injuries, but it was clearly in the shepherd's yard and the little girl was not able to pull her dog back onto the sidewalk. The plaintiff should not have had to pay "A ZERO."

Florinaldo · April 23, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

You Can Put Lipstick on a Pit Bull

Defendant was ridiculous, not only with his silly defense, but also with his hairdo. That kind of cut is difficult enough for a teenager to pull off, it just does not work for a man his age. It made him look like a mature douche trying to pass for decades younger.

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Daddy's Little Pageant Girl

A case which proves that pageant dads can be as unreasonable, pushy and bullying as pageant moms.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Florinaldo

CrazyInAlabama · April 23, 2020

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

First (New)-(A great day for incriminating videos)

Shocking Vandalism Caught on Tape-Plaintiff and defendant had a car accident. Plaintiff was driving, but doing a U-turn, and defendant's car was hit by plaintiff. Defendant claimed she didn't cause the accident. Then there is a video of defendant bashing the car windows, and slashing the tires on the plaintiff's car. Both litigants had insurance, but defendant's name wasn't on her car's insurance policy. Defendant says plaintiff's insurance was in the plaintiff's husband's name, and plaintiff claimed she has a video from her dash car cam of the wreck. The accident is totally the plaintiff's fault. Plaintiff's windshield is so smudged or dirty, I bet she couldn't see out of it. Defendant's car damages are $3402, but plaintiff then has the video of plaintiff vandalizing the plaintiff's car, in broad daylight.

Defendant claims it's not her on the video, but it absolutely is the defendant. This occurred the same day as the accident.

JJ deducts the plaintiff's damages from the defendant's car damages, so defendant receives $1500.

Don't Lay Your Hands on a Minor-Plaintiff suing former co-worker (17 years old) and his ex-girlfriend (15 years old) for false arrest, lost wages, and claims the defendant burglarized her house. Plaintiff claims girlfriend was complaining about the male defendant's actions, and put her hands on him. Defendant male says plaintiff's fingernails hurt him, police were called by defendant's father, and plaintiff was arrested, fired, and banned from the restaurant. Sounds like a good arrest to me. The video clearly shows the assault.

There are three police reports submitted. Defendant claims there is other video footage, but someone broke into her home last week, and the only thing stolen was the video footage.

Plaintiff claims the defendant man assaulted her the day before, but has no proof.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Second (Rerun)-

Family Heirlooms on the Hot Seat-Plaintiff suing ex-sister-in-law over belongings in a family storage unit. Defendant is counter claiming for loss of family heirlooms. Storage unit fees weren't paid by plaintiff, but he claims he didn't know how much to pay. Defendant says she paid over $850 total, until she was informed that the unit was in arrears, and contents were auctioned off. Defendant claims she paid her part on the storage. The plaintiff never paid his $700 for the storage unit, so the storage company foreclosed, and auctioned the storage contents off. Plaintiff claims the defendant never told him how much to pay for the storage unit.

Defendant says the plaintiff has been separated from her sister for over two years, and he's not paying support for his four children.

Plaintiff case dismissed by JJ. Defendant case dismissed too.

Foster Cat Dubbed Too Aggressive-Plaintiff suing former friend for return of her cat, and travel expenses. Plaintiff adopted cat as 6 year old, and had cat for two years. Plaintiff gave defendant her cat to foster, because plaintiff was homeless (November 2017)at the time. Eight weeks later defendant sent texts saying cat was aggressive, and couldn't stay in her home any longer (January 2018).

Plaintiff said she would pick up cat in March 2018, but never saw the cat, or contacted the defendant. However, defendant says cat was taken to shelter at the end of February 2018, and plaintiff wants money for cat she hasn't seen since 2017. Plaintiff never sent a penny to the defendant for cat. Plaintiff seems to think she's going to get cat back, but it's long gone by now. Plaintiff claims she has proof the cat was never at the Twin Falls animal shelter. Even if cat was adopted, plaintiff is not getting the information on the new owner, or getting the cat back.

Cases dismissed.

Buyer Beware of Damaged Home-Plaintiff suing his former tenant for unpaid rent, and for contributing to diminished value of his house he was trying to sell. Defendant suing for moving costs, and other stuff. (JJ forgot her glasses, can't use Byrd's glasses, and has to get hers). Plaintiff gave notice to defendant for 30 days (in lease). He wanted tenant out because prospective buyer didn't want to pay that price with the damaged condition. Defendant says plaintiff wanted her to lie to prospective buyers that she was staying as a tenant, even after she was moving, and he terminated her lease. Landlord isn't out rent, because he used her security deposit.

There is no proof why buyer backed out, or the former buyer as witness, so no money for plaintiff

Florinaldo · April 24, 2020

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims it's not her on the video, but it absolutely is the defendant.

From the few full-body shots we got in the courtroom, it's either her or someone with the exact same silhouette who also had a grudge against the plaintiff. Quite the coincidence... And still she insists it was not her.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Lay Your Hands on a Minor

But that assault was done "playfully" and she was acting with big sisterly intentions, so how could she have been so unjustly mistreated by the police? Come to think of it, her action should have been filed against the police since they are the ones who decided to make the arrest, not the defendants.

I love it when litigants bring in evidence that they are soo stupid to realise undermines or contradicts their own claim.

khyber · April 24, 2020

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I love it when litigants bring in evidence that they are soo stupid to realise undermines or contradicts their own claim.

Amazing that the U-turn driver thought that proved she was in the right.

CrazyInAlabama · April 24, 2020

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

First-

Fraud and Forgery-Plaintiff suing defendant/former boss/neighbor for forging plaintiff's name on checks. Plaintiff suing for fraud and unpaid wages. Plaintiff worked for defendant for one summer. Defendant has one full time worker, and two or three part time workers, and pays checks or cash. Plaintiff claims defendant had plaintiff's account number, and pin code, and would deposit checks to plaintiff's account, then withdraw the money immediately. Some of the checks are signed with plaintiff's name misspelled, and are different handwriting.

Defendant claims plaintiff got into a fight with defendant's wife, so he fired plaintiff. When plaintiff was fired, defendant never paid his final pay. Also, there are text messages after the 'firing', saying that defendant was scheduling plaintiff to work. Defendant is now claiming he loaned plaintiff money, and didn't have him work for him after September.

$1700 for plaintiff, and defendant is a jerk.

Contractor Conman-Plaintiff hired defendant to trim trees on her property, and wrote him a check for $4,000. Plaintiff is suing for failure to complete a landscaping job that she paid him for, but didn't finish. Defendant claims this case ended his landscaping business, and has not filed income tax since 2011, he gets paid in cash fairly often. Plaintiff didn't know anything about the defendant when she hired him to trim an oak tree. Then plaintiff hired defendant to remodel the front yard, and patio, and paid defendant to do this too.

Defendant brought some gravel for the patio base, and did nothing else. Defendant has invoices, and estimates, but has not paid anything. His former business partner is witness for the plaintiff.

Plaintiff receives $4,000.

Second-

Dysfunctional Household-Plaintiff and father suing defendant /former girlfriend for a false restraining order, and attorney fees defending against the restraining order. Defendant filed a restraining order against the boyfriend, to get him out of the apartment to move her new boyfriend in. Plaintiff /boyfriend lived with defendant for three years, with her two minor children. Plaintiff father moved in when he had health issues. Litigants broke up, but lived together with their kids (2 are hers, 1 is his), for a while. The new boyfriend wears an ankle monitor, for criminal reasons. Defendants didn't want the boyfriend, and his ankle monitor around the kids.

Defendant filed for a restraining order, to get rid of plaintiffs, and move in boyfriend (new boyfriend can't live there for legal reasons). Defendant claims her 8 year old was hit on the arm by plaintiff, and didn't report to the police for over a week. Then defendant filed for the protective order, so she could get the plaintiffs out, and she could keep the apartment. Defendant did this to avoid going to housing court, or moving to another location.

Defendant's new boyfriend can't live with her, because he's a registered sex offender, with an ankle monitor. New boyfriend was also convicted for drugs.

Plaintiff's get some property back, Plaintiff's get motel and moving fees, and $700 security deposit. $2300 for plaintiffs, defendant gets nothing.

My Tenant, the Vandal-Plaintiff suing former tenant for vandalizing her rental property. Defendant moved out in August 2016. $550 was the security and pet deposit (supposed to be $850). Plaintiff/landlady found out multiple people not on lease, including nephew, nephew's girlfriend, defendant's brother, and two other people, were living in apartment. Original roommate moved out very quickly after signing the lease. One resident included defendant's husband, who she's trying to serve divorce paper on (he had 'anger issues' according to defendant). Defendant did not take pictures of apartment condition, and didn't do a walk through, or notify the plaintiff when she was moving.

I love the plaintiff, she has before and after pictures of the apartment. There are large holes punched in the wall, discarded cigarettes on the carpet, and lots of trash. Plaintiff hired some outside repair people, and her husband and son to do the extensive repairs to the apartment.

Defendant claims in hall-terview that someone else must have broken in and damaged the apartment after she left.

$5,000 to plaintiff

Edited April 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

ThePurpleArcher · April 24, 2020

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Lay Your Hands on a Minor-Plaintiff suing former co-worker (17 years old) and his ex-girlfriend (15 years old) for false arrest, lost wages, and claims the defendant burglarized her house. Plaintiff claims girlfriend was complaining about the male defendant's actions, and put her hands on him. Defendant male says plaintiff's fingernails hurt him, police were called by defendant's father, and plaintiff was arrested, fired, and banned from the restaurant. Sounds like a good arrest to me. The video clearly shows the assault.

There are three police reports submitted. Defendant claims there is other video footage, but someone broke into her home last week, and the only thing stolen was the video footage.

Plaintiff claims the defendant man assaulted her the day before, but has no proof.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

The best part of the case was when the plaintiff tried to claim the city of Atlanta was racist, and she had lawsuits against them currently for being racist. And this is why the police report was wrong - because the department is against her.

Whew!

Ashforth · April 24, 2020

51 minutes ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

The best part of the case was when the plaintiff tried to claim the city of Atlanta was racist

That actually may be true, but it seems unlikely to apply in this scenario.

CrazyInAlabama · April 24, 2020

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

First (New)-

Teen Witnesses Father's Arrest-Plaintiff is ex of defendant, during a custody exchange the defendant called police about an 'alleged' assault on her. Plaintiff is suing for a false arrest, and a false restraining order. This was during a custody tug-of-war, defendant ignores the child's father's rights, tried to take their teen son, then has the father arrested. All of this happened in front of the teen son. Defendant's 'assault' sounds like classic 'flopping' the way the soccer players do.

Plaintiff's witness is his current wife, who has three children, and plaintiff has two children with the defendant. Plaintiff's teen son was the witness to this arrest. Plaintiff wife/witness paid the bail. Defendant came to plaintiff's home to get teen son, and it wasn't her weekend for visitation with the son. Defendant wanted to take son to dinner, and claims she arranged this via text with son, and ex-husband. Defendant didn't keep the text messages. Defendant didn't have permission from plaintiff to come to his house. Teen son (16 then) lives full time with plaintiff, and is angry with his mother, the defendant. Son is now 16, and opted to live with his father full time.

The two litigants were arguing over the son going with the defendant, and defendant grabbed son, and tried to force him to go with her. That's when son left the scene, defendant called the police, and claimed the plaintiff pushed her, and she fell. Defendant claims a friend saw the assault, and called the police (witness did not come to court). There are no photos of the 'injuries' (defendant claims they were in her car, that was burglarized), and the medical report shows no injuries, or other issues. Defendant didn't go to the doctor for three days.

Defendant's story is son wanted to go with her, plaintiff pulled up at his house in the car, and defendant claims plaintiff was yelling at her. Plaintiff said no to son going with mother on this occasion. Then defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and shoved her to the ground. Plaintiff said that defendant not only wanted to take son to dinner, but then take him home to San Diego where she lives.

Bail was $1641, case was dismissed, and defendant's request for a restraining order was dismissed also. Plaintiff gets $1641

Second (Rerun)-

Virtual Reality Vandalism-Plaintiff is suing her boyfriend's friend, for breaking her TV while playing a VR game. Plaintiff's witness is her boyfriend. Defendant says plaintiff's boyfriend broke the TV. Plaintiff witness says it was raining, so he couldn't work as a landscaper. However, it was sunny, and clear that day. Plaintiff witness says defendant bumped into the TV several times, and later screen was damaged.

Defendant was an invited guest, all were playing the game. However, there is a text from defendant to plaintiff that he will pay for the TV. Defendant says he was covering for plaintiff's witness, and took the fault.

Defendant said he paid plaintiff $200, and witness was supposed to pay him back, but witness didn't.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Her witness invited the friend's over to play games, so damage was his responsibility, not defendant's fault.

Shocking Slander Accusation-Plaintiff/landlady suing defendant/former tenant for unpaid rent, and damages . Plaintiff also claimed that defendant is a rapist, which is a lie. Plaintiff wants $90 for food, and two months rent. Defendant lived one month without paying rent, but says he took care of woman's invalid brother. Plaintiff gets $650 for rent.

Defendant says plaintiff sent a text message to him saying he was a rapist, and also posted a craigslist warning to tell others he was a bad tenant. Defamation charge dismissed.

Plaintiff gets $650 rent.

Edited April 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

ThePurpleArcher · April 24, 2020

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Teen Witnesses Father's Arrest-Plaintiff is ex of defendant, during a custody exchange the defendant called police about an 'alleged' assault on her. Plaintiff is suing for a false arrest, and a false restraining order. This was during a custody tug-of-war, defendant ignores the child's father's rights, tried to take their teen son, then has the father arrested. All of this happened in front of the teen son. Defendant's 'assault' sounds like classic 'flopping' the way the soccer players do.

Plaintiff's witness is his current wife, who has three children, and plaintiff has two children with the defendant. Plaintiff's teen son was the witness to this arrest. Plaintiff wife/witness paid the bail. Defendant came to plaintiff's home to get teen son, and it wasn't her weekend for visitation with the son. Defendant wanted to take son to dinner, and claims she arranged this via text with son, and ex-husband. Defendant didn't keep the text messages. Defendant didn't have permission from plaintiff to come to his house. Teen son (16 then) lives full time with plaintiff, and is angry with his mother, the defendant. Son is now 16, and opted to live with his father full time.

The two litigants were arguing over the son going with the defendant, and defendant grabbed son, and tried to force him to go with her. That's when son left the scene, defendant called the police, and claimed the plaintiff pushed her, and she fell.   Defendant claims a friend saw the assault, and called the police (witness did not come to court). There are no photos of the 'injuries' (defendant claims they were in her car, that was burglarized), and the medical report shows no injuries, or other issues. Defendant didn't go to the doctor for three days.

Defendant's story is son wanted to go with her, plaintiff pulled up at his house in the car, and defendant claims plaintiff was yelling at her. Plaintiff said no to son going with mother on this occasion. Then defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her, and shoved her to the ground. Plaintiff said that defendant not only wanted to take son to dinner, but then take him home to San Diego where she lives.

Bail was $1641, case was dismissed, and defendant's request for a restraining order was dismissed also.

In a case which should have taken 12 minutes, tops, JJ decided to stretch this out for a full 30 minute episode to keep reminding the defendant she 'caused the situation'. It got old by the tenth time she told her, and we had another three more times to go. What a dull case.

31 minutes ago, Ashforth said:

That actually may be true, but it seems unlikely to apply in this scenario.

It could be true, but no - Judge Judy wasn't buying it. Neither was I - I doubt it had anything to do with her arrest or the case. Yet she looked so disgusted when JJ dismissed that defense.

ThePurpleArcher · April 24, 2020

And if I recall correctly, the lady who pulled the 17 year old's ear, reported that the only thing missing from her 'house robbery' was the evidence she wanted to bring in. She taught us a new word for the Judge Judy dictionary:

Coinkadennal. She asked twice if it was "coinkadennal" that it was the only thing missing from her house being robbed ?

Florinaldo · April 25, 2020

2 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

And if I recall correctly, the lady who pulled the 17 year old's ear, reported that the only thing missing from her 'house robbery' was the evidence she wanted to bring in.

She was asking a lot, expecting us to believe that thieves were so single-minded and organised that they managed to locate in her house where exactly she was keeping the recording, apparently the sole copy. About as believable as when she tried to play the racism card. All done "playfully", of course.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Witnesses Father's Arrest

For a college professor, the defendant came across as not very perceptive, grinning like an idiot all the way through the verdict and not listening to JJ's explanations.

Taeolas · April 25, 2020

Sad news in the JJ world. :(

Quote

Jerry Bishop, a Los Angeles radio veteran who served as the announcer for TV’s syndicated smash Judge Judy since its first season in 1996, has died at 84. Bishop died April 21, the show’s publicist Gary Rosen said.

Bishop was the show’s announcer up until his final days, spanning thousands of episodes of the daytime strip that is set to wrap next year.

“Jerry Bishop has been the voice of our program for 24 years,” star Judy Sheindlin said in a statement. “Everybody loved him. He had a golden heart and generous spirit. I adored him and will miss him.”

The last season is going to be really strange now. 😞

DoctorK · April 25, 2020

13 hours ago, ThePurpleArcher said:

Yet she looked so disgusted when JJ dismissed that defense.

That woman was so convinced that her interpretation of "stand your ground" was correct that it was painful to watch. You are a fool to carry (and use defensively) a firearm without understanding applicable state law. In fact, what she did by threatening should get her permit reviewed and suspended or revoked (but it won't happen, more important things come first); if she had any training (not all states require it but even then you need to understand the rules) it would have covered what stand your ground actually means. She reminded me of the fools we see on COPS and LIVE PD who claim to be "sovereign citizens" who have learned all about the constitution from the internet.

CrazyInAlabama · April 27, 2020

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

First-

Man Suspects He's a Father-Plaintiff suing child's father for vandalizing her vehicle, and keeping, then disposing of her property. Plaintiff had child by defendant, she wanted them to be a family (for 4 months, September to December), and co-parent the baby. For the first four months of the child's life, plaintiff said someone else was the father, then there was a paternity test at the defendant's request. When paternity was confirmed, defendant invited plaintiff to move in with him, for the baby's sake. The litigants were living together, as co-parents, not romantic partners. In November, plaintiff claims man broke her phone, assaulted her, vandalized her car, trashed her property. Plaintiff claims man came home to his own house, drunk and with another woman. Plaintiff claims when she told the woman to leave, that he assaulted her, broke her phone, and vandalized her car.

Police officer told man to leave until he sobered up. Defendant slept at his friend's home, down the street. Plaintiff complains that man came in his own home the next day. Police report notes no evidence of injury or abuse. When plaintiff went to police to the man's house, her property was outside, and claims a dent in her car was his fault.

Plaintiff claims her phone was gone, and man admitted denting her Jeep. Of course, defendant denies that. Plaintiff also wants a TV, and dining set, but defendant says he has nothing belonging to the plaintiff.

(I believe nothing the plaintiff says. She didn't even tell defendant he might have a child, until he saw a picture of the baby, and demanded a DNA test). $994 for plaintiff.

Dog Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing defendant/former friend over custody of a dog, and emotional distress. )Defendant's Bozo red hair, and tattoo are ugly, and what is that giant mole next to her lip?) Plaintiff and boyfriend lived together, bought the dog (a Pit Bull, and pocket Pit-doesn't exist), broke up, and couldn't take the dog to her mother's house where she lived. Plaintiff asked defendant to take care of dog, and now claims her mother will let her keep the dog at her place (plaintiff lives with Mom now, but brought Godmother to court). When plaintiff went to defendant's house with the police to get the dog, she told police "she would figure it out". Police refused to give the dog to plaintiff.

Plaintiff came back again, and still had no where to take the dog. Defendant wants the dog, and she gets the dog back.

Second-

Lying Teens False Imprisonment-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend for assault, false imprisonment, and the cost of a new phone. Plaintiff was staying over at the defendant's house, (she's 19, he's 21).. Plaintiff mother claims daughter went to stay with her other sibling, but she really went to boyfriend's house instead. Plaintiff arrived at 2 a.m. at defendant's home, and they were arguing. Plaintiff says she wasn't drinking, because she was driving (doesn't mention she's underage). The next day, when plaintiff woke up, the argument continued. Plaintiff didn't have her car, she came back to mother's house, and defendant picked her up at mother's house, and took her to his place. Plaintiff's mother dislikes defendant, and so plaintiff was secretly staying at defendant's home.

Plaintiff claims defendant kept her boots, and she started walking home in the snow, then defendant gave her the boots back. Then she got in his car, and claims he took her to the defendants apartment, and claims she jumped out of defendant's car. Defendant says plaintiff must have left her phone somewhere, and he's going to pay for that. Police report says nothing special, and defendant says plaintiff broke his phone.

Plaintiff gets $350 for her previous phone. Medical records say nothing about injuries.

Don't Be Late for Court-Plaintiff suing former friend, for car payments, and car insurance costs. ( Defendant was late for court, can't figure out time changes from NY, to LA). Defendant had DUIs, and lost her license. Plaintiff says defendant wanted him to drive her around, and she would pay car payments, insurance, but didn't pay for two months.

Plaintiff case is dismissed, since they were still involved.

CrazyInAlabama · April 27, 2020

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

First (New)-

Wait! I'm Not the Baby Daddy-Plaintiff is suing defendant and his brother, for vandalizing his car, and emotional distress. (Short version, plaintiff witness is baby mama, defendant thought her kid was his. Defendant got suspicious about parentage, had a DNA test, and found out defendant is not the baby's father). Plaintiff baby mama, and defendant were shacking up, mama left the baby with defendant. It was discovered that mama was dating the plaintiff at the same time. At the time plaintiff thought the defendant was the father also. At this time, defendant found out plaintiff was involved with plaintiff mama. (I had to fix it, the defendant is not the baby's biological father, neither is the plaintiff, so I wonder who is?)

Plaintiff and witness pull up to pick up baby from defendant(in defendant's car with the heat on), and put baby in plaintiff's car. Then the claim is the defendant's brother vandalized the car. Then a huge screaming argument starts, police come, argument stops, police leave. Plaintiff claims defendant smashed his car windshield, but he had to take the car to the police station to do the report.

Plaintiff witness/mama was trolling online for new boyfriends, when she was living with defendant.

Then defendant gets a DNA test, and finds out that baby isn't his. JJ doesn't believe defendant doesn't know how back windshield broke. Plaintiff and witness have broken up since the argument, and are just friends. Plaintiff's witness was dating him after meeting online, and were 'dating' while she was still living with the defendant. Plaintiff and witness/mama didn't even use a car seat when they left defendant's house.

Defendant witness/brother thinks plaintiff and witness did the damage themselves, and then are trying to get $5k out of JJ.

Plaintiff wants $5k for his windshield. As JJ says, he's not squeezing $5k out of her for a 2011 Chevy Cruze.

Plaintiff witness told plaintiff she was only living as friends with defendant.

Plaintiff gets $500 or so for his windshield.

Second (Rerun)-

Aussiedoodle Visitation Battle-Plaintiff is suing for return, or money for an Aussiedoodle puppy. Plaintiff bought puppy from some pet store, for $1200, and had dog for 3 months. Defendant saw poor condition of dog, saw it was neglected, and she immediately took the dog to the vet. I totally loathe the plaintiff, and his wife. Who can live with a tiny puppy tossed outside to live on a chain behind the shed?

Plaintiff says he only agreed to sell puppy to defendant if his family had the right to visitation (he's suing for $3600). Plaintiff posted on Facebook to sell the puppy for $750.

Plaintiff offered to sell dog for $750, but defendant wanted to pay him $500. Puppy was outside, chained up behind a shed, when it was 96 degrees. Vet said dog was matted (hair coat mats had to be professionally removed, and can be very painful and damaging to the dog skin). Defendant claims she agreed to pay plaintiff $500

Sales picture with ad of puppy are awful, with matted coat, and puppy was outside on heavy chain.

JJ pays the loser plaintiff the money, $500.

Violent Lesbian Temper Tantrum-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for destroying her clothes and furniture, and an assault. The litigants dated for a while, but then were just roommates, and lived together. However, the clothes destruction happened a year ago, and the litigants still lived together after this.

Case dismissed.

Edited April 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Steph J · April 27, 2020

46 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Short version, plaintiff witness is baby mama, defendant thought her kid was his. Defendant got suspicious about parentage, had a DNA test, and found out defendant is not the baby.

Twist!

This was one of the weird ones where I was kind of rooting for the defendant despite thinking he's guilty.

CrazyInAlabama · April 28, 2020

15 hours ago, Steph J said:

This was one of the weird ones where I was kind of rooting for the defendant despite thinking he's guilty.

I fixed my post. The defendant found out he's not the baby's biological father. And we know plaintiff isn't either, since he didn't know the baby mama until after baby was born. I wonder if the mother has the slightest idea who the father is? I wonder if she's thought about going on the Maury show?

I don't know who whacked the back windshield, but plaintiff still doesn't have a clue what his 'friend'/witness is like, does he?

Edited April 28, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Ashforth · April 28, 2020

2 hours ago, Steph J said:

Twist!

This was one of the weird ones where I was kind of rooting for the defendant despite thinking he's guilty.

The Plaintiff's story was so jumbled. And the baby momma just sat there looking like the jerk she is. I was a little surprised that JJ didn't call her to testify, especially since there was so much confusion over the car seat, who took the baby, why they were still at the apartment complex.

I also found the Defendant sympathetic and he sure looked and sounded good, as did his brother. I can almost forgive him for smashing the plaintiff's rear windshield (and it did look like it was with a tire iron). If it had been baby momma's car, it would have been all good.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Ashforth

Florinaldo · April 28, 2020

2 hours ago, Steph J said:

This was one of the weird ones where I was kind of rooting for the defendant despite thinking he's guilty.

Me too.

Dumbass plaintiff was an easy mark for the mute witness' lies and manipulations; he was still justifying her actions and defending her made-up story.

CrazyInAlabama · April 28, 2020

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

First-

Outrageous Mother on a Rampage-Plaintiffs (woman, and her fiance, who was ex of defendant) suing defendant /mother of plaintiff's fiance's child. Plaintiff suing for car and house vandalism by defendant at a custody exchange (the plaintiff man and defendant lived together from 2010 to 2015, and custody agreement in 2016). After plaintiff man and defendant separated, he went to court to get a custody agreement. Custody 50/50 has been rocky, she gets kid Monday-Tuesday, he gets kid Wednesday-Thursday, and they alternate Friday through Sunday.

Defendant came to visit the child up on Thursday evening at plaintiff house, for mother's weekend visit. Child had tonsils out recently, and mother wanted kid during recovery, but defendant came to visit son at plaintiff's house. Defendant called plaintiff man at work repeatedly, and defendant came to man's job to see where son was, and to see if plaintiff woman was watching the kid. Plaintiff man's supervisor called and told him the defendant was coming by the man's workplace.

Defendant dislikes plaintiff fiance woman, and then came to the home, where the house and car vandalism happened. Plaintiff woman says defendant came to house, beat sides of house, and doors with a lawn chair, smashed two huge windows at the plaintiff house, and the car windows and windshields are gone. JJ says plaintiff man should take defendant back to family court, and get supervised visitation only. JJ is not buying defendant's stupid tale that she didn't do the damage. Pictures of house and car damage are horrible.

There is an audio clip of the vandalism (sadly, they don't play it).

Plaintiff gets $1250.

Child Support Nightmare-Plaintiff suing former employee for misuse of credit cards. Defendant was paying almost $1,000 a month for child support, via payroll deduction. Then defendant fell behind in paying support, and the $1.025 was coming out of pay for seven months while employed by plaintiff. After defendant left the plaintiff's employment, the child support still came out of the plaintiffs money for three months. Plaintiff wants the three months paid back. Defendant says it was in his employment agreement that for the term of his contract the child support will be paid by plaintiff's medical practice.

Work contract says defendant is an at will employee, for $50k a year. Employee was terminated 3 months early, but child support continued.

Plaintiff gets $3500, and never had to say a word.

Second-

Father and Son Jail Time-Plaintiff suing father for money owed for sale of vehicles, and lost wages. Plaintiff received a $25k legal settlement for something that occured in Juvenile hall, and the plaintiff received the money when he turned 18. The litigants were estranged, reunited, and plaintiff's father stayed long enough to spend all of the plaintiff's money. Defendant's idea is to purchase a truck, plow vehicle, and a car, a pickup truck used for parts, only the car was running. The plaintiff purchased the vehicles for $4,000, and only drove the car, and was rearrested for a DWI in the car. Car crashed, and was totaled, and plaintiff went to jail for a year. Then when he was released from jail, son asked defendant where the other three vehicles were, (purchased for $3,000), and sold back to the friend for $1500. Plaintiff is suing father for $4,000. Father also went to jail for two years, again, also.

(Plaintiff has to leave court to toss his cookies). Son spent $11k partying with father, and then spent the rest in jail, last of the money is gone. Case dismissed.

Car Lot Bug-Plaintiff wants money back for a car she wanted to purchase from defendant's car lot, for $6500 total price ($7200 with tax and tags). Plaintiff wanted to purchase car on lay away, where defendant keeps the car on their sales lot, until car paid off. The pay off date isn't in the original contract. Additional note says plaintiff will pay off in 90 days. Plaintiff denies the signature on the addendum is a forgery. Plaintiff didn't pay off car, and complains car wasn't stored indoors, or covered with a tarp. Defendants counter suing for unpaid balance ($4543).

Plaintiff paid a total of $2800 over six months. Then plaintiff says car was damaged by being outside on the lot, and she didn't want the car, and wants a refund. (My guess, plaintiff has zero credit to buy a car with a Blue Book of $4500 for $6500).

Plaintiff gets case dismissed, and will not get a refund. Defendant keeps the $2800 plaintiff paid, and can resell the car. Considering the Blue Book price, and the money they've already received, defendants can resell car and make out at least even.

CrazyInAlabama · April 28, 2020

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

First (New)-

Knockout Special: Two Punches for $2,500-Plaintiff suing former business partner for damaging his car while he was borrowing it, and an assault. The plaintiff loaned a 26 year old Honda to defendant for one day. Car wasn't back the save evening, and a day or two later plaintiff went to get his car, and saw the car bumper was hanging loose. Defendant claims his fiance/girlfriend borrowed the car, and had an accident. Defendant claims car had previous damage, and nothing was his fault. Car picture shows driver front bumper, around to the wheel well is trashed. Defendant claims that was existing damage on the bumper.

Plaintiff claims defendant kept car until registration and insurance expired, and never repaired the car. Then defendant punched the plaintiff. Defendant claims plaintiff was ranting and raving at defendant fiance, and so defendant punched the plaintiff.

Plaintiff submits photos of his injuries (plaintiff has very swollen lip, and face). Plaintiff claims defendant fiance was the aggressor, then the defendant punched him. The tools defendant wants back, plaintiff claims defendant stole them, so plaintiff returned them to the rightful owner. JJ makes a call to the owner of one tool, and that person confirms that plaintiff dropped off tool to him.

$3500 to plaintiff, $1,000 to fix car, and $2500 for the assault.

Half Price for Half a Driveway-Plaintiffs suing defendant for not completing a driveway (he did half of the driveway), did not do the stairs, and poor work. There is actually a written contract. Contract calls for driveway, pathway, and stairs, and they paid $3100 in advance. Contract calls for defendant to furnish materials and labor, but plaintiffs paid for gravel, and concrete.

Defendant says plaintiff only paid him half of the money ($3100), so he only did half of the driveway, and didn't do the stairs either.

$3100 to plaintiffs.

Second (Rerun)-

Life-Saving Counselor Defends Against Attack-Plaintiff suing former employee for unfinished work, and breach of contract. Litigants met through an online dating site, and she almost immediately wanted him to give her money for rent, in return for a marketing plan ($1000). Defendant never did the work, and was canned by plaintiff.

Defendant is also married now, and they only met once in July, then they met for business reasons, and didn't have a physical relationship. Defendant says the work was worth $1,000, and plaintiff says it wasn't worth that. The plaintiff is some kind of addiction counselor, he doesn't seem well suited to that, and JJ doesn't think so either. (Scott Spackey, the counselor and author, certainly has an interesting background).

(As JJ points out, meeting someone online, and then loaning them money is not smart. I think he thought she would like him better if he paid her bills).

Plaintiff gets $375 back.

20K Salt Lake City Latin Dance Festival! What Could Go Wrong-Plaintiff suing dance coach, and partner for unpaid loans, unpaid tickets, and credit card charges. Dance venue required deposits for the festival competition, so plaintiff loaned, or gave defendant the money. Defendant says plaintiff misbehaved so much at the dance studio (they had an intimate relationship), that defendant had to close the business (he only had eight clients, but they were all scholarship). Plaintiff paid, during their affair, for the contest (does that mean she's not getting money back?). Plaintiff says defendant claimed they would clear $20k, then event grew in scope, and eventually crashed and burned.

Defendant wanted to put on the Utah Latin Dance Festival, (Event was apparently cancelled at the last minute, and many participants were upset about the lack of notice about that)

Plaintiff gets nothing, since they were living together.

Carolina Girl · April 29, 2020

The defendant in the "$2,500 punch" case is SUCH a liar. I was trying to figure out what the deal was with the tools. I understood where he returned the saw to the owner, but the other tools defendant was requesting was interesting. Tell me if I have this straight: If a job requires a tool that they don't have, they expense the tool to the job, have it paid for by their client, and then defendant either KEPT the tool or returned it to the store after use to get himself a refund, rather than give it to the client, who essentially paid for it. My guess is this last time the defendant left the tool with plaintiff, who knew the scam, and he gave it the client. Although, I'm not so sure that plaintiff has clean hands on this one, since it's apparent he knew what defendant was doing and stayed in business with him (and maybe got to keep a tool himself in the process?).

And it is not "defending" your nasty car-crashing fiance when someone calls her a bitch for wrecking his car, she comes at him with a broom and you sucker punch a guy twice while he's sitting behind the wheel of his car. You're just a garden variety dickhead. Don't try to paint yourself as Sir Gallahad.

AuntiePam · April 29, 2020

OT: Did anyone else see JJ's cameo in Duncanville this past Sunday on FOX? Duncanville is an animated series. JJ played herself and was a good sport about her quirks.

Re the tools in Wednesday's episode -- I thought plaintiff was accusing Home Depot clerks of allowing defendant to steal tools, take them to checkout and out of the store without scanning. He certainly wouldn't be allowed to return tools that had been used, would he?

CrazyInAlabama · April 29, 2020

3 p.m. episodes, both reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Teen Fighting, Lying and Pregnancy-Plaintiff and 17 year old granddaughter, suing her cousin, 16 years old, and her grandmother for breaking her phone, The litigants are teenage cousins, fighting over the same loser. Defendant dated loser, and then plaintiff started dating loser, apparently there was some overlap, then plaintiff heard defendant was dating the loser again.

A fight started with defendant and some other girl at a park, then the plaintiff got involved in the fight too. Everyone went to defendant's place she was staying at her aunt's house. Defendant claims loser knocked up plaintiff, that she later miscarried. Defendant says about midnight plaintiff and her posse of 20 girls showed up at the defendant's house. Included in the posse was the loser's new girlfriend. Defendant claims plaintiff and friends attacked the car defendant, friend, and driven by friend's mother, were in. Plaintiff claims defendant had 15 people at the fight too.

Plaintiff claims defendant broke her phone. Police report says defendant admits tossing the phone in the trash, and it's in the police report. The grandmother of defendant claims defendant didn't break the phone, but JJ points out she took the police to the exact trash can where broken phone was. Of course, the phone was an iPhone.

Plaintiff gets $699 for the phone.

Alabama Landlord Shakedown-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of security deposit. Defendant/landlord says there was a lot of damage, and no notice of move out was given (15 days written notice required by lease). Plaintiff signed the lease, and she lived in the single family home with husband, and five children. Plaintiff's move out text was five days, not 15, and she didn't pay for the days covered by the lease terms. Written lease has tenant notice crossed out, and 30 days was on the lease for landlord notice to tenant to leave.

Plaintiff asked for a walk through on move out, but landlord didn't come to do the inspection, and landlady claims she found damages later. JJ's theory is landlady spent the security deposit. As JJ says, declining to do the walk through cancelled any right to damages, because she had no way to prove when the damages happened, and landlord waived her rights. Landlord didn't even bring a copy of the lease to court. Defendant wasn't the owner of home, and rented it with her ex-husband, and never owned the home. I wonder if she had the right to legally lease the house. Under Alabama law, landlords have to document damages in 30 days, and this didn't happen, so former tenant gets double the security deposit.

Plaintiff receives $2400.

Second-

Trip to Italy Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant / ex-boyfriend over a failed trip to Italy that never actually happened. Plaintiff paid the $4,000 for the trip, but defendant paid nothing. They had travel insurance, and defendant applied for, and received the almost $1200 refund, and kept all of it. The litigants mutual child got sick, so they cancelled. Plaintiff brought no proof that she paid her credit card off for the trip (both litigants, and their child). The trip insurance is to pay off what they paid for the trip, so plaintiff has to get proof she paid the credit card off.

Defendant says he would pay the car payments for plaintiff, in lieu of paying plaintiff for the trip, or giving her the trip refund. (No, it doesn't make sense to me either). Plaintiff submits the paid bill for the trip. Plaintiff received a refund from Priceline for the airline.

Brother of defendant pays him in cash, so defendant can't have his wages garnished. JJ advised plaintiff to tell the IRS about brother paying defendant under the table, and not doing withholding. Plaintiff receives no child support from loser deadbeat defendant.

$1144 to plaintiff.

Super Bowl Overtime Controversy-Plaintiff and boyfriend suing defendant, and her friend over non-payment of a Super Bowl pool, that plaintiff won at the end of the 4th quarter. However, defendant says because it went into overtime, that she doesn't owe the plaintiff the money. The way it works, each participant buys a possible score from a list, and the closest to that wins the pool. The lottery receipt has the score for the end of 4th quarter, but, defendant wanted to pay for the overtime score. Receipt for pool entry doesn't say 'final' score, just end of 4th quarter. Each square was $100, and there were 100 squares, which equals $10,000. Defendant's witness was the overtime score winner of $4,000. There are payouts at the end of each quarter. Plaintiffs received $100 for the score at the end of the 4th quarter.

$2,000 to plaintiff, because the pool rules said nothing about overtime (apparently this was the first overtime game in Super Bowl history).

Edited April 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · April 29, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Judge Judy's Snoring Room-Plaintiff and defendant were (2004 to 2010)married, and divorced about 2010, then were engaged (2018-2019), and plaintiff is suing for a broken apartment lease. Defendant claims the plaintiff was violent, and broke into her house.

However, plaintiff says defendant never actually moved in, but signed the lease (May 2019), so she's on the hook. Defendant claims she was released from the lease, but JJ says it's worthless. The litigants never agreed on what rent either paid.

Plaintiff asked his current roommate to move out, and then defendant didn't move in, and a month later plaintiff started looking for another roommate. Plaintiff lived in apartment for three years, with other roommates. Then defendant signed on lease to move into plaintiff's apartment, with a one year lease. There is no proof that the plaintiff advertised for another roommate after defendant bailed on him, to mitigate his damages.

Defendant claims plaintiff broke into her place, but plaintiff says it was a check to see if the woman had drugs in her house. Plaintiff claims ex-wife, and ex-fiance is a meth user.

$3750 to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.

Ungrateful Stepson-Plaintiff suing his estranged step father for insurance and registration fees for a car he purchased from step father. Plaintiff says he paid in full, received tickets and fines for not registering car, but step father refused to give him the title.

Plaintiff has no proof, but claims he paid the step father for the insurance, and has been unable to register the car in his name. Title currently is in plaintiff's hands, but he still can't register the vehicle. He now has the title, but it took 9 months to get the title from step father. Fines, and tickets supposedly make it impossible for plaintiff to register car in his name (nope, didn't understand a word about why).

Car was $900, and it's worth double that, so case dismissed.

Second-

8 Year-Old Vandals' Getaway Car-Plaintiff suing parents of two 8 year olds, who stole items, and vandalized his shop. Plaintiff stores property in the basement of his father's property, two kids broke in, were unsupervised. One boy tells Judge Judy his story in the witness chair, the other kid needs to stop trying to coach the delinquent on the stand. The witness admits he went in the basement (apparently it's not really a basement) at least five times. The vandalism to the man's property included piling up broken property in the office, the plaintiff's car was keyed with a crowbar, and plaintiff witness heard a running motorcycle.

There is a cell phone photo of the two boys, who the witness saw in the building. The police were called. Plaintiff's car trunk was loaded with knives, crowbars, tape, a blow torch, and boys said they were going to take the car, but they couldn't get the garage door up. The boys also spray painted all over the inside of the building. There is a picture of the boys coming back two months later, and there's another picture of them from the witness' cell phone.

The witness in the vandals case also said something interesting, she said between the first time she caught them destroying the shop, and trying to steal the car, she said the one kid (the now blonde one) had red hair. Then it court it was back to blonde, bet one or both of the mothers thought they could claim their kid had blonde hair, so it was a lie that their kid did it. The red looked like the cheap Bozo the clown red that some use, and I bet the mother bleached it out. The dark haired mother was the typical criminal mother, deny everything, claim the proof is fabricated, and gives her kid an alibi, it's the same thing she'll be doing at his murder trial in 10 years.

$2300 to plaintiff. Defendants claim there was no proof of the boy's damage and trespassing, but there are photos. The defendant mothers are morons.

Intentional Puppy Poisoning-Plaintiff suing former landlord, and friend for property damage, and nearly killing her French Bulldog puppy ($3,000 in vet bills). Plaintiff paid no rent at any time, and claims defendant told her if she cooked she didn't have to pay rent. Defendant told plaintiff he was going to evict her, and she left, and found the locks were changed on her after she left. She wants $5,000 for her property. Defendant says it was supposed to be a temporary arrangement, and woman was supposed to stay until she found another place, after being evicted from her previous room. Defendant says there never was a personal relationship between him, and the plaintiff.

Plaintiff went out of town for three days, and when she came back home she claims someone fed her dog sugar, and she claims creepy friend of landlord was going to sleep with her. She claims her property was thrown in the garage, and damaged, and the locks were changed. Vet report says dog had pneumonia. Plaintiff claims her dog was very ill, and it was defendants' fault. She was supposed to pick dog up from vet at 5 p.m, but she showed up at 12:30 p.m., demanded to take her dog home, and did. (Plaintiff should stop with the lip fillers, and Kardashian hair extensions).

Case dismissed.

Edited April 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Steph J · April 29, 2020

3 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendants claim there was no proof of the boy's damage and trespassing, but there are photos. The defendant mothers are morons.

Oh my god, this case made me so mad.

Mom 1: I agree that we should pay if they did the damage, but there's no proof that they did it.

(Me: ... except for all of the proof????)

Mom 2: I saw my son's initials spray painted on the wall.

Morons is right. They're lucky those kids didn't accidentally kill themselves playing with knives and blowtorches.

configdotsys · April 29, 2020

7 minutes ago, Steph J said:

Oh my god, this case made me so mad.

Mom 1: I agree that we should pay if they did the damage, but there's no proof that they did it.

(Me: ... except for all of the proof????)

Mom 2: I saw my son's initials spray painted on the wall.

Morons is right. They're lucky those kids didn't accidentally kill themselves playing with knives and blowtorches.

I love how the young blonde criminal in training said "good job," and gave five to his fellow criminal in training when he returned from the stand. The mother with the dark hair looked like she has some kind of substance abuse issue going on there. Delusional parents. If there ever was a pair of kids for JJ to say to the parents, "This is not going to be the last time you are with them before a judge," this was it.

Florinaldo · April 30, 2020

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant mothers are morons.

When in a decade or two the two delinquants-in-training graduate to draining their mom's bank account, getting loans and utility accounts in their name or wrecking their car, I wonder if these two ladies will still be saying "there is no proof".

Edited April 30, 2020 by Florinaldo

NYGirl · April 30, 2020

Well today was the bouncy house liar thief and scammer that I've read so much about. I have a headache. JJ HATED her...lol... She never let up on her, especially that she brought her 15 year old daughter to court with her (who was not embarrassed when asked if she was by JJ)

She was such a piece of work.

CrazyInAlabama · April 30, 2020

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

First-

The Great Slot Machine Heist-Plaintiff is suing his fiance's Brother in Law for lost wages, harassment, and stalking. (When JJ asks plaintiff's witness, his fiance, if she's sick, and she starts crying in court). Defendant assaulted plaintiff after he led sister-in-law (plaintiff's witness) down a bad path, and after defendant saw plaintiff on his home security camera stealing his slot machine money (plaintiff owns two slot machines). JJ asks the plaintiff's fiance how she's doing, both fiances are unemployed, living with a family friend, get food stamps. Plaintiff complains because of the defendant, that he can't work at the casino any longer.

Defendant's wife (sister of plaintiff witness), and their son are in court, and son testifies that he saw plaintiff pull into the driveway at father's (defendant's) house. Son came home from school, climbed in the window (he didn't realize there was a spare key), and leaving home he saw plaintiff's car pull up to defendant's home. Plaintiff was allowed to come in home to pick up food, and slot machine money, and food was gone. Defendant called plaintiffs about his missing money. Sister-in-law admitted fiance/plaintiff took the money. Defendant broke a bathroom door in, and confronted plaintiff. Plaintiff claims his fiance/witness took the money. That's when defendant assaulted the plaintiff, who got an order of protection.

Plaintiff claims defendant consistently violates the protective order by defendant going to the casino he worked at, so plaintiff quit working at the casino. Plaintiff got the job working at the casino after the assault, knowing defendant would be coming in to gamble. Plaintiff hasn't held a job more than two months at a time, actually one for four months. (My guess, he works long enough to qualify for unemployment). Plaintiff claims PTSD from assault, and is applying for disability from a congenital back problem.

Plaintiff's claims of harassment boils down to "he looked at me funny" at the casino. There is a police report, but the video is missing.

Case is dismissed.

Second-

Don't Be a Selfish Parent-Plaintiff doesn't want defendant around their child, so she denies visitation whenever she feels like it. Plaintiff suing for the cost of tires, an alignment, and her belongings. Litigants have a child together. Plaintiff says the car costs that she's suing for were for defendant's car. Defendant let plaintiff live in his home while he was in Army training, and borrowed defendant's car. Defendant filed a case for visitation, but no DNA test yet. (The plaintiff's hair looked like I cut it, not a good look). Plaintiff doesn't work, but is a SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) to the baby, and her older child. Plaintiff thinks the custody, and visitation is up to her. Defendant dropped the items plaintiff wants back, at her house on his way to PT (Army physical training), by 6 a.m.

Defendant says there is a photo of plaintiff crushing and using pills in his car, and claims she got the tires purchased by a friend in return for sexual favors.

Case dismissed.

Paint Job or Scam Job-Plaintiff paid defendant to paint her house. Agreement was pay $800, and also give defendant a Craftsman lawn tractor, and three attachments, and mow her lawn for six months.

However, plaintiff only paid the $800, refused to pay more for extra paint. Defendant needed more paint, and either had to buy more paint himself, because she wouldn't buy any paint, or quit. Defendant walked when plaintiff told him to leave, after painting about half of walls on the house interior. Plaintiff hired someone to finish the paint job.

However, plaintiff claims work was substandard.

Case is dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · April 30, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Pit Bull Attacks Passerby-Plaintiff suing neighbor for dog attack while she was walking on the public sidewalk. When plaintiff was walking, she heard the dog, and moved to the street, and a pit bull scaled the six foot privacy fence. The plaintiff had mace, but ran out of it, the dog got her down on the ground, and a person driving by tried to get the dog to let go. Plaintiff says she saw the defendant walking back to her house, dragging the dog by the collar.

Police report says defendant was watching boyfriend's dog. Defendant's landlord says (he's plaintiff's witness) defendant's lease prohibits dogs without approval. Landlord says his insurance specifically excludes Pit Bulls, and other breeds. The vet records/rabies say Vanessa Hill is the owner of the dog. Plus, her boyfriend travels a lot, so I doubt the dog lives anywhere but defendant's house.

Landlord told neighbors that if they ever see the dog there again to call him, and he will evict her. Vanessa Hill claims she only watches the dog for an hour or two, but the boyfriend lives with her, and the dog is there often. Plus, boyfriend travels a lot, so the dog is always there.

Landlord tells JJ how much he likes her hair. Lying defendant says plaintiff was in her backyard picking flowers. Sadly, plaintiff no longer walks through her own neighborhood after this.

$5,000 for plaintiff.

$4,000 Jackpot for Return of Missing Dog-Plaintiff was driving, saw a Yorkie by the road, took the dog to a vet to check for a chip. The chip company contacted the owner, and defendant picked up dog, and she found out man posted reward for return of dog. $4000 was the reward, but she only returned dog out of kindness, not for the reward. If the defendant was honest, he would give plaintiff the award. Defendant says he sent her $300 worth of restaurant gift cards, and plaintiff says the man runs a puppy mill, and his dogs die. I hope he doesn't pay her a penny.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Newlywed Lesbian's Bad Math-Plaintiff seamstress made a formal dress, and fitted tuxedo jacket for defendant's wedding. Plaintiff was in the hospital, and a friend delivered both items to defendant. Defendant gave a check for the balance owed, and stopped payment. It cost defendant $200 to get the clothing finished (mostly altered). Plaintiff was paid $650, and wants her extra money. Plaintiff is still owed $150 out of the check, (minus the $200 she paid to the other seamstress). For a similar dress, and jacket, I'm sure it would have cost a lot more than a total of $1300 that was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff.

I had to laugh when the defendant said that when the dress was delivered, it made her look like a cow. A brocade wearing cow. So if dress was so loose, how could the zipper not close? Defendant also says the bill was delivered the day after her father died, but plaintiff says the woman's father died months before the dress delivery.

Plaintiff gets $200, because defendant actually only paid $150 to alter the items.

Second-

Bouncy House Liar, Thief, and Cheat-Plaintiff (rents bouncy houses for kid's parties) suing nutso (look at her interesting hair accessories) defendant for stealing his bouncy house, damaging it. It costs $2400 to $2700, and he wants $1200. Plaintiff says defendant wanted to rent bouncy house for $200, and she didn't return the bouncy house.

Defendant says some woman told her that for $200 plus $150 she could keep the bouncy house. Sadly, defendant witness is the daughter, and has a ton of makeup on, and looks cheap. So defendant stole the bouncy house, never returned it, and damaged it. What the hell is over defendant's lip?

Plaintiff and police came to defendant's house, and picked up bouncy house. Defendant simply won't shut up, and won't stop shaking her head. Defendant's mother (defendant wasn't there during party) said if plaintiff paid her $200 he could have his stolen property back. Damage to bouncy house is estimated from $1,000 to $1,200. Defendant's sworn statement to show says plaintiff's wife sold her bouncy house for $350, because they were shutting down their business, and it's total garbage.

Plaintiff says he has a signed contract with defendant, and text messages about rental costs.

$1200 to plaintiff, because defendant is a thief, a liar, and a scammer.

Brides Falling False Eyelashes-Plaintiff makeup artist suing former client for makeup and eyelashes for her wedding. Deposit was $250, total contract was $500. There was a trial makeup, and $250 was for the photo shoot. Defendant says her fake eyelashes didn't stay on, and her makeup looked bad. Defendant complaints her fake eyelashes didn't stay on. (the eyelashes probably didn't want to be seen in public with defendant).

One of defendant's complaints is the makeup made her neck look darker than her face, but her neck is darker in court. Actually, in court whatever foundation the defendant is wearing is a lot darker on her neck and face. It's not a good look.

Defendant should have sued her hairdresser, not the makeup artist. Six days before the wedding, she fired the plaintiff, but wanted her $250 deposit back. However, defendant used the photos from her photo shoot, and wanted her deposit back anyway. Defendant claims because it took so long to do her makeup that half of her photo shoot time was over.

$250 to plaintiff.

Edited May 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Steph J · May 1, 2020

57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Newlywed Lesbian's Bad Math-Plaintiff seamstress made a formal dress, and fitted tuxedo jacket for defendant's wedding. Plaintiff was in the hospital, and a friend delivered both items to defendant. Defendant gave a check for the balance owed, and stopped payment. It cost defendant $200 to get the clothing finished (mostly altered). Plaintiff was paid $650, and wants her extra money. Plaintiff is still owed $150 out of the check, (minus the $200 she paid to the other seamstress). For a similar dress, and jacket, I'm sure it would have cost a lot more than a total of $1300 that was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff.

I had to laugh when the defendant said that when the dress was delivered, it made her look like a cow. A brocade wearing cow. So if dress was so loose, how could the zipper not close? Defendant also says the bill was delivered the day after her father died, but plaintiff says the woman's father died months before the dress delivery.

Plaintiff gets $200, because defendant actually only paid $150 to alter the items.

Defendant is the kind of person for whom the term "Karen" was invented. Feel sorry for her wife (who looks so young that they looked more like mother and child than spouses) because life with the Defendant must be just an endless monologue of complaints.

Ilovecomputers · May 1, 2020

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 9:36 PM, Ashforth said:

And the baby momma just sat there looking like the jerk she is. I was a little surprised that JJ didn't call her to testify, especially since there was so much confusion over the car seat, who took the baby, why they were still at the apartment complex.

Right! The plaintiff was saying that they were still hanging around the apartment complex waiting for the windshield to defrost, but they had driven over there, so presumably the windshield was clear. Felt very bad for the defendant who believed the baby to be his. He nearly broke down in the hall-terview.

SandyToes · May 1, 2020

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Don't Be a Selfish Parent-Plaintiff doesn't want defendant around their child, so she denies visitation whenever she feels like it. Plaintiff suing for the cost of tires, an alignment, and her belongings. Litigants have a child together. Plaintiff says the car costs that she's suing for were for defendant's car. Defendant let plaintiff live in his home while he was in Army training, and borrowed defendant's car.

I know I grew up in the dark ages, but this is one reason "waiting for marriage" was a good idea. If you ended up with a little one, it had parents! And if you WERE going to fool around, you'd better make sure it was with someone you COULD parent a child with, just in case. Today, it seems, eh, if I get a kid, no big deal. Lather, rinse, and repeat. (and then go on JJ to be a SSMOT/Three/Six, etc.) My 20-something son caught part of a similar episode, and I don't even think I needed to repeat my Mom speech - he completely gets it, after viewing these yahoos.

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

defendant is a thief, a liar, and a scammer.

Honestly, I kept waiting for the gallery to respond, kind of like the liturgical responses in church. "So sayeth Judge Judy."

CrazyInAlabama · May 1, 2020

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

First-

Anger Mismanagement-Plaintiff (Sainted Single Mother of Five-SSMOF) suing former friend for vandalizing her car, tow fees, and the return of belongings. From the case preview I can see the plaintiff witness is a smart aleck. Plaintiff met defendant at anger management, and mental health classes, and allowed woman and five kids to move into defendant's house. On the day of move in, the plaintiff's five kids were taken away by CPS (The kids are with her sister). Plaintiff claims even before move-in, defendant broke plaintiff's car window. Plaintiff says she left the defendant's home, but wanted her clothes back. Plaintiff claims defendant had roaches in her house, and plaintiff can't deal with that. Plaintiff went to defendant's house at almost noon, after a funeral party, and the plaintiff witness broke into the defendant's house.

Plaintiff witness says door wasn't locked, but stuck and witness got into defendant's home. You can imagine JJ's answer when witness says he loves her. Defendant shows pictures of the screen door being ripped open, and the inside door is damaged (defendant rents the house). For some reason, plaintiff witness wasn't arrested for burglary, and breaking into the home. Plaintiff says defendant came out of the house naked, and carrying a stick. Plaintiff says defendant broke her car windows, and they left.

Defendant picks up the narrative at the start of the burglary, and JJ is hinting defendant should shut up.

JJ gives plaintiff five days to pick up her items with a police escort, or they will be trashed. Plaintiff gets nothing for her car window. Defendant gets $300 for her screen door.

Ex-Con Hook-Up Hijinx-Plaintiff suing ex-con ex-boyfriend for unpaid loans. (after looking at the defendant's hideous prison tattoos, I have to think the normal looking plaintiff is desperate, and not worried about ending up the subject of a ID channel story about her murder). Defendant's counter claim is dismissed, since his allegations that he lost his job because of plaintiff, and his parole officer was mean to him, can't be proven because the ex-boss, and parole officer aren't in court to testify. Defendant also says he was living with plaintiff, and that turns out to be that he stayed the night, and was told to be gone before plaintiff's parents came to her place. Plaintiff has two year old twins, and mother was coming over to baby sit. Defendant did give plaintiff $1400, but claims the loans were actually gifts. Plaintiff claims she gave defendant $2100 for a Mercedes SUV, but he only repaid $1400, still owes $700. Plaintiff paid $241 to the dentist. (I bet the ever hunky and protective Officer Byrd wasn't playing a crossword puzzle during this case). Plaintiff got an emergency restraining order, and permanent order case is pending.

Plaintiff gets $1141 back, and that's it.

Second-

Vacation Disaster-Plaintiff is ex-boyfriend of defendant, for an unpaid loan to take a vacation. Plaintiff claims he loaned defendant $5,000, but defendant claims it was his part of a family vacation to Disney World. Defendant says there was no talk of repayment. Litigants, and her daughter lived in plaintiff's house. Plaintiff says defendant never worked, and her only income was food stamps. Defendant says she was housekeeping and babysitting during this time. Disney World trip was defendant, her two adult daughters, a friend, and grandchildren, and plaintiff went too. Trip was $13,000, and plaintiff gave her $5,000, or loaned her $5,000. Defendant says she bought the plaintiff's air ticket, wardrobe, and other expenses from the $5,000, and spent almost $3,000 out of the money on him.

Plaintiff is not getting the money back, he went on the trip. Defendant also not getting her counter claim paid.

New Franchise Owner Upset-Plaintiff suing cousin for the cost of a plane ticket to Utah. Plaintiff purchased a franchise (tile, carpet cleaning business), and part of the requirement is franchise owner, and employees had to go to Utah for training, and plaintiff paid for defendant's plane ticket. Plaintiff has no employees, made no money so far. (Defendant is a disable war veteran).

Defendant claims he wasn't supposed to pay for his own airline ticket. Defendant had a medical emergency, and cancelled the trip the day before the departure. Defendant claims he went to the hospital. However, plaintiff claims defendant wasn't sick, and didn't go to the hospital. Plaintiff is told to provide proof that defendant agreed to go to the training in Utah, and pay for his own airline ticket.

Plaintiff receives $850 for the airline ticket, defendant did say in text he will talk about payment. Defendant counter claim dismissed.

SandyToes · May 1, 2020

On 3/25/2020 at 5:48 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother Abandons Children for 6 Months-Plaintiff, day care provider suing defendant for defendant leaving her two children at the day care for six months. Plaintiff had the two children for what started as a four hour span, that turned into six months.

I remember this one. I can't even imagine this was REAL. How did this not end up with the police or CPS??

On 3/26/2020 at 5:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Parking Permit Blunder- Defendant parked in a prohibited space (permit only), and her car was towed. Plaintiff paid impound fees, and is suing for $360, and defendant is suing plaintiff for damages to her car by the towing company. The idiocy in this case is staggering. $360 to plaintiff, nothing to idiot defendant.

heh..... but typical....

On 4/6/2020 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mom Gave My Dog Away-Plaintiff daughter suing her mother for giving her dog away. Dog was with mother for 2 1/2 years, and Mother was hospitalized for quite a while during that period. Plaintiff wants dog back. Plaintiff and husband moved from Texas, to Washington in 2018, and dog stayed in Texas with the mother. Mother had been taking care of the dog for a year before the move. Plaintiff claims she had four dogs, and could only have two in the apartment. So they either had to put two dogs with someone else, or rent two apartments.

Gee, which way should we go....... Ha!

Been away from JJ for awhile. It's been fun catching up on what I missed. Glad Sweeps month is here!

patty1h · May 1, 2020

2 hours ago, SandyToes said:

Been away from JJ for awhile. It's been fun catching up on what I missed. Glad Sweeps month is here!

Not sure how much in advance the shows are taped, but I'm curious to see how the rest of the month pans out and how many new episodes there are for the month and if they're going to be affected by Covid-19. This week has all been reruns but I checked my cable guide and at least one of the back-to-back shows (4-4:30PM) in my area is a new show.

By comparison, People's Court had all new episodes this week and they had to make a change to their format because their stock of episodes are concurrent with quarantine life - now Harvey Levin is no longer standing on the street bantering with the crowd. He is commenting on the cases inside his home via remote. That is the only change so far - they still have the in-court audience and Doug standing in the hall to interview the litigants but that could change any day as they exhaust their backlog. It will interesting to see if the JJ show has to make similar changes to keep current.

Edited May 1, 2020 by patty1h

CrazyInAlabama · May 1, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both recent reruns-

First-

Walk Through Fraud-Plaintiffs (woman, her adult daughter, and daughter's husband, they moved out in 2016) want security deposit refunded. Landlord did a walk through via the management company. The defendants rented house 2012 to 2016, and sold it since at a profit. Defendant claims the management representative was a buddy of the tenants.

Management company gave landlords statement of security deposit, saying they should only get $312, and claims plaintiff signed the statement. Management company did a walk through with tenants, and later landlord fired management company, and did his own walk through, then shortly after sold the house.

Why do landlords go on this show? JJ hates anyone making a profit, and seems to coddle bad renters. However, the landlord has zero proof of any work that was done at the home, and no move in pictures from landlord. The landlord is totally incompetent, it's good that he sold the property. There is actually no way to prove which tenant damaged the house, and when. I find it interesting that the plaintiff/tenant's witness is the property management agent, and the one who did the walk through.

$2740 to plaintiffs, in spite of their $1200 damage to the fireplace. However, landlord had no receipts for repair to the fireplace.

Credit Card Share Fail-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid charges on a credit card. Defendant ran into a bad financial stretch, and plaintiff let her charge $2025, but she stopped paying plaintiff in May. Defendant claims she cleaned the plaintiff's house to make up for the payment. Plaintiff says she paid defendant $30 every time she cleaned plaintiff's house. Defendant says plaintiff is lying, and was supposed to take $30 for each cleaning off the credit card balance. The defendant does look like she has a hard life.

$1600 is still owed on the credit card, and plaintiff gets that.

Second-

780K Rusty Wallace NASCAR Bus Breakdown-Plaintiff suing defendant for towing fees, travel expenses, and unpaid wages. Plaintiff was supposed to drive a bus cross country from Milwaukee to Huntington Beach, for wages, plus expenses.

Plaintiff left bus in Phoenix, after it's fourth breakdown. Plaintiff offered to go back to Phoenix to pick up bus, but was told not to by the defendant, on the last breakdown in Phoenix it took over a month to fix it.

Defendant also says towing insurance would be covered by his towing policy, but plaintiff says it wasn't for a vehicle as big as the bus. Towing insurance was AAA, and doesn't cover tour buses, RVs, etc. that are big.

Defendant has to pay for the tow bill, almost $2,000 (No, AAA doesn't tow large vehicles, RVs, bus, trailers, horse trailers, etc. Other companies do towing, and road service for those vehicles). (In the winter, I wouldn't have gone Milwaukee to LA by way of Denver. I would have gone South, hit I-20, to I-10 in Texas, and through Phoenix to California).

The original mechanic, who rebuilt the engine, went to Phoenix to repair the bus for the fourth time.

I disagree with JJ, when she says the $1500 payment for the trip to the plaintiff isn't required because the bus broke down for the fourth time in Phoenix. What was the driver supposed to do, wait in Phoenix for a month for the bus to be fixed? The driver isn't the one who bought the very old bus, so the bad mechanical shape of the vehicle should be on the owner.

$2033 for towing bill to plaintiff, nothing to defendant.

ItsHelloPattiagain · May 2, 2020

On 4/30/2020 at 4:56 PM, NYGirl said:

Well today was the bouncy house liar thief and scammer that I've read so much about. I have a headache. JJ HATED her...lol... She never let up on her, especially that she brought her 15 year old daughter to court with her (who was not embarrassed when asked if she was by JJ)

I was just coming on to comment on Bouncy House Liar Lady. She was so obnoxious and I wanted to snap her headband HARD and knock some sense into her. I'm guessing she must have had some adults, like BIG adults, jumping in that bounce house. My daughter has always rented them for kid parties and even with semi-drunk guys from the fire dept. jumping in them, they don't look as torn up as the one Bouncy House Liar turned in.

I'm so glad to be watching the recaps on here. My episodes run in the late afternoon and they are always getting preempted by something like the governor or a tornado warning or a car crash.

CrazyInAlabama · May 4, 2020

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

First-

Puppy Mill Advocacy Gone Wrong-Plaintiff photographer did a photo shoot of defendant's grandson for free, so she could use them for promoting her photography business. Then, defendant had a cow over the fact that plaintiff did exactly what she said she would with the photo. Then, defendant used the photos (copyright is the photographer/plaintiff's) herself for some anti-puppy mill campaign, with the photographer's logo on it, so people can assume that photographer is in line with the advocacy the grandmother put on it. Then grandmother posted the same advocacy statement, and picture without the logo on her own facebook page.

Defendant daughter claims that she never received any free photos, in return for the photo shoot. (On a rotten personal note, grandmother and daughter are both butt ugly, inside and out. Also, daughter's dress had big purple beads on the neck and chest, and that's hideous too. Grandmother has a bunch of beads too, how tacky. Apparently love of dark purple everything is a family trait in defendant's family). Daughter of defendant had a previous paid, family photo shoot with the photographer.

At the time of the court case, the photo without the logo/watermark, and advocacy statement is still up all over the internet.

Grandmother made a big boo-boo trying to school JJ on Illinois law on photography.

Also, since the photos are all over the internet with the advocacy statement, then plaintiff can't use them for her business. As JJ points out, the defendant daughter probably planned the photo theft all along.

The alterations the defendant made to the photo rendered it useless for the promotion. Then, the hall-terview is hysterical. The defendant mother and grandmother say that not having the photos available will kill defendant's son, and grandson, who is autistic. This is, because he won't be able to see the photographer, and grandson gets attached to people.

Plaintiff receives $500 for defendants' transgressions, and $30 for the session. $530 to plaintiff.

Say No to the Dress...and the Married Man-Plaintiff suing her former fiance, he gave her a check, and it bounced ($750). By the way, plaintiff is a SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Five), and her intended Prince Charming is still married. Plaintiff is still making payments on her wedding dress, what a fool she is. Plaintiff made loans to married defendant/fiance, and the one check defendant gave plaintiff bounced. JJ tells fool plaintiff to stop paying for wedding dress, because defendant is still married (by the way, no refunds on wedding dresses). Defendant's check is an internet check, from someone he doesn't know, and he claims plaintiff volunteered to cash it. (Nasty personal question, Does defendant have any teeth? I don't think so). Also, defendant claims plaintiff would visit him without an invitation.

The ridiculous sobs from plaintiff over her lost loser married boyfriend are ridiculous.

$750 to plaintiff for the bounced check, and everything else dismissed.

Second-

Mean Girls Stage an Intervention-Plaintiffs (three roommates) suing their former roommate/defendant for unpaid rent. Defendant plead guilty to the assault, and one defendant has a retraining order against defendant. This case ended in an assault, an arrest, and a plea bargain. The four litigants were apartment college roommates, and two months later the three plaintiffs did an 'intervention' on defendant who they said was drinking, drugging, and partying too much, and not cleaning apartment enough. Plaintiffs say it was an intervention in their sworn statement to court, but now they say it was just a conversation. The three loons did their 'intervention', and claim defendant shoved one plaintiff off of her chair, after plaintiff cursed at defendant. Police were called, and two were arrested, and defendant took a plea deal, so defendant's counter claim for lawyer fees, etc., is dismissed.

Defendant's mother says the plea deal, and guilty plea wasn't a guilty plea, and yes it is. Plaintiff that was assaulted, received a restraining order against defendant after the guilty plea. Defendant moved out, and didn't come back. Plaintiff withdrew the protective order, so plaintiffs could get their five months rent (if the restraining order was in place, the defendant couldn't move back, and wouldn't owe rent).

Plaintiffs' and defendant's cases dismissed. (Defendant says "nice try" to three plaintiffs after the dismissal).

TV Takes a Fall-Plaintiff suing former co-worker for a broken television, and damaged wall. Defendant mounted the TV, and then plaintiff wanted TV moved, and defendant did that. With the inadequate number of screws used(he's not a pro at this), I'm not surprised TV fell. Actually, after seeing the number of screws used to mount the TV, I'm shocked the TV stayed on the wall at all. If you want the TV to stay on the wall, get a professional. Or get a TV stand with a mount attached, so you don't damage walls.

Plaintiff has no proof that she bought TV, the price, or anything else. Case recalled to see if plaintiff can get evidence. Plaintiff's receipt says TV was $439, and totals $700 with the mount. Defendant says TV stayed on wall for a year.

Plaintiff gets $717 for TV, mount, repair of wall, and installation by defendant.

CrazyInAlabama · May 4, 2020

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

(The first new case is a dog attack, there's another new dog attack one Wednesday's first episode)

First (New)-

Attack of the Great Dane Puppy-Plaintiffs suing defendanta for a dog attack, by defendant's 90 pound Great Dane puppy, and suing for vet bills, boarding, and other costs. Plaintiffs have two small dogs (about 20 lbs. each, on leash). As usual, defendant woman denies her dog attacked, and claims Great Dane was just playing. Defendants refuse to admit that their dog attacked, and claim plaintiff man had no reason to hit their out of control, attacking Great Dane. Defendant man had two Great Dane puppies, off leash, and the 90 lbs dogs attacked. When first dog attacked plaintiff's dog, he picked his dog up in his arms, and had scratches, and bruises on his arm. When Great Dane jumped plaintiff man, owner dropped the Sheltie, and Great Dane attacked again. The plaintiff dog's harness has a hole ripped in it by the Great Dane, and the little dog got out of his harness, and ran away. Video shows the Great Dane chasing the Sheltie into the street.

Defendant finally got the Great Dane captured, Sheltie was gone overnight, and came home by itself, and was severely injured. Sheltie needed vet bills, and was boarded for twelve days at vet office (to keep it quiet, and away from other dog at home). Vet bills were $2081, and boarding was $281, and a follow up visit for about $50. Defendant claims Great Dane was just playing, and accuses plaintiffs of making false accusations against him, and his dogs.

Defendants are despicable, and cowardly. Defendant and wife are the worst kind of dog owners, and shouldn't have a dog of any kind. Defendant wife claims plaintiff man hit her dog without justification, but that's garbage too. (Also, was it an off-leash park? I doubt it).

Plaintiffs receive $2,365. Defendants shouldn't own a stuffed dog.

This Isn't Going to Go Well for You-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for the cost to pay off a car loan. Litigants lived together for just over a year, and purchased a car together (October 2018), and both names were on the title. Down payment was $5k, from defendant's father, and car was severely damaged in August 2019. There was a $7250 payment from the insurance company, and that was about the pay off amount on the car loan.

Plaintiff had previously paid off debts on his credit card for defendant, $2k went to the car loan, Defendant just won't shut up, and stop interrupting.

JJ give nothing to either litigant. Plaintiff paid off car loan, and kept the rest of the money.

Second (Rerun)-

Dating Roommate Roulette-Two male former roommates are suing woman defendant. Woman defendant moved out two months early, to her new boyfriend's home, and she was pregnant then also. Defendant claims new boyfriend she lives with is the father of the baby. (A Maury show is in her future).

Woman dated, or hooked up with both roommates at different times. (So if I understood the case right, the defendant was girlfriend to first roommate, then was occasionally hooking up with second roommate, and then the current boyfriend? Ick!) (At least the second roommate looks embarrassed about his hooking up with defendant). First defendant looks kind of proud of boinking defendant.

Defendant claims she moved out because of harassment. Defendant claims after she moved out (three months early), that her property was messed up, and she thinks men went through her stuff. Plaintiff didn't move her stuff out for months, and now lives with her mother in another state, and boyfriend will move there too. In hall-terview the second roommate (Mr. Hookup) says defendant got a restraining order against the current boyfriend).

Plaintiffs get $1,000.

8 Year Old Maniac Driver-Plaintiffs suing neighbor parents over defendant's 8 year old son driving a golf cart, smashed into their aluminum shed. Kid was driving neighbor's golf cart, with her permission, and he smashed into the shed, and destroyed it. Defendant was sitting next to the kid during the wild ride. Plaintiffs say when they came home the child's mother was in their back yard at the shed with a flashlight. The shed was very old, and JJ won't give them full value, but I think they should get every penny. By the way, 8 year olds can't legally drive a golf cart, most places you have to be a licensed driver. I bet the defendant was driving,

$1760 to the plaintiffs.

(In the hall-terview defendant says the plaintiffs are mean to her. My guess is there is a reason that defendant let a little kid drive, and I bet the police would be very interested in defendant driving a vehicle).

My Daughter the Window Breaker-Plaintiff suing daughter for breaking her house windows. Defendant daughter was living with the mother, and the rental house was going to be sold, so everyone had to move within a few months. Plaintiff says daughter was drinking, and smashed house windows. Police told daughter to leave. Mother was also evicted by police or sheriff too. What a sad family this is.

Daughter moved back with her sister after this, and claims mother kept a lot of her property, and wouldn't let her get it. Mother had some stuff moved to storage, but had to leave some items behind, and doesn't know if daughter has some possessions stored. Defendant claims mother withdrew $100 from the government card, no proof.

$638 to plaintiff.

Edited May 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Steph J · May 5, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This Ins't Going to Go Well for You-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for the cost to pay off a car loan. Litigants lived together for just over a year, and purchased a car together (October 2018), and both names were on the title. Down payment was $5k, from defendant's father, and car was severely damaged in August 2019. There was a $7250 payment from the insurance company, and that was about the pay off amount on the car loan.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Dating Roommate Roulette-Two male former roommates are suing woman defendant. Woman defendant moved out two months early, to her new boyfriend's home, and she was pregnant then also. Defendant claims new boyfriend she lives with is the father of the baby. (A Maury show is in her future).

I can't decide which was worse: the neckbeard on the plaintiff in This Isn't Going to Go Well for You, or the suit 2 sizes too big on one of the plaintiffs in Dating Roommate Roulette.

SandyToes · May 5, 2020

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Say No to the Dress...and the Married Man-Plaintiff suing her former fiance, he gave her a check, and it bounced ($750). By the way, plaintiff is a SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Five), and her intended Prince Charming is still married. Plaintiff is still making payments on her wedding dress, what a fool she is. ..... (Nasty personal question, Does defendant have any teeth? I don't think so).

How does this happen? Are people REALLY this stupid? (don't answer that, please.) I just don't get it. I'm sure with 5 kids there are at LEAST 3 different sperm donors, and she wants a married guy WITH NO TEETH? I mean seriously. Is it that IQs are really that low? Or is it a status symbol to see how many men one can collect? Or perhaps, she isn't stupid, and is trying to scam him in some way? I can only imagine what wonders this man possesses - either in physical attributes or "other" ways - that he is not only married, he can pick up somethin' on the side. Didn't see this one, and am really glad.

/endrant

Carolina Girl · May 5, 2020

That stupid Great Dane owner and his ridiculous claim "you can't get scratches through clothing." Uh, asshole? I fell down on a street wearing jeans and a dress shirt. My knee was completely skinned up THROUGH THE JEANS and my arm had severe road burn and scratches THROUGH THE DRESS SHIRT, neither of which were ripped.

In fact, Judge Judy was giving this nimrod the benefit of the doubt. Oh, and lying defendant's wife. If you poor dog was "cowering" from that beating you say the plaintiff gave him, I'll assume you would have been able to get a leash on him. But no. We see that poor Sheltie running like mad and your puppy chasing him. Plaintiffs running after the dogs and you bringing up the rear like Beetlebaum....you weren't anywhere NEAR that incident when that Sheltie took of.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Carolina Girl
One does not wear a "Short" on the upper have of their body.

funky-rat · May 5, 2020

On 4/29/2020 at 12:27 PM, AuntiePam said:

Re the tools in Wednesday's episode -- I thought plaintiff was accusing Home Depot clerks of allowing defendant to steal tools, take them to checkout and out of the store without scanning. He certainly wouldn't be allowed to return tools that had been used, would he?

I missed part of this one (pre-empted) but I know Home Depot rents tools.

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment