All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Felony Kickbacks?!-Plaintiff suing friend and business associate for unpaid gardening, and legal fees.    Plaintiff is a private investigator, and defendant was a claims adjuster, and sometimes referred plaintiff business.     Plaintiff claims defendant said that all others adjusters she referred work to gave her kickbacks, and plaintiff refused to give kickbacks (plaintiff also said defendant wanted him to provide her with sexual services).    Defendant had plaintiff's gardener clean up a property for her, and defendant refused to pay gardener, and defendant wanted plaintiff to pay the gardener for her.     Plaintiff did pay the $400 for gardener, so he didn't stiff the gardener. 

Defendant did quid pro quo to have gardener/handy man do other work for her, and wanted plaintiff to pay the $400 to gardener / handyman.   Plaintiff also paid a paralegal firm $400 to prepare paperwork to defendant over this $400.    Plaintiff told defendant's boss about the kickback scheme, and defendant was fired.   Defendant is counter claiming over a false termination. 

$400 to plaintiff.        

Pomeranian Puppy Problem-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for the return of her Pomeranian puppy.     When litigants were living together, a friend gifted them with the Pomeranian puppy.  After that the unhappy separation happened, and defendant took the puppy with him, and plaintiff would visit the puppy sometimes.   

Then defendant told plaintiff that if she paid him $1000 (she says $500) for the dog, he would give up dog to her.   Plaintiff claims she paid the $500 for dog to defendant.       Then defendant came and took the dog back.  Defendant claims plaintiff owed him $500 more, but plaintiff says she doesn't owe the money.    Defendant came and took the dog back, while ex was taking a shower.  (We all know exactly what was going on then too). 

Defendant brought his current girlfriend to court with him.   Girlfriend doesn't seem too thrilled about the shower story.

JJ tells defendant to return the dog to plaintiff, and then he'll get his expense and appearance money.   JJ is preparing an order to retrieve dog.   Defendant said that he won't give dog back, and JJ jumps all over him, and says he's getting no money (he's from L.A., not a big threat)   I wonder how this turned out?

Case is recalled, to ream out looser defendant over the dog statement.   Defendant came to court from Washington state, before defendant and girlfriend leave L.A., the dog will be back to plaintiff or he can walk home.   I hope plaintiff got the dog back.  Defendant threatens on national TV that he's going to break into plaintiff's house, and get the dog back. 

Second-

Vicious Call to Ex-lover's Boss-Plaintiff and her father, are suing defendant for damaged property, and  mutual property.   Plaintiff called the defendant (we'll call him Man Bun).   Defendant married his wife (she's in court), then shortly after he separated from wife, and started boinking plaintiff.   Plaintiff knew man was married, and bought a bunch of stuff for their mutual apartment.   While daughter was boinking Man Bun, he tried to fix plaintiff father's washing machine which did work after, and a grill, that didn't work either.    Damages to grill and washer are dismissed.   Even worse, plaintiff knew defendant was married, and had a child with the wife. 

Paul Rainbot (Man Bun) defendant says plaintiff woman bought small household items, shelf, home organizing stuff, picture frame, file cabinet, and her clothing.   Permanent shelving attached, so it's staying at the apartment, so that's dismissed.   Filing cabinet goes back to plaintiff .    (Man Bun's bleached pony tail/bun is ugly).    Man Bun claims the picture frame is with woman, and the Apple TV is missing.

After the break up, defendant claims plaintiff called his boss at the call center he works at,  and made claims that defendant/Man Bun had an extensive criminal record.   the claims were that the defendant is a thief, and had numerous pending charges.     Defendant was suspended from the job, until the claims were investigated.     Plaintiff's idiot father claims his daughter didn't do this.      The phone number the call came from is Marli Massara (plaintiff).      

$5,000 to defendant for the 14 days of work he was suspended for because of plaintiff's false claims.  Plaintiff isn't getting anything back either.    

Roommate Roulette-Plaintiff suing cousin for money owed for a security deposit.    The litigants moved in together, and as soon as plaintiff boyfriend got out of rehab, he was supposed to move in.   Defendant was going to have her new boyfriend move in too.    Defendant wants a half month's rent.   Defendant wanted the apartment for herself, so plaintiff moved out, and defendant's mother moved in.    Defendant sent a text message to landlady alleging plaintiff damaged apartment.    There is no record of text.

Plaintiff gets security back, and defendant can pay her own security deposit.     Defendant lies about when her mother moved in, but her stuff was moved in two weeks after plaintiff moved out.   

Defendant gets $150 half a month's lease, so plaintiff gets $645 (security deposit, minus the rent).  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Kicked Back Home to Saudi Arabia?!-Defendant, the roommate of plaintiff for five years, is accused of selling the car belonging to the plaintiff, when plaintiff had to go home to Saudi Arabia.     Defendant sent property to dump right before plaintiff came back.   Car was sold by neighbor, and defendant claims he didn't do it.      

Witness of plaintiff talks about the car, and plaintiff gave defendant permission to sell the car, but defendant kept the money, $2,000.    Defendant claims buyer drove the car to the mechanic on flat tires.   Defendant claims he took the money for the car for room rent for plaintiff, and says plaintiff still owes $400. 

Plaintiff's witness needs to shut the heck up.   Nobody gets anything.

Wake Up! You're a Squatter!-Plaintiff was renting a room for $1100, the house changed owners, and they were told to move on July 30, to be out by 30 August.   Plaintiff is suing the former tenant, who collected rent for the first owner.      Plaintiff stopped paying, and is still in the house, and is litigating her move out with the house owner.     

Plaintiff's picture is on the dictionary entry under "Squatter".      Another professional tenant, who knows that owners and landlords will be extorted to get them out without eviction, that the tenant will tie up in housing court forever.      

Plaintiff/squatter is trying to sue former manager/tenant for security deposit, when she hasn't paid rent for over six months at the time of the filming. 

Guess who is going to get zippo?    Yes, squatter / plaintiff is extorting current owner to let her live there rent free until 31 December.   (Yes, some places are so tenant friendly, that it's cheaper to forget unpaid rent, and allow tenants to keep squatting in your property, and even pay them to leave.)     

Second-

Shady Supervised Child Visits?-Defendant claims he has to have supervised visits with his child because of a suspended driver's license (don't pull that story on a family court judge, like JJ).    

Plaintiff runs a supervised visitation company, with no qualifications.   Plaintiff monitors court ordered visitation.    The daughter is in guardianship of the daughters mother (adopted mother/guardian), and has the child's mother in her home too (I think).     Defendant has all kinds of excuses for not going to visitation with his child.    Plaintiff, a child supervision monitor, is suing defendant for non payment.    

Plaintiff is suing for defendant making an appointment for visitation, but not showing up.     Defendant only texted 30 minutes before appointment.  $115 per session.    Defendant claims he was working moving, and only was called into move someone 30 minutes before visitation started (bull hockey).      Plaintiff claims he went to pick up child for three appointments, and defendant cancelled the appointments.      Plaintiff's witness, the child's guardian, says the defendant has a drug history, and in the hall-terview the defendant finally owns up to that.  

Plaintiff gets $115 

Bromance Party Fail!-Plaintiff suing former friend for tickets to Hawaii, and says defendant should pay $1890 for airline ticket, and housing, minus $150 already paid.    The plaintiff, and his friend wanted to have a destination 40th birthday party in Hawaii.    Defendant is the only one who didn't pay.     

Plaintiff claims the defendant was sending $150, instead of $1500 via some financial app.  Defendant admits that there have been other trips for birthdays in the group, and everyone paid their own way, including the plaintiff.     I bet defendant shouldn't plan on being invited to any more destination celebrations.   

Plaintiff gets $1,354.

[bad things are bad]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims the defendant was sending $150, instead of $1500 via some financial app. 

The system had a glitch!!

Had a guy who worked for me briefly, years back when you were supposed to save your work frequently on the computer. He didn't, but claimed he did. He said his computer smoked every time he hit Save. Something was smoking, all right...

This guy sounds like the same brand of ignorant. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Last Will and Testament Surprise- Plaintiff suing his cousin for legal fees due to false allegations by her.     Plaintiff's sister died in California, had cancer, and plaintiff and wife moved from Florida to California, However, plaintiffs are working on a contracting job in California, and still are, but didn't just move to help sister.        (I hate plaintiff's witness/wife's hair bow).    There were six siblings, of sister and plaintiff.   Then sister dies, and at will reading the sister left everything to the cousin/defendant, and plaintiff was made trustee to the estate for the cousin/defendant.   Plaintiff says defendant didn't like the way he handled the trust, and so plaintiff dropped out as trustee.    PLaintiff says estate went through four attorneys for the estate in six months, because defendant is hard to work with.

After defendant got into the sister's condo, claimed a lot of stuff was missing, and vandalized, so defendant put in a claim through the homeowner's insurance company.  Insurance adjuster said the police report says defendant names plaintiff as the thief.  (Plaintiff's wife is booted for butting in).

Plaintiff wasn't given a copy of police report, because he was named as the culprit by defendant.   Police report says defendant said plaintiff ruined the sleep number mattress, and other items, said plaintiff is unstable and vindictive, and she didn't want criminal charges, just a police report for the insurance company.     

Defendant received $16,000 from the insurance company, for a bicycle, purse, mattress, etc.,  (When the amount is read of the payout, the audience members gasp, and don't get told to be quiet).   However, as JJ points out, defendant paid for none of these items, but had a windfall from the insurance company.    That's also why she didn't want an investigation, but just wanted the report for the insurance company.    Defendant didn't even make the report to police for two months after the alleged theft.  

I don't see why the insurance company paid off on a theft, and vandalism where the defendant refused to file charges, wanted no investigation, and hadn't paid a penny for any of the items.     (On a personal nasty note,  I can see that the amount of facial work defendant had done has eaten up the money from the insurance.)  Defendant sold the condo for $407,500, net $120,000, plus the $16,000 for the insurance payout.   Defendant is over $75k to the good, plus the $16k

  He and wife are contractors, and this could have seriously hurt his ability to get bonded, and have a contractor's license.   Plus a felony record disqualifies you for  lot of jobs.  I agree with plaintiff, it was all about the money. 

Plaintiff's case is that to clear his name with the insurance agency, he had to hire an attorney for $800.   

$800 for plaintiff for attorney fees. 

Silent Partner Rip-Off-Plaintiff suing former business partner over $1800 she calls a loan, and defendant said was a business investment that didn't pan out.  Loan was supposed to be to pay defendant's bills.   Defendant was also an ex of plaintiff's daughter.   

As usual, defendant claims it was a failed investment, not his fault, and plaintiff isn't getting her 'investment' back.  Defendant says it was flipping cars.  

I missed the end, but with no proof, except that the plaintiff is a fool, and defendant is a grifter. 

Second-

When Miniature Pinschers Attack!-Plaintiff suing defendant for vet bills from her dog attacking  the dog plaintiff was caring for.   $1077 is the vet bill (cute little white, non-shaggy dog).   Defendant claims her dog didn't bite the plaintiff's dog sitting dog.    Plaintiff was at dog park, and Felix, the victim, and defendant's Min Pin (a Min Pin isn't that big, I suggest a Manchester Terrier or some other possibly larger mix)  attacked plaintiff dog Felix.    Defendant showed up at the vet clinic, but never paid anything.   Plaintiff has seen the attacking dog belonging to defendant on several other occasions.    Defendant's witness is now going to lie about seeing another dog bite the plaintiff's dog too.    

After lying to JJ and the court, defendant is very thirsty, and is drinking the Water of Dry Mouthed Liars.     The plaintiff's witness had two dogs at the park too, and plaintiff knew all of the dogs there at the park when the bite happened.    Defendant was yakking with her lying witness, ignoring her off-leash dog, and then showed up at the vet clinic after the plaintiff did. 

 As usual, defendant says her 100 lb dog is a Service Dog, and some other dog bit the plaintiff's dog.

Plaintiff receives $1,077 vet bills. 

If You Like Me...Take Down Your Dating Profile-Plaintiff suing defendant over plane ticket to L.A.   Defendant and plaintiff met online, then once in person, and then defendant was going to meet her daughter the actress at an interview, so defendant could attend the interview with daughter.   Defendant called plaintiff saying she couldn't go to her daughter's interview in L.A., so he bought her a plane ticket.  Defendant is counter claiming for money she spent out of pocket, when plaintiff cancelled the plane ticket.   

Defendant claims she sent a text saying that someone she loaned money to years ago, didn't repay her, so she couldn't fly to L.A. for the daughter's interview.   Defendant says she never asked for the money from plaintiff, he offered to pay for the ticket to help her out.   Plaintiff said that he wanted her to remove her dating profile online, but she refused to.  

$613 for plane ticket that plaintiff paid.    Defendant is a disgusting grifter. 

Eviction Save-Plaintiff suing former neighbor for unpaid loan for rent after defendant was being evicted.   The Marshals were actually tossing her stuff out, so plaintiff got a money order for $2357 to the landlord to pay the unpaid rent, and defendant repaid $2,000.    Plaintiff wants the other $357 that wasn't paid.    Defendant claims the cashier's check cost $50 per $1000 (no it isn't).

The kicker is defendant finally did get evicted.   

$357 to plaintiff.

  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Wild Tequila Bar Catfight!-Plaintiff suing for medical bills and damages after defendant assaulted her after a bar hopping night (five bars/clubs the same night).    They can't agree on if they went to the club together or not.    They got to the club/bar at 10 p.m., and the fight was after 1 a.m. at closing time.      The two went out for a cigarette, talking to two new men,   

The two drunken women started arguing, plaintiff claims defendant smacked her first, and they were rolling around on the ground.    Plaintiff has photos of her injuries, a swollen lip, scraped knee, and two broken nails.    No medical report of plaintiff's injuries.     

(Both litigants are fools, and deserve nothing).    Defendant is counter claiming for tuition bills, and injuries, all dismissed, and dental bills.   Dental bill has nothing to do with this case, so it's dismissed.   Plaintiff had her lips done, and claims the fight ruined her lip fillers, that's also dismissed. 

Nothing for either litigant.  Why didn't they show the video?   I love a good fight video.

Older Woman Takes Advantage of Young Partner?!-Plaintiff suing former business partner for damages from dissolving their salon business.    Defendant suing for stolen, and damaged property.   Plaintiff (who has huge, woolly bear caterpillar eyelashes) didn't bring the contract, and never signed it, so no contract is in force.      (I absolutely hate the abrupt way plaintiff is treating Officer Byrd, she's a rude idiot). 

Property is mostly salon furniture, and plaintiff wants wall paint expenses, etc.     Very dense plaintiff.     Defendant will give back three chairs.  However, no receipts for two sofas, or hair dryer.   Plaintiff wants new chairs, not used chairs, and she can forget that.    Plaintiff wants her bonnet dryer, attached to sofa back, she paid $900, and she gets that back.   

Sofa bonnet dryer was to replace dryers, styling station, microwave and fridge the plaintiff got rid of when she moved into the salon.   

 Plaintiff gets the three chairs she doesn't want back, microwave, refrigerator, and $900 back.     However, plaintiff got rid of three styling stations in the salon, microwave, and refrigerator, in salon, that defendant owned.    Also, $900 sofa / dryer was to replace two dryers plaintiff trashed when she moved into the salon.    Defendant went from a three station salon, to a one station salon after plaintiff trashed equipment that was already in the salon. 

Plaintiff gets nothing.  

Second-

Husband in Prison, Lover on the Side-(On a shallow note, the defendant's eyebrows are hideous).     Woman with husband in prison, dates plaintiff who gave her a Kia Optima, and he say he loaned it to her to go to work.    Defendant helps mentally ill people, and that scares the stuffing out of me.   Husband in prison for stealing and using credit cards, and they married while he was in the trial process.   Hubby has been in jail for two years, and who knows how much longer, because the defendant and her husband are liars.     

Plaintiff bought car for defendant to use for work, in September before they were in a relationship.     Plaintiff wants the car back, and swears bimbo defendant said she was dumping prison husband when he gets out.     Plaintiff bought car, then they were going to Vegas on vacation, until her stepdad died, and they went to Vegas.  On the way out of town, they stopped at the relative's house,  after seeing the relative dying or dead on the floor at the relative's house.  then they went to Vegas.    (I've watched this case before, and the dead relative on the floor actually is what defendant said happened).    The day they came back from Vegas, plaintiff drove to his construction job, came back early, and that was the last day he saw his car, and the defendant.     

The defendant and plaintiff had a tiff, over the car title not being in her name.     Plaintiff realized she was playing him for a fool, she disappeared with the car, the car she paid nothing for, and somehow had it reregistered in her name after forging his name on the title.    When he went to her apartment the temporary plates, were now permanent plates on the car, and title and registration were in her name.  Defendant is not only a thief, but a liar, and I see being married to her prison husband has been a learning experience for her.   Apparently plaintiff was shocked to find out the prisoner husband is back.     (Defendant's eyebrows are hideous, microblading fail). 

Defendant shows when she registered the car in her name, by forging the paperwork.  

JJ issued an order to get car back from defendant bimbo, (bet the car disappeared the second she left court, and called hubby), she's back with ex-con hubby, and defendant Charteena Walker has to give the car back.  JJ gets tough with defendant, and orders to sign the title back to plaintiff.   (Why do I suspect plaintiff never saw the car after this case?)

Stealing From Little Old Lady-Plaintiff, Little old lady (LOL for this case works) suing defendant for stealing from her.   His roommate couldn't make the rent, and so LOL plaintiff loaned him $780 for rent.   The defendant should be horse whipped, and I believe Byrd would like to do that, and I know I would like to do this also.           

Plaintiff had to go back to work to pay her bills (she's a school bus driver).   

The defendant is the dumbest person on the either episode today, and I hope someone permanently, and forcefully persuades him to stop bothering little old ladies for their last penny.   

$780 was the loan amount from Little Old Lady plaintiff, and she's getting that back. 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Tomorrow is the case of the woman who had a lamb in her home as a pet, then she had to rehome it, and she wants it back so a full grown sheep can live in her home.   Followed by the coin throwing road rage case, don't miss the hall-terview on that one. 

Just finished lamb lady case again.  Something I failed to pick up on the previous watch - the large picture of the lamb set up on an easel next to the plaintiff.   That almost-magazine-quality photo is bananas and is so unnecessary to the case, but it shows how deep this chick was in her lamb love.  

Edited September 11, 2020 by patty1h

[CrazyInAlabama]

 

4 p.m. older reruns-

First-

Quick!  Take This Homeless Baby?!-Plaintiff mother and stepfather are suing mother's adult daughter for destroying their TV, and vandalizing their car.     There was an argument, and defendant went off, and caused damages, but defendant blames it on stepfather.   Before this argument, defendant's homeless friend had a baby, and defendant wanted mother to watch baby for a few hours.    But mother/plaintiff said defendant wanted her to watch baby long term, and mother said only if it was done legally, such as adoption.     Defendant claims the friend/baby's mother is homeless, and can't keep the baby.  Daughter claimed social security card for baby, and birth certificate for baby was lost during eviction, and daughter can't have roommates in her program apartment.   Daughter is on disability.   

Stepfather said he wasn't going to take care of baby, so defendant and friends could go out and party.     During the argument between mother, stepfather, and defendant, mother claims defendant destroyed her TV, and damaged her car.     Defendant claims stepfather actually damaged the car, but daughter is a liar.   Mother says when she got to the parking space, daughter had already ripped off the 

$2100  to plaintiff

Single Mother Mayhem?-Plaintiff suing former friend for return of security deposit, and moving expenses.   Litigants each are Sainted SIngle Mother of One (SSMO) child each, and moved into an apartment together.    Defendant says she was moving out of her mother's place because the dad or step dad had a heart attack, and mother didn't want extra people in her home.      Plaintiff claims defendant said defendant's sister was going to take pictures of defendant's drug paraphernalia, and send it to DCFS, CPS, whatever it is.    Plaintiff and child were living in the master bedroom, and defendant wanted to move her boyfriend in, and demanded the master bedroom for defendant and her love muffin.     Plaintiff said no to the move in idea, and the kerfuffle started.   Defendant is counter suing for unpaid rent, utilities, damages.

Defendant has cell phone photos of damages, blamed on plaintiff.   

Defendant claims plaintiff stole her laptop, but no police report or proof, so it's thrown out.   Plaintiff says defendant had random strange men over every night. 

Plaintiff receives $1400 for her security deposit. minus $130 for unpaid rent for 5 days.=$1270 to plaintiff

Second- (The first case has nothing to do with Great Danes, and the second nothing about Telemarketers, but those are the episodes titles listed on everything, so I made the episode titles up).

Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Hammers Car With Brick-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for car damage, moving expenses, and harassment.     Litigants only met a month ago, when defendant was pregnant by someone else, but they started dating anyway.    Defendant found plaintiff was 'talking' to other women, including his current girlfriend/witness.   Defendant stayed the night, and the next morning the litigants had another argument, and defendant went home to her mother's place.   

Litigants had a text message war, over a broken date.    Defendant's phone was stolen during the incident by plaintiff, and fortunately plaintiff has the texts, telling defendant to leave him alone.   Defendant went to plaintiff's place that afternoon, and got mad when plaintiff's witness girlfriend was there, and defendant started beating plaintiff's car with a brick.   Plaintiff's windshield is smashed, costing $190.    Plaintiff moved because defendant was harassing him, brought relatives over to harass him, but he's not getting moving expenses.  I absolutely believe what the plaintiff said about the defendant's mother being as bad as her daughter. 

Defendant told her mother that plaintiff, and friends jumped her, and beat her.  

$190 for windshield to plaintiff.

Book Launch Fail!-Plaintiff suing defendant over his event business not putting on a book party to launch her book. Plaintiff paid $400.     

"Get Your Career Life in Order" by Tana M. Sessions is the book.    Defendant was supposed to supply a tent, TV with stand, chairs and table for 100.   On the day of the event, it's pouring rain, so event moves indoors, and defendant was very late after something on the freeway.   He only wants to give event credit to plaintiff, not a refund.   

Tana Sessions gives JJ a copy of her book.

Plaintiff receives $328 back. 

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

I Need You To Love My Lamb!-This is the story of the plaintiff who adopted a lamb off of craigslist, was raising a lamb in her house, and finally the husband told her it had to go.   Lambs do poop in the house, I wonder if she considered diapers?   Plaintiff says she was going to eventually put the three to four month lamb outside, but that never happened.    (As patty1h says, note the giant photo of the lamb on the easel).

She gave it to some people who treat animals, like animals, but the farm looks great, and the herd look like they're in great shape.    Plaintiff wants defendants to give the lamb (now a grown sheep), back because they let the lamb/sheep live outside with the flock of sheep and goats,, live in a barn, and plaintiff has changed her house around so the sheep will be happy living inside with her again, and apparently arranged for a companion.   

Defendants offered to buy the lamb for $150, but plaintiff didn't want the money.    Plaintiff changed her mind, a few days later, and wants the lamb, now a grown sheep back.         Plaintiff proposed that the defendants should keep the lamb, while the plaintiff found a companion for the sheep, and prepared her house.     Plaintiff wanted a playmate for the sheep, and then wanted the lamb back in her home, not in her barn. 

Defendant shows a video of their hobby farm.   The lambs and goats look great. and their farm looks lovely.     Plaintiff claims her husband pushed her to get rid of lamb, and she wasn't in her right mind when she gave the lamb away (mean personal note-I bet that woman has never been in her right mind, and I bet the lamb was never outside before the farm).

Plaintiff gets nothing, including the lamb, and case is dismissed.        

Playing the Ride Share Game-Plaintiff Ride Share rental owner suing defendant Uber driver for car rental fees, insurance refunds, and car damage, They had no contracts, but JJ says their car payment constitutes a contract.   Defendant needed the car because his previous cars were repossessed.     The plot thickens when the defendant had an accident with the rental car, 

Car costs $57 a day, plus $2.    Car accident happened, and there is a police report too.    Defendant is filing for bankruptcy too.     

JJ is right, collision on car should cover the damages, and plaintiff needs to file a claim.     Plaintiff claims defendant owes $413 rent for a few days he didn't pay for.  (JJ doesn't believe the defendant's tale of how the accident happened, she also would like to hoof him in the nuts too.   I may not be psychic, but JJ telegraphs her feelings very well).   Plaintiff paid the insurance, and there was a $20 refund, and defendant got the refund, and didn't pay that to the plaintiff either.   

$407 for the plaintiff.

Second-

Coin Throwing Road Rage Stunt-Plaintiff is suing defendant for a road rage incident where he harassed her, and her nine-year-old child, and damaged her car.  Then defendant man gets out of his car, starts throwing coins at plaintiff's car.   When they stopped at a light, defendant male started throwing handfuls of coins, some coins hit the plaintiff in the face, she tried to take a picture of his license plate, and he tried to knock the phone out of plaintiff's hand.      She asked girlfriend if she wanted a ride home, and she did.      Plaintiff also told defendant teen girlfriend to get in her car for safety, and she did.     The girlfriend is 16, and he's 18.   (Plaintiff was driving in separate cars from her husband, and Jacob Crouch passed both of them)

(Tacky personal note, did both defendants get their eyebrows done at the same place?   They look identical)

Defendant teen witness was going to be late for a therapy appointment, and I suspect it was mandated therapy, and not physical.    Defendant said he was with girlfriend at his place, and having fun, and in a hurry for witness to get home (girl is 16, and mother had to take her to therapy), when the road rage happened.      Plaintiff said this happened at 12:42 p.m, and 45 minutes from defendant girlfriend's house, and appointment was at 1 p.m.       

As JJ says, why would someone who didn't feel threatened take a ride home with a stranger?   Defendant girlfriend claims the aggressor was the plaintiff.  Police dropped in to talk about the incident with Jacob Couch.    Whiny defendant says plaintiff harassed him on Facebook. 

Plaintiff receives $1500 for her chipped windshield from the coins hitting it.

(I'm laughing at the hall-terview, where Jacob Couch is crying like a two year old, siting on the loser's bench in the hall.  With the added amusement of his girlfriend telling him to stop it, and someone handing him a lot of tissues.).   

[jilliannatalia]

On 8/29/2020 at 11:00 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I remember the one of the woman who was suing over buying tennis shoes for her siblings for Christmas, and wanted a lot of money.   I don't remember much more than that about the case, but she lost on JJ.   Then she was on the People's Court with the same case, and won there.   So much for the binding arbitration contract the participants sign.    

I replied to this earlier, but I don't think the reply went through. You probably already know this, but the binding nature of the arbitration exists primarily to protect one litigant (typically the one who prevailed) against the other in the event of re-filing. If a person agrees to binding arbitration in a given court, forum, or setting, loses the case, then ignores the fact that he or she agreed to binding arbitration and refiles the case elsewhere, all the other party has to do is to pull out the previous settlement and agreement to binding arbitration, and the other court won't hear the case. (If the person lost his or her paperwork, it's usually easy enough to get a copy even from a TV courtroom program.)  It's all on the litigant(s)to inform the court of an agreement of binding arbitration. In some jurisdictions, it's a misdemeanor to knowingly re-file on a case for which one has signed off to binding arbitration.

The case is only heard again when both parties want it to be retried -- in this case, because both parties were on the take and wanted the free trip, free hotel room,  and whatever other freebies accompany having one's case settled on a TV courtroom show.  If a person were to refile a case that had already been settled in an actual small-claims court, there's a decent chance that court personnel wouldn't catch that the case had already been settled even if it were in the same jurisdiction. (The same parties are involved in multiple cases of small claims court litigation against one another frequently enough that the names alone wouldn't necessarily present red flags.)Unless it was the same judge and a memorable case, or a really small town, it probably wouldn't be caught. It's all on the winning party to divulge that a binding settlement exists, whether from an actual courtroom or in binding arbitration. 

It would have been very interesting to watch the litigants' two cases back-to-back in JJ's courtroom and again in Judge Milian's courtroom.  Did you notice, Crazy in Alabama, if the facts were presented similarly and if Judge Judy and Judge Milian just happened to see things differently and to rule differently, or if the litigants changed up their stories to some degree? You may have seen the cases too far apart to recall the specific stories. I wouldn't have remembered.

[Taeolas]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Quick!  Take This Homeless Baby?!-Plaintiff mother and stepfather are suing mother's adult daughter for destroying their TV, and vandalizing their car.     There was an argument, and defendant went off, and caused damages, but defendant blames it on stepfather.   Before this argument, defendant's homeless friend had a baby, and defendant wanted mother to watch baby for a few hours.    But mother/plaintiff said defendant wanted her to watch baby long term, and mother said only if it was done legally, such as adoption.     Defendant claims the friend/baby's mother is homeless, and can't keep the baby.  Daughter claimed social security card for baby, and birth certificate for baby was lost during eviction, and daughter can't have roommates in her program apartment.   Daughter is on disability.   

Just watching this now. One thing I'm surprised is that JJ didn't abmonish the Plaintif (the mother) to stop playing with her hair. Every time the camera seemed to cut to her, or had her on the side, she seemed to be stroking her hair over her right shoulder. JJ's told off litigants for that sort of thing before, but this time let her be it seemed. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I think the tennis shoe for Christmas case was pretty much the same on both shows.  It certainly shows that while JJ may be harder on landlords, and others that she seems to dislike for some reason, she isn't taken in by obvious scammers like the sister in the tennis shoe case the way TPC was.  

The first new case this Monday is Pablo the Chihuahua loses teeth in a Fight.   The rest of the week seems dog free.

There are two new episodes Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, with one new episode first on Thursday, and Friday.    This should be interesting to see if they go all virtual like The People's Court, except Bailiff Doug, or have a spread out audience, with shields in front of litigants at their respective podiums.   As long as JJ, Officer Byrd, and everyone else is safe, I don't care how they do it.    I'm guessing that we won't get many eviction cases, because of the limits on evicting people for months now.    

Edited September 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[amacmom]

@CrazyInAlabama Thank you for your recaps. You're always spot on!

[TVMovieBuff]

On 9/10/2020 at 6:58 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Husband in Prison, Lover on the Side-(On a shallow note, the defendant's eyebrows are hideous).     Woman with husband in prison, dates plaintiff who gave her a Kia Optima, and he say he loaned it to her to go to work.    Defendant helps mentally ill people, and that scares the stuffing out of me.   Husband in prison for stealing and using credit cards, and they married while he was in the trial process.   Hubby has been in jail for two years, and who knows how much longer, because the defendant and her husband are liars.     

Plaintiff bought car for defendant to use for work, in September before they were in a relationship.     Plaintiff wants the car back, and swears bimbo defendant said she was dumping prison husband when he gets out.     Plaintiff bought car, then they were going to Vegas on vacation, until her stepdad died, and they went to Vegas.  On the way out of town, they stopped at the relative's house,  after seeing the relative dying or dead on the floor at the relative's house.  then they went to Vegas.    (I've watched this case before, and the dead relative on the floor actually is what defendant said happened).    The day they came back from Vegas, plaintiff drove to his construction job, came back early, and that was the last day he saw his car, and the defendant.     

The defendant and plaintiff had a tiff, over the car title not being in her name.     Plaintiff realized she was playing him for a fool, she disappeared with the car, the car she paid nothing for, and somehow had it reregistered in her name after forging his name on the title.    When he went to her apartment the temporary plates, were now permanent plates on the car, and title and registration were in her name.  Defendant is not only a thief, but a liar, and I see being married to her prison husband has been a learning experience for her.   Apparently plaintiff was shocked to find out the prisoner husband is back.     (Defendant's eyebrows are hideous, microblading fail). 

Defendant shows when she registered the car in her name, by forging the paperwork.  

JJ issued an order to get car back from defendant bimbo, (bet the car disappeared the second she left court, and called hubby), she's back with ex-con hubby, and defendant Charteena Walker has to give the car back.  JJ gets tough with defendant, and orders to sign the title back to plaintiff.   (Why do I suspect plaintiff never saw the car after this case?)

 

Did anyone else want Judy to smack the smirk off Charteena's face?

[One Tough Cookie]

No offense to to dog lovers but i found this season really boring  But I laughed my as off  at the la,n lady

[TVMovieBuff]

16 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

No offense to to dog lovers but i found this season really boring  But I laughed my as off  at the la,n lady

None taken. I have gotten my fill of dog cases, and rent cases.

[Taeolas]

New episodes started, with no sign of any COVID limitations. JJ does film in California so surely there would be some restrictions? 

What I found really strange is they still seem to be using Jerry's voice overs, even for the new cases; but it sounds like they pieced together the dialogue from older dialogue; so the voice over 'bounces' through the dialogue. The static bumpers that never changed are still the same. The end credits still list Jerry Bishop.  

We do have a new 25th Anniversary intro animation; but I think I like the original better. Still a silver lady justice does fit a 25th anniversary. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m recent reruns-

First-

 

Death Threat and Racial Profiling-Plaintiff's car was towed by the two defendant's company, when he parked in an apartment parking lot (he doesn't live there, or have the person who gave him permission to park there in court).   

Defendant man says it was the Salvation Army's permit only parking lot.  In the morning he discovered his car had been towed.   Defendant claimed the plaintiff threw a rock at their truck the night before.   Defendant's witness claims he saw plaintiff too, and case was dismissed after defendants didn't show up for trial.  

Plaintiff was arrested when he went to retrieve his car, after the defendant wife called him a crazy Islamic guy when he called the tow yard, with cash in hand to pay for the tow.    The second time defendant wife claimed he threatened her on the phone, and made a police report again that was false.   Defendant wife also claims between the first visit to tow yard and the next day  the plaintiff changed his beard,  At the first report of rock throwing, the plaintiff was arrested, and the case was dismissed.     Second case didn't even go to trial, because defendant lied about her name on police report (She had a different name on the first police report, than the name the show put under her photo on the show, Nicol Nolin of Denver-she looks very familiar to me, I used to live near there).   

 I find it strange that a Denver tow company drives two hours south to Pueblo to tow cars.     Six months later the plaintiff was arrested because the defendant wife claims he threatened her when he picked up his car at the first incident (report date was January, arrest at gun point was in June).     That case was dismissed also.  

JJ is right, car tow was legal.   

However, two false arrests are exactly what happened. (Audience erupts in applause at this verdict),  (and I call the second police report by the defendant wife is despicable).    $5,000 to plaintiff.   (I used to live near Denver, and the plaintiff is lucky he survived two arrests, especially the second one where he was claimed to be making death threats against defendant). 

Check Bouncy House-Plaintiff suing former friend for two bad checks she cashed for defendant.     Defendant had done some remodeling for plaintiff several years before, and he needed a place to stay, and she offered to cash a large cashier's check for defendant. $2750 was the first check, but credit union said it was an altered or bad check.     

Then plaintiff cashed another check for him.     He gave her a bad check, and then she cashes another one for him!      Second check will not be paid by the show.   How stupid can a plaintiff be?    Bet she's waiting for her deceased uncle in Nigeria to send her millions too.  

$2750 to plaintiff for the first check, but nothing for second check.   

Second-

You Sound Like a Fool-Plaintiff suing defendant for medical treatment, rabies shots, and damages after defendant's poodle bit her.   Dog bit plaintiff in the apartment parking lot, dog was off leash, collarless, was wandering in the street without an owner.  Poodle came over to plaintiff, then went in the street again, then poodle came back, and poodle bit her on the hand.  Plaintiff claims a woman came out of the defendant's apartment complex, and when plaintiff told her what happened, neighbor says the dog wanders constantly, and has bitten before.   Plaintiff called animal control, and defendant's young daughter came out of the apartment complex, and dog owner got defensive.    Animal Control report says no proof of rabies shots, so plaintiff had to get four shots in her arm over three weeks.   

Defendant's witness is  an adult friend of defendant, and they keep calling the plaintiff a liar.      Defendant and her witness's excuses are ridiculous.   Defendant witness says plaintiff probably was bitten by another dog.   Defendant hasn't paid the impound fee either.   Defendant's witness claims dog was outside briefly, wasn't off the property, and never bit the plaintiff.   Defendant's witness is such a liar, and keeps mouthing off at JJ.   

Animal control report says neighbors says poodle is frequently running loose.  Defendant claims plaintiff hates Latinos.   

Plaintiff gets $1500.   

Gambling Getaway Gone Wrong-Plaintiff suing ex boyfriend for unpaid gambling loan, and property damage.   They went from Stockton to Reno, defendant claims woman gave him $800 so he wouldn't bounce a check, and plaintiff gets $800 for the loan back. 

Plaintiff gets $800 for the loan, but all property damage claims are dismissed from both litigants. 

[Florinaldo]

51 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

New episodes started, with no sign of any COVID limitations. JJ does film in California so surely there would be some restrictions? 

That threw me off too. No masks and no distancing. Either JJ thinks her powerful personal aura will envelop the whole courtroom and protect the audience from infection or these are old cases that had been kept in a standby bin, as possible emergency fill-ups.

I did not find any of them truy memorable; the usual parade of morons who put just anybody on their phone plans or neurotic landlords who have no idea of their obligationsn towards tenants, and let's not forget the two irresponsible young "adults".

 

[patty1h]

59 minutes ago, Taeolas said:

New episodes started, with no sign of any COVID limitations. JJ does film in California so surely there would be some restrictions? 

I assume that they still had shows in the can from before Covid restrictions.   I caught Dr Phil last week, and he was starting a new season too, but he had shows with an audience -- they ran a scroll telling that these shows are pre-pandemic.

[Taeolas]

1 minute ago, patty1h said:

I assume that they still had shows in the can from before Covid restrictions.   I caught Dr Phil last week, and he was starting a new season too, but he had shows with an audience -- they ran a scroll telling that these shows are pre-pandemic.

Yeah, Judge Mathis has a few pre-COVID cases in the can as well; but when they aired them they had a banner running saying they were preCOVID too. Guess we'll see in a week or two how many eps they have in the can. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. both New!!! (JJ, Officer Byrd, litigants, and audience have no protection of any kind, so I'm guessing pre-Covid lockdown filming) 25th Anniversary season, and the last. 

First-

You're Either an Idiot or a Liar!-Plaintiff suing former friend for two fraudulent checks plaintiff cashed for defendant.   Plaintiff was asked to cash a check by defendant, because defendant doesn't have a bank account.    Defendant had first check from Margaret ???, and second check from Margaret ??? for yard work.    Plaintiff is out over $800 for the checks and overdraft fees.   No police report was made, by defendant, and $800 is a lot of pay for yard work?       

Defendant's check writer was named Jane, not Margaret (plaintiff had check copies, not defendant).    Plaintiff was homeless at the time of the check cashing, and really needed the money that defendant stole from him.

Plaintiff receives $800 

Pablo the Chihuahua Loses Teeth in a Fight-Plaintiff suing former roommate/landlady for vet bills, illegal lockout, and an assault.   Plaintiff rented a basement apartment from defendant (home owner), and moved in with Pablo the 6 year old Chi.      Defendant acted very off from medical, and drug issues.    Defendant's witness tries to interrupt JJ, and is told to stop.

Plaintiff lived there less than two months.   Plaintiff says when she was out, defendant grabbed the dog, took it upstairs, another dog and Pablo got into a fight, and Pablo had to have a lot of teeth extracted.   Plaintiff had told her dog was not to be taken to play with the defendant's dogs.  Plaintiff only brought the bill to court, but no vet records.   Pablo had a fractured canine tooth, and all of the rest of his teeth (except one) were extracted.   Pable has a history of liver, cardiac issues, and collapsing trachea, and periodontal disease. in his life.   Plaintiff is not getting the dental and vet bills paid.    When plaintiff texted landlady that she would be moving out by 30 January.    Fortunately, plaintiff took the dog to her husband's house, and still lives there.    When plaintiff came home that day, the locks had all been changed.   Door knob, and lock were both missing, so plaintiff called for police escort to get into the apartment to take her personal items (room was furnished).  

Plaintiff says defendant/landlady was acting erratic, and was very volatile so plaintiff decided to give notice, and move at the end of the second month.   Plaintiff has texts from defendant saying that 10 days before plaintiff wanted to move, defendant sent a text saying she was throwing plaintiff's stuff out in the street (Plaintiff had paid for all of January, and move out date was 30 January, not the 20th when defendant evicted her).    

There are no medical records for assault, but there are photos.    Plaintiff claims she was grabbed around the throat, and has scratches on her legs.    Defendant claims plaintiff witness is worthless as a witness, because she didn't see the start of the fight.   Defendant was arrested by police after assault. 

Rent was $600 including utilities), plaintiff gets $1100 (for illegal lockout, and remaining rent). 

$1250 to plaintiff, and defendant has a meltdown.

Second-

Naughty Grandson Steals from Grandfather?!-Plaintiff grandfather suing grandson over a car plaintiff co-signed on and paid off, bail, and a stolen $2 bill collection.     Defendant is disappointing grandson.   Plaintiff co-signed a car for defendant, and made payments, but mostly late, varying from a week to three months.    Plaintiff paid off car to protect his own credit, went to repossess the car, and it miraculously disappeared.   Plaintiff will repossess the car from defendant with the help of a Marshal.     It is joint title with grandfather, and grandson.   JJ will make order to DMV to take grandson's name on title.    JJ gives grandparents the grandson's address, and grandson claims he will return the car to grandfather.   

If car is not returned in two days, cleaned up, then the car will be reported stolen to police.   

Grandson denies he stole the grandfather's $2 bill collection, collection was worth $100.   Plaintiff claims defendant admitted to stealing the money collection.   

Bail was for probation violation, and bail was $500.   Defendant  served 30 days in jail for the probation violation.

$600 to plaintiff (defendant is alleged to have stolen credit and debit cards from grandparents too)   

Ex-Lover Runs Man Off the Road-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for an iPhone he loaned her, and claims defendant ran him off the road, and it ruined his transmission.     Defendant says phone was sold..   Defendant says plaintiff also called in false allegations to CPS, and her daughter was taken away for two days.     Counter claim dismissed for defendant, because she kept, and then sold the phone.  

Plaintiff only dated the man a month, and dumped him right after getting the phone.   

Plaintiff says defendant dumped him, and defendant claims she was paying for the phone, but lied.   Then defendant followed plaintiff with her car, and she claims she wasn't chasing him.    

Cases dismissed, no one had any evidence of anything, and they're both idiots.

 

[NYGirl]

The Plaintiff in the phone case I bet is on the spectrum.  He had trouble looking into the camera and at JJ during the case.  I was very angry at the defendant for being so nonchalant and even proud of selling the phone.  I wanted him to get his money back and then some. 

What precipitated the ruling was the fact that he had another girl (defendant's witness) and a friend on his account;  I suspect people taking advantage of him.

Sorry.... I have a mentally disabled child and I know what it's like.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m recent reruns-

First-

 

The Fixer-Plaintiff suing defendant and her son for fraud over a car sale.   Plaintiff bought a non running 2007 Hyundai for $500, and was promised the title within a week.   Car was bought originally from defendant's cousin, and was never registered or titled in defendant's name (car was always in cousin's ex-wife's name).  Actually, car was technically only loaned to defendant who sold it.  Plaintiff worked on the car, and it's now running.   Plaintiff paid $500, and spent $ fixing it up, including a new engine.    Defendant mother says plaintiff should have contacted the ex-wife, and asked her to sign it over to him.     I think plaintiff should have filed fraud charges against the defendants, for selling him a car they didn't own. 

Plaintiff gets $2500, defendants get car back, because they were selling a car they never owned. ( I have to say that plaintiff's name is Mr. Rogers, and all I have running through my head is that it's not a beautiful day in his neighborhood).   Plaintiff should never have touched the car until he had a title in hand. 

Motorcycle Regrets-Plaintiffs suing former friend and his mother for impound fees, and something about motorcycle accessories.    Motorcycle was sold to defendant, and he was going to make payments on bike, and took possession of motorcycle.    Defendant claims he was going to return the bike, kept it a week, but was pulled over for lack of registration, and bike was impounded. 

Defendant claims bike was registered to someone besides the plaintiff, and has zero proof.   Impound fee was $1229, and motorcycle stuff was in defendant's possession and disappeared 

Plaintiff gets $1229.  (Hall-terview, whiny little baby defendant explains that the mean kids were picking on him)

Second-

Dangerous Drinking-Plaintiff and defendant were both drunk, but defendant is proud of the fact she wasn't as drunk as the plaintiff.   Plaintiff was kept in jail for four days.  Plaintiff is suing ex-girlfriend for false police report and arrest, and stealing his stuff.   Defendant filed petition to get restraining order.  Plaintiff claims defendant filed exact same allegations to get restraining order against ex-husband, but has no proof.    Defendant's mother seems to think allegations her daughter is a drunk is somehow amusing.  There is no proof of his abuse on defendant.   Defendant claims she didn't stab plaintiff, but police saw a stab wound.    Defendant claims plaintiff tazed himself, and his father. 

Defendant claims after plaintiff's arrest, she moved the truck to guest parking.   She left everything in the truck for his mother to pick up, with the keys near the truck.   However, he couldn't find his truck keys, and a lot of property disappeared out of the truck.  Plaintiff even has a receipt for the rifle.   Defendant's uncle claims he saw items in the truck when defendant moved the truck to the guest parking spot, and she had the keys to the truck then.   However, defendant 'lost' the keys, so plaintiff's mother had to get AAA to tow the truck.   Defendant's mother is just as pathetic as her daughter, and just won't shut up.     Defendant still claims the rifle was a gift to her.    Both sides need a group rate to rehab.   

$800 to plaintiff for the rifle.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. new episodes-

First-

Disabled Friend Duped!-Plaintiff and daughter are suing her former friend for the unpaid balance on a car, ruined her credit. and property damages to the home ,    Plaintiff daughter had many surgeries after a motorcycle accident and faces many more.   Then mother moved away, and daughter stayed in the family home.   The daughter currently has three roommates.    One roommate is fiance of daughter.     Defendant was sleeping with a former roommate, and that was the only relationship plaintiff daughter, and defendant had.   Defendant needed a vehicle, and plaintiff was giving her rides, and defendant wanted a car, bu had no credit.   So plaintiff daughter put her name on the car loan for defendant.   Defendant still has the same car.

When asked why plaintiff daughter is in credit trouble, despicable defendant says "plaintiff didn't make the first four payments" on a car defendant still drives.    To pay the four payments, plaintiff daughter took out a title loan on the car.    Defendant is now making the payments herself, but never paid a penny towards the title loan.   It was $1500 for the impound costs, and the car payments.   Plaintiff mother says defendant never comes to the plaintiff's home, after she kicked in the boyfriend's door.    Plaintiff daughter is disabled, and paid all of her savings to pay off the car loan, and sadly, JJ has to tell daughter that there is no way the daughter will get her name off of the loan.  If daughter is on title when it's paid off, then she will be legal owner, then repo it?   Is that wrong?   

$4100 to plaintiff daughter.   

Who Will Fools Vote For?-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid car loan, and tow charges.    What a shock plaintiff is employed, and has been for years, but defendant is unemployed, and his mother pays a friend to let him live at their house.     So defendant is an unemployed loser, who says he doesn't care that everyone he knows will see this case on TV.   Defendant says there is no job on earth he can do.

Plaintiff co-signs loan with defendant for the car.    Defendant had an accident in the car, without insurance.   Gap insurance wasn't on car until a week after accident, and he claims the insurance was back dated to the day after the accident (that means you didn't have insurance you fool).  The car didn't have gap insurance on the day of the accident, so plaintiff is on the hook for rest of the car loan above what the regular insurance paid.  

JJ says defendant is so stupid that he'll vote for anyone who claims to want to give defendant a guaranteed salary whether he works or not.   Defendant claims he should have given the car back to the bank, but he still would have owed the short fall on the loan amount.   JJ is right, defendant is an idiot, and he says he's not a dumb s$*% , but he is.  

$2496  to plaintiff, she can pay her own tow fees for being a fool.

Second-

Vandalism Admission-Plaintiff (Magan Spape)suing father of her children for breaking a lease, and breaking an iPhone.    Sainted Single Mother of Three (SSMOT) has two kids with defendant, one older one is not his (yes, three children under three for her).    The litigants were living together, had children 50/50, so court said no child support is ordered.    They have to go back to court for child support, and medical for the kids.    There will be a further trial the next month or so.   

They lived together, and then in January defendant moved out, and plaintiff wants $350 a month for his half of rent and utilities for the last nine months.     Plaintiff will get the rent, but no utilities.    Plaintiff keeps saying the defendant should support all three children, but one isn't his.   Plaintiff wants an iPhone back that she gave him, and defendant is paying for both litigants phone bill.    

$3750 for rent for the plaintiff, and defendant can tell the judge so that can be taken into account for child support.    This included $600 for the broken iPhone.     

Intoxicated Tutoring Fail!-Plaintiff suing former LSAT tutor for punitive damages for missing two LSAT tests, and return of tutoring fees.   Plaintiff alleges there were supposed to be 25 sessions, but defendant says 25 hours total.   Then plaintiff showed up under the influence, so defendant called off the session.   Plaintiff threw up in defendant's house, but says he didn't throw up that much.   Defendant only tutors for LSAT tests, it's his only income.     Plaintiff cancelled another session. 

Plaintiff has some internet postings claiming defendant cancels students frequently.     Defendant says plaintiff used 3 sessions, and then cancelled twice more for hangovers, and showed up drunk once. 

Plaintiff received 18 hours of tutoring, so he's not getting fees back.   Defendant says he sent his schedule of tutoring openings to plaintiff, but plaintiff never rescheduled.  

Case dismissed.  

I wonder if the producers thought they might be shut down, and worked constantly to film enough for the last season?   It should be interesting to see what happens. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

Today's case titled Woman Busts Ex-Lover's Front Tooth! was like smelling hot garbage - makes you want to retch.  Two fools yelling in front of their kids, throwing lighters, then when they split up, the plaintiff (name?) decides she's owed a bunch of money for furnishing the place and paying the bills while living there.  She didn't want to hear that JJ doesn't give payouts for couples who just play house - her eyes got big at that, like whaaaaa?   It was funny when the audience laughed at her and she acknowledged it.  She was trying hard to portray herself as the scared, defenseless victim and was determined to make the audience aware that Nathan Stone was a big old meany to her, but JJ wasn't having it. 

I bet that the plaintiff will not let things go even after this case, feeling like she is still "owed" and them having kids will just exacerbate things.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. recent reruns-

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 watched the child was 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, and this makes no sense. ).   Defendant claims a friend of plaintiff, and plaintiff's mom threatened him.  

Plaintiff wrote loan, for the $400.   $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, 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-

Be Afraid... Or Not-Plaintiff left home of ex boyfriend and his nasty mother, and claims they destroyed her property (21 and they lived together for 3 years).  Plaintiff's mother is asked why she didn't ask her 21 year old daughter to come home to escape an abusive relationship.  Mother's answer is "because she's an adult, and lives on her own" .    Plaintiff is 21 now, and was 18 when they moved in together, and defendant is now 23, and was 20 when they moved in together.   After plaintiff claims defendant cut her clothes up, but they still lived together until April (plaintiff claims she moved out, but I don't believe her).   In April plaintiff and loud-mouthed defendant's mother emptied the storage unit, but plaintiff claims there is still property at defendant's mother's house, but mother denies it.    

There were multiple police reports about malicious mischief, one report wasn't done until over a month later.  Plaintiff claims defendant has many police reports against him, and his loud mouth mother is awful.    

Plaintiff now gives up on everything but her car, that had domestic abuse against it (yes, a car had domestic abuse against it).  Police report says domestic abuse, and plaintiff says the abuse was on the car.  

Case dismissed.  

DWI Disability Fail-Plaintiff suing former friend for false accusations of depositing a check.   Litigants were in the Military together, and became roommates after.   When defendant went to jail for DWI, and she told plaintiff to cash the check for rent.   Plaintiff claims she gave money leftover above rent to defendant.     The check was cashed by plaintiff, and defendant told her bank it was false cashing of check, so plaintiff had $1,000 taken out of her account.     When defendant was released from jail, she didn't pay her rent, because the plaintiff paid it for her, and still owed her $1,000.      Defendant wants $1000 back, has no proof of anything. 

Case dismissed.

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. new episodes-

First-

Woman Busts Ex-Lover's Front Tooth-Plaintiff suing the father of her children for her property, and unpaid bills.   Plaintiff is (Sainted Single Mother of Two) SSMOT, they lived in defendant's mother's home, with their two kids.    Litigants has an argument, plaintiff left with her clothing, but furniture bought for the house she also wants back.    Plaintiff has to prove what furniture she purchased, JJ tosses the Spring bills.    Plaintiff gets her air conditioner back.    Defendant claims they were gifted the dish washer, but plaintiff had it delivered to her mother's home, with a refrigerator (who would move a refrigerator from the plaintiff's mother's house to defendant's house).    Then defendant says the new fridge went to plaintiff's mother's home, and the older one was given to plaintiff for defendant's house.    Plaintiff wants bunk beds, and mattresses, and she gets that.    A heater goes back to plaintiff, 

Plaintiff is claiming that what she bought after she left should be paid for by the court.   Defendant has texts over the previous three months offering plaintiff to come and get her items.   Plaintiff will get an order to get the bunk beds, mattress for bunk beds, and heater, with police escort.    Plaintiff refused to get a police escort before to pick up her items from defendant (he said she needed one).

After the big bust up, plaintiff came to pick up the kids from defendant after a visit (he keeps them while plaintiff works in the evenings), plaintiff demanded the TV and a play station, and defendant refused.    Then defendant says plaintiff threw a lighter at him, and broke his front tooth.   Plaintiff claims defendant has abused her repeatedly, and claims defendant was previously charged with domestic abuse.   

Plaintiff claims the kids weren't there (defendant says they were) and claims defendant attacked her, and she defended herself.    However, plaintiff can't remember why she went to defendant's house without the kids.   (I absolutely believe the defendant, and only question why he had two kids with this loon.  Defendant isn't a saint, but plaintiff is awful, and obviously aggressive).    Plaintiff has a voice recording on her phone of their argument.    Recording is defendant telling her to stop bothering him.    

Defendant $675 to fix his tooth, and plaintiff has an order to pick up her stuff with an escort (bunk beds, and mattress, and air conditioner only).

Second-

New Girlfriend to the Rescue-Plaintiff suing temporary boyfriend over unpaid loans, to get his kids out of foster care.    Defendant not only lied about trying to get his kids out of foster care in Texas, and also claimed his mother was fighting cancer for the eighth time.    The litigants met on an online dating site, and met in person in November.   

First loan was on the first day they met in person, to get his car out of repo, $400.     Next 'gift' is claimed to be for his children, to get them out of foster care, and was $800.    (I would love if Officer Byrd would rip that ear piercing out of defendant's ear).  In the defendant's sworn answer, he swore that the loan/gift was for his mother's cancer bills.   Statement also says for his two kids, who live with their mother in Minnesota.  Plaintiff says another loan was for his mother's funeral bills (Bet mom wasn't too happy about being buried alive, defendant's mom is still alive, and JJ staff will notify her when the show airs, so she can enjoy her son's lies).       

Defendants two kids are with their mother in Minnesota, but he said they were in foster care in Texas, and that the kid's mother had O.D. 

JJ already hates defendant, who is an obvious grifter.    

$1200 to plaintiff for the two loans

Man Sues Teenage Brawlers!-Plaintiff suing over defendant's having a brawl at his home over the holiday break.    On New Year's Eve and New Year's Day, son was off of work, so he decided to have a party while parents, and siblings were gone.    Plaintiff son is 19, and father calls him an adult.    Plaintiff claims the two defendant's were involved in the brawl, and dented his car (bet neighbors of plaintiff are very unhappy with him).      Plaintiff's son little party ended up being a party for 150 people, and lots of underage drinking, which doesn't seem to bother the plaintiff's father.      Then a brawl started outside, and plaintiff's car was damaged, and JJ says useless son will pay for the damages. Plaintiff father says nothing was his fault, or his idiot son.  Son told his parents he was going to have 30 people over. 

As JJ says if any of those 150 underage drinkers left that home, and was killed, or killed others, then plaintiff would be sued,, and he would lose. 

JJ's older teenagers had a party when she was away from home, and two party goers took one of the dinghy's tied up at the dock, and floated out to sea (from City Island NYC).    The owners of the dinghy's were very angry, and JJ had to pay for the dinghys.   

Case dismissed.  (Idiot plaintiff is still claiming it was the defendant's fault).  

Edited September 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant isn't a saint, but plaintiff is awful, and obviously aggressive

Plaintiff came across as one of those people who manipulate others by habitually playing the victimest victim who ever was victimized. Defendant seem like a not-too-bright poor sap, whose bad behaviour paled in comparison to that of his despicable former mate.

 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Man Sues Teenage Brawlers!

We now know why JJ hates all teenagers; her own offspring were rowdy potential juvenile delinquents.

[Taeolas]

So is anyone else a bit annoyed that the show hasn't acknowledged Jerry Bishop's death? And that they seem to be using his Zombie Voice for the new season? 

I get (slash hope) that these eps were recorded before the lockdowns got into gear, so at some point they should be acknowledging COVID and/or Jerry's death in April. But for now, the new season starting with no mention of either major event (in real life and in show life) feels off. 

Hell, it's Judge Judy's 25th anniversary as the show. Each episode, or at least an ep of the week should have JJ reminiscing for a few minutes on the past. If not having a retro-episode with a "JJ's thoughts" or (to steal from Mathis) a "Where are they now" moment added. (Though JJ's past library was apparently tied up in litigation until recently so that may have been a problem).

 

Both Judge Mathis and People's Court (and I think Divorce Court) have acknowledge COVID and how this is a special season with special rules and such. It seems really strange that Judge Judy (and Hot Bench) seem to be going on business as usual. Especially for such a special season for JJ.

[Jaded]

Hot Bench which JJ created and produces also seems to have previously filmed episodes from before COVID and are airing them as new this season.

[Taeolas]

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

Hot Bench which JJ created and produces also seems to have previously filmed episodes from before COVID and are airing them as new this season.

 

The cases were filmed preCOVID, but they clearly have new announcers (or Zombie Jerry announcing) to introduce the cases. And JJ has a new intro to celebrate her 25th season. 

 

Judge Mathis shows they can acknowledge COVID restrictions and difficulties, and still air cases filmed before COVID. There's no reason HB or JJ couldn't have done the same sort of intro that Mathis and TPC have done outlining the changes, and added a banner saying older cases were filmed pre-COVID.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Baby Daddy Bye Bye-Plaintiff suing ex over a car trade in (plaintiff has two year old by someone else, defendant said he would treat the kid as his own, and she's now is the mother of his kid too.  Her parents actually let him move into their house, because he said he would take over the role of father for plaintiff's kid).   

Plaintiff used a car as a trade in, and defendant ended up with a Toyota Tundra (only kept for a month, then back to the dealer), and a Jeep that he still has.   Defendant still  owes over $6k for the Toyota, but plaintiff let defendant used her car as a trade in on the Tundra.     She traded her car in because she wanted a car for her two kids, and now has no car.   She doesn't work. 

 Idiot plaintiff's idiot father is whining in court about the unfairness of the man taking the car.   As JJ says, plaintiff parents were thrilled about someone taking daughter, and her kid off their hands.   In the hall-terview why does the plaintiff whine about needing day care paid for, when she doesn't work?    The plaintiff father would let anything going on in his house to unload the daughter, and her kids on someone else. 

Case dismissed.   

Hair Cutting Double-Talk-Plaintiff sold defendant custom kitchen island, and built out a custom salon in the commercial space of the building, and the island was in an apartment for the defendant.    Defendant hairdresser claims no firm price (but says $2k in statement by defendant).    I suspect JJ is right, defendant just wanted an L.A. paid vacation.  Defendant claims he paid $300 cash, $420, = $720, and says he paid the rest in hair cuts.   

Plaintiff gets $1055.  

Second-

21st Birthday Party Down the Toilet-Plaintiff rented house for a 21st birthday party (for son's birthday party, instead of his condo), and there was only one working toilet, with no toilet paper flushing allowed, and an outside urinal pit.   Defendant claims to have had parties up to 300 people at the house, and have to carry toilet paper outside in garbage bags.   There is nothing in the contract about the bathrooms, just a sign in the one working bathroom, with one toilet.   Plaintiff claims defendant rented backyard, and defendant lives in the house.  Defendant is counter suing for damages to plumbing. 

 $750 was rental price, and plaintiff gets $350 back. (Defendant already refunded $100 to the plaintiff) (This case is so disgusting.    How can any jurisdiction allow this person to rent this house, with unusable plumbing?)   How can the local jurisdiction let this sewage situation exist?  (There is no way a septic system should support that many people, or that a residential home should have a urinal pit in the back yard either.    I suspect his septic system needs replacement). 

Volvo Custody Fight-Plaintiff suing for repair costs, and storage fees for 2005 Volvo S80.   Plaintiff bought car from defendant, and claimed it couldn't be smogged, and therefore, was not able to be registered.  Plaintiff wants to keep car, but get paid for mechanical work she put into it.  This is a California sale, and is required to have a valid smog certification, so As Is doesn't cancel the smog requirement out.  

Defendant will have to take the car back, $2100 (car sale price only, not repairs), car price back to plaintiff.   However, plaintiff wants to keep car, so case is dismissed.    

Edited September 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

I swear, when Byrd smiles or laughs it is funny and like  a ray of sunshine

Edited September 17, 2020 by One Tough Cookie

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Shocking Video of Jaw-Breaking Assault!-Plaintiff suing fellow MMA fighter for breaking his jaw during an altercation at a bar, during the after party. .  Two litigants met before the fight, and defendant started trash talking the plaintiff.   Defendant also claimed they used to spar at the same gym together, but plaintiff says they didn't work out at the same gym.    After the fight at an after party, when plaintiff saw defendant come in the bar, the plaintiff started to leave.  Then defendant and plaintiff met, but the first time after the fight.    Video of assault on plaintiff is awful.   Plaintiff is extending his hand to defendant, and defendant hit plaintiff twice in the face and broke his jaw.   

Defendant claims plaintiff challenged him at the after party, and claims the plaintiff threatened to shoot him.    Then defendant punched plaintiff, claiming it was after the threat.    Defendant claims he thought the plaintiff was armed.     

Video shows plaintiff reaching out to shake hands, and defendant punching him twice, breaking the plaintiff's jaw.   The only reason defendant didn't keep punching plaintiff is because some other man grabbed him, and stopped the assault.  

Defendant still claims it was self-defense and he would do it again.

$5,000 to plaintiff.  

First Date Morphs into 5K Loan-Plaintiff suing his former date for an unpaid loan, $5000 after their first date.    They met online, he's 58, and she's 39.    On date #1 they hit it off, and that was their only date.    Defendant claims there was only one date, not two. 

Then a month later defendant (Sainted Single Mother of Two-SSMOT), who is mother of a 15 and 17 year old wanted money for her bills, her mother, etc.     Defendant claims $5,000 loan was a gift.  

Defendant says plaintiff wanted sexual favors, without dates, after the money was in her hand.   

Check says "Loan" on the memo section, and plaintiff gets $5,000.

Second (Rerun)-

Teenager Cusses Out Slow Senior-Plaintiff idiot teen, and his mommy are suing a neighbor for punching whiny brat's car. This was after the rotten brat cussed out an elderly widow for driving too slowly, and the bystander intervened.   Mommy came to court with her son, and claims she didn't know about the cussing, until court.  (What the hell is up with plaintiff brat's eyebrows? )     

Brat was driving, was mad about the slow driving of an elderly widow, on a dark, rainy day.   So he was revving his engine, instead of honking.  Other driver tried to pull over so plaintiff could pass.   Brat started to pull around the car, and defendant, and another person were walking in the street.   (As JJ points out, how could plaintiff see the pedestrians over the much taller car in front from a Mazda Miata?)  Plaintiff almost hit the pedestrians (who have the right of way).  Then plaintiff yelled at pedestrian to "Go F*** Himself".     Defendant says plaintiff brat told the two women the same thing.  

Two pedestrians yelled at plaintiff, and then defendant punched the plaintiff's car.    Plaintiff claims revving the engine and other harassment was "Freedom of speech".   The video show the plaintiff acting like a raging a&$&$&&.     (Driver is a 79 year old widow, pulling over to give a neighbor a ride, and neighbor was getting in the car).    (The man behind the plaintiff brat is really enjoying this case).    The plaintiff's mother claims to be upset about brat's behavior, but she really isn't.   (Brat is lucky that someone didn't punch his lights out).   This street wasn't the highway, but the entrance to the subdivision they live in, and plaintiff is a punk.    Next time plaintiff pulls a stunt like this, he may not get off so easy.   

$100 for plaintiff.

Locked Out and Fired Up-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of rent, security deposit, lost wages, and hotel costs.    Plaintiff moved into room at defendant's apartment (She stayed two months) .   Security was $500, and defendant kept that amount for replacing locks.   Defendant claims she was locked out by inside lock, so she called a locksmith to get her into the apartment.   Plaintiff claims when defendant called her, she looked and the inside lock was open.    Locksmith couldn't reach the inside lock, and so defendant slept in her car .  

Defendant is counter suing for return of a key fob, and lost wages.    (Why is the defendant yelling?)   Defendant gets the $355 for the locksmith, from the security deposit. 

$145 to plaintiff.   Defendant gets key fob/gate opener back.      

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

he's 58, and she's 39. 

That is a little unusual but not completely out of line; 28 to 19 is iffy and of course 18 to 9 completely out of line. However the 39 year old could pass for 29-30. However they are both adults and the defendant chose to play the game and stiff the plaintiff for a lot of money. It was not very clear to me but the defendant seemed to say that the money was only owed if she didn't have sex with him so she didn't owe him because she apparently had sex with him? Honestly at my age, if a 39 year old as attractive as this one offered me sex for a reasonable amount of money I would probably give it a shot.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My understanding was the woman claimed the plaintiff wanted her sexual favors, and that would mean the loan was a gift, but she never had a second date with him, let alone any other relationship.     She was horrible, and he was a fool. 

[configdotsys]

20 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

21st Birthday Party Down the Toilet-Plaintiff rented house for a 21st birthday party (for son's birthday party, instead of his condo), and there was only one working toilet, with no toilet paper flushing allowed, and an outside urinal pit.   Defendant claims to have had parties up to 300 people at the house, and have to carry toilet paper outside in garbage bags.   There is nothing in the contract about the bathrooms, just a sign in the one working bathroom, with one toilet.   Plaintiff claims defendant rented backyard, and defendant lives in the house.  Defendant is counter suing for damages to plumbing. 

 $750 was rental price, and plaintiff gets $350 back. (Defendant already refunded $100 to the plaintiff) (This case is so disgusting.    How can any jurisdiction allow this person to rent this house, with unusable plumbing?)   How can the local jurisdiction let this sewage situation exist?  

I don't think there is anything wrong with the sewage system. It's about a residential septic system not being designed to handle all the flushing that dozens of party guests would be doing. I can't even begin to imagine 300 people there. There would be flushing going on every minute. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

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

Pack Your Bags...Guilt Trip-Plaintiff loaned a 30 year old truck to her son, claims it was trashed by the time returned, and she's suing for the truck value, and every penny she's ever spent on it, and that's not happening.   Plaintiff claims truck was her only vehicle, but her long term boyfriend has three vehicles she used.   Plaintiff/mother claims she had to junk/salvage the truck.   However, her son-in-law, and son/defendant say she sold it to someone they know.   (Defendant son says "Welcome to my world" when JJ says mother is not making sense). 

Plaintiff wants $2300 for the truck, but she gets zip.

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

Second-

Car in Captivity-Plaintiff claims her car has been held captive by defendants for 10 months at his car repair lot.   Plaintiff took her car to the mechanic in July, and claims the fact she had no car caused her company to fire her.    The original car issue was oil pan, and radiator (she ran over something).  Defendants claim plaintiff paid $780.   Defendant claims plaintiff still owes for further work, and they're not releasing car until the payment.   

Car is running, but motor is past warranty period, but why should defendants suffer because plaintiff took a long time to pay her bills?    JJ says to go get the car and take it somewhere else, and gets her $780 back (if you want a used engine, you take your chances with it working).   

$780 to plaintiff, and that's it.  (I don't think plaintiff should have received a dime, she's a scammer, and a liar.  Anyone who comes to court with phony receipts should be thrown out.   Car was towed in to the mechanic's shop, and is now drivable.) 

Speed Eviction-Plaintiffs suing former landlords for return of security deposit and rent.  Defendants rented a townhouse, and rented a bedroom to plaintiffs for a week.   Deposit was $1,000, and $800 rent, and they paid $1700 to defendants.    Eviction was because plaintiffs weren't on the lease.   Property manager, another proposed tenant, and the police (they rent three rooms) came in the house, and told the plaintiffs to leave. 

 In the Hall-terview the plaintiff says they found out that the defendants had an eviction action going against them, and said there were a bunch of 'prospective' tenants knocking on the door constantly.  

 $1700 to plaintiffs. 

(If the 4 p.m. shows seem a little disjointed, the TV guide, and cable guide keeps putting the wrong title for the 4 p.m. show, and then sometimes I can find out what the title really is.   I'm sure they'll get everything back to normal). 

Edited September 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. a new episode, and a recent rerun-

First (New)-

Child Endangerment and Defamation!-Plaintiff father suing his son's mother (Gardenia Sims) for false restraining order, defamation, and being a false restraining order, and a false accusation to his military boss that he's a thief.  

Defendant is Sainted Single Mother of Four (SSMOF) ,and only one child is plaintiff's.   Defendant's kids are 18 down to 4 years old.   Defendant sent three kids (2 older, and plaintiff's kid) to visit plaintiff, (plaintiff is married to another woman, and not related to the older three children).    Plaintiff called during the visit, and told defendant the 11 year old was bullying the four year old.  It's not only bullying, since the four year old claimed 11 year old was touching him inappropriately.    Plaintiff told defendant to get her two kids, and he wanted to keep the four year old, plaintiff wanted the children separated, and to have counseling.    Defendant didn't believe the four year old.  

Defendant immediately went to file for full custody of the four year old, and had an attorney, before she picked up her other two kids.    Then defendant claims she filed for custody without the attorney's help.   Then defendant drove to plaintiff's location.   Defendant told the plaintiff she wanted to take the kids shopping, and she would bring them back, but instead she returned home, with all three kids.   Then plaintiff was served with custody papers by a sheriff.     Plaintiff gets his son for two weekends a month now.   Defendant didn't put her 11 year old in therapy, because she's an idiot.  A week later defendant filed for a restraining order against plaintiff.   So defendant doesn't believe the four year old, and is ignoring the strong possibility that her 11 year old is molesting the 4 year old. 

Defendant's protective order requests that plaintiff should be barred from seeing his child.    Defendant made horrible accusations against plaintiff to get the protective order.    Plaintiff didn't see his child for over a month, because of defendant's lies.   This was after she dumped his kid, and two of hers to visit plaintiff for a week.    I hope plaintiff will someday get full custody of the four year old, and no visits for the defendant.    I bet you anything that the reason the defendant had a kid with plaintiff was to get him to marry her, and get military benefits for herself, and have him adopt the other three kids (if the military service member adopts the kids, then the kids all get military benefits, and if they divorce, he pays child support taken right out of his military pay).   

As JJ says, plaintiff had a right to call CPS over the four year old child's abuse.     

Defendant is in law enforcement, and does nothing about abuse allegations!

After the custody hearing, plaintiff received weekend visitation, unsupervised with his child.   Defendant called plaintiff's military boss, and claimed that plaintiff was a thief.   This was after the custody hearing loss, and when plaintiff married someone else.   How can a person who makes false allegations, and ignores the report of abuse against the four year old, still have a job in law enforcement?   

Then plaintiff filed for a restraining order against defendant after the allegations to his boss.   Plaintiff was investigated, and cleared for the refrigerator theft allegations.   (My guess is that if there was a fridge, it was either purchased through the military retail store, or bought from excess property that is sold off by the government). 

Plaintiff gets $1200.       Despicable defendant gets what she deserves, nothing!  (JJ will make a tape available to plaintiff, so any future judge has access to it). 

Second (Rerun)-

Attack of the Great Dane Puppy-Plaintiffs suing defendants for a dog attack, by defendant's 90 pound Great Dane puppy, and are suing for vet bills, boarding, and other costs.   Plaintiffs have two small dogs (about 20 lbs. each, on leash, a Sheltie, and a Shih Tzu).    As usual, defendant woman denies her dog attacked, and claims Great Dane was just playing.   Defendants refuse to admit that their dog attacked, and claim plaintiff man had no reason to hit their out-of-control, attacking Great Dane.  (Plaintiff man is one of the few litigants that says thank you to Officer Byrd).  Video clearly shows the Sheltie being chased by the Great Dane, with plaintiff's running too, and defendant taking her sweet time following.  

Defendant man had two Great Dane puppies, off leash, and the 90 lbs. dogs attacked.     When first dog attacked plaintiff's dog, he picked his dog up in his arms, and had scratches, and bruises on his arm.     When Great Dane jumped plaintiff man, he dropped the Sheltie, and Great Dane attacked again.    The plaintiff dog's harness has a hole ripped in it by the Great Dane, and the little dog got out of his harness, and ran away.   Video shows the Great Dane chasing the Sheltie into the street.   

Defendant finally got the Great Dane captured, Sheltie was gone overnight, and came home by itself, and was severely injured. 

Sheltie needed vet care, and was boarded for twelve days at vet office (to keep it quiet, and away from other dog at home).   Vet bills were $2081, and boarding was $240, plus $44 for the follow up visit.     Defendant claims Great Dane was just playing, and accuses plaintiffs of making false accusations against him, and his dogs.   

Defendants are despicable, and cowardly.   Defendant wife is a liar, and keeps shaking her head, and if irritating as hell.     Defendant and wife are the worst kind of dog owners, and shouldn't have a dog of any kind.  Defendant wife claims plaintiff man hit her dog without justification, but that's garbage too.   (Also, was it an off-leash park?   I doubt it).  My opinion is the Great Dane's prey drive is out of control, and combined with clueless owners, is a menace.  

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

This Isn't Going to Go Well for You-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for the cost to pay off a car loan.     Litigants lived together for just over a year, and purchased a car together (October 2018), and both names were on the title.   

Down payment was $5k, from defendant's father, and car was severely damaged in August 2019.     There was a $7250 payment from the insurance company, and that was about the pay off amount on the car loan.  

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

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

The child endangerment case was appalling.    Her complaints were nothing more than retaliation for plaintiff saying her 11 year old was touching the 4 year old, and she was mad the man married someone else.    The Great Dane defendants were idiots. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[patty1h]

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich?!   The defendant was a smarmy, creepy dumbass who was so jealous of the rich people whose kids he was tutoring that he offered them the privilege of contributing to his education and was amazed when they balked.  Did you hear his bitterness during the hallterview?  How dare they not spread the wealth with him!   I really hope the IRS comes down on him like a hammer on a nail.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns from 2017 (I think 2017)-

First-

Heartthrob Concert Chaos-Plaintiff mother suing defendant mother for concert tickets, and limo, plus for bullying, and an assault.    This was a concert trip for a nine year-old's birthday party, including the limo ride.    The birthday party was a concert trip to see a Jacob Sartorius  concert.   Plaintiff mother wanted to take her daughter, and defendant's daughters to the concert, plus a friend and her daughter,  and have a limo.    So plaintiff's daughter heard about the concert trip, and then defendant (daughters were friends of plaintiff's daughter, but not friends anymore).   

Defendant said her daughters could go to the concert with plaintiff's daughter.   Plaintiff purchased the tickets, and then defendant claims she hadn't agreed to pay for the tickets yet.   However, plaintiff purchased tickets for her own daughter, and later purchased tickets for defendant's daughters , at first the plaintiff was willing to buy the tickets, and defendant was told the tickets were $162 for defendant's daughter.    The limo was booked the day after the ticket purchase by plaintiff, and plaintiff wanted defendant to pay half for the limo, but defendant claims the price for limo kept changing.     Litigants can't agree on how much the limo was, and who was paying for what part of the limo ride.    (The reason the third each is plaintiff, defendant, and plaintiff's irritating witness for the limo).    The day of the concert is when the limo arrived, and when defendant found out about the limo.      Plaintiff is awful (and so it that stupid looking wig she's wearing). 

Defendant says  the day before the concert was when she found out about the limo being hired, and the strange 'contract' for the limo is submitted.    After the concert was when the defendant was told about the limo cost.    Limo cost $434, split three ways.    Then defendant posted pictures of her own children at the concert, and then the limo price demanded by the plaintiff was $394.   Then the bullying charge was added by the plaintiff to her case.  (Limo ride was only to the concert, not back home). 

Plaintiff claims text message from defendant the night of the concert started the feud.   Plaintiff daughter was invited backstage, when plaintiff 'just happened' to meet the star's manager, and plaintiff's daughter went to meet the star.   

After the concert the daughters started arguing.    Plaintiff adding bullying to the law suit, after the original filing.   Plaintiff claims her daughter received mean texts, and other bullying incidents.    (In hall-terview plaintiff calls defendant a lousy mother, and says she hopes defendant moves away)

Plaintiff receives $309 for the limo ride, and tickets.   

Second-

Drugs, Kids, and Feuding Parents-Plaintiff and husband were going to lose custody of their children after drug arrests, and defendant (ex of plaintiff) and defendant took custody.  Plaintiff has three children, 10 and 8 with defendant, and baby with plaintiff husband.    Plaintiff mother is suing for income tax for the two boys, but the plaintiff mother only had the children for two months.   (Plaintiff daughter in law in another personal care assistant).   Defendant pays $200 a month for child support for his two kids.    Before 2016 defendant had custody of his two kids, and the children's mother had the kids part time, no support order.     In 2015 defendant had six months custody for the two boys, and all of 2013, and 2014 defendant had custody.     In 2016 the three kids were with the plaintiff, her idiot husband, and they got busted for drugs, and CPS wanted to put the three kids in foster care.   Baby was born 2015, and plaintiff claims the baby wasn't born addicted.    

Defendant was about to become homeless, so he let children go to their mother.    CPS is involved in 2016 because of allegations from plaintiffs about the defendants.   The oldest child is in a therapeutic foster home.   Plaintiff mother in law gave 8 year old to CPS.    I wonder if anyone drug tested the plaintiffs, including the MIL?    They seem totally stoned, especially the MIL, who can barely talk.

Plaintiff case is dismissed, and JJ says defendant should go to family court to get custody of his two kids.   Defendant says in hall-terview that plaintiff ex-wife has had parental rights severed to all four of her children, two with defendant, one with the other plaintiff, and who knows about the fourth child.  

Childcare Drama-Plaintiff suing defendant for unpaid baby sitting fees, and damaged property.   Defendant was working part time, and later full time.    Defendant is now paying her mother to watch the children, but didn't pay plaintiff.   Plaintiff was never paid at all by the defendant.   Defendant claims plaintiff was supposed to take two classes to be paid by the state, and she didn't take the classes.    Defendant is paying her own mother $250 every two weeks to care for the children.   

I love it when a litigant barely has to say a word to win.   

Plaintiff receives $850 for babysitting services

Drug Arrests and Friendship-Plaintiff suing her former friend for a loan for bail, after defendant was arrested for selling drugs.   Defendant was arrested more than one time, for drug sales.    One needed a co-signer, and that case defendant took a plea, she also served jail time too.

I fail to see why defendant is so damn happy about getting arrested twice for selling drugs, and going to jail.     Plaintiff signed for bail for the first arrest, and a few days later defendant offended again, got caught, and bail was revoked.  $1251 was bail charge paid by plaintiff,

$1251 to plaintiff 

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. episodes, both new-

First-

Army Buddy's Dishonorable Friendship-Plaintiff and mother are suing for hotel rental, transportation costs.   Defendant and plaintiff met in the military (Air Force), and were friends.  Plaintiff lives with her husband, two children, and her mother is co-plaintiff.  Plaintiff was called by defendant and told about his marital issues, and wanting to move to Texas.   Plaintiff offered to pay for bus or plane ticket, and defendant couldn't take certain HVAC equipment with him, a one-way car rental wasn't going to work either.   It was 8 to 10 hours driving time, plus a side trip to see defendant's son.   So plaintiff paid for the hotel room for defendant and his sons, and plaintiff met him at the motel the next day, and brought him back to Texas.    

Defendant says he didn't offer to pay for any expenses.  Plaintiff also offered to help defendant get a job at Lackland AFB.   Plaintiff says defendant offered to help her remodel her current house, and prep it for sale.   Plaintiff spent $600  on the move, and plaintiff's mother loaned a fifth wheel trailer to defendant, and plaintiff mother spent $680 on lot rental for the trailer, plus awning damage $.    Plaintiff also made loans $2285 to defendant.  

Defendant now has a job, not at Lackland.   Defendant also claims plaintiff Rita Jr (Mom and daughter have the same name), stay with him at the RV Park constantly, and tries to turn it into romantic. 

(I have to laugh, the summary on the cable guide says plaintiff drove cross-country for this, but they went from Oklahoma to Texas). 

$4375 to plaintiff.    

Consolidated Romance Fail!-Plaintiff suing his ex-girlfriend for the transfer balance of a credit card debt.    Defendant had high interest credit card debt, and plaintiff gave her his 18 month, 0% interest credit card to make her loans more affordable.   However, plaintiff used the card a few times too.    Defendant owed $5700, but claims she paid $3500 on the card, and claims to have proof.    Defendant claims she never had the physical card.    Plaintiff claims defendant paid $1700.   

Plaintiff used the card a few times, and paid it off immediately, to earn points on the card.    Defendant also claims the plaintiff received points, and gift cards for the balance transfer.   They actually went on a cruise during this!

Case dismissed.     Both litigants are idiots. 

Second-

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich?!-Plaintiff mother, suing former tutor for return of fees she paid him to tutor her daughter.    Defendant tutored daughter for freshman year, high school geometry, one or more session a week.   Defendant charged $90 per session, and extra sessions during a week were paid also.    Fees were paid at the end of each session, on check.    Plaintiff mother claims they didn't meet every week, about 25 times per year.   Defendant is no longer tutoring.   Plaintiff didn't 1099 the tutor either.  No taxes were reported by either party, or income.  

Defendant will show JJ how much he reported to the IRS last year as income.   JJ is figuring out how much tutor earned, so his reported $42000+ was more like $100k+, thanks to Officer Byrd.   I'm hoping this tape will be forwarded to the IRS, for audit.

Defendant certainly loves the sound of his own voice.  I absolutely hate his voice.  JJ still says his income was more like $80k minimum.

Defendant decided to go back to school, and sent a letter to the tutoring clients, to dump them.    Then defendant offers the clients a way to invest in his academic bills, and he will do sessions with their child from April 2019 to graduation.   Who says these kids will graduate?   

Plaintiff was going to pay $3,000 and get tutoring until graduation (in plaintiff daughter's case, May of 2022).  Defendant says that's the end of the year, and plaintiff says it's until her daughter's graduation.    

Defendant tutored daughter five times after paying $3,000, so plaintiff gets $2500.    

I Hate You! Here's Your Marijuana!-Plaintiff suing her ex-boyfriend for a loan to have his legal record expunged.    Defendant was arrested in after an argument at plaintiff's apartment.   Defendant found a pen filled with marijuana, and he claims this was the first arrest.   Plaintiff paid for pre-trial diversion, and an attorney to expunge defendant's record.    Defendant tries to make a ridiculous excuse about why he paid small amounts to plaintiff after they broke up.    Plaintiff paid $5400 for the expungement, and repaid $1,424, leaving $3976,

I wish Officer Byrd would wipe that stupid grin off of defendant's face. 

Plaintiff receives $3.976.

(Tomorrow's second case on the first new episode is a dog case, and it sounds sad and graphic).

[basiltherat]

Hey, tutor -- If the clients are so RICH, RICH, RICH, why can't they buy themselves out of four years of damn geometry?!?

[edie3]

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich? What an ass! 

[nora1992]

8 hours ago, edie3 said:

Elite Tutor Steals from the Rich? What an ass! 

True, he is everything the posters describe, but I did appreciate his schooling of JJ on how the school year isn’t 52 or 48 weeks a year.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, nora1992 said:

True, he is everything the posters describe, but I did appreciate his schooling of JJ on how the school year isn’t 52 or 48 weeks a year.

Seems to me when JJ does her 'now I know who I'm dealing with' shtick she ends up wrong as often as she's right. This time, IIRC, tutor was said he tutored many as 20-25 students a week. JJ jumps on that and incorrectly takes that to mean he has that many every week of the school year. You would think with all her kids and grandkids she would know kids don't go to school 11 months a year. Besides, I took him estimate as the max number he tutored a week. My guess is that even when school is in session he only approaches he max number just before mid terms and finals. JJ should have asked what his average number of students was, not the max. Most of the kids aren't going to be tutored at the beginning of the semester/quarter. They're going to wait until they fall behind and fail a quiz or two, many not until parent sees the first report card. 

Otoh, I agree with JJ's ruling. If we view the letter as a contract, the author suffers from any ambiguities. His very imprecise 'until graduation' phase can be interpreted to mean several different dates. Mom's interpretation was a valid one, as was his that 'graduation' was an annual event. Thing is, Mom gets benefit of doubt since he authored the flawed contract.

Didn't like tutor from get go - and he really tanked in hallterview when he seemed to imply he was justified to rip off mom since she lived in fancy ritzy neighborhood near Bill Gates

[Carolina Girl]

6 hours ago, nora1992 said:

True, he is everything the posters describe, but I did appreciate his schooling of JJ on how the school year isn’t 52 or 48 weeks a year.

Yeah, I was a little annoyed with that.  BTW,  he didn't show JJ his tax returns.  He said "this is the income I declared."  Anyone else think he probably has a secondary job - maybe as a Lyft or Uber driver - and uses the 1099 from that job as the basis for his income, since he admitted that he didn't get a 1099 from ANY of his clients.  And he just pulled that $43,000 number out of his ass thinking it would "sound right".  

Also, I'm sure people get tutoring during the summer as well - summer school, etc.  

Oh, and that halterview - "$3000 is NOTHING to these people."  True, jerkweed.  But it's THEIR money, not yours.   And telling people in April that $3000 would entitled you to tutoring until "graduation" was deliberately vague.  And guess what - when YOU draw up the agreement, ambiguities are construed against you. 

[Carolina Girl]

Oh, and folks living in this "elite" tutor's area - you could probably get a great tutor in geometry for you kid from the local community college.  For less than this dickweed would charge you.

[SuzWhat]

Judge Judy’s producers should give her a break in her last season and stop using cases for unmarried folks wanting to split bills. She just gets aggravated and my girl doesn’t need the aggravation. We already lost RBG, we can’t lose JJ in 2020 too. “Courts don’t exist for this.”  😀

Edited September 22, 2020 by SuzWhat

[SRTouch]

On 9/22/2020 at 1:28 PM, Carolina Girl said:

Oh, and folks living in this "elite" tutor's area - you could probably get a great tutor in geometry for you kid from the local community college.  For less than this dickweed would charge you.

True story: I actually started taking a couple classes at the Junior College my junior year of high school. My first non-family related paid job was as a HS senior tutoring college required American History - I tutored HS general math, too, but that was informal and unpaid. I was quite the family disappointment when I dropped out of college to join the Army. To compound my error, I ended up in Delayed Entry Program and actually reported the Friday before Mother's Day....... a fact Mom occasionally reminded me of even after I retired from the Army 20 years later

Edited September 24, 2020 by SRTouch