All Episodes Talk: All Rise

CrazyInAlabama · July 31, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

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

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

Plaintiff gets $3,000 rent from defendant (That pays for his rent shortfall, and the car, even though JJ said she wouldn't pay for the car damages).

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

Lucky for the little girl and dog, the plaintiff was watching them out the window and saw the attack. Plaintiff saw the attack, and ran outside, and charged the attacking dog, and Snickers let go of the Chihuahua and ran back to defendant. Little girl says defendant was sitting outside the complex, when the Pit Bull charged the girl and the dog. Defendant now has muzzle on her vicious animal, and has this dog around her two year old child (she has four kids, 8, 7, 6, and 2 years old). (Defendant claims her 2 year old weight 40 lbs., is that right?)

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

$800 to plaintiff.

Second-

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

Defendant says he let her stay in the spare room occasionally, since she lived so far away. She left for several weeks, and when he noticed a bad odor from the room, he entered and found a lot of his stolen property. Plaintiff claims she was a tenant, illegally evicted, and wants $5,000 for garbage, and her case is dismissed.

Plaintiff claims after he changed the locks, the woman crawled under the house and broke in. Defendant filed a police report alleging assault by her, theft, and wanted a protective order. and changed the locks. Plaintiff wanted a temporary protective order and it wasn't made permanent.

Before JJ's court, there was a protective order hearing for defendant's protection, plaintiff was late to that court, and argued with the judge that she was actually in court the entire time.

JJ advises the defendant to have his attorney ask a judge to file a vexatious litigant order against plaintiff.

I feel sorry for defendant, because I bet the plaintiff is still bothering him.

Cases dismissed.

Pedestrian Slam in a Parking Lot-Plaintiff claims the defendant hit him with his car in a parking lot. Plaintiff is lucky he wasn't injured more.

Defendant says he didn't do anything wrong, didn't even put in a claim with his insurance company, because he thinks nothing is wrong with the plaintiff. Defendant says he doesn't really think he hit the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims the defendant doesn't have insurance, but defendant claims he does. Supposedly it's Geiko, but the Gecko didn't show up in court to testify. Plaintiff contacted an attorney over the medical bills, and defendant's refusal to give him the name of his insurance company.

Defendant has video from the parking garage, but it isn't of the accident, just of the inside of the parking garage. Defendant shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

Plaintiff gets damages $2100 for medical bills, and lost wages.

CrazyInAlabama · July 31, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Sale or Sham?-Plaintiffs bought trailer from defendant, and they were going to resale to plaintiff's witness. Plaintiffs paid $450 for trailer, and defendant said the trailer title was lost, but defendant would look for it. Trailer was originally bought by defendant and husband. Then the husband left, they are still married, but she's in court with a current boyfriend, and probably her future child's father.

Plaintiff say defendant didn't say trailer was owned by defendant's husband, the way defendant says told plaintiffs. What a liar the defendant is. Plaintiffs took trailer home, put new tires on it,

Then the police showed up, with handcuffs in hand. Plaintiff showed bill of sale to police, the police said they would pick up the trailer, and trailer was placed on the street, per police instructions. Trailer was finally towed to impound. JJ boots the loser defendant's boyfriend that is a snotty nosed, butt-in-ski. Defendant claims she offered a refund for $450 to plaintiffs.

JJ advises buyers to get a title in hand, and not trust someone to get a title later. It turns out the trailer does not belong to the defendant, but her husband, and was reported stolen by the defendant's husband.

Plaintiffs receive $650.

Barbershop Bathroom = Free Room?-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid balance for a bathroom he built in defendant's barbershop. Plaintiff was in in-patient drug rehab for a month, and then five months of outpatient program, court ordered. Plaintiff built the bathroom in the barbershop for $3,000. Defendant says he would find a place for plaintiff to stay, with a friend. Plaintiff lived with defendant witness for six months. Defendant witness is a contractor, and says the bathroom plaintiff built was defective, and nothing in it ever worked.

Plaintiff has no written contract. Plaintiff took two months to build the bathroom.

Case dismissed, plaintiff did a bad job, got six months of free rent, and had no contract.

Second-

Drones, a Dead Goat, and a Drug Dealer-Plaintiff / landlord suing former tenant for breaching lease, and damaging his home. Tenant has two special needs kids, with their service dogs. Defendant says plaintiff had neighbor flying drones over the property to spy on her, plaintiff claims defendant was running a day care in the home, illegally. I bet that she didn't live on post is because you don't run an illegal daycare on post, you also can only have two dogs, not three.

Plaintiff says in the three year tenancy that defendant damaged the home extensively, and she was dealing drugs (if that's true, it's another reason not to live in military housing, drug offenses on post are not local but federal). Before pictures at move in were submitted by both litigants. Defendant's move in pictures have no dates. Microwave oven in home was trashed, and cracked.

Rent was $1400 a month, a double wide. Defendant is now claiming something about tumors.

Defendant claims she hired a cleaning company to clean the home on move out. Plaintiff's pictures show tons of trash, even though defendant paid a cleaning company $500.

Defendant claims home was filthy on move in, so why did she stay three years? Plaintiff charged $500 for the service dogs, that she claims were on a registry? Let me guess what kind of 'registry' they were on, that internet one that advertises a registry, and for $50 each, you get an orange vest, a tag for their collar, and phony paperwork.

Defendant claims neighbors were flying spy drones on her family. One of tenant's 'service' dogs killed a pet goat on the property. Defendant claims a neighbor used his own security cameras to spy on the tenants, which has nothing to do with the plaintiff. (This neighbor was also blamed for spying on defendant with drones for the plaintiff.

Plaintiff kept the security deposit, and gets to keep it. (I bet you anything that the reason the defendant family didn't live on base, is the 'service' dogs aren't really service dogs, and are banned breeds on post). Defendant is counter claiming over the $500 pet fee for service dogs, because it's illegal to charge for service dogs. The first two dogs (since deceased) went to a training school. The last 3 dogs, were 'trained' by defendant, and I bet the 'registry' they were on is one of the phony online registries. You also can't have more than two dogs in military housing either.

Defendant claims dismissed, and plaintiff keeps the pet fee.

The Totaled Takeover-Plaintiff owed on a Chevy Cruze, and defendant agreed to take over payments (totaling $10,300 or so), and defendant often paid the payments. Defendant is claimed to have a bunch of tickets on car in plaintiff's name (transfer of title and registration couldn't happen until car was totally paid off, because I bet defendant's name wasn't on the loan). Doesn't over $10k for a Chevy Cruze seem high?

Plaintiff repossessed the car, after an accident, and after defendant stopped paying for the car. Car was not driveable after the accident (no hood, front fenders gone, and defendant rear ended another car or a tree (I've never confused the two objects, but defendant did).

Plaintiff receives $3,903.

(Monday's second episode is the Mean Girls' Vicious Beatdown, where two neighborhood bullies beat up a 15 year old girl, and stole her iPhone).

Edited August 2, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

parrotfeathers · August 2, 2020

On 7/31/2020 at 5:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

with their service dogs

Service dogs my a**

CrazyInAlabama · August 3, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Defective Pug Puppy?!-Plaintiff dog buyer suing breeder of Pug puppy, for a partial refund for a registered pure-bred Pug, and damages from a restraining order. Plaintiff brought her young son as a witness, JJ excuses him from court. Defendant breeds 2 or 3 litters of registered Pugs a year. Plaintiff bought puppy for over a $1,260, and he was male, then months later plaintiff wanted a female Pug to breed, and have breeder do the breeding, in return for a female puppy.

Puppy ate a peanut butter cup, went to vet, and vet said dog has one undescended testicle, and plaintiff should neuter puppy, because Cryptorchid testicles can be genetic (I checked Dr. Google, yes they can be genetic, and in some breeds up to 10% can have this). Plaintiff wants half or all of the cost of puppy back, to keep the puppy, plus damages for restraining order. (How does the plaintiff not notice puppy only has one testicle showing?) Plaintiff makes no sense, she wants to get a female Pug to breed with her male, so she can get another female from the litter (That's exactly what plaintiff said).

Pug was neutered, so my guess is plaintiff wants more puppies to breed. Breeder said she would return a full refund, but only if plaintiff returned puppy to breeder. Plaintiff also contacted the state Attorney General Consumer Complaints office, and claims AKC officials told her to contact the state AG. Plaintiff wants the puppy, and money too. Plaintiff gets no money back, because she's keeping the puppy. JJ said if she wanted to give the puppy back to the breeder, then she could get a full refund.

Defendant filed restraining order against plaintiff, after many people came with plaintiff to trespass on her property. JJ says the restraining order was unnecessary. However, as JJ says plaintiff is nutty. (My opinion is the restraining order is justified, and I hope plaintiff gave up harassing the defendant after this ended, but I doubt it).

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Salvaged Car Fraud-Plaintiff suing mechanic for refund for fraudulent car repairs. Car was purchased for $1400, and car is almost 20 years old. Car needed brakes, tires, and smog check. Plaintiff took car to defendant, and claims her mechanic says she was ripped off, but the witness didn't come to court.

Plaintiff is suing for $2450, for the mechanical work which is almost a thousand more than the purchase price. Plaintiff paid $2380 for the mechanic's work, and the plaintiff reversed the charges. The mechanic refunded plaintiff $1100+, but her bank tried to reverse the charges, she got $3750 total back from the mechanic.

Defendant mechanic said car was a salvage car, and he couldn't fix it, so mechanic reversed the charges for $1180 to plaintiff. And then $1308 was refunded the next day to plaintiff.

Plaintiff wants $2400 more back, when mechanic was only paid $2400 that was already reversed.

Plaintiff case is dismissed without prejudice, to return with a witness (didn't see her since, so I'm guessing no one wanted to come to court)

Second-

Fraud and Forgery?!-Plaintiff suing former employer over unpaid wages, and forged checks for pay that employer forged, and cashed. Defendant claims the plaintiff stole money from the business, and cashed forged checks. Plaintiff worked for landscaping business for one summer, part time, and he pays in check and cash. JJ sees the check copies, and signatures on cashed checks don't look like the same person signed them. Even I can tell three of them are forged.

Defendant doesn't know when two of the checks were signed, and cashed. Defendant is very slippery. Defendant fired plaintiff at the end of the summer. Defendant has no proof of any loans or advances to plaintiff. Defendant says he has text messages about loans on his phone (how miraculous, the phone still exists). The texts prove nothing. Defendant claims he deposited two checks for plaintiff, but has no proof.

Plaintiff receives $1700

Contractor or Conman?-Plaintiff suing contractor for failing to complete a landscaping job she paid him $4,000 to do. Contractor used to have his own landscaping, and tree trimming company (it's now gone). He hasn't paid income taxes, or filed tax returns, since 2011.

Defendant did a great job on trimming a huge oak tree for plaintiff. She then wanted him to do a landscaping project, including a patio, planters, fire pit, etc. Only one small pile of landscaping gravel was delivered (plaintiff already had pavers, and other landscaping items).

Defendant is blaming everything on the former partner.

$4,000 to plaintiff

CrazyInAlabama · August 3, 2020

5 p.m recent reruns-

First-

Silk Purse From a Sow's Ear-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for 2 months rent, ambulance bill, two tickets for setting of false alarms, and stalking. Litigants were shacked up, had a kid, he lost his job, and didn't pay the rent. Plaintiff wants back rent (and he was unemployed?). Plaintiff claims defendant set the alarm off twice using the app, but defendant says he set the alarm off twice getting his stuff back. Defendant punched a hole in the door, and he was arrested for damage to property, and something else. Plaintiff tries to charge JJ's bench, and I really hoped Byrd would tackle her. Plaintiff was charged $85 each for the alarms, and the door repair, and defendant claims he paid restitution.

Plaintiff also claims her son got sick, day care called, and defendant was supposed to pick son up, six days after the big blow up. (On a shallow note, is the plaintiff's hair supposed to be cute?) Plaintiff then told defendant the child was sick, and defendant picked up kid(she already had a protective order against defendant too). Defendant took him to urgent care, and then an ambulance was called, and she objects to paying for the ambulance. Mother of the year candidate isn't she? Too cheap to pay for an ambulance for her own kid.

Defendant has seven children, plaintiff found this loser, got knocked up, and now wants to be paid for this? Urgent care does not call an ambulance for a kid with a cold, so plaintiff is a fool too. When defendant moved out, plaintiff says she put all of his property out on the curb.

Byrd looks like he would like to help the plaintiff leave via a foot up her fanny. I do love the plaintiff's stomping out of court, and the hall-terviews.

Defendant gets $500, plaintiff gets nothing.

Teen Cheating Ruins Aruba Vacay-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for a non-refundable flight to Aruba ($770 for ticket), in July, and they broke up in March. (Is the defendant's hair stylish or something? It looks hideous). The ticket is non-refundable, non-transferable, and only in defendant's name, but he can change destinations. Plaintiff is the one who dumped the defendant, but after that she wants the money for the ticket.

Defendant says no payment was ever mentioned. (in the hall, defendant says he's using his ticket to go to Hawaii). Plaintiff is a vindictive little fool isn't she?

Case dismissed. Plaintiff has no expectation of payment.

Second-

Mean Girls' Vicious Beat Down-An innocent 15 year old girl is punched and kicked repeatedly by two sisters who are caught on camera bragging about the assault. The defendants' mother witnessed this, and did nothing. Defendants are 16, and 23. (The 16 year old defendant is the oldest 16 year old I've ever seen, and 23 year old looks more like 43).

Plaintiff got off the bus, and 16 year old said she wanted to fight her, and plaintiff walked away, over an iPhone theft. Defendant claims plaintiff said she stole plaintiff's iPhone. Defendant lies about cause of fight, and police report about the phone theft was the same day as the fight, not two weeks earlier the way defendant says.

Rubi (16) punched girl in face, and Rubi and sister beat the stuffing out of plaintiff. Photographs are horrible of the injuries. Defendant mother says older criminal doesn't live with her. Mother witnessed every thing, and did nothing. Bertha (23) does live at mother's house, and fled the home before police came, and mother lied to the police. 16 year old says mother's lying about older daughter too, and older daughter says mother's a liar also. Plaintiff's sister has a video of Bertha moving out of mother's home, and Bertha telling the mother to lie to the police about her living in the mother's house.

JJ says police should arrest older daughter, and send her kids to foster care, not the mother's (grandmother's) custody. When plaintiff's mother reached the assault site, she took daughter for medical care, and the police report talks about theft of phone. Plaintiff says phone was stolen during the fight by older sister (Bertha).

Defendant 16 year old says she was accused of theft of different phone by police, not plaintiff's.

There is a video of the sister bragging about the fight and the beating of the plaintiff. Both defendants are smirking at the disgusting video they made. 16 year old is bragging she hurt her hand beating, and robbing the girl. Older sister is on video bragging too. Both sisters seem to think beating someone, and robbing them is a joke. Someone who saw the tape on Instagram sent it to the sister of plaintiff.

Video will be given to the police, since investigation is still open, and I hope everyone involved is arrested and prosecuted for robbery, assault, and anything else the police can get a conviction on.

$3300 to plaintiff.

(I think if parents of plaintiff are smart, they'll move unless defendants do for the girl's safety. Actually, I hope the plaintiff's family moved anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the defendants were in a gang, They do have girl gangs, and it often includes more than one generation too).

Edited August 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

DoctorK · August 4, 2020

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Byrd looks like he would like to help the plaintiff leave via a foot up her fanny. I do love the plaintiff's stomping out of court, and the hall-terviews.

That was fun to watch. Unless I am mixing up litigants today, she was the one who grabbed up all of her papers, ignored Byrd telling her to leave them on the table, then went stomping out. I wanted Byrd to tase her and take back the papers, but I know that sadly that will never happen in my lifetime.

CrazyInAlabama · August 4, 2020

Yes, that was the case, and it's was epic seeing Byrd look at her when she was leaving. I feel sorry for the kids in these situations. You know that child will be told in great detail how awful his father is, and how it's somehow the kid's fault.

Ashforth · August 4, 2020

OMG the Defendant in the case that's on right now has ONE tooth. A lone, nasty, long front tooth.

And the case is a female Plaintiff suing him over a diamond ring. And he has a new fiance who is also there. WTH.

He claims to be in a country music band. The woman-scorned Plaintiff says he was a "Facebook Romeo" with a bunch of groupies. I am literally gagging.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Ashforth

ItsHelloPattiagain · August 4, 2020

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There is a video of the sister bragging about the fight and the beating of the plaintiff. Both defendants are smirking at the disgusting video they made. 16 year old is bragging she hurt her hand beating, and robbing the girl. Older sister is on video bragging too. Both sisters seem to think beating someone, and robbing them is a joke. Someone who saw the tape on Instagram sent it to the sister of plaintiff.

Aahh, it's Rubi and Bertha! I had this one on my DVR for the longest time and here it pops up again. I wonder if Bertha ever got charged with a crime since she was an adult (age-wised at least). I just again wanted to slap her through the screen. Maybe Bertha and Rubi are sharing a cell out at Chowchilla with their gangsta pals.

CrazyInAlabama · August 4, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Bad Babysitter Barter-Plaintiff claims she doesn't need to repay $400 loan to defendant, because she was supposed to get defendant's Jeep in return for babysitting his child, and taking child to and from school, and before and after school care. She claims she worked many hours, paid off the Jeep, but defendant didn't pay her for more babysitting, and she got behind in her bills. JJ figures out she didn't work for $1800 worth, but much less.

The plaintiff claims defendant didn't pay her much, and repossessed. the Jeep. Plaintiff also claims man lusted after her, but she obviously had another boyfriend (she's quite pregnant), and defendant says she only watched the child every other week (custody issues).

Funny note-defendant buries money in his back yard, and announced this to 10 million viewers. JJ advises him to move the money.

(I used to live in Colorado Springs, and why would plaintiff drive an hour each way from Pueblo to bar tend in snow country? They have lots of bars in Pueblo. ) Defendant claims a friend of plaintiff, and plaintiff's mom threatened him.

$400 to defendant, and nothing to plaintiff.

Matching Tattoo Fail-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for cost of matching tattoos, and a bedroom set. Defendant's nasty emails are so bad that it can't be read on TV. Defendant's new girlfriend is his witness (looks almost identical to plaintiff's witness), and gets the Byrd boot. Defendant did not pay for bedroom set, $2350 (King size bed, frame, and TV), because he claims it's was a gift.

$2235 to plaintiff (loser defendant actually made one payment already).

Second-

Internet Romeo Smackdown-Plaintiff suing former fiance, and his new fiance over unpaid rent and utilities, an insurance payment, and over an engagement ring. Plaintiff's diamond was used in the setting given by the defendant, replacing the small diamond that came with the ring. Loser defendant swears plaintiff kept everything he owned, including the ring receipt explaining the size of the original diamond.

Defendant paid for the setting only, not the diamond. Defendant man should have paid for dental work, not a ring. The mounting cost $900+, but the diamond was plaintiff's stone. Ring goes back to plaintiff.

Unpaid car costs are thrown out. Defendant wants his property from the plaintiff's home. Plaintiff sold the small speakers the defendant left at her home., however, plaintiff has a text message from defendant saying plaintiff could sell everything he left behind. In return for ring, defendant can pick up his computer, his fishing stuff, and his fishing stuff. Defendant claims he couldn't pick up his insulin for two months, so he went without. (I have a serious problem with calling this man "Romeo". He's the furthest from a Romeo of any man on Earth. So the defendant claims he left his insulin behind in plaintiff's fridge, and went without for over two months?

Ring back to plaintiff, after property picked up by defendant.

Sweet 16 Party Upset-Plaintiff suing former party planner for ruining her daughter's Sweet 16 party that flopped. 100-125 guests, provide decorations, event venue, party bus, food, etc. This costs $2890. There were actually 50 guests (that is a very cheap price for all of that, even with 50 people). Some decor is nice, some looks like I made it (not good).

Plaintiff wants everything back, ignoring that she paid for the venue, the bus, etc, that were fixed costs, no matter how many guests. Food was supposed to be wings, cake, party food, that never happened. The party guests ended up eating 26 pizzas purchased by the defendant. Defendant claims that plaintiff agreed to get $500 back. However, plaintiff now wants every penny back.

That will not work, in my view. Defendant paid for the party bus, the venue, DJ, etc. Decor budget was $300, and the glow in the dark balloons were $18 a package. Cake wasn't great, decor.

Plaintiff gets $1800 for failed food, and decor. Party planner has a lot of excuses.

Edited August 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · August 4, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Don't You Ever Watch This Show?-Plaintiff suing her daughter's former friend for car damages ($4600), and punitive damages for ruining her daughter's birthday. (Is the defendant's hair green or blue? Or is it my TV?). Defendant and friends were in Walmart's parking lot, and one or all of the three vandalized the defendant's car. Plaintiff daughter says defendant broke auto glass, and another girl ruined other parts of the car. Plaintiff didn't give the defendant's name to the police.

$3500 to plaintiff for car damages, nothing for the birthday party ruining. (I think plaintiff should have received zero, for not telling the police who did the damage. However, she was fine at bringing her on national TV instead?)

Ill-Prepared Baby Daddy-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan to reinstate his driver's license. Defendant had a suspended license, and was caught driving suspended (since 2015-2016).

Defendant had to take classes, and pay for the license, and pay the back tickets, and it cost over $741, and he repaid $216. Defendant claims he picked her child up from school for seven months, but plaintiff says she takes her kids to and from school.

$525 to plaintiff.

Second-

$137,000 Fire Insurance Windfall-Plaintiff suing niece for unpaid loan, attorneys fees, and tools that weren't returned. Niece's home with mother burned enough to be uninhabitable, they relocated to motels, and later a rental property. Plaintiff is a beginning contractor, and worked on his sister and niece's home. Niece says uncle started working on home, received $137,000 to general contractor the job,

The $137K might have been the total, but no insurance company pays the entire amount up front, they do periodic draws to pay for work done. Before rebuilding house had to be rescued from foreclosure. Plaintiff loaned money ($3100) to niece to catch up on bills, and rental car for sister's medical appointment transportation. No proof of the loan.

House has been in foreclosure since 2014! There was a modification, because of mother's illness. I am sick of the defendant's muttering, nodding, giggling, and interrupting. I'm hoping niece gets the Byrd boot soon.

Litigants had an argument, and she alleges uncle pushed her, and irritated an old injury, no medical or police report. "It is what it is" comes out of niece's mouth, so I don't believe her either. When someone loses, or gets dismissed, and say "It is what it is", and act like they don't care, then I suspect they were scamming the show. I believe JJ's guess, that it's all to get money from the show. Didn't the niece babble something about the uncle not finishing too? If there was a reverse mortgage, then the niece won't be keeping the house, unless she gets a mortgage to cover what's owed on the house, because the mother has been out of the house for a long time.

I'm actually shocked that a house that was that far behind on mortgage payments wasn't actually foreclosed on. And I believe the uncle's guess that the niece is going to try to keep the house after her mother's gone is true, and I bet she will get another mortgage on it immediately. If the niece assumed the mortgage, then I bet it's not going to be paid on time, since she seems so desperate for money. I bet next time a foreclosure won't take years to get it done.

Case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · August 5, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Don't You Ever Watch This Show?-Plaintiff suing her daughter's former friend for car damages ($4600), and punitive damages for ruining her daughter's birthday. (Is the defendant's hair green or blue? Or is it my TV?). Defendant and friends were in Walmart's parking lot, and one or all of the three vandalized the defendant's car. Plaintiff daughter says defendant broke auto glass, and another girl ruined other parts of the car. Plaintiff didn't give the defendant's name to the police.

$3500 to plaintiff for car damages, nothing for the birthday party ruining. (I think plaintiff should have received zero, for not telling the police who did the damage. However, she was fine at bringing her on national TV instead?)

Ill-Prepared Baby Daddy-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid loan to reinstate his driver's license. Defendant had a suspended license, and was caught driving suspended (since 2015-2016).

Defendant had to take classes, and pay for the license, and pay the back tickets, and it cost over $741, and he repaid $216. Defendant claims he picked her child up from school for seven months, but plaintiff says she takes her kids to and from school.

$525 to plaintiff.

Second-

$137,000 Fire Insurance Windfall-Plaintiff suing niece for unpaid loan, attorneys fees, and tools that weren't returned. Niece's home with mother burned enough to be uninhabitable, they relocated to motels, and later a rental property. Plaintiff is a beginning contractor, and worked on his sister and niece's home. Niece says uncle started working on home, received $137,000 to general contractor the job,

The $137K might have been the total, but no insurance company pays the entire amount up front, they do periodic draws to pay for work done. Before rebuilding house had to be rescued from foreclosure. Plaintiff loaned money ($3100) to niece to catch up on bills, and rental car for sister's medical appointment transportation. No proof of the loan.

House has been in foreclosure since 2014! There was a modification, because of mother's illness. I am sick of the defendant's muttering, nodding, giggling, and interrupting. I'm hoping niece gets the Byrd boot soon.

Litigants had an argument, and she alleges uncle pushed her, and irritated an old injury, no medical or police report. "It is what it is" comes out of niece's mouth, so I don't believe her either. When someone loses, or gets dismissed, and say "It is what it is", and act like they don't care, then I suspect they were scamming the show. I believe JJ's guess, that it's all to get money from the show. Didn't the niece babble something about the uncle not finishing too? If there was a reverse mortgage, then the niece won't be keeping the house, unless she gets a mortgage to cover what's owed on the house, because the mother has been out of the house for a long time.

I'm actually shocked that a house that was that far behind on mortgage payments wasn't actually foreclosed on. And I believe the uncle's guess that the niece is going to try to keep the house after her mother's gone is true, and I bet she will get another mortgage on it immediately. If the niece assumed the mortgage, then I bet it's not going to be paid on time, since she seems so desperate for money. I bet next time a foreclosure won't take years to get it done.

Case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · August 5, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Give Me My Prize Money-Plaintiffs suing defendant over pool tournament organizer (defendant owns the league, he's the league operator) over their prize money. Plaintiffs claim they are owed $600 , The league members pay a sanction fee, a price per person, and a price per game. There are only six teams in the league. Players were promised a banquet, a trophy, and prize money at the end of the season. Defendant says you get a trophy and banquet at the end, but prize money wasn't guaranteed. The banquet and trophies didn't happen either.

Defendant claims plaintiff man assaulted him. Plaintiffs claims the 'banquet' is a pot luck, and she doesn't care about trophies, just the prize money. Plaintiff man claims the defendant actually assaulted him.

Plaintiffs receive $600. (However plaintiff woman wants the other two teams' money also, $400, and $200, she's not getting that).

Lesbian Marriage Fail-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for money owed for a wedding dress, and impound fees. Dress was $1,050, for plaintiff, and defendant says plaintiff broke the engagement. Dress was for defendant, but plaintiff paid for the dress. The other expenses for the wedding was for the hall, with a $250 deposit by plaintiff (usually non refundable, but refunded in this case). Defendant kept the ring, given to her by plaintiff. Each litigant paid for the other person's ring.

Plaintiff bought the dress ($1.050 purchase price) on her credit card, and she wants the interest on the balance too. Defendant has the dress, and is told to sell it, and give half to plaintiff.

Car was in both names, and defendant was driving, stopped for a traffic infraction, and didn't have insurance, so car was impounded. Plaintiff paid $1200 to get car out of impound, and both names are still on the title. Car is a 2012 Chevy Impala, and cost $20k. Defendant hasn't paid on car in over six months, and there is no insurance on the car (full coverage insurance is required by the auto loan). JJ isn't figuring out the car issue.

$525 for plaintiff for half of the wedding dress cost.

Second-

Double Baby Daddy Drama-Both litigants have a kid with the same man. Idiot baby daddy is witness for plaintiff, so I guess she got custody of baby daddy. Plaintiff is suing for damage to her car, and an assault. Defendant claims harassment, and vandalism of her car by plaintiff.

Right after midnight plaintiff, and baby daddy were boinking, a call keeps hitting his phone, and plaintiff answers the phone. Caller is defendant who is pissed. Right after call, defendant is at the door at plaintiff's home. 911 is called, defendant assaulted plaintiff, and police report was filed. Plaintiff's car's back window was smashed.

According to police both litigants were drunk, and so is baby daddy. Defendant had a friend with her at the assault, and claims she never touched plaintiff, or the car. Defendant claims she wasn't at the plaintiff's assault, but was at her mother's home, out of town.

$1500 for plaintiff for car window, and assault.

Go Bang Your Heads Against a Wall-Plaintiff suing ex boyfriend over unpaid loans, a car and utilities. There are text messages from defendant admitting he owed the $700 to plaintiff. However, she committed fraud when she registered the car, by forging defendant's name. (the plaintiff was 17 when she started living with defendant).

Defendant was loaned $700, to buy Audi to flip, and for half the profits, but car wasn't sold. Plaintiff claims she paid for the Hyundai, but defendant bought it for $500, and it was registered in his name too. She registered the car in her name, (Hyundai wasn't in either litigant's name), and so they each have a car with a title in each name. Plaintiff committed perjury (for signing a false statement on a government document), and forgery when she registered the car in her name.

Plaintiff had baby, and claims it's not defendant's kid. They'll have to fight that out in Family Court after DNA tests.

$700 to plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · August 5, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Labrador Takes a Bite Out of Terrier-Plaintiff suing defendant (Labrador owner) for an attack on her dog. Plaintiff was walking her dog (Jack Russell Terrier mix) on leash, when defendant's two unleashed dogs ran across the street (a Labrador, and a Chihuahua), and attacked her dog. Defendant just won't shut up. Defendant rounded up her dogs, came back across the street, and offered to drive plaintiff and dog home. When plaintiff arrived at home (she walked), they took dog to vet for overnight, and vet records are submitted.

Defendant claims the JRT/mix jumped in her car, and her dogs were defending her. Defendant claims plaintiff was on the same side of the street, and off leash. Defendant claims she felt sorry for plaintiff dog, and only offered to pay because she's a nice person (No, she's not a nice person, she's an idiot).

Homeowner's insurance was for the front house, but defendant lives in the guest house. Guest house is not covered by homeowner's or renter's insurance. Byrd has to tell both litigants to shut up.

$1536 to plaintiff, defendant is still an idiot.

Another One Bytes the Dust-Plaintiff suing defendant /computer technician for lost wages, cost of computer, and computer lessons. Plaintiff said she traded old computer to defendant, and he was supposed to teach her to use the new computer. The old computer was $1000, and was 10 years old, and plaintiff wants $2400. New computer was only $500. (Even I can send software from old to new computer, they sell it for less than $100). New computer caught a virus, so maybe she should have put antivirus on it.

Case dismissed.

Second-

Nine-Year-Old Vandal and Liar-Plaintiff suing defendant parent when their nine-year old daughter, and another child were filmed on surveillance video vandalizing two cars (three cars were damaged, but plaintiff is only suing for two). Defendant at first agreed to pay damaged, but didn't. Plaintiff's witness saw the vandalism, and says there were three little girls playing, and one was leaning on the car. The video was a 24 hour loop, and no way to download it, so it's gone.

Defendant mother signed a letter saying she would pay for damages, because the older daughter said the 9 year old did it. The photos of the damage to the car are terrible. Another defendant mother that will never believe her kid never does anything wrong. 9 year old keeps lying in court.

Defendant mother only signed the letter to pay for damages, because she thought there was a video. Since the video is gone, defendant mother is taking the promise to pay back. Defendant claims she had eyes on her daughter at all times, and they never left her yard, and she's a total liar. The children are just learning what their mother has shown them, which is that lying is acceptable.

Plaintiff receives $2000 deductible.

Vacuum Demo Disaster-Plaintiff suing defendants for a vacuum cleaner demo that made a hole in her floor. Rainbow vacuum company, I didn't know that company was still around. The demonstrator had a heat lamp to dry the floor, and it malfunctioned, overheated, and burned the hardwood floor. Plaintiff wants entire floor replaced for $2700, because the repair didn't color match properly.

I can't believe people still fall for the free demo because you won a contest routine. Also, the prices on those vacuums are high, and if you finance it, it's even worse. The salespeople make peanuts compared to the cost of the vacuum.

$2500 to plaintiff.

TVMovieBuff · August 6, 2020

On 8/4/2020 at 3:39 PM, Ashforth said:

OMG the Defendant in the case that's on right now has ONE tooth. A lone, nasty, long front tooth.

And the case is a female Plaintiff suing him over a diamond ring. And he has a new fiance who is also there. WTH.

He claims to be in a country music band. The woman-scorned Plaintiff says he was a "Facebook Romeo" with a bunch of groupies. I am literally gagging.

His new girlfriend looks dumb as a stump.

CrazyInAlabama · August 6, 2020

4 p.m. rerun episodes, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Eyelash and Tanning Business Bust-Plaintiff suing former friend for unpaid loans, and unauthorized use of his debit card. Plaintiff sold his home, and needed to start a business as an investment, and invested in plaintiff's eyelash, and tanning business. Tanning bed was $1400, and plaintiff claims another $500 in check. It is obvious that the plaintiff considered the defendant more than a friend, or business partner.

Defendant accepted a check for granddaughter's preschool from plaintiff. Defendant claims she remodeled his mobile home to repay him for the money, and helped him pack his home. Defendant claims she bailed on the friendship when plaintiff sent her indecent photos on her cell phone. Defendant erased the photos. Defendant says plaintiff threatened to kill her. As JJ says, defendant should have paid the money back, if she thought plaintiff only gave her money because he had feelings for her. Defendant's witness is another buttinsky, and should have been booted.

$465 to plaintiff for the child's school.

Surprise Evidence-Plaintiff was living with defendant (plaintiff's cousin), before that they both lived in the plaintiff's grandparents home. When plaintiff turned 18, and she had moved in with defendant. She says defendant wanted the gas and electric bills in plaintiff's name, because defendant had a bad history of non-payments to utilities, and bad credit.

Defendant claims the utilities were in the brother's name. However, the utility bills are addressed to plaintiff. Plaintiff says at a previous residence of defendant the utilities were in the brother's name.

$747 to plaintiff

Second-

Fear in a Cramped Rental!-Plaintiff suing former roommate for breaking their lease. The apartment was small, and defendant kept having his boyfriend stay over, but paying nothing. Defendant lost his job, and plaintiff had to cover the rent, and utilities. Plaintiff found the front door unlocked fairly often, left open by the defendant and friends. Defendant also had his boyfriend staying over at the apartment, but boyfriend wasn't paying anything. Plaintiff admits to physically assaulting the defendant during an argument, and threw the first punch. Then the defendant claims he felt unsafe in the apartment after the fight, so he could either pay over $1,000 to break the lease, or get a subleaser, but defendant just left.

Defendant moved out, to a friend's house. Plaintiff and defendant haven't received the security deposit back yet.

If plaintiff wouldn't have assaulted the defendant, then JJ would have given him half of the lease breaking fee.

Case dismissed.

Clueless Landlord?!-Plaintiff suing former tenant for unpaid rent, and damages to his rental property. Defendant lived in apartment with her children, and husband for eight years, but didn't pay the last two months rent, and didn't leave until part of November. Rent was $1300 a month. As usual, everything is deemed normal wear and tear by the defendant. After all of these years, landlord should have put in new carpet, and painted the entire place.

Landlord receives $1600 for the back rent for two months, minus the $1,000 security deposit.

Security Deposit Abuse?!-Plaintiff suing former tenant for an unpaid utility bill, and damage to rental house (the tenants lived there four years). Security deposit was used for back rent, for the last month. Defendant/tenant wants to use the same security deposit for back rent, damages, the last utility bill. Since the tenants wife was lease holder, then JJ will not give plaintiff damages for trash, the door the police kicked when wife was leaseholder. Plaintiff stopped paying utilities about the same time he wanted a rent reduction, in early 2015. Plaintiff says they removed over 50 contractor bags of trash. Pictures of the tub are disgusting.

I think the reason lease was in wife's name was because defendant had bad credit, or housing issues, and wanted to dodge the bills. Can you tell I think the defendant, and wife are professional squatters, Defendant is also trying to lecture JJ on New Jersey housing laws.

$1800 to plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · August 6, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Lesbian Choking Catfight-Plaintiff says her estranged wife's daughter assaulted her on Thanksgiving. What a surprise, adult beverages were involved. Plaintiff and wife invited daughter, and grand kids over for the holiday weekend. Then, the adults went to a bar, played pool, and then wife started arguing, both wives were name calling each other. They went home, plaintiff went to get snack, and step daughter attack punches plaintiff, and kept pounding her in the face.

Police were called, ambulance was called, and defendant was arrested. Defendant claims the two wives were shoving, and yelling, daughter interceded. Defendant claims plaintiff laid down on the floor having a tantrum or break down, and claims plaintiff was choking defendant.

Police report says no marks on defendant throat from the 'choking'. Police report is very different from both litigant's stories. Plaintiff says after assault she crawled into the kitchen, and armed herself with a knife for protection. Police wanted charges of domestic violence against defendant, but that didn't happen.

Plaintiff ended up in hospital for several days. Prosecutor didn't file charges because everyone involved was drunk. Defendant spent two days in jail.

Case dismissed,

Retaliatory Mood Swing-Plaintiff suing former landlord for property damage, harassment, and something else. Plaintiff moved out after defendant moved his fiance in (she's now his wife), and they didn't get along. Plaintiff claims after she moved out of the house, that defendant dumped her stuff at her work place.

Defendant waited until after the agreed on move out day, and she didn't pick her stuff up, so he dumped it at her work place (apparently, he dumped her stuff off the back of his pick up truck, in the parking lot) . On his way out of court, defendant says he had a piece of plywood in the back of his truck, with wheels on it, and rolled her stuff out onto the parking lot. I wish there was a video of the defendant dumping her property in the parking lot.

Plaintiff also damaged the wife's car, court case resulted, and plaintiff was supposed to pay restitution. Plaintiff hasn't paid restitution for the car yet, and JJ points out that an arrest in her future. Plaintiff won't even mail a money order to the defendant's wife for the car.

Case dismissed.

Second-

Inheritance Riddled With Debt-Plaintiff foreclosure consultant is suing defendant over a real estate deal. Defendant inherited a house (in 2012), but didn't realize that the house had $400k in liens on it (reverse mortgage). It took 6 years to confirm the mortgage, and defendant tried to weasel out of the mortgage.

She negotiated a short sale with the lender, to sell to her daughter. Plaintiff was hired to stop the foreclosure, and negotiate with the bank. Foreclosure was stopped, but plaintiff was only paid $2k. Reverse mortgage was $400k, but defendant's father used over $200k. Defendant settled for $348k, instead of $400k (defendant's daughter is the buyer of the house, and now owes $348k). (I hate that piercing or whatever it is between defendant's eyebrows). Defendant found out about the mortgage in 2012 after the father died, and she claims it took four years to prove there was a reverse mortgage on the house.

Defendant now says she already had a short sale agreement with the bank, so plaintiff is claimed to be in cahoots with the bank. Plaintiff claims to have a signed contract, but doesn't. Plaintiff says payment of the contract amount equals signing the contract. JJ sends Byrd to tell the defendant to shut up.

Case dismissed for both litigants, and that's what they deserve.

Fool Falls for Nigerian Stranger Scam-Plaintiff suing defendant for helping an online scammer steal from her. Plaintiff saw apartment advertised on craigslist, and plaintiff wired money for deposit to defendant, which was three months rent, and it went to defendant's bank account. When plaintiff went to get the keys, and she was told current tenant wasn't moving out, and she would get a refund. Supposedly, scammer phoned plaintiff, emailed, and texts that tenant wasn't moving, and money would be refunded.

Defendant says Nigerian scammer was in Texas, and would be her friend, and give her a lot of money. Defendant claims the $3,000+ went to a closed bank account. Defendant still says she doesn't have the money, that the scammer took it out of her account.

Plaintiff says defendant was listed on the lease as attorney, and with the defendant's account information. Defendant is either a fool, for giving the man her banking information, or a scammer.

Plaintiff receives $3,451 (or whatever 3 months rent was).

(I lived near a woman that fell for another variation of this. The scammers charged hundreds of thousands of electronics, mostly prohibited for shipping overseas without a license, by stealing the identity of another man. The packages went to the fool's house, and she would reship overseas, labelled something harmless. Then the victim who had their credit stolen is out hundreds of thousands (apparently the police charges can help get the charges cancelled), the fool was paid a little, and lots of vital electronics went to people who shouldn't have them. They feds proved she had received and shipped at least a couple of million worth of electronics, and computer hardware. The feds hauled her away one afternoon. People I knew that knew her said she was dumb as a box of hammers).

CrazyInAlabama · August 7, 2020

4 p.m. episodes, from 2016-2017-

First-

Sister Brother Breakdown!-Plaintiff suing brother for rent, bills, unpaid utilities, and taking furniture with him that belonged to her. Plaintiff owned a house, and moved to another city, and rented to brother. Brother was supposed to lease/purchase the house.

Plaintiff moved in with another brother and sister, in another part of Texas. Brother claims sister forced him to move into house, and purchase her house.

Brother never qualified for a mortgage for the house. So brother was still paying rent, pending purchasing another house. Then the sister/plaintiff moved back to the house, and brother still paid same rent to sister. Sister says brother let propane tank run out, hurting the propane system.

Plaintiff says brother took her bedroom set when he moved out. Sister will have five days to pickup the bedroom set within five days. Rent is thrown out, and so are the utilities.

Defendant/brother counter claim for two unregistered cars is dismissed.

Plaintiff gets her bedroom set if she picks it up within five days. Everything else is dismissed.

Neighborhood Hit and Run-Plaintiff claims neighbor across street backed across a two lane wide road, and hit her van parked on the street, then fled the scene. Plaintiff didn't make a police report, because he thought neighbors would pay for the damage. Plaintiff woman claims she, and her son saw the neighbor's car back up, and her van rocking, and other car driving off. Plaintiff's don't know who was driving the car.

Defendant wife says either brother or son drove van, and no one can prove that their van hit the plaintiff's van, but claims the van is only at her home occasionally. Plaintiff says van is at the neighbor's house all of the time. Plaintiff throws her husband under the bus, as the car driver.

Plaintiffs receive $1100.

Second-

I Only Fear God and Judge Judy-Plaintiff (former Marine, who only fears God and Judge Judy, and Byrd really laughs when plaintiff says this.) is suing former tenant for cost of new radiator, lock change fees, and unpaid rent. Plaintiff took in homeless defendant, and has a history of helping others. Defendant wanted to a pickup truck for him to start a landscaping business, and when the argument happened, plaintiff kept the pickup truck.

Defendant is obviously not well. A month after defendant left, he went to court for a protective order against plaintiff, and application for order is submitted. Order application is bizarre. Plaintiff has the truck back, and changed the locks. However, plaintiff paid $888 for a lawyer for defendant, in his case against defendant's sister over father.

Plaintiff receives his $888 for the lawyer back.

Fake Dreadlocks Disaster-Plaintiff suing salon owner for return of money paid for dreadlocks extensions (faux dreadlocks). Plaintiff paid $240, plus $20 tip. Plaintiff had hair extensions put in, and three days later plaintiff went back to salon for a refund. Plaintiff says the dreads were too tight, and weren't washed before installation.

When plaintiff went back to the salon, she complained that extensions were ripping out her hair, causing scalp issues, and plaintiff removed her own extensions. Plaintiff claims instructions on hair package say to rinse hair extensions out before installation, but instructions don't say that.

Defendant says plaintiff did come back three days later, but had another procedure on that second visit, and that was free of charge. Plaintiff needed two braids rewound, and the ends burned.

Defendant has been in business for 10 years, and JJ advises her to do the refund for good will for her business.

$240 for plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · August 7, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Reign of the Homeless Terror-Teenage homeowner was renting to woman, and her two sons. Plaintiff claims her 53 year-old tenant jumped her over a Wifi dispute. Defendant claims plaintiff cut off Wifi, and it interfered with son's homework. However, it is testified that the Wifi outage interfered with son's Grand Theft Auto play. Rent was $400 a month, plus utilities, equaling $2800 rent, and only paid $1782. What the hell is up with the defendant's son's hair?

For the last two months, there was no outside support, so rent owing is $1600 additional funds, so total is $3382. Another professional tenant victim in defendant, who knows all of the buzz words about housing court. JJ gives the' if you ate the steak story', and defendant says "there was no steak". But tenant lived there, sometimes with two sons, and didn't move, and that was in one bedroom.

The fight was defendant woman attacking young landlord (great for her to own a home at that young age), over wifi outage. Police were called about fight, and defendant and son were arrested. Defendant says plaintiff slapped her, however, I can see defendant as a truly nasty person, so I don't believe it. This is the case where the younger son (16) was playing GTA, and needs wifi, because of his PTSD, and not doing his homework.

Defendant just knew the Wifi went down, not who did it, or that it wasn't an outage, or cable issue. There is no proof the landlady cut anything off. Plaintiff has audio of going into her home, and defendant getting ugly to her, and hitting her. Plaintiff also has video of 911 call. Defendant says she also has a video, of plaintiff's "Reign of Terror". Amazing, defendant claims she didn't do the marks on the wall, but recites them without seeing the photos of the writing on the wall. The rent the tenant was supposed to pay was very low, compared to the market price, and after her assistance ran out, she stopped paying the bills, and that's when the attack happened.

Tenant claims being homeless wasn't her own fault, but the landlady was somehow responsible.

Plaintiff gets her rent, and medical bills, and damages. $4500

(I'm mean, I enjoyed the fake crying of the defendant in the hall-terview. I also sounded like my mother during the hall-terview, and wanted to give the loathsome tenant something to cry about).

Second-

Kitten Mauled by a Husky-(What are defendant's teeth? Veneers? They're huge, and ugly, and so are her giant false eyelashes. )-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her roaming Husky getting in plaintiff's home, and mauling a kitten. Defendant claims she was in bed, when neighbor called and said her dog was out. I think JJ is right, defendant or roommate let the dog out to roam, and that's when dog attacked.

Plaintiff heard knock at door, and Good Samaritan brings lost Husky to their door thinking it might be their dog. Dog charged in the front door when plaintiff opened it, and dog immediate charged cat, cornered it in the basement, and attacked kitten repeatedly. Plaintiff threw dog out their front door after attack, and defendants are outraged that their dog was manhandled.

Plaintiff tried to present bills to roommate of dog owning idiot. It was a very snowy night, and apparently foolish roommate let dog out, and dog was running loose. The dog was taken to plaintiff's front door by plaintiff's witness/neighbor, and then took the dog to defendant's house, and it was her dog.

Dog owner finally contacted plaintiff by text, but refuses to pay. Vet bill is over $6,000+ for poor cat, that survived. Defendant claims her dog didn't do it, and seems incredibly stupid also.

$5,000 for plaintiffs. Defendant is a moron.

Dream Car is Friend's Nightmare-Plaintiff (foolish student) suing former friend for an unpaid loan for tires (he's not a student, but they met in a chat room for students at the local community college). Defendant acknowledges in texts that he owes the money, and brought the giggling village idiot as a witness.

JJ will now grill defendant, construction worker, and security guard sometimes. What a shock, he has a 2017 Camaro SS, with huge speakers (JJ's guess about the speakers). Defendant sold the car in March, and still didn't pay the plaintiff. Defendant sold Camaro, and bought a Prius (I hope he proves the Prius as target of catalytic converter theft rumors are true, one man has had six stolen).

Plaintiff gets tire money. $758 to plaintiff.

ItsHelloPattiagain · August 7, 2020

16 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Kitten Mauled by a Husky-(What are defendant's teeth? Veneers? They're huge, and ugly, and so are her giant false eyelashes. )-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her roaming Husky getting in plaintiff's home, and mauling a kitten. Defendant claims she was in bed, when neighbor called and said her dog was out. I think JJ is right, defendant or roommate let the dog out to roam, and that's when dog attacked.

I was still WTH'ed over the defendant AGAIN. The teeth were weird but was that hair thing a wig? I finally figured out what it reminded me off. Anybody see that docudrama about Gypsy Rose, the girl whose mother shaved her head and told her she had cancer when she really didn't, and the girl and her weirdo BF killed the mom? And who doesn't know if their dog gets out of the house? And if she's a vet tech, how can her dog be expected to eat at 7PM and go all night without going out to potty with a big belly full of food? My dog always used to poop in the late evening after eating earlier in the day.

TVMovieBuff · August 8, 2020

That defendant in the Kitten Mauling case is the stupidest looking defendant I have ever seen. That wig! I am so glad little Oreo is okay.

She STILL was saying her dog didn't do it, when there were multiple eyewitnesses to the incident.

CrazyInAlabama · August 10, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

28 Police Visits in Two Weeks?!-Plaintiff /sister, and husband are suing her brother /defendant over property damage, a false restraining order, and lodging fees. Brother, another brother, and mother moved into the big house, and sister and husband lived in the smaller house Brother is accused of smashing windows on the house, making holes in the garage door. Sister claims brother is the only angry one, but brother claims sister has the problems.

Brother had two non-housebroken dogs, that also had a litter or two of puppies, so defendant had nine dogs with the puppies, and mother had two dogs. Defendant moved into house, and almost immediately filed a restraining order against the plaintiffs (his sister, and her husband). The other tenant brother and mother had five other dogs, but all were potty trained. Defendant says sister was using mother's fire wood. She is accused of turning off water, and electricity (she had to have septic fixed because it was backing up, and had to be repaired). Brother's restraining order application is appalling, unless sister is the second coming of Charles Manson. Defendant claims sister threatened to kill him, his dogs, and mother. The litigants' Mother has since escaped this bizarre situation by moving far away.

There is a wild video by defendant showing the threats by the plaintiffs, but it actually shows defendant being threatening. Younger brother moved with mother, and defendant finally moved too.

Plaintiff receives $4,000 for restraining order.

(Skipped Ex-Friend Repo Drama, because of thunderstorms)

Second -

Someone Stole My Car-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend over traffic tickets on a car they both bought, and then they broke up. Defendant stopped making payments on the car. Plaintiff repo'd the car Defendant claims innocence, and JJ has to threaten to not pay his way back to Medford, Oregon if he doesn't sign the title over to the plaintiff, so he signs. Also, the traffic tickets were after they pair broke up,

Plaintiff received signed statement that defendant is relinquishing all claim to the vehicle, so plaintiff will own it when she pays it off, (it was in both litigants' names), and $470 for the traffic tickets, she receives a total of $870. (Some was for the impound on the car, when defendant was stopped by the police).

Edited August 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · August 10, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns,-

First-

Instagram Influencer's Sweet Tooth-Plaintiff/instagram influencer (I hate that word) suing defendant who was trying to get plaintiff to promote defendant's candy business, and for an unpaid loan to pay defendant's rent. $1,000 was the loan, to get more candy inventory, but it was a business investment by plaintiff, not a loan. Plaintiff was going to promote defendant's candy on the Instagram account to his followers. The plaintiff claims that there were mutual agreements outside of the contract, JJ says no they aren't.

Defendant gave the plaintiff 50% of his candy company, in return for the $1,000 loan for his back rent. Defendant claims because of a family member's murder years ago, that the death threats against him were traumatizing. Defendant claims plaintiff encouraged the enraged customers, and that the defendant didn't fill orders for the candy. Defendant claims plaintiff didn't want repayment, but just to put profits back into the business. Defendant never paid the plaintiff for his profits, and it wasn't a loan, but a bad investment. Defendant is counter claiming for lost wages, death threats, and slanderous posts.

Nothing for either party. Money was a bad investment, not a loan, and defendant was awful at business.

Leave My Child Support Out of This-Plaintiff suing former friend for money she loaned defendant when he was down on his luck. They met through a business, and were friendly. Defendant said he was in financial trouble, and plaintiff loaned him $2,000. Defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff back when defendant's settlement came in from an accident he was in, from All State (he was rear ended by a police officer). Defendant's children received a settlement ($2300), because defendant owed back child support. Defendant claims the child support wasn't for the kids, but for other reasons (no that doesn't make sense to anyone but the defendant. Why is this idiot trying to tell JJ about back child support?). Defendant says child support was because kid's mother owed the county.

Defendant says All State was going to pay him over $20,000, but received nothing.

Defendant says it wasn't a loan, but a gift. $2000 to plaintiff.

Second-

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

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

Plaintiff says in hall-terview that defendant doesn't work, and just lives off of scamming others, and I believe her).

$481 to plaintiff. (Officer Byrd sounds amused when he ushers the defendant out)

Park City Park Problem-Plaintiff moved into a rented, furnished loft from defendant, and moved out 19 days later. She alleges defendant was constantly partying, random visitors, front door left unlocked, etc. Plaintiff paid $1200 first and last months rent on move in. Plaintiff also wants her iPhone, passport, social security card, and other items back.

$600 to plaintiff.

Edited August 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · August 11, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably from 2016-2017-

First-

Suspicious Church Fire Payday?!-Plaintiff / SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One) suing the defendants /former landlords for stealing insurance money from her. Single mother living in a building on church property gets renter's insurance. A few weeks later she has a fire, and collects $12,000. Plaintiff's witness is now her roommate, and they were friends first, and he saw everything that happened. The church owns 70 acres, with the church, and many out buildings on it. Plaintiff is now assistant manager at a dollar store. Plaintiff couldn't make a rent, so she prepaid the rent from her tax refund, for 10 months. Plaintiff paid rent in cash, in February 2015, and then February 2016.

Plaintiff couldn't afford to pay her rent, but she bought renter's insurance, and the fire was February 2016, right before the plaintiff paid her $5,000 rent in cash for the next year. Plaintiff has no record of start date of the renter's insurance, and only bought it in October or November of 2016, and her rent was due in February 2017. There is no report to the fire department either. What a coincidence, she buys renter's insurance until right before the fire, and supposedly was broke.

(Personal tacky remark, what the hell did defendant woman do to her hair?) Plaintiff filed a claim for her property damage (it covered clothes, appliances, and other items), and church's insurance covered the structure plaintiff was living in.

Plaintiff was suing church for their money.

JJ dismisses this phony claim.

Cabin Renovation Gone Wrong?-Plaintiff suing defendant for misuse of funds. Plaintiffs hired defendant to remodel their cabin, and plaintiff's grandson was supposed to help. Defendant also had a Home Depot credit card, and another of plaintiff's credit cards, and is accused of misusing the plaintiff's funds. Defendant claims plaintiff wife is a dictator, and is mad because plaintiff's grandson's girlfriend went to the cabin remodel with him.

There is no contract and JJ says defendant will get paid for the work he can prove he did on the cabin. Plaintiff's claim that defendant bought a lot of items at Home Depot, and claims items returned to Home Depot should have been credited to the plaintiff's credit card. Plaintiff's claim defendant instead received cash cards for the returns, and kept the money. Plaintiff's business manager has proof of purchases, but no proof of where the items went, or proof that returns were given in cash cards.

Plaintiffs also claim defendant didn't finish the work he was supposed to do at the cabin.

Case dismissed, because there is no proof of the defendant's work, and no proof of the plaintiff's charges against the defendant either. (This is not good, the plaintiff wife looks, sounds and acts like someone I used to know. )

Second-

Costa Rican Vacation Con?!-Plaintiff suing former friends for unpaid travel expenses for a trip to Costa Rica. All three litigants were friends, decided to go to Costa Rica on vacation together. First plaintiff was going to go with one friend on his air miles, and when second defendant decided to go a regular air ticket was purchased, and paid for. They had seven days at a hotel, split three ways. Plaintiff claims the women owe $396 each for their part of the hotel, in two separate rooms. Plus, the third night in another hotel, that was $186. On another night defendant woman got her own room. Then on day two, one defendant met some guy, and wanted him to go along, Then the defendant ditched the guy, and plaintiff paid almost $200 for the man's flight home.

$459 to plaintiff, and this boring case is over.

Teen Mother vs. Godmother-Plaintiff and her 17 year old daughter are suing her godmother for hotel costs, and withholding daughter's mail. Daughter was pregnant with second child, and plaintiff mother was homeless, and she asked defendant to take the daughter, her one year old into her home. Plaintiff mother would pay defendant $200 a month, and some food stamps. Plaintiff daughter got locked out, and damaged the front door breaking back into the defendant's place, and defendant is suing for a broken door. Daughter's godmother takes the 1 year old every weekend, and daughter locked the keys in the house, so she jimmied the door open, damaging the door. Defendant came home, sees the front door is jimmied, calls the police thinking she had been burglarized.

Plaintiff claims defendant called her, and said the daughter needed to leave her home. However, JJ says defendant was taking care of plaintiff daughter, and she was under defendant's supervision. So defendant will pay for her own door. Defendant submits door pictures, but since plaintiff daughter was 17 at the time, plaintiff is not responsible for the daughter, and defendant will not get door money. Defendant hands over the mail to plaintiff.

Case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · August 11, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Sephardic League Scammer Shuffle-Plaintiff was referee for basketball league, and claims he's owed $3,500. Defendant ran a basketball league, and admits that plaintiff refereed over 200-250 games for the local Sephardic League, and should have been paid $40 per game. Defendant actually retired from basketball, because they were too slow to pay, and went to another sport (bet it's pickleball, it's the hot sport some places for amateurs).

Case will be recalled to tally payments by defendant, against what plaintiff says he wasn't paid for.

$3445 for plaintiff.

Death Sentence if You Damage Judge Judy's Car-Plaintiff suing over their car damaged by an adult neighbor's fire works. JJ points out that her favorite car is 20 years old now, and if anyone dents or scratches it they should get the death penalty. Plaintiffs says neighbor mother, and adult son (he's 37) were shooting of 4th of July fire works, and the debris landed on his car and damaged it. There were a lot of embers on the plaintiff's car. Defendant mommy makes a lot of lame excuses for her adult son man-baby, and JJ rightly makes fun of them. The before pictures of fireworks debris are awful, and there's a lot of damage after.

Defendant man-baby offered to pay $100 to buff the car. The dealer estimate to resand, and clear coat the car is over $1,000. The plaintiff's classic Mercedes looks as if it is was in pristine condition. Defendant man-baby claims plaintiff's car doesn't have current plates, which is none of her business. Plaintiff doesn't have to claim the damage on his insurance, it was all the defendant's negligence.

Plaintiff receives $ 1300.

Second-

Drunk Minor Lost on New Year's Eve-(I love this case with the drunken defendant, especially since the plaintiff brought some of the car pieces to court. However, I think the plaintiff should have received a lot more money. Fixing a gravel road isn't cheap). Plaintiff suing defendant for damaging his road, driveway, and front yard. The defendant destroyed the plaintiff's yard, making a U-Turn, and left parts of his car behind. The plaintiff's property has No Trespassing signs, Defendant (20 years old) is whining about his car damages (2005 Mercedes S-class). Defendant was driving to a New Year's Eve party, and claims he wasn't drunk (yes, he was).

Plaintiff has a bunch of parts from under defendant's car. (I hope some are parts of the oil pan, and hope the engine melted). Defendant's witness looks likes like a bad liar, and was called at almost 1 a.m. to help defendant get out of the ditch. Defendant was going to a party at the witness' house. Defendant witness used his brother-in-law's Escalade to pull defendant's car out of the ditch.

Plaintiff brought some car parts left behind, and says he has many large parts that he left at home because they were too big. JJ doesn't understand how much work the plaintiff will have to do to fix the road damaged by the defendant. Defendant is still whining about his car's damage, too freaking bad junior. I would have given the plaintiff $1,000 for the driveway, and road, because of the defendant's nasty smirk.

Is the defendant drunk in court? He sounds, and acts drunk.

$350 to the plaintiff.

Deep Cleaning Disaster-Plaintiff wanted to get out of her apartment lease, and defendant took over the lease, and defendant paid for 2 weeks pro rated. Plaintiff wants utilities, and apartment damage. When defendant didn't move out on time in October, (lease was up 30 September), landlord's kept plaintiff's security deposit for damages. My question is if landlords had given permission to sublease?

Plaintiff tries to charge JJ's desk, Byrd almost has to tackle her. The landlords charged for floor damages, repair holes, door and trim damages, and also charged to remove furniture (plaintiff left if for defendant). The only damages the plaintiff admits to is for floor damage from her incontinent dog, and also had a cat. Plaintiff had to pay $3,000 for the floor damage.

It was $114 for the two additional days of rent. Utility bill was almost $600, In hall-terview, defendant claims damages include footprints on the ceiling.

Plaintiff receives $597 for utility bills.

parrotfeathers · August 12, 2020

12 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

However, I think the plaintiff should have received a lot more money. Fixing a gravel road isn't cheap).

I wonder when the last time JJ had to rent a tractor/box blade or road grader to properly repair a gravel drive. It's not just dumped rocks. There is a road bed too that has to be done correctly. I also think he should have gotten more money.

CrazyInAlabama · August 12, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Beauty School Dropout?-Plaintiff wanted to learn microblading, and signed up for a three day course at the defendant's beauty school, and wants pain and suffering, and refund of the course fees. Defendant's run a beauty academy that trains students in doing microblading, and other permanent make up techniques. Defendants used to own a beauty college, and now concentrate in the permanent makeup sector, at two locations, and have certifications for the beauty college (from the state cosmetology board), and the permanent makeup (that's a different certification, from the state health department).

Original contract is submitted, for a microblading three-day course, at $2200. Contract says 3 day course, non-refundable, plaintiff only went on one day, but only went on the 30th and 31st. Plaintiff was supposed to go on the 29th, 30th, and 31st. Plaintiff claims what she wanted to learn wasn't taught to her satisfaction. Plaintiff was supposed to bring a live model, and do that person's brows, but didn't do any procedures on the woman.

However, the contract says 3 day of class, and plaintiff only went for 2 days. Plaintiff claims defendant forged her signature on the contract, but the signature looks the same as her signature on her statement to this court.

As JJ says, the plaintiff had the opportunity to go to all three days of the course, but only did two days, so she didn't qualify for a certificate. Defendant says plaintiff threatened him that she had just won a court case, so she wanted a refund or else (She tried to fight an eviction, through unlawful detainer right before this course). Plaintiff claims she has a cosmetology background, so she didn't need hygiene training for a beauty procedure, in my opinion.

Defendants are counter claiming for the plaintiff trying to extort her course payment back, and harassing the owners of the school. Defen

I bet that everything the plaintiff is complaining she missed was taught on the first day of the course, when plaintiff bailed on attending.

Plaintiff case dismissed, defendant counter claim dismissed.

Second-

Car Payment Meets Child Support!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid car loan. Plaintiff is a Sainted Single Mother of One (SSMOO), with defendant. Car pink slip was in both litigant's names, and loan was in plaintiff's name. Defendant claims he put down $2500 on car, then refinanced car to get the remainder with a lower interest rate, by borrowing the money from plaintiff's boss. First loan was 22%. Remaining loan was still $2900. Defendant keeps saying that plaintiff signed loan over to him for zero. Defendant was paying child support after they split up.

Car is now in defendant's name. Defendant claims the tax refund will go to plaintiff for the car loan, and for their daughter. Plaintiff claimed the child's tax deduction on her tax return, and received $1,000 for one year.

JJ decides $1600 to plaintiff, to pay for the car loan.

Unlucky Van Story-Plaintiff suing mechanic for unfinished work on a Mercury Villager Van. Insurance company totaled the car after an accident, paid her $1,000 and totaled it, and paid the insurance company $170 to buy the salvaged van. Plaintiff agree for defendant to fix the van for her. Van is only worth $1,000 per Officer Byrd, and plaintiff was paid over $1,000 by the insurance company.

Defendant wanted $2,300 to fix the van, and has had it for 8 or 9 months. Why did plaintiff pay $2300 to fix a van, that was only worth $1,000. Defendant will keep working on van, and finish within two months.

Plaintiff submits photos from January, however, defendant says they were taken in the previous October.

$2300 to plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · August 12, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Duck and Cover, Children-Plaintiffs suing neighbor for trespassing, and property damage. Plaintiffs claims neighbor or her guests cut down a group of plaintiffs trees for firewood for her property. It is clear the trees are on plaintiff's property, and there is a trail of branches, and debris leading to the neighbor's property, and wood pile.

One day in April, plaintiff wife says they were picking up yard debris, when someone started shooting into their yard, and she told her children to hide behind a truck, and called 911. Defendant and her friends were shooting on their property, towards neighbor property, and police told them to stop shooting. Defendant denies cutting down trees, or taking the fire wood to her property.

Plaintiffs own 60 acres. Plaintiff points out defendant's yard is fenced, and has a closed gate. The defendant's wood pile is on plaintiff's property, and the defendant fetches wood from the pile.

Defendant has a counter claim for filing a false restraining order from the shooting incident, dismissed. (Plaintiff husband mentions they don't think they'll have issues with defendant again, because wood pile is gone, and she's in a lot of trouble with the law for other things). (I absolutely believe what the plaintiffs said about the wood, trespassing, and shooting. If those trees had been JJ's, she would have shot anyone who touched her trees. By the way JJ, old trees are the most valuable for firewood, after they are felled, and dry out. I think this happened in Oregon, and the other trouble that defendant was in was discovered to be embezzling from an employer. Unfortunately, embezzling is not prosecuted the way it should be.).

I bet in the tree case, that the defendant and her buddies came over and felled a bunch of trees, let them season and dry out. Then six months or so later dragged the trees to the defendant's property, and spent the summer chopping them up for firewood. I bet they've been doing it for years, since the plaintiffs are apparently weekend residents.

Plaintiffs get $250. (I think the plaintiffs should have received $5,000. And shotgun and rifle sound very different, including the pellets, or bullets flying by)

Missing: My $2600 Dentures-Plaintiff suing former roommate for stealing his car, and lost wages. Defendant's defense says car was stolen while he was dropping off someone at the airport, and it's not his fault. Defendant counter suing for lost property. Plaintiff swears that defendant never drove his car, and never had his permission.

$821 to plaintiff, and defendant gets nothing for his dentures that were in the car.

Boston Terrier's Scary Genes-Plaintiff suing defendant over a failed scheme to breed Boston Terriers. Plaintiff bought female Boston, to breed with his male Boston. Plaintiff used to breed Pit Bulls, but quit, and wanted to breed Bostons. Male Boston had no papers, was $700, bought female for $850, and was told not to buy his first choice by plaintiff. First puppy he was told not to buy had Hydrocephalus. Female puppy, and male puppy get along very well. Vet said that female puppy could have a genetic disease, and not to breed the puppy.

Plaintiff keeps the puppy, and gets no money. Plaintiff wanted to keep the puppy, and get half of his $700 back, $350. Plaintiff could only get the money if he gave the puppy back.

Second-

Good Luck Molesting People-Plaintiff suing defendant for slamming her door into his parked vehicle. When plaintiff was sitting in his parked car at Walmart, and defendant pulled in next to his car's passenger side. Then plaintiff heard her door hit his car, and damage the mirror. Defendant simply won't shut up. Plaintiff says she apologized, and says defendant will get the car fixed cheaply. However, defendant says she never hit the man's car, or damaged his mirror. Plaintiff wrote down defendant's information, and couldn't contact the defendant. Plaintiff hired a process server (his witness, who defendant calls a molester in court).

This should be fun, defendant gets mouthy with JJ, and Byrd boots her, but only after Brittany the car bashing liar goes on and on (sadly, not literally boot). JJ boots her husband, and then her.

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

(My suspicion is the woman shoved the driver's door open, jammed it with her foot against the plaintiff's car. Then went forward into the parking space, scraping and denting the entire side of the man's car. I bet defendant has the metal edge guards on her car door edge, just so she can do maneuvers like this against other cars. Since she works at Walmart, I bet she has to park a certain distance from the store, and when it's busy, she would have to park even further away, and she was mad. I wonder if any other cars at that Walmart have similar damages to plaintiff's car? She seems like a very nasty person).

Plaintiff gets $2691.

Collateral Damage-Plaintiff was buying car from defendant, put down $1,100 in cash, and drove off with car, and title. Plaintiff was told about the issues with the car by defendant, After going to the mechanic, plaintiff said there were $4k in repairs needed. Plaintiff wanted to return the car, and defendant said no. Plaintiff dumped the car in defendant's yard, and left it, but she took the title with her.

Plaintiff gets $1100, and defendant gets title back. JJ says the defendant is a scammer after reviewing text messages between litigants.

CrazyInAlabama · August 13, 2020

4 p.m. older reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Let's Grow Marijuana?!-Plaintiff /landlord suing former tenant over his modifications to her rental home to make house into a marijuana grow. Plaintiff says he changed a five bedroom home into a two bedroom home.

Plaintiff leased house with option to buy for two years, it ended up being four years, he never qualified for a mortgage, and when she evicted him, she found he turned the house into a grow op (for weed). Defendant says he enhanced the house, says his work fixed the house, and is suing for $5000.

Landlord says the septic tank cover was destroyed by the defendant. It would help if the plaintiff would stick to the subject, brought pictures of the damage, and stopped dithering. Defendant says the plaintiff wanted to be partners in the grow op, with him, and knew about the modifications. (I remember plaintiff from last airing, she's a homeopathic practitioner, who claims hydrogen peroxide will cure autoimmune diseases).

Hopefully plaintiff's property manager will be more coherent. The septic tank needs to be replaced, and plaintiff thinks defendant will pay for that ($5,000 won't touch a new septic tank, it's just a temporary patch so they can sell the house). Tank wasn't serviced since 2005, property was purchased in 2008, and septic was never serviced.

Defendant moved out a year ago, and septic tank has been inoperative since, plaintiff wants to fix up house, and sell it. I might be required to mention, I lived and bought and sold property in Colorado, and I'm hoping the idiot plaintiff disclosed the fact that the septic tank hasn't been touched in over 10 years, and who knows how long before that? The disclosure form was over three long pages, and if she omits something, or lies, she's toast.

I'm not sure who actually got anything. Boring case of two fools.

Woodworking Hobby Fail-Plaintiff suing defendant over woodworking tools he loaned to the defendant, so she could start a woodworking hobby. Plaintiff claims he stored the items at defendant's place, and he let her used the items, while he stored them.

Defendant sold the table saw to a friend. Plaintiff claims defendant had his table saw, other tools, since October/November, and he wanted the items back in January. However, defendant returned nothing, and sold what she could already.

JJ tells defendant to return plaintiff's items with in five days, and says the signed agreement for court says she has to obey JJ's ruling or she gets nothing. Defendant claims she will.

Second-

House of Stolen Cards?!-Plaintiff claims the defendant stole the collectible cards. They do something about having the best cards, I absolutely understand no one word their talking about. JJ says she finds it amazing that when the plaintiff's cards disappear, and then they were posted for sale by the defendant on the same day. JJ says she believes the plaintiff's cards were stolen, with a confirming police report.

Plaintiff has a FB post trying to sell the 21 stolen cards, and defendant claims he didn't do it, and defendant says they were other cards he posted for sale that day. Case will be recalled after JJ's sushi lunch, with defendant showing JJ his ads for the day in question.

Defendant gives JJ the card pictures of what was posted for sale on the same day as the theft, and they are different from the stolen cards.

Plaintiff's witness claims defendant not only told him he stole the cards, but offered him some of the cards. Police report doesn't match the plaintiff's testimony.

Case dismissed, because plaintiff can prove nothing. However, I really didn't believe the defendant either.

(This is the case where Amy Schumer the comic was in the audience).

Judge Discovers Tampering of Evidence?!-Plaintiff suing former landlady over his illegal eviction from a furnished room. Landlady wanted him out, and plaintiff claims it was an illegal eviction, because he didn't have to move for three more days. Plaintiff moved in with relatives on the 27th and 28th, and landlady claims nothing was left in the apartment when she did the lock out.

Plaintiff is suing for hotel costs for four days, but the dates on the receipt from plaintiff are changed by him.

JJ says that she can see he had an alternative place to go. Plaintiff also claims his computer was stolen by defendant, but there is no proof of any property left behind, let alone a computer.

Cases dismissed.

First-5 p.m. recent rerun (it really is rerun, because the baseball pregame zapped my second JJ episode. What a blow I've been dealt!)

Unwed Mom Turned Criminal-Plaintiff (the woman with huge Woolly Caterpillar eyelashes) suing former friend for a title loan on defendant's car that plaintiff took out. The title loan was $1500, but interest has ballooned it to over $5,000. Defendant claims the money was to pay bills for Sainted Single Mother of One (SSMOO), and her Sainted child to move in with defendant.

Defendant owned the car before plaintiff moved in, and car was put in plaintiff's name, so defendant could use car for her, and her daughter. Defendant has no driver's license, so plaintiff committed a crime by putting registration in plaintiff's name, and allowing defendant to own and drive the car.

Car was impounded, and fees for title loan, and impound fees are mounting up rapidly.

Clean Hands doctrine again, case dismissed.

How Long Could You Live Without Hot Water-Plaintiff suing landlord for return of rent, after plaintiff had no hot water for over a month. Plaintiff went on vacation for two weeks, stayed home for two weeks, and left again for another week, and hot water heater wasn't repaired for a full month, after plaintiff returned. Plaintiff wants money back for 41 days without hot water, but was only home for 20 of those days. Plaintiff still lives in the same apartment.

Defendant didn't have a home warranty policy, and then enrolled in a policy, but it was 30 days before the hot water heater could be claimed, and that's what the landlord did.

Plaintiff gets credit for 20 days without hot water, $633.

Edited August 14, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

lovesnark · August 13, 2020

Great googly moogly! The eyelashes and eyebrows on the Sainted Single Mother plaintiff were horrifying. It will never cease to amaze me that women attach 26 pounds of hair to their eyelids and draw on eyebrows to look like they were done with a Sharpie and sealed with shellac is a good look for anything other than Halloween. The skin tight skirt accentuating the generous belly pooch was a nice touch to top off her look. I guess she spent all of her money on eyelash glue and didn't have any left to buy herself some shape wear.

Taeolas · August 13, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

House of Stolen Cards?!-Plaintiff claims the defendant stole the collectible cards. They do something about having the best cards, I absolutely understand no one word their talking about. JJ says she finds it amazing that when the plaintiff's cards disappear, and then they were posted for sale by the defendant on the same day. JJ says she believes the plaintiff's cards were stolen, with a confirming police report.

Plaintiff has a FB post trying to sell the 21 stolen cards, and defendant claims he didn't do it, and defendant says they were other cards he posted for sale that day. Case will be recalled after JJ's sushi lunch, with defendant showing JJ his ads for the day in question.

Defendant gives JJ the card pictures of what was posted for sale on the same day as the theft, and they are different from the stolen cards.

Plaintiff's witness claims defendant not only told him he stole the cards, but offered him some of the cards. Police report doesn't match the plaintiff's testimony.

Case dismissed, because plaintiff can prove nothing. However, I bet didn't really believe the defendant either.

(This is the case where Amy Schumer the comic was in the audience).

They were Yu-Gi-Oh cards, for a collectable card game, like Magic the Gathering or Pokemon.

He would probably have had a better chance if he'd taken the case to JMM on People's Court. JJ doesn't seem to 'get' the collectable card game, or how the local communities are around these games.

I do believe this guy swiped and sold the cards; but the Plaintiff would have had a hard time proving it. A judge more familiar with that type of community would have been able to ask better questions to settle the case. Granted the inconsistencies in the police report didn't help either.

I play MTG myself, and I know a lot of people who play Pokemon or YuGiOh. The local communtities know what is going on, who's got what and who's selling what. I have no problem believing that the Plaintiff's local community also knew what was going on; the Defendent's probably mud there now ultimately.

CrazyInAlabama · August 14, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2107-

First-

Lifetime Protective Order Against Neighbor?!-Plaintiff suing neighbor for purposely damaging his gate. Plaintiff says this is the fourth time the defendant ran into his gate. The litigants have been neighbors for about 20 years, and live across the street from each other. The start of the fighting was seven years ago, when defendant did some unsatisfactory work on plaintiff's house, and defendant's contractor license was suspended. There was a criminal case against plaintiff, and he plead guilty, and defendant has a lifetime protective order against plaintiff. Plaintiff says defendant backed out of his driveway, and hit plaintiff's gate. A police reports is submitted from the second gate bashing. Gate is a double, five foot high gate of chain link, and the gate really gets hit solidly. Plaintiff says the gate has been bashed four times.

The video of the gate being hit by defendant is submitted, by plaintiff. Police report doesn't say who hit gate, but video shows defendant's pickup truck hitting the gate. Defendant fixed the gate the first time, but not the other three times.

No receipts are submitted by plaintiff for the gate repairs he paid for. Defendant claims the plaintiff beat up defendant's wife, and children five years ago. Plaintiff's order of protection was temporary, and has expired, and subsequent attempts to get another order against defendant have been unsuccessful. (My question is, have either one of these people thought about moving?) Plaintiff says he will never move.

Plaintiff has been arrested twice for violating the restraining order, and both cases were dropped. Defendant's wife has been unsuccessful in getting her husband to stop this garbage.

Plaintiff also complains that defendant throws bread on plaintiff's side of the street, and it's causing issues with birds that it attracts, and defendant thinks that's funny. There is a video of defendant tossing a lot of bread in the street in the direction of the plaintiff's house.

I decided I like the plaintiff a lot more than the nasty defendant. JJ decides the defendant is nasty, and provocative, and his counterclaim is dismissed.

Plaintiff receives $800 to fix his fence.

Second-

Defective Doberman?!-Plaintiff suing defendant over the purchase of a Doberman Pinscher puppy. Defendant supposedly gets the puppies shipped in from Europe for $3500 transportation. Plaintiff is a large scale Doberman breeder, and defendant is a small scale Doberman breeder, and trainer, and has dogs mostly for show and training. In March 2016, plaintiff found the defendant online for $3500, to be a part of her breeding operation. Then second dog was purchased (she wanted a dog to breed immediately), and wanted the puppy. Part of the defendant's business is importing, and resale of dogs.

Second dog was not on defendant's property, and plaintiff claims defendant said he could get the dog shipped to plaintiff. Defendant had the puppy shipped to the plaintiff, but she said dog was defective, and she wanted a refund. Defendant wanted puppy shipped back to him, and he would get another puppy from the original puppy breeder, but she would have to pay shipping $3500. Plaintiff has had second dog for a year, but she still has it.

Defendant harassment complaint dismissed. Plaintiff case dismissed.

Minister Mischief?!-Plaintiff suing minister for unpaid loans, an unpaid trip to Las Vegas ($2500), and for car registration, traffic tickets ($1,000), and another loan for ($4,000). Defendant was going to pay the loans back to plaintiff out of grants he was going to receive for the prison ministry, the grants never happened. Then defendant was fired from the ministry, and never paid the loans back. Then it gets really strange. Defendant's Vegas trip was with his soon to be ex-wife, to prevent the separation (it failed). Defendant says he didn't lose his salary, but had to get more credentials.

Defendant is now a social worker, in Arizona. His religious career goals changed, and he changed jobs.

$5,000 to plaintiff, and defendant still owes $500 more (defendant actually made some payments).

CrazyInAlabama · August 14, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Screaming Fit Freaks Mom Out-Plaintiff (property owner) suing former roommate/ friend for failing to give notice to move, damages to the home, and the unpaid balance of the lease. Defendant claims when she gave plaintiff notice to move, plaintiff freaked out so badly it scared defendant's little girl. Defendant lived across the street from plaintiff, wanted to rent her home out, so she rented a room from plaintiff, for $600 a month. Defendant and 9 year old daughter moved into the spare bedroom at plaintiff's place.

Defendant paid rent on time for almost 18 months. Around September, plaintiff said defendant needed to move because of a custody dispute with defendant's child's father. Defendant moved on 28 September, and plaintiff wants 30 days notice, and October's rent.

In September defendant says on 9 September plaintiff went off on defendant, and the screaming scared the daughter, so defendant decided to move out as soon as possible. Defendant was the first renter for plaintiff, and didn't rent room as of six months later (plaintiff claims she was looking for a 'suitable' roommate, but hasn't found one in six months). Plaintiff says the wall unit for the TV ruined the wall (wall holes are tiny, even I could patch them. By the way, the wall mount for the TV was not done correctly. Defendant should get a TV stand with a built in mount), the carpet needed to be replaced (call a carpet cleaner). Plaintiff claims defendant daughter had lice, and that turned into bedbugs (it doesn't work that way). (A not nice personal note, what did the defendant do to her very aggressive Groucho Marx eyebrows?)

Plaintiff case dismissed, because it's garbage.

No Shopping Together When You're Playing House-Plaintiff Stetson Denny, is suing his former live in girlfriend for the price of a dog they purchased together (A Cockaleer puppy, Cavalier King Spaniel, and Cocker Spaniel mix). Dog was either $3200 or $2800, plus finance charges from the pet store, so JJ goes with $3,000. The litigants couldn't afford their own apartments, so they paid what ended up being $5,000 for mutt?

Idiot plaintiff claims you can register a Cockalier with AKC (no you can't, but I bet some of the shady so-called kennel clubs will register anything for a price). When the two fools broke up, they talked about splitting dog custody, but it didn't work out. Defendant has dog, and has had the dog for a year. Byrd confirms that the dog is a mixed breed, and not registered (we all knew that already).

With interest, the $3,000 purchase price is probably closer to $5,000 by now, but JJ halves the remainder, and plaintiff gets $1400. But from hallterview, defendant keeps the dog. (How ridiculous to pay almost $5k including interest for a mutt).

$1200 for half of the remaining purchase price to plaintiff. Defendant has the dog, and keeps the dog.

Dominican Republic Nightmare-Plaintiff./niece (26 years old) suing defendant/her aunt (32 or so) for her part of a vacation to the Dominican Republic, and both litigants went on the trip. The plaintiff charged both tickets, and expenses on her credit card, and want $725 from defendant for expenses she never paid. On other trips, each paid their own way.

On this trip plaintiff paid in advance for trip, but a week before the trip, defendant hurt her back, had to wear a back brace, and went on vacation because she couldn't get a full refund.

$725 to plaintiff.

Second-

Don't Get Involved With Your Son's Coach-Plaintiff loaned $4500 to son's baseball coach for his DUI costs. She claims the coach scammed other parents too. As defendant puts it, after getting nailed for DUI, he kept getting into legal trouble with alcohol, and it complicated his probation, and fees. He either had to go to jail for 30 days, or pay the $4500 in fees.

Defendant Scum Ball claims it was a gift, not a loan, and in return for extra coaching for son. Amazingly, his cell phone plan changed, and he lost the texts . Plaintiff has check defendant cashed. (I love a plaintiff with actual proof. I do not believe for a second the defendant paid other parents back for the money he conned them out of).

$4500 to plaintiff.

Diamond Heist-Plaintiffs suing jeweler for refund for engagement ring, and travel expenses. Plaintiff ordered ring, paid defendant, but it wasn't ready on time, and he also wants travel expenses for one of those special proposal trips. Defendant isn't a real jeweler that produces rings, etc. but a middle man who buys from others, which is a shock to the plaintiff. Plaintiff paid $7,000 to defendant.

Defendant counter suing for restocking fees. However, JJ is right, the office had no stock, and they called up websites and jewelers to select the ring he wanted. GIA certification for the stone would come with it. Defendant spent the $7,000 he collected from the plaintiff, and when plaintiff said he was going to sue for non-delivery the plaintiff stopped production from the jeweler. Plaintiff doesn't know anything about buying diamonds or rings.

Plaintiff gets $5k ( he loses over $2,000+), and defendant is a crook according to JJ, and we know she knows diamonds, and crooked middle men.

NotTheKid · August 15, 2020

On 9/18/2018 at 8:54 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wonder what his university thinks about the parties he talked about, and the underage liquor. He'll be lucky if he's still a student there after this, especially if his major is beer pong.

I wonder how his grades are because he's apparently majoring in beer pong, if he's going to be one of the partying freshmen that get booted for grades?

Actually Im on track to graduate with a 3.0 and I work a $40/hour job.

CrazyInAlabama · August 17, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Roommate Cat Fight?!-Plaintiff is suing former roommate for rent, bills, stolen possessions, a bed, and an assault. Defendant was staying at a motel, and could no longer afford it, so co-worker plaintiff wanted to have defendant move into her apartment and split the rent, and bills. Rent was $650, $325 each. Defendant stayed from mid-September to the end of December 2016. Defendant claims she paid her rent for the three months, however, defendant only paid the $325 for two of the three months. Also, plaintiff's boyfriend was in the apartment a lot of the time, and defendant wanted to pay only a third of the rent, even though the plaintiff and boyfriend shared the same bedroom. Defendant didn't pay her half of the utilities, so plaintiff took her name off of the cable bill.

On 20 or 21 December, there was another fight, and defendant moved out, and plaintiff found the bed in the room was disassembled. JJ only will pay $325 for one month's rent. The bed issue is gone, the cable bill is gone. Plaintiff claims defendant took the towels, sheets, and the bedding. Defendant is counter claiming for missing clothes, during the fight over nonpayment of rent.

Defendant claims the plaintiff rammed the door open, like a football tackle. Defendant left, and then called the police for an escort to pick up her stuff. There are no pictures of damage to defendant, case dismissed.

$325 to plaintiff for the month's rent.

Pink Eye, Stink Eye!-Plaintiff suing makeup artist for refund of fee, medical expenses, and damages. Plaintiff went to defendant to get permanent makeup tattooed on her eyelids. The defendant is certified for the makeup by her teacher, and some organization I've never heard of. Since it tattooing, not classified as cosmetology, many states don't require a cosmetology license. Plaintiff claims she got pink eye at the defendant's house during the procedure (since when does pink eye require hospital visits?)

Plaintiff claims the defendant's child had pink eye, or eye infections, and that's what she caught. Defendant says her child didn't have any eye issues on that day, or around that time. Plaintiff paid $200 + for the procedure, and less than $50 for medical and medication costs. However, plaintiff is suing for $862.

Plaintiff called the defendant a couple of days after the procedure, and the medical visit. There are a lot of reasons that you can get an eye infection after tattooing your eyelids.

JJ throws out the defendant's harassment counter claim. JJ doesn't care about the waiver plaintiff signed refusing an allergy test. (I think JJ was wrong. Plaintiff could have used older mascara or some other issue, causing the infection).

Plaintiff receives her $862.

Second-

Ex-Lover Restraining Order?!-Plaintiff suing former boyfriend. Plaintiff had a care card, and defendant spent $2100 at the dentist on her account, and is also suing for rent, property damages, and an assault on her. They lived together for two years. They split the rent and utilities, except when he was out of work. Defendant claims he paid $4700 for the dentist, and legal bills, but has no proof.

Defendant would give plaintiff cash, and she would decide how much goes to the dental accounts.

Plaintiff submits a police report of an assault. However, plaintiff only applied and was granted a temporary restraining order, and never went to court to get a final order, or testified about the assault. Defendant says after the fight, as he was leaving plaintiff stabbed him in the back.

JJ will give plaintiff $2,099 for the last of the dental bills, and a phone.

Don't Show Me the Money!-Plaintiff suing former friend to pay his rent. A year before this, the defendant's mother was behind on rent (he lives with his mother when he's in town working), and plaintiff loaned defendant $. Plaintiff only has her disability payment ($1400 to support herself now), but at the time of the loan she had a job, and was applying for disability, and received a lump sum of $9800 back payment. The defendant mentioned he needed $900 for mom's rent.

Plaintiff has a money order for the money, made out to Mayfair Apartments.

$900 to plaintiff

CrazyInAlabama · August 17, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Shocking Vandalism Caught on Tape-(A great day for incriminating videos).-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 has the video of defendant vandalizing the plaintiff's car, in broad daylight. Plaintiff was making a U-turn across the center line, and bashes into the driver's side of the defendant's car.

Defendant claims it's not her on the video, but it absolutely is the defendant. Defendant is driving the same van that the plaintiff hit earlier in the day. Defendant slashed the car tires, and bashed the windows out. 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 plaintiff put her hands on him (She grabbed him by the ear). 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.

Plaintiff claims the defendant man assaulted her the day before she assaulted him, but she has no proof., 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 case dismissed, because plaintiff is a liar who assaults people.

Second-

Judge Kicks Man Out of His Own House-Plaintiff is of ex-girlfriend/defendant, who got an order of protection banning plaintiff from his own home, when he regained the house (four months later), he says everything was stripped. Defendant and her children lived with plaintiff for five months, and then she filed for protective order.

She had left the home, and judge allowed her and her children to move back into the house, and banned plaintiff. TRO was ex parte (plaintiff didn't get to testify or contest order). Nothing in the application for protective order mentions that the home was plaintiff's. The final decision, with two amendments, was man could move into his home, and applied for his possessions back. Defendant took furniture, but returned it. (Sometimes the person with the kids gets the best car, and the house, and since the hearing for the protective order didn't include the facts that it wasn't her house, or the defendant's kids, she got his house). When defendant filed for the protective order, and for the house, defendant and kids had moved out. Then she filed the protective order, and she moved into plaintiff's house, and stayed four months.

Defendant claims she didn't ask for the house, but moved back in anyway. Defendant, and her children moved into the house for almost four months. There were about six hearings about the protective orders, until plaintiff received his home back. Some items were returned, but not plaintiff's military mementos. Defendant took the washer/dryer, and returned it to the store.

Defendant gets nothing. (some jurisdictions have gone so far over the line, that testimony by the protective order target isn't allowed, and they don't even get notice until the protective order is served).

No estimate for damage repairs, so no money. Defendant's stupid case is thrown out. Defendant wants her daughter to testify in court, not happening.

Plaintiff gets washer/dryer money back, $1284.

Tree Huggin' Father/Daughter Duo-Plaintiffs (father and daughter) suing neighbor for tree services, harassment, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs hired tree service to remove branches from neighbor's yard that has branches hanging over their house, and property, and they have written permission from the co-op board to remove. (Both parties live in a co-op. they own their mobile home, and the land is owned in common, and they all make the rules). Defendant is shaking her head like a bobble head doll over everything. JJ says board president has to do the tree trimming, but the co-op said the plaintiffs can hire a tree service and trim the tree. Board president granted permission for the trimming. However, since land is owned is common by the co-op, defendant has no right to tell the tree trimmers to leave her property.

I already see what the plaintiffs are saying about defendant being the neighbor from hell.

Defendant is counter suing for harassment, and damages to her home.

Defendant simply won't shut up. (I think the tree hugging part in the title is because defendant claims plaintiff doesn't think animals belong inside, or whoever writes the episode captions is drunk again). Everything dismissed, on both sides. Note to plaintiffs, if you ever want to sell the mobile home, and get away from defendant, going on Judge Judy is not the right way to do it.

In hall-terview the plaintiff says they did call police, and defendant was cited.

CrazyInAlabama · August 18, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Adoption Turmoil?-Plaintiff suing his adopted son's sister/ defendant for unpaid car payments, tickets, and damages on a car plaintiff co-signed for with the defendant. Adopted son, and brother to defendant, is witness for the plaintiff. Plaintiff has co-signed with his son, and son has paid his car off, and defendant wanted a car, and plaintiff co-signed for defendant's car. Defendant stopped making payments, because car was repossessed, over the parking tickets that accumulated (defendant claims the brother was responsible for the tickets), and car was impounded for the amount of the tickets. (If defendant says 'tooken' again, I'm going to scream).

Defendant quit her job, and stopped paying for car. She claims she was paying on the car. Plaintiff will have to pay the remaining balance on the car, after the repossession for non-payment, and the car is totaled. Defendant claims her brother received so many traffic tickets on the car, that it was impounded. However, car was wrecked by defendant three months before she stopped paying on the car, and she had no insurance on the car (insurance required by the car loan, and state laws). Plaintiff didn't even know about the car accident by the defendant, until finance company sent him

The owing amount on the car is over $9,000, and car is totaled. $5,000 to plaintiff, leaving him on the hook for over $4,000.

Harassment and Deception?-Plaintiff Rasheena Phinisee (I like that name, I've never heard of either part of it before), suing her friend's mother for money she paid for a car, and harassment and deception. Plaintiff bought car from defendant, taking over the payments. Plaintiff paid money for the car note, and insurance (she was assuming the loan), by paying the defendant every month. Then plaintiff found out insurance wasn't being paid for by defendant, and defendant refused to give plaintiff the insurance card. Then plaintiff stopped paying.

Plaintiff claims she was told by defendant there were a few months left on the loan, but claims it was three years. Car is now parked in front of plaintiff's friend's house, since she had it towed on the night she got it back from the defendant. Defendant will get the car back (via tow truck), and plaintiff will get a partial refund, because she drove the car for three months. Rasheena wants ever penny of the $2100 she paid defendant back, and that's not happening. Defendant claims the plaintiff assaulted her, and harassed her. Defendant says she saw plaintiff, and two friends vandalize the car.

$2148 was paid to defendant, and $1398 will go back to the plaintiff, (that's minus the car rental), and defendant will pick up her car.

Second-

Agoraphobic Dog-Owner Heartbreak!-Plaintiff is suing for money she paid defendant for a dog, and punitive damages. Plaintiff purchased a dog from defendant, to train as a companion animal, and get it certified. The dog was a Boston Terrier, French Bulldog cross. Defendant found dog roaming the streets in July, took dog to vet for a spay, and shots, then vet checked for a chip. Two months later the dog was scanned by the vet at the ASPCA, and a chip was found, and the owner contacted. Owner lived in Mississippi, and dog was found in Florida, dog escaped on a trip to Florida, and defendant found dog, and kept dog for six months. Six months later the defendant couldn't keep the dog, because of housing reasons, and advertised the dog for adoption

Original owner never arrived, and defendant advertised the dog for adoption. Plaintiff paid $200 for the dog to defendant, and because of the chip the vet wouldn't give the dog back to plaintiff. The original owner finally showed up, and picked up her dog.

How does someone with Agoraphobia fly to California from Florida for JJ's show? Plaintiff wants the original $200, and damages to her psyche.

There is a text from plaintiff admitting she knew who the owner was, but she still gets her $200 back.

Sob Story Payday?-Plaintiff suing her ex-boyfriend, for an unpaid loan. Plaintiff is unemployed, and has been for months, after being fired. Plaintiff received $128,000 for her half of the marital home after the divorce. Plaintiff moved in with her parents with her two kids, and then met defendant. Plaintiff claims the two litigants were dating, but defendant says they weren't.

Litigants met at the gym before, and during her divorce, then he moved, but their relationship started. Plaintiff gave defendant $5,000. Defendant says plaintiff left the check in his glove compartment, but says he didn't ask her for the money. Defendant says they were just friends, and never dated. Plaintiff now says they were dating, or 'talking' after her divorce was final.

Plaintiff says defendant was out of work for disability, and but has since returned to work. His disability was for anxiety and stress, for 18 months.

Unfortunately for defendant, there are existing text messages from defendant calling the $5,000 a loan

$5,000 for plaintiff

CrazyInAlabama · August 18, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

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 same 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, and then the 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.

I believe everything the plaintiff says about the defendant.

$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-

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

Plaintiff gets dining sets back, desk, antique table, and she has five days to get a police escort, get movers to take everything back, or else it goes. Plaintiff can't enter the house, just the movers (my guess is restraining order).

Defendant is counter claiming for harassment, and trespassing by plaintiff. Plaintiff likes to send nasty texts to defendant's new girlfriend, who is as usual, his witness. (I don't think the plaintiff should get away with threatening anyone, and she has no room to talk about being a tramp).

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

Plaintiff gets $2278, and her furniture, but with an escort, and only if she picks it up in five days.

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

CrazyInAlabama · August 19, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, 2016-2017 probably-

First-

Don't Steal My Little Sister's Money-Plaintiff suing her sister's guardian (a former family friend) for transferring money from younger sister's bank account to her own. Younger sister claims defendant assaulted her, and defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her. Defendant was guardian/foster parent for a brother, who aged out, and younger sister, who now lives with plaintiff sister. Plaintiff sister claims money was stolen out of her work wages, in a bank account in both names (sister was a minor). Defendant is suing over house damage, while the younger girl was her legal ward, so that's dismissed. Then the van defendant claims ward was driving her van, and it was towed,. Defendant's van was parked at plaintiff's father's house, and didn't have current license, and registration. (I totally believe the plaintiffs, and can't stand the defendant).

The younger plaintiff's wages were from working at Culver's for four full months, and submits her bank statements. Her take home pay was $3655 during that period.

Plaintiff would put in money in the account, and defendant would transfer money out, to pay the cable bill $75 a month (for the entire household, woman, plaintiff, two grandchildren, and defendant's husband). There are a lot of transfers from plaintiff's account, to defendant's account, and withdrew a lot of money. Defendant claims she made her own deposits to plaintiff's account, and then transferred back to her own account at the same bank (No, that makes zero sense). (On a tacky personal note, defendants bad dye job makes her look like a Muppet).

Plaintiff woman says she never withdrew a penny from the account, However, defendant received no money from any source for the plaintiff's care. Plaintiff would cash her checks, and give the cash to defendant to put into the account. Plaintiff did keep 25% of the cash for herself. The plaintiff's cell phone was a prepaid cell, and cost the defendant nothing. Plaintiff loaned $100 to defendant, and bought Christmas presents for with a December check.

JJ doesn't think defendant stole money, but covered bills for household. Defendant took care of two children for five years, without any money paid to her.

$1500 to plaintiff. (Defendant's halterview is "it is what it is", the guilty party's usual statement).

Second-

Mobile Home Towing Nightmare- (actually it should be Mobile Home Park Towing Nightmare)-Plaintiff suing tow operator for towing her car, and damaging her fence. Plaintiff has been living in the same mobile home park for 24 years, and tow operator has had a two year contract with the mobile park to tow vehicles violating park rules, or state laws. Plaintiff took man to mediation twice without settlement, and that is still in process. She also received a judgment against him in small claims for the first two tows, but defendant has filed to have the summary judgement dismissed, and the case reinstated. Then plaintiff's car was towed the third time. Counter claim for $1200 is the defendant says when plaintiff came to his tow yard, with a companion, she blocked the entrance, and her companion chained himself to the tow yard fence preventing him from opening for the day. (I want a video of the chaining to the gate).

On all three tows plaintiff's car was in violation of park rules, by having no valid car license or registration. Plaintiff is told to show a valid registration, and tag for the vehicle. The submitted insurance is for another vehicle, and the insurance date is four days after the third tow. There is no registration proof on the Nissan Rogue, just a previous vehicle, a Dodge Journey. (This happened in Florida). So the three tows were legitimate for no registration, no car license, or insurance. Plaintiff doesn't even have a driver's license, because of bad eyesight. She claims there were no rules when she moved to the park, but she certainly knew after the first tow.

Defendant counter claim is being heard. After the third tow, plaintiff's friend in a mobility scooter chained himself to the tow yard gate, and plaintiff screamed all kinds of nasty stuff at employees. While geezer was chained to gate for 90 minutes, and plaintiff was screaming at the personnel. There is proof of loss of revenue by tow yard. Police were called, and they had to threaten to tase him.

Plaintiff case dismissed. She claims she has a valid driver's license now, but claims she can see now.

Defendant case dismissed too.

Bed Bug Head Board-Plaintiff suing grandson's step grand father over a bed bug infected head board. Plaintiff says she heard the defendant had furniture from his former job (he's a retired furniture salesman, or store owner). Plaintiff bought the head board from defendant, and a mattress. Plaintiff claims there were bed bugs in the wooden corners of the head boar, but not the mattress (not really).

Plaintiff is a beauty operator, and consulted a client that is also her doctor. She notified the defendant of the bed bugs, but not until 10 days later after the furniture was delivered. Plaintiff has an exterminator's report.

Defendant had the furniture at his home for a year, and then sold it to the plaintiff. Defendant says he's never had any report of bed bugs in his home.

Plaintiff says the 'bed bugs' were very large, but bed bugs aren't large.

Plaintiff case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · August 19, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First (New)-

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. Before plaintiff and husband moved on, two dogs each were in the apartment with plaintiff, and two with defendant mother.

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.

After 2 1/2 years, plaintiff decided to get the dog. Plaintiff claims she left the dog with her mother for emotional support. Plaintiff was snooping in mother's iPad, and found dog was rehomed, during the mother's critical illness. Plaintiff claimed she paid for mother to keep the dog, and would have paid for vet bills. During 2 1/2 years defendant says plaintiff paid nothing for the dog.

Case dismissed.

Buy What You Can Afford-Plaintiff suing her brother, for missed car payments, and tickets on a car that's in plaintiff's name. Defendant needed a car, but had zero credit, and he put down $3,000. Plaintiff loaned him $300 for a car payment, and co-signed the loan. Defendant paid the sister back the $300. In January, 2019 defendant/brother stopped paying for the car, but was still driving it. The finance company went after the sister.

Defendant had no job, a new baby, and stopped paying for the car, and wanted his relatives to pay for his car loan. Car was repossessed, and loan is still outstanding. Plaintiff claims brother stopped paying a year before car was repossessed. There is still $27000 left on car, but after auction there is still $12000 owed.

$5,000 to plaintiff, leaving her $7,000 short.

Frightening Dental Scare-Plaintiff suing his former friend for an unpaid loan for dental bills. Defendant has since married someone else. Plaintiff says defendant called him, needed dental work, and couldn't get a Care Credit loan, because of bad job history, and terrible credit. Plaintiff went to the dental office, and got a loan for $5500 total.

$5,000 to plaintiff. Deadbeat defendant never paid one penny on her own dental bill. Bet the loan amount is well over $5500 by now.

Second-

Divorcees Still Supporting Adult Son-Plaintiff suing ex-husband for not helping loser adult son out of mess, they've been divorced for over 20 years. At first defendant agreed to help son, but then there was a falling out with the son, and it fell apart. Agreement was to help married adult son, who is not working, and has a pregnant wife, and plaintiff talked to ex-husband about helping with son's rent ($1700 a month, defendant's portion was supposed to be $850). Ex-wife paid the $1700, and is mad ex-husband didn't pay his half.

JJ says if man told ex-wife he wasn't contributing after fight with son, and she transferred the money after that, then man doesn't have to pay. Woman sent money on 18 April, but it was returned (insufficient funds), but man told son and ex-wife on 12 April that he was done with support a grown man. If the plaintiff rolls her eyes at JJ one more time I'm going to scream. Grown son is plaintiff's witness, along with his Grandma. Father co-signed for a car for son, who is 34, and father paid most of the payments ($7,000 by the father).

Case dismissed.

Labrador Chews Up Pomeranian-Plaintiff's Pomeranian is alleged to have been attacked by defendant's unleashed Labrador. However, plaintiff's sworn statement doesn't resemble her dramatic, testimony in court. Vet reports said some treatment should happen, she couldn't afford it, and vet agreed to take dog if she signed it over to him as a rescue. Woman still wants vet bills paid ($91).

However, plaintiff waited two days to take the dog to vet,. Woman first paid $125 euthanasia fee, then signed dog over to vet and not euthanized. Her total vet bills were $91. She adopted the dog a year before, it was a rescue. She took dog for walk, or sitting on bench, and claims the unleashed Lab attacked the Pom, twice. Defendant says there is no bench in the common area, so plaintiff made that up.

Defendant will pay the $91, not the $5,000 the plaintiff wants. (Defendant says someone adopted the dog, a rescue paid for the surgery).

CrazyInAlabama · August 20, 2020

4 p.m. older reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Get Me On Oprah?!-Plaintiff / small business owner is suing her former marketing manager did not deliver the publicity for her business he promised, she's suing for breach of contract, harassment, hacking and stalking . The Chiropractor wanted the defendant to get her on Oprah. Defendant claims the $900 defendant was paid was wasted. Plaintiff wanted market research, and online marketing, and to expand the nutrition part of her business. The proposal was submitted, but there was no signed contract. Defendant filmed three videos for the business, and one is on the plaintiff's now. There is a portal that included the three videos, and articles written from the videos, and articles were approved by the plaintiff's daughter the office manager for her mother's business. The fee paid was $899 one time fee, for the videos, and portal.

Plaintiff's breach of contract is thrown out, because contract terms were fulfilled.

Plaintiffs posted a Google 1 star review about defendant's company, and someone changed the review to a 5 star. A volunteer buttinsky from Google claims the defendant must have hacked plaintiff's account to change the review. Buttinsky claims the 5 star was from a phony account not belonging to plaintiff. Defendant claims plaintiff first posted a 1 star, then a 5 star, and then another 1 star.

A few months later the plaintiff daughter office manager apologizes for the first bad review, and claims the lack of communication between the litigants was the plaintiff's fault.

Plaintiff also wanted the defendant to get her on Oprah. If defendant can produce the email from plaintiff saying the Oprah demand, and saying she will show a negative review, but he can't produce that.

Both cases dismissed.

Second-

Double Salary Snafu?-Plaintiff suing former employee for return of wages that were double the defendant's normal wages. Defendant opened, and shut down daily, checked the register, and prepared the bank deposits for the plaintiff's business, this was at an ice rink. Defendant was an hourly employee, for $10.00 an hour. Defendant went from hourly to salary in January. This was actually a pay cut for defendant, to eliminate overtime costs to the company.

A month later the plaintiff told defendant that there would be a raise in store for him, and after a few paychecks that were a mistake, the defendant quit. The paycheck went from $951 to $1700, for four paychecks.

JJ thinks someone who was told he was getting a raise, worked seven days a week, with long hours. JJ thinks the defendant should have told the plaintiff about how much money he received.

Plaintiff receives the overpaid amount back, $4,321 minus the money taken out of the defendant's paycheck, so plaintiff gets the $3,457.

Edited August 20, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · August 20, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

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. Defendant was brought to the house by a friend, who stayed around, and she claims he called the police. That's when son left the scene, defendant's 'friend' 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 for the bail. I think he should have had more money awarded for the defendant's bad behavior, and I bet she had zero relationship with the son after this.

Second-

Service Dog Scammer-Plaintiff claims his dog is a Service Dog, and is suing his former landlady for an illegal lockout, loss of property, and security deposit. Plaintiff rented a room in defendant's house. Defendant claims false restraining order, property damage, etc, and claims his dog was not a service dog. Plaintiff claims his doctor says the dog is a service animal, and claims the dog is a therapy animal (still not a service dog), and dog was needed for ? Plaintiff claims his dog was a service dog.

Defendant says dog was not house trained, and did it's business all over the apartment. Plaintiff filed for protective order after the 30 day eviction notice was issued. In the application for the protective order plaintiff claimed landlady was in a relationship with him, threw gasoline on him, hit him, made passes at him, and defendant lied under penalty of perjury.

Plaintiff got a TRO, served the restraining order, and landlady couldn't evict him on time. Landlady says on hearing for restraining order, plaintiff didn't show. He claims he was hospitalized, but can't remember where or for what. I feel so sorry for the former landlady. Landlady put his items in a storage unit after eviction, and he claims she cut all of the cords, and threw bleach on it (is he kidding?). Plaintiff gets nothing, and deserves even less than that.

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

$5000 for landlady for false restraining order. (Defendant does best JJ Hall-terview ever).

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

Case dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · August 21, 2020

4 p.m. older reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

Grandparent Custody Shuffle-Plaintiff suing the father of daughter's child for an unpaid loan for lawyer's fees. Grandparents claim a loan to the father of their granddaughter, so defendant could get custody of child away from their daughter. Daughter ran off with another boyfriend, and plaintiffs tried to get custody, and lawyer told them that they had no chance of getting custody, but the father of the baby did. Plaintiffs gave defendant $3,500 for the attorney, and he received temporary custody of the baby. The entire idea was to use the defendant, grandchild's father to get custody, and visitation. Defendant offered every other weekend visits to the grand parents.

Daughter broke up with the new boyfriend, and now has custody. Daughter, and granddaughter must live with the grandparents for two years, and grandparents now want the money for the attorney back. The entire custody issue was a scam by plaintiffs to get the grand child.

Plaintiffs claim defendant signed a promissory note, and JJ tells the grandparents to stick it, and take it to Small Claims locally. How is a dishwasher going to make $3500 to pay back the plaintiffs?

Dog Owners Must See TV! Warning!-Plaintiff suing former friend for a loan to pay vet bills. (Two litigants that need a good hairdresser for corrective dye jobs). Plaintiff saw a social media posting about the defendant's dog being deathly ill, but had no money for vet bills. Plaintiff said defendant should go to UC Davis vet school ,and she would loan her the money for the 24 hour Vet Clinic there.

Dog cost $350 off of Craigslist, and dog also had shots, at defendant's expense. Defendant finally took dog to vet They tried one clinic, and plaintiff paid $250 at that one. Then they went to another vet. The dog was taken to plaintiff's regular vet, and had surgery. It turned out the dog had many fragments of smoked cow bones in her stomach (the cow bones dry out and fragment in time), and had to have emergency surgery. Defendant did tell Petco about the cow bone issue, and didn't care, and now they have to do something.

Plaintiff used her Care Credit for the surgery. Vet bill $250 for the second vet, and $3181 for the surgery. There are text messages from defendant saying she would pay back the plaintiff. Defendant says she would put the dog down instead of pay over $3,000 for the dog's surgery. The text messages say exactly the opposite.

PLaintiff also watched the dog after surgery while the heartless defendant went on vacation (I wonder who paid for that trip?).

Plaintiff receives $3,300 for the two vet bills.

Second-

Going, Going...Gone!-Plaintiff suing defendant over the car the defendant sold to him, and wants traveling costs, refund of money paid for car, and punitive damage. Defendant goes to car auctions, and defendant was given $2100 to buy a car for the plaintiff's girlfriend. Plaintiff took the car, after paying the $2100. Plaintiff had the money from his girlfriend, and only paid the defendant $1,000. Plaintiff took the car to a mechanic, that said the car needed a new transmission. Then the plaintiff left the keys with the mechanic, and defendant was going to pick it up, and wrote a second check for $1200, to get another car.

Defendant says he doesn't have the car, but he has the title. Plaintiff claims he left the car at the mechanic shop. Defendant says he never could get together with the male plaintiff, and give him the title. Defendant says the $1,000 wasn't for the car at auction, because defendant already had the car at his car lot. Defendant says the plaintiff was buying the car for the girlfriend. Defendant claims plaintiff man had the car for almost a month, and he's stuck with it. Car was towed from mechanic's shop (or somewhere) to impound, where it remains.

Defendant claims he paid $2200 for the car at auction, but has no proof, and court adjourns to get proof ($1257 plus fees to the auction). Extra fees were because the car was towed to the defendant's lot (he drove to the auction, and that was how he had to get it to the car lot). Defendant claims the car was fine to drive.

$2200 to plaintiff, and car is gone

Grandmothers Payback?!-Plaintiff suing her children's grandmother for the unpaid balance of a car plaintiff sold defendant. SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four) plaintiff has four children with defendant's son. However, defendant paid $700 to plaintiff for the car, and the kids stayed with defendant for two months, and defendant claims the child care fees equaled the other $1,000 for the car.

Defendant claims when the children came to live with her for two months, the plaintiff forgave the loan. Plaintiff says the defendant is full of horse poop.

$1800 to plaintiff, car was sold by defendant.

CrazyInAlabama · August 21, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

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. 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 receives $235 for his windshield.

Second-

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

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

Counter claim by defendant is for filing a false CPS report, that alleged the live-in boyfriend was abusing the children. Defendant says FBI was investigating grandmother. Sadly, no one tells us what grandma was in trouble with the FBI about. Defendant wanted her to leave. Defendant claims mother called CPS, after grandmother was booted out of the home.

$366 for plaintiff for utility bill, nothing for defendant.

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

Defendant and son drove 12 hours round trip to where plaintiff was living, loaded a U-Haul for her, hauled it to the rent-to-own house. She didn't pay them a penny for this. Plaintiff case dismissed. It would have cost the plaintiff thousands to hire someone to drive a moving truck for her, plus the rental costs, and loading and unloading her stuff. (Last time other posters said the 12 hour drive is more like 1 hour).

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

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

Defendant keeps the car.

One Tough Cookie · August 23, 2020

On 8/21/2020 at 6:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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. The defendant is not the baby's biological father, neither is the plaintiff, so I wonder who is?

The mother looked dumber than a box of hair with her open mouth breathing and extremely bad wig. I wouldn't let her walk my dog and I think it's sloppy f you can't even tell who fathered your child.

CrazyInAlabama · August 24, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Take Your Anger Management Classes...or Else!-Plaintiff bailed defendant out for $2815, after his arrest for disorderly conduct (plea bargained down to that). Plaintiff felt sorry for him after his arrest after their fight. Since defendant never took the anger management class, and so plaintiff's bail money is forfeited.

Plaintiff claims the defendant broke her windshield. Defendant admitted in police report that he grabbed the plaintiff by the shoulder and pulled her hair. Defendant didn't realize that not taking anger management (now said on national TV, in front of 10 million of us), that the judge can issue a bench warrant, and have him arrested. ( I need anger management, I want to take a big pair of pliers and rip that nose ring right out of his nose). Another witness that was driving by, that neither litigant knows, says he saw the defendant yelling at the driver in the car, pulled her hair, and punched the victim several times in the car, with his fists three to four times. Defendant still says it's all a lie.

Bail is $2815, so plaintiff gets that.

Don't Let Friends Drive Your Car-Plaintiff bought car, lost his license (either before or after he bought the car, he's very unspecific), and his mother wanted the car gone, so he stored it on defendant's mother's property. Car was never titled by plaintiff. Defendant got sick of car being there, so defendant sold the car for $300 to someone for parts, so he didn't need a title.

Plaintiff gets $300 for the parts.

Second-

Deployment, a Dead Dog, and a Crash?-Plaintiff rented a car for now ex, because she could rent a car in her name (bad credit, and I bet, bad driving). Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to move in with him so she would pay the break lease fee, but plaintiff says defendant would pay the break lease fee. Defendant claims a miscarriage, that plaintiff's dog killed her dog, and then she moved out of the house right before court. Defendant brought a child into this disgusting excuse for a relationship.

Defendant is still married to her former/current husband, and tried to use the military deployment of her still current husband to break the lease (it's legal, but not to lie about it). So plaintiff is a disgusting Jody (ask someone who is military about that. It's the guy (or girl) who's boinking your spouse while you're overseas fighting for your country).

$3,000 for plaintiff.

Good Samaritan or Social Security Thief?!-Plaintiff has known defendant from grade school and high school, she's suing him for stealing her social security money. Plaintiff said man would hold her money for her, to avoid government limits on savings. She finally received two lump sums, $2668, $2668, and $1,300, totaling $6500+. Defendant has a letter stating he paid the attorney $500 to help with the process. Plaintiff gave the defendant $2400 to hold for her, so she could keep her bank accounts below the limit for SS (coming to court with dirty hands for the plaintiff). Woman was in a recovery center after surgery, then a shelter, then a room. Defendant paid an attorney $500 to fight the woman's eviction. Defendant bought a bed for the plaintiff, a computer tablet, a couple of burner phones.

There is a $2,000 CD that will be transferred to plaintiff. Defendant claims the $2400 was for the CD, and for the attorney. Defendant tried to take care of plaintiff, but I think he's also a crook. Defendant is an attorney too.

$2,000 to plaintiff from the CD.

Roommates No More!-Plaintiff suing her former roommate for unpaid rent, and cable bills. They were friends, and rented an apartment together. Defendant didn't pay one month's rent, because he was waiting for a disability check, so plaintiff gets $510. Defendant claims he was given notice to be out by 4 February, because a new roommate was moving in. Plaintiff says there were no damages with defendant moved out, so he gets his security deposit back (new roommate will have to pay security deposit).

Plaintiff will get $510 for rent. Cable bills are dismissed.

CrazyInAlabama · August 24, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Man Brings Wife and Girlfriend to Court-Defendant is girlfriend of plaintiff. Plaintiff, cheating husband, and his wife are in court. Plaintiff alleges multiple unpaid loans. Plaintiff claims just a work friendship, but defendant says they were cheating together. There was no expectation of repayment. There were a bunch of previous loans in 2017, none were repaid; another loan not repaid in 2018. There was another 'loan' to pay for a church ceremony for defendant's son.

Plaintiff's wife looks thrilled to be in court with lying, cheating husband, and his girlfriend. The $1600 loan for defendant's son's car was acknowledged as a loan.

$1600 for plaintiff,.

If You're Psychotic and You Know It, Clap Your Hands-Plaintiff suing former landlord for security deposit, value of belongings, and illegal eviction. Defendant wants unpaid rent (plaintiff was there for 3 1/2 months).

Plaintiff claims her boyfriend wasn't crazy, or abusive, and was barely there. She also claims he wasn't her boyfriend, and didn't want to make a police report. Defendant says boyfriend beat on plaintiff, says boyfriend was nuts, and wanted plaintiff to get a restraining order against her boyfriend.

Landlady also claims boyfriend was virtually a tenant, and violent.

Defendant claims police escorted plaintiff through her house to pick up her purse, and other belongings. Plaintiff claims she didn't get her purse and license, but is sent out of court to get her purse, and see what date it was issued, before or after the eviction. Plaintiff submits the police report, it was a civil standby.

$175 to plaintiff, deducted from $375 owed to defendant.

Second-

Watch his Case if You Have Children-Plaintiffs suing parent of child for throwing a rock and damaging their car. Plaintiff witness is a neighbor's child. Plaintiff noticed two days later her car was dented, and she asked a neighbor's son if he knew who damaged her car. As usual, defendant claims her son didn't do this.

Witness's grandmother waited until plaintiff came to her door to have witness tell what he saw. Defendant son gets the witness chair, and claims he doesn't know who threw the rock. JJ says there isn't enough proof, and JJ suspects the witness actually did it.

(My guess is in the rock throwing case the defendant said he didn't know who threw the rock, because if he admitted the plaintiff's witness did it, the child would beat the snot out of him when they got home. I bet the bigger kid is the neighborhood bully, and his grandmother doesn't care about that. )

Case dismissed.

Liar, Thief and a Cheat-Plaintiff suing former employer for unpaid wages for house painting. Defendant's witness is not available, and has no proof that plaintiff didn't finish the paint job. Defendant should have paid the man.

$300 lost wages to plaintiff. defendant has zero proof of anything.

parrotfeathers · August 25, 2020

On 8/21/2020 at 5:40 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. recent reruns, probably 2016-2017-

First-

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.

I felt sorry for him. I think he loved that kid. But in the end he will be better off. Hope that didn't seem heartless. And he needs to keep his pants zipped.

CrazyInAlabama · August 25, 2020

4 p.m. older reruns, 2016-2017-

First-

Daisy Duke Spin Out!-Plaintiff suing his ex over the damages to his truck, and punitive charges for false charges. Plaintiff painted the defendant's car (while they were still a couple), and he wants $700 for the paint job. Before the car was painted, the two were still in a relationship, and she says he painted the car because he threw rocks at her front and rear window, and chipped the paint with rocks. However the plaintiff says he threw the rocks, because when she leaves his gravel driveway she hauls out like Daisy Duke, on the Dukes of Hazzard. Defendant filed a domestic battery complaint against plaintiff, which became a protective order.

Plaintiff says she sprayed him with gravel from the driveway, and he threw the rocks, and admits he broke her back window. Also, plaintiff says she assaulted him, not the other way around.

Plaintiff posted ten flyers around the neighborhood saying defendant is a felon, with her picture. Plaintiff claims the nasty text messages were actually spoofed by the defendant. Plaintiff claims he gave the car buffer back to defendant.

There was an outstanding warrant, so the police arrested the man, right as he finished the paint job.

The stupid cases by both litigants are dismissed, because they're ridiculous.

Vacation Nightmare-Plaintiff suing vacation landlords for appliance repairs, the cost of groceries, and lack of peaceful enjoyment of premises. Property is in Ocean City, NJ, and is a vacation rental. Plaintiff says she paid to fix the refrigerator in the rental.

Plaintiff rented for a week, for nine people to stay in the vacation rental. Also, the defendants only own the bottom floor of the duplex, and plaintiff is complaining that the upstairs unit was being remodeled, and ruined her peaceful enjoyment for the week. Plaintiff didn't tell the defendants about the 7 a.m. construction start for the upstairs unit, so how were they supposed to talk to the upstairs owners to please start later in the morning.

Peaceful enjoyment is dismissed, because the upstairs unit construction wasn't known to the defendants, and they had no knowledge it was going on, or control over it (upstairs unit is owned by another family, and they were remodeling it).

Plaintiff says when she went to the unit, she put everything in the fridge, and by the next morning her food was spoiled. Plaintiff called a refrigerator repairman, he said it would by $416 to fix, cash only. Fridge repair was $482 total. Defendant husband finally texted back, and said pay for the repair, and we'll reimburse you.

Also, there was supposed to be another fold out bed (I think it was one of the fold out chairs), and it was missing, so defendant husband told woman to get an air mattress, and he would reimburse her for that. (Do the defendants ever talk to each other?).

$482 for the fridge repair, and groceries. Don't know why JJ didn't give the woman money for the air mattress, unless plaintiff took it with her.

Second-

Introducing...the Attacking Chiweenie!-Plaintiff suing defendant's over their Chiweenies chasing him, and biting him. This is immortalized on video . However, why was plaintiff's kid in the defendant's yard, and why isn't the yard fenced? Defendant has two Chiweenies, a mutt, and another dog. Plaintiff mom's left arm tattoo is blurred.

Plaintiff kid comes to the witness chair of Justice, to tell JJ about the attack, but he doesn't remember the attack.

Defendant's son is testifying, and says he was out with one Chiweenie, and the mutt (he keeps looking to Mom to be coached). Defendant says he was walking the two dogs in the back yard, and the Chiweenie escaped. Video shows three dogs chasing Malick, and chasing him home and him running and trying to climb the trash cans by his own porch, then out of camera a dog bites him, and the kid escapes and runs home.

Defendant also says the plaintiff kid was teasing her dogs, in her yard, and that's why the dog bit him. Defendant mother is such a liar.

Medical bills are submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff had no health insurance. $821 are the medical bills, and defendant said he would pay the bills, and then refused. Defendant says she never saw the video before, and she's disgusting. I hope the mobile park evicts the defendants.

Plaintiff says defendants never said anything about her son teasing the dogs every day, so maybe if they were so worried about it she would. Plaintiff also says her son doesn't go into defendant's yard or around the dogs any more.

Plaintiff receives $821 for the medical bills.

Expensive Hobby, Supportive Wife-Plaintiff suing mechanic for the money he paid to repair an old VW bus, $6,000. This is his hobby, but it's his money (JJ was saying his wife must be very supportive of his hobby, I bet he makes a bundle on redoing, and flipping vintage vehicles). Plaintiff buys antique VWs, restores them, and sells them.

Plaintiff gave $6,000 to defendant to restore the VW Bus, after seeing the work the plaintiff did (The total bill to restore the outside, sand blast and repaint and other work was supposed to add up to $11,000). Defendant lost his shop, and the VW bus disappeared. VW was sent to sand blaster shop, and defendant claims he told the plaintiff where to pick it up, but he's lying. Defendant's phone was stolen, so he has no proof of anything.

Then the van disappeared, and plaintiff sent out an alert on Facebook, looking for the van, and it had been sold by the sand blaster, because they didn't know who owned it, for $3500. Someone told him who bought the van, and plaintiff had to buy it back for $3500.

Plaintiff receives $5,000 (still short 4500).

Edited August 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · August 25, 2020

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Don't Mess With the Corvette-Plaintiff ex-boyfriend moved out, and claims harassment, but he went back to the house after threats. He's suing for car damage, assault, and return of belongings. Defendant claims she threw his furniture out a week after plaintiff left, so he's sleeping on the floor. Defendant claims she set up appointments up with plaintiff to pick his furniture up months after he moved out, but claims she had thrown it out long before. Car damages are thrown out, he shouldn't have gone to her house after the threats.

Plaintiff only lived with pink-haired defendant for 2 1/2 weeks. When defendant went to check on his furniture she had another fiance.

$1,000 to plaintiff.

Truck Facelift-Plaintiff suing defendant truck mechanic over a bad installation of a lift kit, and bigger tires, but mechanic had never installed a lift kit before.

Plaintiff paid $600 (half to defendant, and half to defendant's brother). Bad things happened when lift kit failed, and he wants repair costs.

Plaintiff gets $300.

Second-

Paving the Way to Unemployment-(I would have called this case "Defendants Who Are Dumb as a Box of Hammers"). Plaintiff suing cement mason for jack hammering a driveway, and destroying her driveway.

Defendants claims someone on the internet hired them to put in a new driveway, plaintiff wasn't home, and neither was the person that hired them. Defendants gave a $6,000 quote, but person hiring them wanted $300 first from the defendant to prove it was a legitimate bank account. They sent the $300, and defendants jack hammered a lot of the driveway, and plaintiff was shocked to come home and see her driveway destroyed, since she never hired them.

Not surprising that they could never get in touch with the 'owner' who wasn't an owner, and was a scammer.

The two defendants never accepted that they were scammed, and had ruined a driveway that they had no right to touch.

Plaintiff receives $2268, plus $895, totaling, $3163 to replace her driveway.

The Magically Disappearing Dilapidated Car-Plaintiff suing former friend for the disappearance of her car. Defendant towed plaintiff's car into his mechanics shop, after plaintiff inherited car from late uncle, fall of 2016. Four months later car didn't pass emissions, but it was registered, pending passing the test,( it flunked).

Car is a 1994 Buick Le Sabre. Plaintiff's witness keeps saying the car was in good condition, but it wasn't. Trying for a bonanza from JJ.

From Fall 2016 to October 2018 car went back and forth to defendant's mechanics shop, and it was never registered. In October 2018 car was brought back to mechanic, it was parked in front of his house, and towed for expired registration. Plaintiff claims she can't find her car, and defendant says car was towed to city impound, and defendant claims he told the plaintiff. The mechanic must have been really cheap for that woman to waste over two years sending her car back and forth to him.

$1.002 to plaintiff.

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