All Episodes Talk: All Rise

CrazyInAlabama · September 22, 2020

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

First-

Teen Assaults Woman With Mace-(I remember this one, I really hoped that Officer Byrd would mace the spoiled brat. I bet Officer Byrd and the security crew were close by for this case)-Plaintiff was sitting a nail shop, and 13 year old teen walked into the salon, and maced the plaintiff. Plaintiff wants medical bills, and punitive damages from the assault. Defendant's mother doesn't care, never will, and JJ can stop telling the defendant's mother about teen's future. Defendant had a confrontation with plaintiff a couple of years ago, over tag football. Defendant daughter claims plaintiff grabbed her hair, and was swinging her around.

March 2017 was the nail shop (Pink Lotus Salon) pedicure for plaintiff, when defendant teen entered the salon, and maced the plaintiff, after saying she was going to mace her, and plaintiff wrestled the mace away, and police were called. Result of charges was minor teen had a three year protective order keeping her away from plaintiff.

Defendant mother keeps saying the daughter was protecting herself, and carries mace all of the time. Why would someone who claims to be afraid of the plaintiff, and clearly saw her before entering the salon, go in and mace someone?

Plaintiff submits medical bills Because of her health insurance, there were no medical bills. Lawyer plaintiff consulted sent her to the chiropractor, that plaintiff is not getting that. (funny note, right after the chiropractor/lawyer statement by plaintff, a couple of local personal injury attorneys advertised).

$2500 to plaintiff. Defendant's idiot mother is still making excuses in the hall-terview.

When Old Cats Attack-Plaintiff suing neighbor for vet bills, after defendant's cat attacked plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff was walking her dog on lease, and defendant comes along with her own dog on leash, and her vicious cat trailing behind. Plaintiff says cat attacked her dog, without warning. Defendant claims her cat ran out from under a car, and attacked the plaintiff's dog, and claims it was self defense.

This gets even better, when plaintiff says the number defendant gave her to discuss the vet bill was totally wrong, not a number or two reversed, etc. but four last digits are wrong. Defendant says there is no leash law for cats in California, but JJ points out the cat doesn't have to be on a leash, but the owner is responsible for damages. Pictures of the poor dog are bloody, and horrible to look at.

Plaintiff receives $305.

Second-

Don't Sell Dogs to Teenagers!-Plaintiff sold the 18 year old defendant a German Shepherd puppy (defendant used to be a student of plaintiff). When puppy was injured, defendant refused to take dog to vet, until the choice was put the dog down, or do surgery. Plaintiff loaned the money to defendant for the vet bill. Defendant and boyfriend are both unemployed, and living with boyfriend's parents. Puppy gets leg infection, vet said dog needed surgery, or to be put down. Vet bill was $4,169.

Plaintiff breeds one litter per year. Plaintiff has texts from defendant saying she would start paying money back. Why did plaintiff sell the defendant a puppy? Defendant doesn't have a stable situation in housing, and a spotty employment record.

Plaintiff wants to buy dog back from defendant. Defendant says she does interviews for money?

Plaintiff gets $4,169.

World's Worst Roommate-Plaintiff suing former roommate for unpaid rent, and vet bills. Plaintiff's witness is another roommate, and defendant and plaintiff witness were on the lease. The plaintiff and witness were paid by the roommates, and then defendant paid the landlord, until defendant stopped paying rent for five months. Plaintiff paid the back rent to the landlord, after defendant stole the plaintiff and her witness' rent money. When landlord contacted plaintiff and witness, and plaintiff paid the back rent, and kicked defendant out.

Defendant wants his property back, and claims that he owes the landlord or property manager. However, there is proof the plaintiff paid the landlord, but only has a suspicious receipt for the payments. I'm hoping plaintiff will be able to show where she took the money out of her bank account for the back rent, $5730.

I think the plaintiff and witness should have filed criminal charges against the defendant. However, embezzling like this is often not even prosecuted. $3530 was proven to be paid by plaintiff.

Defendant's claim for his property is dismissed, but he will get stuff back from the front porch (someone else will have to pick it up), and at the appointed date and time items will be there for one hour, and considered abandoned and trashed after that.

$3530 to plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · September 22, 2020

5 p.m. new episodes-

First (New)-

You're Not Charming, You're a Slug!-Plaintiff came into a $100k, and defendant wanted her to go into a house flipping business with him, and needed a loan for unpaid child support. Defendant has three kids 8, 10 and 2 1/2, and he barely pays anything to support them. He pays $250 once a month. Defendant was $4,000 behind, when the house flip idea came up. When they went to buy the first house, plaintiff did a $2,000 deposit on the house, and defendant needed the $4,000 paid off before he could buy the house. Plaintiff paid $30k, and defendant paid zero, Plaintiff paid $26,000 to buy the defendant out of the house, and $4,000 for the child support debt.

Defendant works under the table, and pays virtually no taxes, or child support. Plaintiff made zero on the house, and knows she will lose on the house if she sold it today.

$4000 to plaintiff. (Why do I suspect that after this aired, the plaintiff had a lot of people interested in the remaining money, and is probably broke now).

Chihuahua Loses an Eye in a Pit Bull Attack-Plaintiff suing woman for $2200 vet bills, after defendant's dog attacked her dog. Plaintiff found a stray dog at 1 a.m., and put in her back yard for the owner to be found. Plaintiff found a chip, contacted the defendant, and defendant was going to pick up dog (Defendant claims it's not her dog). Plaintiff's dog was attacked by defendant's dog, and little dog lost an eye, and suffered other injuries. As JJ says, taking in the Pit Bull mix into her home was a mistake.

Defendant witness/boyfriend met defendant in the beginning of January, and moved from Michigan, and moved in on January 15. Defendant woman is still married to husband, but shacking up with her witness. Defendant couldn't afford the dog, so she claims she rehomed the dog, but never told plaintiff how to contact the current owner when plaintiff found the dog. Defendant boyfriend is so dim.

Defendant woman claims the man she rehomed Pit Bull to some guy off craigslist, she has no idea of where the person lives. Defendant now has the dog back.

JJ says defendant isn't responsible for the vet bills, because she rehomed it (like hell she rehomed the dog). Plaintiff drove the dog to defendant's home, so I don't believe she gave the dog up.

Plaintiff case dismissed. (I wish JJ had awarded the plaintiff the money).

Second (New)-

Woman Fights for Antique Appliances!-Plaintiff suing former roommates for appliances, damages and unpaid utility bills. The four were living in the house (plaintiff lived there for seven years,) and two nephews moved into the house, with the friend (with pink hair). (What is going on with the plaintiff's hair?). All three defendants signed a lease with the property management company, after plaintiff remarried and moved out. When plaintiff moved out (in 2017), appliances (Washer/dryer, stove, microwave, air conditioner, fridge, etc) were left behind for plaintiff's son to use.

Plaintiff will pick up refrigerator (27 years old), stove (25 years old), washer/dryer (newly purchased), within five days. There are no receipts for other items. Utility bills for a week in May 2019, are owed total is $66.00, and $5400 equaling $134.00

Plaintiff has five days to pick up appliances, and $134.00

Pizza, Cameras, and a Surprise Trip-Plaintiff suing ex-husband for unauthorized credit card charges, divorced in 2018, but rekindled their relationship. Plaintiff gave defendant a Discover card in her name, and defendant wasn't an authorized user, but used it to pay tuition for defendant. They eat out a lot, and whine about who ate what. Defendant says the verbal agreement was he would make payments on the bill whenever he could, of course JJ doesn't believe him (and neither do any of us).

Plaintiff claims she never used the card, but blames everything on defendant. Plaintiff doesn't know Rome and Italy are the same geographic country.

JJ send the litigants out in the hallway to figure out what defendant owes, minus the meals at every place in town. Plaintiff claims the food bill (one of them) was when she was on a cruise. Plaintiff did not return the plane tickets.

$1280 for plaintiff, and told to return the tickets.

Edited September 22, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Burning Rubber · September 22, 2020

I want to hire the pink haired defendant for art modeling. Her face had that perfect pre-Raphaelite stunner profile that I have been searching for, for years. I was mesmerized.

nora1992 · September 23, 2020

I can’t shake the feeling that if the dog had been any other breed than a pitbull, the decision would have gone the other way. The defendant’s Craigslist contact? Would not be surprised if he was as real as the Nigerian prince who emailed me last week.

NYGirl · September 23, 2020

Wow that deadbeat guy in the house flip case was so hot! I was drooling and not paying attention to how bad he was because wow!

poise2 · September 23, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Woman Fights for Antique Appliances!

Plaintiff will pick up refrigerator (27 years old), stove (25 years old), washer/dryer (newly purchased), within five days. There are no receipts for other items. Utility bills for a week in May 2019, are owed total is $66.00, and $5400 equaling $134.00

Plaintiff has five days to pick up appliances, and $134.00

Did anyone catch that the fridge/stove were bought in 2003/2004, but Judge Judy kept saying they were "27 and 26 years old."

JJ always says how she's no good at math, but she's off by ten years in her figgerin' there 🤦‍♂️

LetsStartTalking · September 23, 2020

You're Not Charming, You're a Slug! - Sorry, but Alberto Alberty was more than charming - he was one sexy dude. No wonder the plaintiff fell for him.

Pizza, Cameras, and a Surprise Trip - The plaintiff was stuck on the following two words, which she repeated over and over again in her testimony: 'basically' and 'utilize'. (She threw 'intercourse' to make her dull case more interesting, and failed. ) I was waiting for JJ to snap 'Stop using the word 'basically' !'

For the record, this Season 25 is a dud. They are using all the shows taped in January / February /early March (before the pandemic shut down America on March 13) that they should have aired in April, May, and June - and decided to keep them for the new 'Season 25'. The audience is in the studio, no one has masks, and the announcer is still Jerry Bishop (who died on April 21, at the age of 84).

On the other hand, The People's Court has Judge Marilyn quarantined in her Florida home, conducting the trials via ZOOM (or something similar) with the litigants on TV screens as well - all set up in the empty courtroom. How long before they switch to that format with Judge Judy ?

Edited September 23, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

zillabreeze · September 23, 2020

On 9/15/2020 at 12:50 PM, NYGirl said:

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.

No suspect about it. Makes me violently stabby to know that people can do that and still sleep at night!

His mom was there with him. She should put a stop to those leeches getting phones on his account. That's exactly what happened here, too. D got word that he was ripe for picking.

I had an uncle with a TBI resulting from an auto accident, made worse by a GM fail. It took the family years to convince the courts that lowlifes (acting as friends) were bleeding him of the settlement that would have taken good care of him. It was too little, too late.

Edited September 23, 2020 by zillabreeze

zillabreeze · September 23, 2020

10 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

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.

The second I hear a litigant justifying their rip-off by referring to the victims' wealth, they are dead to me.

So??? it's cool if I shoplift because Mr. Costco has more money than me??? Same.

Plaintiff deserves props for calling that arrogant asshole out on national TV. That'll be an excellent Google find for rich folks that are tutor shopping! It should really expand his client base!

Dumbass will be the topic d'jour at the next P's next cocktail party. You can't buy that kind of publicity! 🤣😂🤣

As we say in construction " That boy can't think any further ahead than the tip of his dick".

Hellohappylife · September 23, 2020

Was there evidence in the Dog case that wasn’t shown on tv?

No name of the “new” owner the dog Was given too, No dated Craigslist ad. No proof or call log of the alleged defendant contacting the new owner about the lost dog. Didn’t even hear anything about what the distance and how far apart the Plaintiff and defendant Lived from each other. At least that would give a better understanding on if it’s possible the Dog actually escaped the defendant’s home and she’s lying.

I agree with JJ taking on that dog was a nice thing to do, but protecting her own dog should be her fist priority

Edited September 23, 2020 by Hellohappylife

Schnickelfritz · September 23, 2020

11 hours ago, poise2 said:

Did anyone catch that the fridge/stove were bought in 2003/2004, but Judge Judy kept saying they were "27 and 26 years old."

JJ always says how she's no good at math, but she's off by ten years in her figgerin' there 🤦‍♂️

Well, remember in her world, summer is only 2 weeks long, so she just doesn't have time for such mundane things as math.

CrazyInAlabama · September 23, 2020

I think the appliance woman had probably purchased used appliances, so they were older than when she bought them (or I'm bad at math too).

In the dog case, the defendant and witness did go to high school together, but they still reconnected, at the first part of January, and moved in together by the middle of the month. I do not believe some anonymous person that defendant doesn't know the address to, or even have a name for took that dog. I suspect that the dog lived with the defendant all of the time. I feel so sorry for the plaintiff, and she tried to do the right thing, and discounted the dog aggression of the dog she found. I wouldn't have given the dog back to the defendant after the attack, but called animal control.

Congratulations on everyone in Michigan for defendant boyfriend moving to California, but my condolences on the fools living in California now.

Edited September 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

bad things are bad · September 23, 2020

Quote

Defendant witness/boyfriend met defendant in the beginning of January, and moved from Michigan

And as a Michigander, I said GOOD RIDDANCE

CrazyInAlabama · September 23, 2020

4 p.m. older episodes, probably 2017-

First-

Sardines, and Dr. Pepper Vandal-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for a bad check she cashed on his behalf, return of tools, and bank fees for the bad check. Defendant Timothy Peck Jr. answered a craigslist ad, to have their cars wrapped in return for money. Litigants never had the cars wrapped, but plaintiff received some of the money for an auto detail shop, to have the cars wrapped. There were two checks, one to each litigant, and plaintiff deposited both checks. Defendant can't have a checking account, because while he was incarcerated, and divorcing the soon to be ex bounced checks, and the bank would make him pay the money back before he gets an account. $1488 was plaintiff, and $1850 for defendant, and both were deposited by plaintiff into her checking account.

Plaintiff claims she cashed the $1850 check, and claims she gave defendant the whole amount in cash. Defendant says she paid him with a packs of Marlboro Reds, and a $20 bag of weed. (This is when Byrd says JJ is the person writing a check at the grocery store that holds up the line. JJ says she uses cash for groceries).

Defendant claims the plaintiff ruined his fiancee's car (she's his witness), and plaintiff says car isn't in defendant's name, but her property. So the plaintiff admits she vandalized the car, in front of 10 million people. Defendant's new fiancee was incarcerated a few months after break up with plaintiff.

Five days after the deposits, the checks were returned by the bank as bogus. They broke up after this, a couple of weeks later. Plaintiff paid a lot of her debts off before finding out the checks were bogus. Plaintiff claims she was leery of paying the check money out, so only withdrew the money from his check. The bank account shows she did withdraw her $1488, so she's a liar.

Defendant claims plaintiff put fish oil in the car vents, etc. Defendant bought a new car for fiancee, and JJ tells defendant to have his current squeeze sue plaintiff.

Plaintiff claim dismissed over the checks.

Motorcycle T-Bone Crash-Plaintiff suing driver that hit her whiles he was on hers motorcycle, for totaled motorcycle, damages, and some other stuff. What a surprise (not at all) defendant didn't have insurance on the day of the accident. Police report confirms the defendant was at fault for the accident. Plaintiff was riding motorcycle straight, and defendant was coming from the other direction, turned left, and received no citation by the police for driving, or lack of insurance. Plaintiff bounced off of defendant's car. Defendant still says accident wasn't her fault.

Defendant failed to yield to on-coming traffic. Plaintiff only had liability on her motorcycle but missed a month of work.

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Second-

Unwed Teen Parent Turmoil & CPS Visits-Plaintiff suing her child's father for filing multiple false CPS reports, and return of property . Plaintiff says she can decide when defendant sees the child, because she's the mother (Sainted Single Mother of One) SSMO.

Both litigants are 18. Plaintiff now lives with a friend, and her friend's mother. The litigants lived together at defendant's grandmother before the baby was born, and for a while after. Before that plaintiff lived with family, but was booted out.

Plaintiff claims defendant is controlling, so she moved in with the friend's home. Plaintiff really never worked, but defendant has been constantly employed. Plaintiff claims defendant called CPS three times. The property plaintiff wants back are baby items, and defendant will keep them. Plaintiff is a jerk, and my guess will do anything she can to stop any relationship between father, and child.

Defendant was caretaker for his son for months at a time.

My guess, plaintiff will never get a job for any amount of time. The last time defendant was 'allowed' to watch his child, she called the police to get the baby back. She also pulled the old 'I was breast feeding a little" as an excuse to keep full custody. She was only feeding a little at bedtime, to keep full custody. The woman who lets the plaintiff live with her seems to think defendant has no right to see his own child either. Jennifer Basset (the woman plaintiff lives with) is just as bad as the plaintiff.

(Why do I have the suspicion of how well the plaintiff's friend's divorce will go?)

JJ throws out plaintiff's stupid case. JJ says to get a mediator, or court order delineating custody, support, and visitation.

CrazyInAlabama · September 23, 2020

5 p.m. new episodes-

First-

All Aboard the Free Ride Express!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan, and property damage. Plaintiff not only lived for free in defendant's home, but when she moved out she left her daughter behind with defendant (daughter stayed there alone with defendant for four months). Plaintiff claims she maintained her own apartment for that time, so what property did she leave at defendant's home?

Plaintiff, and daughter never paid anything while staying at defendant's home. Plaintiff claims she paid $3,000 for bills. Defendant put plaintiff on his bank account, and that's how she paid the bills. Plaintiff paid $60 for a power bill, Plaintiff lived in the home for seven months. Plaintiff's daughter moved in, and plaintiff's son stayed a month. Plaintiff can only prove she paid $1200 for the entire time she lived there with her kids, and $3,000 she claims she paid him, so she can stuff that. Plaintiff works 8 hours a week, and is on disability.

As JJ says, she had plenty of time to move her stuff out, even if defendant didn't know she was dumping him, and her daughter still lived there for four months, so she can forget that part of her stupid claim too. Defendant's new girlfriend is in court.

Defendant counter claim is for the $1254 plaintiff took out of his bank account he foolishly put her on. Plaintiff finally sent house keys back after she kept coming in the house, while the new girlfriend lived there. His new girlfriend pays rent too.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant case dismissed (he closed the account).

Second-

Catfight Ensues After Woman Scams Client?!-Plaintiff suing former consignment shop owner, for an arrest, money owed for the consignment. Plaintiff consigned new designer items, and there is proof that defendant, and others wore the clothes, and then sold them as used. Plaintiff has the shop upstairs from defendant's shop. Plaintiff went downstairs to retrieve her clothes a week after the consignment, after defendant never paid her for anything. Plaintiff wanted the pay out, or retrieve the clothes. Plaintiff retrieved most of her items, and defendant wanted her hangers back, so defendant wanted her clothes hangers back. Plaintiff was arrested for simple assault, but charges were dropped by the D.A.'s office.

Defendant admits she never paid for anything on consignment. Plaintiff has pictures of defendant and friends wearing the consignment clothes. All but one items was new, one was not new, and once they were worn they have to be sold as used, and they lose value. There is a written contract, it says nothing about defendant wearing items, and returning to the shelves to be sold as used. New value of clothing was $3256.

The assault plaintiff was arrested for is over the duster (long sweater), and hangars, defendant claims plaintiff assaulted her. (Defendant has a professional name-Cece Rocker is her professional name, not her legal name of Watson). As JJ says they both acted badly that day.

$3,256 to plaintiff, and nothing to defendant.

Give Your Ex-Lover $10k or Give It a Rest!-Plaintiff former roommate for return of money for a car. Litigants were live-in roommates, and plaintiff was going to take over payments on defendant's old car, and when she paid it off he would transfer the title to her. Then they broke up, and he wanted the car back because his name was on the insurance, and registration. Or she could pay him the $10k still owing on the car.

Plaintiff made five $400 payments, and she kept her Jeep, and the defendant's Hyundai. Plaintiff wants the $2,000 for the Hyundai back, but still has the car.

Plaintiff declines to pay $10k to defendant to pay the car off, Case dismissed.

poise2 · September 24, 2020

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think the appliance woman had probably purchased used appliances, so they were older than when she bought them (or I'm bad at math too).

Even for the typical litigant on an episode of Judge Judy, it would be absurd to pay $1000 for a 10 year old fridge. Even worse when you figure that due to inflation $1000 in 2003 is about $1400 today.

CrazyInAlabama · September 24, 2020

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

First-

Mermaid Mural and Assault at the Yogurt Shop-Plaintiff suing yogurt shop owners, because they painted over her butt ugly mural. Plaintiff wants the usual, $5,000 for the blow she's been dealt. Plaintiff wants the unpaid balance for the mural (she claims it took 200 hours), harassment, and an assault. Plaintiff is a substitute teacher, and does art on the side. Plaintiff was going to get $325 for the mural, plus the supplies included. Plaintiff was paid $150 up front for supplies, so only $200 is remaining. The assault was after five months of work on this masterpiece, plaintiff was fired, and claims male defendant pushed her out the door. No medical records are submitted, no police report, no physical injuries are proved. Sketches are submitted, and photos of the five month point are submitted. Only part of the 35' long mural is submitted.

Defendant claims the mermaids on the mural are by another artist. Only some of the kids on the beach scene are done by the plaintiff, but others were not her work. The sailboat, and crude dolphins (they look awful) are plaintiff's work, and it looks like a little kid did it. Defendants pay $200, because they owe that. The fact there is no written contract, and no finish date, and defendants brought in real artists to do some of the work, because they wanted to get the mural finished, and then defendants hated the mural, and painted over it. Plaintiff still claims it was 200 hours of work. Plaintiff claims the defendant husband punched her. Note to plaintiff, tears in the hall-terview work better if you actually have tears coming out.

Defendants submit the 911 tape on the last day plaintiff worked, to get their key to the shop back.

$200 to plaintiff, I hope defendants have a restraining order to keep plaintiff away. (My suggestion is that the defendants should have bought a wall mural for the yogurt shop. They aren't expensive, and would be up in one day, not five months, and would look better than the plaintiff's work).

Stylist Wars-Plaintiff salon owner issuing former chair and station renter for booth rent, and lock changing fees. Plaintiff is leasing the shop from someone else, and has four operators, including herself, doing hair there. There is a written lease for six months, and a cancellation period of two weeks from either party. Defendant claims the contract requires the plaintiff advertise the shop, but it doesn't. Defendant claims it was a verbal agreement, but there is a written contract, no written amendment was executed, so verbal is out.

Defendant paid two weeks rent for February, and owes five months rent to plaintiff. Defendant says she had no clients, so decided not to pay plaintiff, for months. What was stopping defendant from doing her own online advertising? Or some other way to promote her services? I don't understand why she had no clients, because usually stylists they get regular clients that come back over and over.

I am livid! When JJ stops trying to explain the back rent to defendant, defendant makes a smart remark about JJ being useless. Defendant is shaking her head like a bobble head doll, I loathe bobble head dolls, and the defendant.

Plaintiff is suing another former stylist too, and that person also left owing rent.

Key fee is $25, Total to plaintiff is $2,425. So leaving court defendant is reminded by Officer Byrd to leave her papers behind, and toss her papers on the table from the gate, what a b-word.

Second-

Got $42,000? Plane for Sale!-Plaintiff is suing defendant over a plane sale for airplane rental fees, hangar fees, and unauthorized charges. Defendant paid for some fuel for plane, and ordered new tires without plaintiff's consent. Plaintiff advertised plane for sale, and defendant answered the ad, plane was $42,000. Defendant claims he's had a pilot's license since 2005. Defendant negotiated price of plane for full purchase price of $42k. Defendant claims he needed time to finance a bank, or aviation lender.

Defendant's three landscaping employees are illegals, and paid in cash. Defendant has no loan application, or refusal letter from the finance company. During the time between the offer to buy the plane, and when plaintiff finally realized that he was being taken for a ride, defendant took a lot of rides in the plane. Defendant agreed to buy the plane in August, but didn't even try to get a loan until October (As JJ says, he must not like September), and loan was denied in October. Defendant never put down the 10% down payment.

Instead of renting the plane for $110 dry, plus fuel, and went out on rides for months. Defendant claims plaintiff agreed to take a truck, and hold the note for defendant after the credit union turned down his loan request. Plaintiff says he never holds a note for anyone (and I bet never co-signs either). Defendant claims he told plaintiff that he was turned down for the loan in October, but plaintiff still let him fly the plane free. Defendant never had an application or turndown letter from credit union. Defendant's witness is a fool too.

When plaintiff figured out the defendant was stringing him along, he put the plane back on the market, and sold it. However, he still has hours of rental unpaid, hangar rental, new tires for plane bought by defendant, on plaintiff's dime. Plaintiff had no loss on the sale price, but still wants hangar fees, rental fees, fuel charges, and tire costs. (I wonder if Raymond Johnson, the plaintiff is a lawyer? He sounds like one).

How could defendant take the aircraft without someone telling the plaintiff? Defendant lied about selling some expensive equipment and would buy the plane for cash.

Plaintiff receives $916, because there was no contract for plane rental, hangar rent, etc.

Edited September 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · September 24, 2020

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

First (New)-

Disneyland and the 25-million Dollar Payout?!-Plaintiff suing for Disneyland tickets, a loan, and garage rental. Litigants met at a bar, and plaintiff said she worked at Disneyland, and would get them discount tickets. Plaintiffs paid $300 cash, $200 more due for the hotel room at Disney. Plaintiffs never paid the $200, and cancelled the trip to Disney (cancelled by defendant), and another date was scheduled, 8-9 January 2020. (Defendant's hair or wig looks like plastic). Plaintiff husband had the flu, and wanted to go to Disney anyway, and defendant cancelled again. (How nice of plaintiff to want to infect hundreds at Disney).

Plaintiff claims defendant was getting a $25 million settlement for her diseases, and her assets were frozen by the IRS (no it doesn't make sense to me either). In November, plaintiffs gave defendant $1500 to pay her rent, and defendant admits that.

The only reason defendant cancelled January date when plaintiff husband had the flu, was because he wouldn't have enjoyed himself. Plaintiff claims defendant bought former boyfriend a Tesla, and would sell Tesla to plaintiffs for $500. Plaintiff claims defendant would buy a house, and defendant would hold note for them, because she received her $25 million settlement.

Plaintiff opened escrow on a home for themselves, and that's when everything went boom. Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to buy herself a house, and a bar, and partner with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs said defendants sent an invoice for Tesla, and it was $64,000, and $500 was the garage fee. They also claim that defendant would pay the Tesla off for them. (I don't know how I wrote this, I was laughing so hard during this case).

I can't believe how stupid the plaintiffs were.

$1500 for rent back to plaintiffs.

Squatters Sues Squatter?!-Plaintiff suing her former tenant for rent, a car, cost of a storage unit, and emotional distress. Plaintiff owned property with a trailer, and tiny house, and the property went into foreclosure after a year. Property had unpaid taxes on it, plaintiff rented a room in the house to defendant, and four others. Electricity to trailer, and home was cut off. Where plaintiff lives the air conditioning and heat broke, so her house hasn't had a/c and heat for three years. Defendant is counter suing for the cost of a generator. Plaintiff didn't pay the taxes for two years, but was paying some 'foreclosure' company to prevent the foreclosure.

Squatter plaintiff claims she paid for the house.

Everything dismissed by JJ. She certainly got this right.

Second (Rerun)-

Time to Measure a Pit Bull's Head-Plaintiff suing over defendants' Pit Bull/Boxer mix's attack on her dog (a 16 lb Maltipoo), that was in plaintiff's fenced yard. Defendants were walking their leashed Pit, and claim the plaintiff dog reached between the iron bars on the fence, and bit their dog. Defendant claims the Maltipoo reached through vertical wrought iron fence, and defendant claims the Maltipoo chomped on Pit's nose. Defendant wife claims the plaintiff dog made no noise, and was 'lying in wait' for their dog, and attacked silently.

Plaintiff dog lost a couple of toes in the attack. Defendant claims his insurance company denied the claim. Defendants claim their dog's face and head is too wide to fit through the fence and bite the plaintiff. Defendants seem very prepared for this case, I wonder if this is their first court case from their dog? My guess is that it isn't their first rodeo with this dog.

Plaintiff's son heard the commotion, and claims he saw Pit off leash, and defendant was pulling the dog back. Defendant neighbor says he was harassed by plaintiff, because plaintiff thought the dog was his. Defendant never said where he lived to plaintiff, so they were harassing the wrong person.

The pit head through the fence was bizarre. From the very easy way the defendant presented his evidence, and the list of excuses, I'm guessing this isn't the defendant's first time justifying his dog's actions. Also, I suspect that since no one saw the attack that isn't a defender of the Pit, that the little dog was sticking through. However, I find it ridiculous that the little dog attacked the Pit's nose, the way the defendant said. I absolutely believe the plaintiff's son was lying about seeing anything.

I don't think anyone should have received any money, because there was no proof. I find it interesting that the plaintiff put the wire on her gate, and all of her fencing. There was a big gap under the gate, and I bet the little dog was standing at the gate, and the big dog grabbed the paw then, and that's when the damage happened.

I think with the gap under the gate, the Pit had plenty of room to grab the little dog.

I find it ridiculous that the defendants had their dog right up in someone else's gate, with a barking dog on the other side. I feel so sorry for the neighbor that the plaintiffs harassed.

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant dismissed.

Salvaged Survivor-Plaintiff suing neighbor for return of money from a Dodge Challenger she sold him (salvage title) with a lien on it. Car was repossessed by the lien holder. (The defendant's neon red wig is bizarre, and hideous. JJ should give me $5,000 for having to view this monstrosity on defendant's head, and her piercings that look like boogers).

The salvage title is submitted by plaintiff, but lien holder signature block was signed by defendant, which was fraud. Defendant told plaintiff lien was paid off and she was the title holder. How did defendant get a title for the car? That's not given to owner until all liens are paid off.

$4700 to plaintiff.

Edited September 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

laprin · September 25, 2020

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

Disneyland and the 25-million Dollar Payout?!-Plaintiff suing for Disneyland tickets, a loan, and garage rental. Litigants met at a bar, and plaintiff said she worked at Disneyland, and would get them discount tickets. Plaintiffs paid $300 cash, $200 more due for the hotel room at Disney. Plaintiffs never paid the $200, and cancelled the trip to Disney (cancelled by defendant), and another date was scheduled, 8-9 January 2020. (Defendant's hair or wig looks like plastic). Plaintiff husband had the flu, and wanted to go to Disney anyway, and defendant cancelled again. (How nice of plaintiff to want to infect hundreds at Disney).

Plaintiff claims defendant was getting a $25 million settlement for her diseases, and her assets were frozen by the IRS (no it doesn't make sense to me either). In November, plaintiffs gave defendant $1500 to pay her rent, and defendant admits that.

The only reason defendant cancelled January date when plaintiff husband had the flu, was because he wouldn't have enjoyed himself. Plaintiff claims defendant bought former boyfriend a Tesla, and would sell Tesla to plaintiffs for $500. Plaintiff claims defendant would buy a house, and defendant would hold note for them, because she received her $25 million settlement.

Plaintiff opened escrow on a home for themselves, and that's when everything went boom. Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to buy herself a house, and a bar, and partner with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs said defendants sent an invoice for Tesla was $64,000, and $500 was the garage fee.

I can't believe how stupid the plaintiffs were.

$1500 for rent back to plaintiffs.

This case felt like a scam to get money from the show. There is no way I believe that couple fell for defendant’s claim of a $25 million settlement. The reason she gave about being on unnecessary medication sounded completely made up. Also, anyone know when this was taped? I’m thinking February 2020 because plaintiff mentioned concern over the coronavirus.

Bramble · September 25, 2020

12 minutes ago, laprin said:

This case felt like a scam to get money from the show. There is no way I believe that couple fell for defendant’s claim of a $25 million settlement. The reason she gave about being on unnecessary medication sounded completely made up. Also, anyone know when this was taped? I’m thinking February 2020 because plaintiff mentioned concern over the coronavirus.

The way the plaintiff only casually mentioned coronavirus as some random excuse the defendant had for cancelling the Disneyland trip (park was busy and "this coronavirius that was going on"), and no mention was made of Disneyland being closed makes me think it had to have been February or early March. It was after they were supposed to originally have the Disneyland trip which was January 2020. Disneyland was closed March 14th.

TVMovieBuff · September 25, 2020

I wish there could be something more than cars, dogs, and rent cases. Party cases, weddings, those are good.

ItsHelloPattiagain · September 25, 2020

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims defendant bought former boyfriend a Tesla, and would sell Tesla to plaintiffs for $500. Plaintiff claims defendant would buy a house, and defendant would hold note for them, because she received her $25 million settlement.

This part of the case was killing me. . . anybody else reminded of those scams where the people get a check for $3000 which they cash and then keep $500 for themselves as a "fee" and give the other $$ back to the check holder? (meanwhile the check gets rejected by the bank, wash, lather rinse, repeat). Were the plaintiffs really that stooopid? or that greedy? And who drives a Tesla? I see them out here and I don't think you can get three kids in the back, particularly in car seats.

CrazyInAlabama · September 25, 2020

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

First-

Family Business Money Triangle-Plaintiff is suing stepmother for an unpaid loan, and a false restraining order. Defendant is stepmother to plaintiff. Defendant says the loan is being paid back, didn't miss any payments. Plaintiff husband of defendant, and father of plaintiff. All of the family lived in New York, but all moved to Florida. Plaintiff witness is on disability, stepdaughter barely ever worked. Plaintiff father/husband got a settlement, of $20k, and gave that to the defendant to start her online business. Business supports husband, stepmother, daughter, her two children.

Plaintiff, and her father got a loan when they moved to Florida, as co-signers. Loan paid for the move, furniture, and supplies for the business. Since 2012-2016, defendant's business supported everyone (a cast of thousands, just like in the old movies). Defendant is from Canada, and received a green card. (If defendant was smart, she would move back to Canada, and get away from the entire plaintiff family). Plaintiff daughter said in her statement that the $20k was a loan, but it was a settlement for the father's car wreck. Defendant actually started her business in 2008 in Canada, and just continued it in the U.S. By 2014 and 2015, defendant was supporting husband, stepdaughter, her two kids, and ran her business. Then stepdaughter moved out, and actually had a job for a year, and then moved back home.

Stepmother/defendant paid back $11,000 of the $20,000. Plaintiff daughter never paid rent, and was supported by defendant except one year. Stepmother/defendant felt threatened by plaintiff daughter (I wouldn't want to cross the plaintiff either). In November, defendant's son came to visit, and stepfather, and son argued. Stepfather/plaintiff witness says son objected to how his mother was being treated. Stepfather was arrested, and held in jail for seven days, and was finally released. Plaintiff/daughter says she didn't file a protective order, but defendant/stepmother did while plaintiff/stepfather was in jail. Defendant called police when stepfather/husband pushed her. JJ thinks defendant over reacted.

The plaintiff and her father want the remaining $9,000 of the loan, after defendant supported all of their useless butts for years on end. Judging from the nasty looks, and stank attitude of the stepdaughter/plaintiff, I would have file for protection too. Since house is in defendant's name, then JJ says to file for eviction for stepdaughter, her kids. I hope defendant divorced the husband too. Plaintiff father, and defendant aren't divorced yet, so the $20k loan is marital debt. Home down payment came from the business for $60,000 in 2015. The entire useless lot of Franklins, excluding the defendant are living in a house paid for by defendant. Plaintiff claims that telling her to pay her own utilities on a house that she squats in is stalking (No, it isn't). JJ advises defendant that the debt is mutual, and dismissed.

Case is tossed.

Second-

Childcare Payback!-Plaintiff / daycare owner is suing former daycare clients for non-payment of childcare fees, overtime, and late fees. Defendants had two children (8 and 6) in the daycare operated by the plaintiff. Defendant claims she was given four weeks free by plaintiff. Defendant wife says plaintiff gave her four weeks free because 11 year old boy at daycare showed, porn from the child's phone (plaintiff had foster children sometimes) to one of defendant's children. Defendant claims to have texts saying she's up to date on all payments.

$470 to plaintiff.

Expensive Phone-Throwaway Boyfriend?!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan. Defendant is suing for harassment. The litigants were romantic through high school. They broke up, rekindled this year, and she gifted him with a phone. Then after the 'present' they broke up within a month. Phone was $788 according to defendant, plaintiff says phone is $740. The story by defendant is so stupid that I can't even figure it out. Defendant took phone to another company, and plaintiff wanted to be paid for the phone, after they broke up.

Plaintiff gets $739 (Why is it almost always an iPhone?).

Telephone Pole Crash!-Plaintiff is suing former roommate's and his girlfriend for property damage, and an insurance deductible. Plaintiff says two defendants lived with her (they were freeloader). Defendant driver had no driver's license, and defendant fell asleep on the way home, and hit a Verizon pole. Plaintiff's car was totaled, and the pole bill is outstanding for $4,2816 (or something like that). Defendant also hit a house, but plaintiff never got a bill for that. I'm surprised the defendant driver survived, those cell phone poles aren't weak, or cheap. (I suspect this isn't the huge size, but maybe one of the mini poles, or the price would be more).

Defendant driver blames plaintiff for accident, because plaintiff didn't give his girlfriend (his witness) a ride to work, and that forced him to take plaintiff's car, and drive girlfriend to work. So therefore, in the twisted view of defendant driver, everything was plaintiff's fault.

Plaintiff gets $4281.

CrazyInAlabama · September 25, 2020

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

First (New)-

My Grandfather Abused Me?!-Plaintiff suing grandfather for assault, illegal eviction, and . Plaintiff was living with her grandfather, at her mother's for two months, and then went back to grandfather. Plaintiff says her mother made false allegation of domestic violence against her. Plaintiff, grandfather, and mother all had conflicts, then mother moved out, and plaintiff went with her for two months. Then plaintiff moved back in with grandfather. Plaintiff paid no home expenses, so she was a guest, not a tenant.

Grandfather is on parole for first degree murder (plaintiff manages to put that in there). Plaintiff says grandfather can only live in the house if granddaughter lives there, because of parole conditions. When plaintiff moved out, she lived in her car. Plaintiff claims she's still living in her car, and has no job still, but is now staying with a friend. Plaintiff claims she was going to be shipping, and receiving but never got paid.

In November 2019, plaintiff says a fight started between her, and the grandfather over the electric line to the well pump. Plaintiff says grandfather punched her, and put her in a choke hold. There are no reports or photos documenting abuse. Then, grandfather says he heard an electrical spark, and plaintiff attached a 220 volt line to a ground wire, and grandfather told her to leave the water pump electric line alone. Plaintiff claims a dog they were dog sitting on Rover . com, was given an overdose by grandfather, and the dog died.

A month later the police were called by plaintiff, after defendant made a police report about her stealing a $1,000 cell phone. Plaintiff is a permanent victim. Grandfather says in hall-terview that plaintiff ran up $14,000 plus on his credit cards. (My view is granddaughter filed everything, and made sure to tell the entire world that she moved out, and grandpa's parole was violated, because she thinks she'll get the house after he goes back to prison. I guess mortgage, property taxes, utilities, etc. never crossed her mind. Probably thinks she'll get the property in her name, and then sell it. I felt sorry for her at first, but not after the grandfather's side of the story, I suspect everything that happens to the plaintiff is someone else's fault. I wonder how long the friend, and his mother will tolerate her in his house, and how long after he tells her to leave that she files against him?

Case dismissed.

Woman Shoves Ex-Lover Down Stairs?!-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for hospital bills, and lost wages after defendant knocked him down stairs deliberately. Plaintiff says after they broke up, he went to retrieve a few items at defendant's home, and she pushed him down the stairs. Defendant says plaintiff came over very late at night, and defendant refused to let him in. Defendant claims that when she refused to let him into her house, plaintiff ripped the house mailbox off, and that's when he fell off of the porch, and hurt his foot.

Plaintiff is a walking salesman in Milwaukee, and sells to people directly. Medical records are submitted by plaintiff, but he didn't go to doctor until long after his injury.

Case dismissed.

Second (Rerun)-

Pretend She's the Ford Motor Company-Plaintiff suing for late payments, riding gear, and damages to a motorcycle she sold to defendant. Defendant had a contract to buy motorcycle, made a couple of payments (there were weekly $100 payments), and stopped paying. She kept driving the motorcycle, and finally returned the motorcycle, a month later, with damages. (Both litigants simply won't stop interrupting JJ, and defense witness won't shut up either).

When motorcycle was returned to plaintiff, the $400 payment was made. Defendant wanted the car plaintiff had, that was used for collateral, by the defendant. Defendant actually said that if the plaintiff was a dealership, she would have kept the bike until it was repossessed, because "that's how they do it in Texas". Bike was $3750 from a dealership, and plaintiff decided she didn't want to keep the bike. Bike was sold for $3600, $200 down, and still owed $3400. Plaintiff is suing for $5k, not the $3400 owed. Excessive mileage, and gear is not in contract.

I love it when defendant witness gets booted.

$3400 to plaintiff, and defendant gets her car back. (Plaintiff wants to keep car too, not happening). Defendant just won't shut up. I loathe both litigants ,and defendant's witness too.

Two Roommates for the Price of One-Plaintiff suing for return of rent, stolen property, and an illegal lockout. Plaintiff rented a bed and bath from defendant, who lived in the other bed and bath in the apartment. The plaintiff moved a boyfriend in too, but lease said each tenant will pay half of the rent, but boyfriend wasn't included in that lease. Plaintiff's boyfriend paid nothing, but was living there full time. Plaintiff claims she was afraid of the defendant's behavior. Plaintiff brought in a portable AC unit too,

When defendant realized boyfriend was a permanent resident, she wanted plaintiff to pay 2/3 rent, utilities. However, plaintiff decided to move, but moved 8 October, and moved in 6 days early. Plaintiff is not getting her prorated rent for October, and did not pay 2/3 instead of 1/2 in September.

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.

(Next week only one new episode a day, and they look like the TV in the courtroom type, instead of live people. I'm guessing JJ is at her usual home, safe and sound. ).

Edited September 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

MerBearStare · September 26, 2020

I might rewatch the granddaughter episode to count how many times she said betwixt. She said between at first then quickly corrected herself to say betwixt and I was like, "She knows that between is an actual word, right?"

So both her mother and grandfather filed false police reports against her? She reminds me of the line from Justified: You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. You run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

One of my favorite Judge Judy moves is when she emotionlessly hands Byrd a tissue to give to a crying litigant. (Although occasionally the litigant has a good reason to cry and I feel for them.)

Edited September 26, 2020 by MerBearStare

Toaster Strudel · September 26, 2020

Yesterday's episode was a sad statement on poverty in America. The guy with the broken foot and the broken health care, the broken girl with a broken family and a broken lawsuit... millionaire JJ broke my heart being too rough on them for my taste.

Poor people need justice too. Small things mean a lot for those that have little.

Ashforth · September 26, 2020

43 minutes ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Yesterday's episode was a sad statement on poverty in America. The guy with the broken foot and the broken health care, the broken girl with a broken family and a broken lawsuit... millionaire JJ broke my heart being too rough on them for my taste.

Poor people need justice too. Small things mean a lot for those that have little.

Pre-pandemic, when I worked in an office all day, it was a fairly rare treat to get home in time to watch Judge Judy at 4 pm. The cases seemed more interesting, her antics were rather amusing, and it seemed that the people she came down hard on usually deserved it. Now that I have been working from home for months and can watch two hours of JJ a day if I can stand it (at 2 and 4), I've had enough.

She's often cruel. She lacks empathy, an important thing for a judge to have even when strictly applying the law (which she does not). Her ignorant opinion of "pit bulls" is ill-informed and offensive. She makes her mind up and then renders decisions that may or may not take the facts into account.

When she asks a ~~contestant~~ "litigant" a question and then starts cackling with glee at her own cleverness when it's answered, I mute the volume. I think I'm done with her, which is a shame because this final season ought to be extra enjoyable and leave us wanting more. Not so for me.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Ashforth

Bobby88 · September 27, 2020

On 9/26/2020 at 9:29 AM, Ashforth said:

Pre-pandemic, when I worked in an office all day, it was a fairly rare treat to get home in time to watch Judge Judy at 4 pm. The cases seemed more interesting, her antics were rather amusing, and it seemed that the people she came down hard on usually deserved it. Now that I have been working from home for months and can watch two hours of JJ a day if I can stand it (at 2 and 4), I've had enough.

She's often cruel. She lacks empathy, an important thing for a judge to have even when strictly applying the law (which she does not). Her ignorant opinion of "pit bulls" is ill-informed and offensive. She makes her mind up and then renders decisions that may or may not take the facts into account.

When she asks a ~~contestant~~ "litigant" a question and then starts cackling with glee at her own cleverness when it's answered, I mute the volume. I think I'm done with her, which is a shame because this final season ought to be extra enjoyable and leave us wanting more. Not so for me.

It's the interrupting that drives me nuts. She considers even the slightest bit of context given by litigants in their responses to be a "tributary". Seriously, tell me the following scenario isn't a typical occurrence in the last few season:

JJ: What did he say to you and what did you say to him?

Litigant: I got out my car and....

JJ: J-J-J-J! I don't need the tributary! I just want to know what you said to him and what he said to you!

Litigant: After I got out of the car....

JJ: Didn't you hear what I just said? I don't want to hear any gobbledegook about the car! I told you I'm not interested in the tributaries! JUST TELL ME WHAT WAS SAID!

She's also repeating herself more and more. Yes, your Honor, we get it! The courts are not set up for people who choose to play house, we have to have clean hands, etc. You don't need to keep cutting off litigants' testimonies every third sentence to interject about how you've been doing this for over 50 years and damage to someone's rental home isn't your problem it was "stupid" of them to rent it to a 21-year-old and everyone KNOWS that young people that age can't be trusted not to destroy things.

Honestly, the repeating herself makes me question her mind. She does it more frequently every season and I definitely remember when she rarely (if ever) did it at all.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Bobby88

shok · September 28, 2020

12 hours ago, Bobby88 said:

Honestly, the repeating herself makes me question her mind. She does it more frequently every season and I definitely remember when she rarely (if ever) did it at all.

My channel runs two repeats on Saturday at 3:00 am and they're shows from four or five years ago and you're right, her mind seems much clearer then than it does now. The more recent shows are either very badly edited or JJ is losing it because half the time I can't even follow who did what. The story is very incomplete and JJ won't let them explain it and then she just yells "We're done!!!" and storms out of the courtroom. Definitely time for her to retire and call it a day.

parrotfeathers · September 28, 2020

On 9/26/2020 at 11:29 AM, Ashforth said:

When she asks a ~~contestant~~ "litigant" a question and then starts cackling with glee at her own cleverness when it's answered, I mute the volume. I think I'm done with her, which is a shame because this final season ought to be extra enjoyable and leave us wanting more. Not so for me.

I mentioned this a few weeks ago. In some of these cases it isn't funny to the litigants and I hate it when she jumps up and down in her seat and cackles. She does seem to be cruel this year and acts as if she's tired of the whole thing. Probably good it is her last year.

configdotsys · September 28, 2020

On 9/25/2020 at 5:29 PM, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

This part of the case was killing me. . . anybody else reminded of those scams where the people get a check for $3000 which they cash and then keep $500 for themselves as a "fee" and give the other $$ back to the check holder? (meanwhile the check gets rejected by the bank, wash, lather rinse, repeat). Were the plaintiffs really that stooopid? or that greedy? And who drives a Tesla? I see them out here and I don't think you can get three kids in the back, particularly in car seats.

And if I give you the $3k check to put in YOUR account and spend the $500 fee, when you sue me, I will say, "I shouldn't have to pay her, I got scammed too!"

As to the posts about JJ being mean and dismissive to the have nots: It has always bothered me so very much when people talk about things that were stolen from them, broken, pawned or not returned by former roommates or whatever and it's a Playstation or a Foreman grill or something and JJ waves her hands and says something on the order of, "Oh stop it," as if these items and their costs are trivial. Or, she'll break out with the, "I didn't go through 729 years of post graduate education to worry about a crock pot." It's so upsetting because when you see that people obviously have very little, even if a crock pot can be had for $35., this person will probably not be able to replace it. It's so terribly cruel and out of touch.

Florinaldo · September 28, 2020

42 minutes ago, configdotsys said:

"I didn't go through 729 years of post graduate education to worry about a crock pot."

Probably because if a crock pot breaks down at her home, she just yells at her little people "go buy an new one and don't bother me!" (assuming such trivial matters are brought to her divine attention).

As I have said before, she does not seem to grasp that for some people who don't receive millions in revenue every year, such items as small appliances, pots, pans, etc. can represent a significant dent in the household budget. She may believe that their portion of the award kitty is already more than sufficient compensation for their losses. and damn the fairness of her judgment.

2 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

I hate it when she jumps up and down in her seat and cackles.

When she does that, she comes across as the caricature of a cartoon character.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Florinaldo

break21 · September 28, 2020

4 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Probably because if a crock pot breaks down at her home, she just yells at her little people "go buy an new one and don't bother me!" (assuming such trivial matters are brought to her divine attention).

As I have said before, she does not seem to grasp that for some people who don't receive millions in revenue every year, such items as small appliances, pots, pans, etc. can represent a significant dent in the household budget. She may believe that their portion of the award kitty is already more than sufficient compensation for their losses. and damn the fairness of her judgment.

When she does that, she comes across as the caricature of a cartoon character.

In fairness to JJ, I worked in law. Most judges aren't going to figure out who the silverware or the crockpot belongs too. They'd be there all day on one case and they are already backed up.

I haven't watched in awhile, was today the first new episode since the pandemic?

Florinaldo · September 28, 2020

1 hour ago, break21 said:

In fairness to JJ, I worked in law. Most judges aren't going to figure out who the silverware or the crockpot belongs too.

In this instance, the issue raised by @configdotsysis not figuring out what belongs to whom. It is that she often refuses to just consider compensating for small losses, even when ownership is not in question and there are receipts involved; so there is no issue of figuring out who had custody of the crockpot, the Playstation, the toaster oven, etc. She is a judge in a small claims arbitration forum, so of cause the amounts will at times appear trivial.

I often think she suffers from Judge Ito envy: she feels she would have done a much better job in the OJ trial and that it was unfair that she could not be considered for the job.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Florinaldo

break21 · September 28, 2020

I get what you are saying, not sure where Judge Ito came into this - haa haaaa!!!

I'm just saying, I worked for over 20 years in law, no Judge, even in small claims court, is going to figure out who the crockpot belongs too.
They are backed up, they need to move it along. It's a waste of time and money. That's just it.

Not small claims, but in Civil Cases, like a bad divorce, usually the Judge will tell the attorneys their clients need to negotiate who owns "the pots and pans" or they will just make a decision one way or the other and fast. There's just no time to argue about crockpots.

Florinaldo · September 28, 2020

24 minutes ago, break21 said:

I get what you are saying, not sure where Judge Ito came into this - haa haaaa!!!

I meant to say that JJ probably feels her abilities are wasted on such piffling matters as those that come before her and that she is worthy of handling more consequential and headline-generating cases, like the OJ one.

But she took her present gig and has no problem cashing the checks. Although perhaps she, understandably, is tired of hearing the same matters over and over after 25 years.

So they have now switched to their new COVID set-up. I missed part of it so I am not sure if Byrd drew the short stick and is the only one in the courtroom with the litigants or if he is filmed from a remote set. If he is in the courtroom, how will he handle escorting out witnesses and litigants when JJ throws them out, while maintaining social distancing?

CrazyInAlabama · September 28, 2020

4 p.m. reruns, probably 2017-

First-

Teen Joyriders Busted by Police-Plaintiffs mother and son, suing defendant mother and son for a share of restitution money to fix a truck. Defendant son says plaintiff son picked him up in the middle of the night in defendnat's mother's truck. Plaintiff son says that defendant son came over to plaintiff's house in the middle of the night. Plaintiff says defendant picked him up on his motorcycle, and then they took defendant's mother's truck for joyriding. Plaintiff criminal stole, and drove the truck, and went joyriding. Plaintiff criminal is blaming defendant criminal for the crash.

Both sons were arrested, they claim both for the first time, and they plead guilty to truck theft, and each pay restitution for the truck $4430 ($2165 each). Defendant mother refused to pay the restitution. Payment of restitution by both would result in case being sealed and expunged. Plaintiff paid all of the restitution so her criminal can play basketball or something at school,. Plaintiff demanded defendant sign a letter that she had repaid the restitution, and plaintiff criminal could play sports.

Another wrinkle, defendant criminal violated probation, and violation of house arrest, so he was again arrested. Even if defendant pays restitution, defendant criminal will not get his record expunged, because he reoffended the next month. Defendant mother still thinks her criminal son will get his record expunged, but as JJ explains, son reoffended, and won't get expunged or sealed records. Plaintiff mother doesn't care about what her son did, just that he can bounce a ball around.

The plaintiff paid with a credit card, and waited six months to pay the restitution, but the court holds the payment for 90 days, because the credit card holder can dispute the charges. However, plaintiff mother paid both sided, and gets $2165 from defendant.

$2165 to plaintiff.

Uninsured Boy Friend Destroys Car-Plaintiff suing her daughter for tow bill. Defendant is counter suing for moving expenses. Plaintiff bought new car, sold old car to daughter for $2750 (insurance continued in plaintiff's name). Then two months later defendant's boyfriend was driving the car, and totaled it. Because defendant's boyfriend wasn't licensed, and wasn't named on the insurance, insurance didn't pay for the damages.

Plaintiff told daughter, it was her fault, and to pay the car off, and she did. Plaintiff got a bill from the tow yard for storing the car for a year, for over $3,000+. Defendant's witness is the same idiot boyfriend.

As JJ says, daughter paid off the car, but since plaintiff was legal owner, she's the only one who could get the car out of the tow yard impound.

Mother and daughter moved after the accident, and daughter wants moving costs. She couldn't drive because of a C-section, how heartwarming.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant stupid case dismissed.

Second-

Ex-Girlfriend Escape Caught on Tape!-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for intentionally damaging his property, and assault. Plaintiff says defendant invaded his apartment, after they broke up (plaintiff was in jail for six months, and they broke up before his unfortunate incarceration) Plaintiff claims his friend was at his apartment playing video games, while plaintiff was walking his dog. THis is the second time defendant invaded his apartment, Defendant ex-girlfriend scares me, and her girlfriend witness is off too. Plaintiff hasn't been on a date with defendant for over three years (she was 17 then, and is now 20). Plaintiff was walking his pit bull/Dingo mix. Defendant claims she didn't force her way into the apartment, but came over for money.

When plaintiff friend called and told him the defendant was in his apartment. Plaintiff cares for his disabled (double amputee) father, and is paid as a caregiver. While in prison, plaintiff completed his GED.

Video is submitted of the assault, and loco actions of the defendant. Video shows the apartment with defendant singing, screaming, and acting high. Defendant was breaking the window out, and you can see that on video. The assault by defendant is shown too, and recorded.

Plaintiff wanted a restraining order, but was refused. Defendant wanted $20, claims plaintiff lured her to his apartment for sex, and would pay her $20, and wouldn't let her leave. What a liar she is.

Defendant was given a protective order by the court. (I won't go into details, but defendant has quite the record since this case aired). I know who I think the victim is here, and it's not the defendant.

Plaintiff claims defendant came through the bedroom window, not via the front door. Plaintiff looks so confused with JJ reads defendant's lying statement to the court. Defendant told police that she went out the window to escape, and called the police make a false report to cover herself.

Plaintiff receives $956.

Show Me the Money Trail!-Plaintiff suing contractor for return of her deposit on work he never performed. Defendant/contractor says plaintiff made an insurance claim, received $6500, and then found a cheaper company to do the work. $2500 deposit was paid to contractor, and plaintiff wants it back. JJ wants to see the paid bill or check paid to contractor that did the job. Plaintiff says she hasn't completed the bathroom repair, so she brought her suit prematurely. JJ will explain why suit is premature.

Defendant says the insurance check was negotiated with the insurance company, so JJ needs to find out how much the other company is charging for the bathroom. (JJ surmises that the defendant padded the bill to cover the deductible). JJ says the $6500 was insurance payout, and giving the $2500 back is not warranted, because that would be enrichment.

CrazyInAlabama · September 28, 2020

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

First (New)-(This is the first virtual case, without any audience, and JJ is video calling in I think. Litigants, and witnesses are in court live, and I think Officer Byrd is also)

Drug-Test Challenge Cat Fight?!-Plaintiff says former friend assaulted her, and wants medical bills and pain and suffering. Defendant says it was self-defense. Plaintiff says defendant and husband were arguing about which of them is on drugs, So plaintiff has some home drug tests, and offered them for both to test. When plaintiff, defendant and defendant's husband were in garage talking, plaintiff had some drug tests (14 panel drug tests), Plaintiff handed the defendants the drug tests. Husband said he would, defendant got upset, and jumped plaintiff, breaking her nose, and other injuries. Plaintiff's daughter rescued plaintiff, police were called, and she went to the doctor the next morning.

Defendant's story varies dramatically, and we pick up at the garage point. Defendant claims plaintiff has a history of alcoholism, and offered to sleep with defendant husband. Defendant says she told plaintiff's husband about the sex offer, and claims the plaintiff attacked her. Defendant claims plaintiff was in front of her, pushed her, and she was pushed onto her knees (this doesn't make sense unless her knees bend the other way). Defendant sent photos of her injuries to the detective on the case. Defendant says plaintiff ripped her hair out. Defendant never saw a doctor, or made a police report. Defendant claims she hit plaintiff's nose in self defense.

I hate both litigants. Plaintiff paid $3.078 for medical bills. Plaintiff daughter says defendant pushed her mother down, and the fight started, and plaintiff told defendant to leave. Sounds like mutual combat, until defendant grabbed a vase or something, and hit plaintiff in the head. Defendant husband tells JJ he agreed to the drug test, and defendant wife refused. This backs up the plaintiff's story.

$3,078 to plaintiff

Second (Rerun)-

Sexual Assault Allegations-Plaintiff woman suing former employer for unpaid wages. Plaintiff alleges defendant propositioned her for sex, and then fired her. The defendant has a house cleaning business, and plaintiff was an employee. Company is hired for cleaning, and company pays the employees. Defendant says plaintiff kept his cleaning stuff (before Officer Byrd gets to 6 Across, and he says it was 6 Down), and Officer Byrd gives that to defendant. Defendant didn't bring the former client to court, that he claims the plaintiff stole, and can't prove slander.

Defendant didn't bring a copy of the check he paid plaintiff with, so $1.036. He's going to lose, until plaintiff starts the allegations of sexual harassment.

$1036 to plaintiff for unpaid wages. Defendant's witness is booted (she's wearing a regular top with a cold shoulder jacket over it, awful).

Then we get to defendant's evidence that plaintiff put on social media that he fires woman who don't have sex with him. Defendant has postings stating this from plaintiff. However, plaintiff's explanation of the man's advances are ridiculous. She also claims he sent her inappropriate pictures, they are not. They are right off of his FB and Instagram pages, and not sent to plaintiff. (Apparently, defendant is into fitness, and advises others, so that's what the pictures are for).

JJ says plaintiff is full of garbage about the sexual harassment posts.

Nothing for plaintiff, because she lied about sexual harassment.

(defendant in tomorrow's new case about the logo looks familiar, maybe from another show?).

Mrs Shibbles · September 29, 2020

On 9/25/2020 at 11:18 PM, MerBearStare said:

I might rewatch the granddaughter episode to count how many times she said betwixt. She said between at first then quickly corrected herself to say betwixt and I was like, "She knows that between is an actual word, right?"

So both her mother and grandfather filed false police reports against her? She reminds me of the line from Justified: You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. You run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

I couldn’t believe the girl was using the word “betwixt” seriously. LOL. The first time I thought “did she really say that?” Then, she said it again! I guess she thought it sounded grown up.

That is an awesome line from Justified., an awesome show.

I was glad when JJ called the granddaughter out on trying to squeeze in the grandfather’s incarceration history to make him look bad.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Mrs Shibbles

weaver · September 29, 2020

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I meant to say that JJ probably feels her abilities are wasted on such piffling matters as those that come before her and that she is worthy of handling more consequential and headline-generating cases, like the OJ one.

But she took her present gig and has no problem cashing the checks. Although perhaps she, understandably, is tired of hearing the same matters over and over after 25 years.

So they have now switched to their new COVID set-up. I missed part of it so I am not sure if Byrd drew the short stick and is the only one in the courtroom with the litigants or if he is filmed from a remote set. If he is in the courtroom, how will he handle escorting out witnesses and litigants when JJ throws them out, while maintaining social distancing?

The COVID setup was bizarre. Byrd and JJ were never in the same camera shot. Byrd's duties are reduced. He no longer brings papers back and forth to JJ. Litigants put relevant paperwork on a stand in front of them on the table and JJ magically reads the papers from the bench. I think they didn't show the litigants leaving the room. All in all it was done poorly. (I could not figure out what the blonde woman who supposedly broke the plaintiffs nose was wearing or if she was sitting or standing). Given JJ seems to feel that CBS has screwed her in some fashion by buying all her rerun library rather than continuing with new cases, I think we won't see too much of an effort on anyone's part this season. Too bad, I was looking forward to good episodes they usually show in the beginning of the season.

September 29, 2020

15 minutes ago, weaver said:

The COVID setup was bizarre.

I could not get past the really awful and obvious green screen effect they're using to make it seem like JJ is actually in the same courtroom with the litigants. Like, it doesn't blend in at all! And where is she actually? At home in her basement?

And what are those monitor things on the Defendant and Plaintiff's desks?!

I couldn't even pay attention to the cases I was so distracted.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Guest

DoctorK · September 29, 2020

3 hours ago, weaver said:

(I could not figure out what the blonde woman who supposedly broke the plaintiffs nose was wearing or if she was sitting or standing)

She looked really odd from the side view, she was wearing a black knit top with grandma's light sweater trying unsuccessfully to contain her upper body. From the side view the stretched lower part of her black knit top was huge and bulbous. She is either 16 months pregnant or really enormous below the waist. regardless of her appearance, she really grated on my nerves, and seemed to be a chronic liar and a nasty person. Her boy friend seemed normal but cowed by the defendant.

patty1h · September 29, 2020

None of the other court shows have litigants using earpieces, so why is JJ so fancy? Are they listening to JJ on those instead of her voice piped in on a speaker? Instructions from the producers for what reason?

TVMovieBuff · September 29, 2020

Judy is more harsh these days. She has had 25 years of it after all. I don't mind when she eviscerates some idiot, it can be satisfying. I always figure that when she cuts someone off, she knows what they are going to say and knows it isn't relevant so she squashes it.

That said, sometimes Judy handles people so deftly, so carefully, that it is a joy to watch. She is indeed a human lie detector, she knows who people are practically from looking at them. The case that is a perfect example, and one of my favorite cases, is the one where the guy in Texas keyed a woman's car in a movie theater parking lot. She had a Hilary Clinton bumper sticker on her car. There was an eyewitness who got his license plate and they tracked him down.

He denied it of course, had elaborate stories of how they went to the wrong multiplex, but Judy stayed calm throughout, and his ass was hers.

weaver · September 29, 2020

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

She looked really odd from the side view, she was wearing a black knit top with grandma's light sweater trying unsuccessfully to contain her upper body. From the side view the stretched lower part of her black knit top was huge and bulbous. She is either 16 months pregnant or really enormous below the waist. regardless of her appearance, she really grated on my nerves, and seemed to be a chronic liar and a nasty person. Her boy friend seemed normal but cowed by the defendant.

Thank you for the explanation. I thought pregnant, but then I thought she was disabled and sitting and thus spread out! OH, I didn't believe anything she said.

5 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

I could not get past the really awful and obvious green screen effect they're using to make it seem like JJ is actually in the same courtroom with the litigants. Like, it doesn't blend in at all! And where is she actually? At home in her basement?

And what are those monitor things on the Defendant and Plaintiff's desks?!

I couldn't even pay attention to the cases I was so distracted.

I couldn't figure out the monitor things either. They put their relevant papers there and suddenly JJ was able to read them at her desk.

ItsHelloPattiagain · September 29, 2020

On 9/25/2020 at 6:50 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Grandfather is on parole for first degree murder (plaintiff manages to put that in there). Plaintiff says grandfather can only live in the house if granddaughter lives there, because of parole conditions.

Granddaddy was giving me some serious Charlie Manson vibes there. It must have been the beard. Or the murder charge.

JJ does seem rather short and I wonder if she was DONE with this show (like OVAH it).

As for the pots and pans and crockpots, I know with some of my own court dealings (restraining order, divorce, etc), court doesn't have time for dilly-dallying. I had never really been in a courtroom before and was shocked how inaccurately it's displayed on TV. Nobody in any courtroom I've been in cares about your Crockpot, even if it came over from Italy to Ellis Island with your great grandmother.

dvr devotee · September 29, 2020

3 hours ago, weaver said:

I couldn't figure out the monitor things either. They put their relevant papers there and suddenly JJ was able to read them at her desk.

I'm thinking that they have cameras set up facing those podium things, so she sees a live feed of them. No litigants trying to hand her a huge sheaf of papers anymore! JJ probably wishes they came up with that setup 20 years ago.

I also think they're using earpieces to eliminate any echo issues in the courtroom when they're recording the show. This way, they record the sound directly from the microphones in front of the litigants, and probably have no other mics in the room. All in all, it is a pretty creative setup, if not a bit inelegant with the weird screen JJ appears from.

CrazyInAlabama · September 29, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Home Profits Snafu!-Plaintiff is suing her cousin for the profit from the sale of a home. Plaintiff bought a home, put house in defendant/cousin's name because he had better credit, and a better interest rate. Plaintiff claims she put down $10,000, and defendant never put a penny down. Plaintiff lived in home for 17 months, made the mortgage payments, and has receipts for that period. Defendant claims he made 3 payments. House was sold in 2015, by defendant cousin, and he paid nothing to the plaintiff. Defendant's profit was $20k, after commissions, and taxes. Defendant's $20k profit was reduced by the $3k plus the three payments defendant made.

Defendant never paid the $10k down payment, but made $17k in profits after his payment. Defendant says he's an investor, and made the investment to profit, but was on his credit. Defendant swears plaintiff was supposed to refinance the mortgage into her name after two years, but plaintiff claims defendant kicked her out, and sold the house. Defendant claims he paid her $4k right into plaintiff's bank account, but has no proof. Plaintiff's down payment came from her divorce settlement of $39k, so that's where the $10k down came from.

Plaintiff will receive the $5k court maximum payment, but there was no contract to split the profits.

Can You Find the Scam?-Plaintiff suing her former friend for a bad check she cashed for defendant, and an antique table. Defendant was a friend of plaintiff's son, and defendant needed a place to stay for a while. Defendant needed a social security payee, and two checks were issued to plaintiff each month, because plaintiff was landlady. Plaintiff received both checks, and signed her check over to defendant, and therefore, government was paying rent, but scam was that defendant actually received all of the money from the monthly checks (very confusing). (Scam is that defendant isn't supposed to get both checks, one check is to pay the plaintiff for rent, but no money was actually paid to the landlady, just to the defendant. Defendant received over $1100 a month with the rent check, she now married, and the check is $800+ so the money went down).

Defendant has a payee because she has a gambling problem, and this has been going on for 17 years (filmed about 2017).

One check plaintiff cashed was returned by the bank, because social security said defendant's husband had already been made payee, and a check had been deposited by defendant husband. Plaintiff had to borrow the money from the bank to cover the bounced check, plus fees so $485 owed.

Antique table was damaged when litigants were discussing the money issue at plaintiff's house, and defendant went off, and flipped the table over, damaging the table. Table was fixed, but plaintiff didn't have to pay, so that's dismissed.

$485 to plaintiff.

Second-

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

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

Plaintiff father takes off Wednesday and Thursday for his son's visitation. Son had tonsils out on Monday, and then went to father's place on Wednesday and Thursday, and then defendant would get child for Friday as usual (it was her weekend). But defendant demanded to have the son earlier, and was jealous that father's fiance would be alone with the child.

Defendant dislikes plaintiff fiancee woman, and then came to the home, where the house and car vandalism happened. Plaintiff woman says defendant came to house, beat sides of house, and doors with a lawn chair, smashed two huge windows at the plaintiff house, and the car windows and windshields are gone. I can tell defendant why child was crying inside the house, because she was beating on the house, yelling, and being a jerk.

JJ says plaintiff man should take defendant back to family court, and get supervised visitation only. JJ is not buying defendant's stupid tale that she didn't do the damage. Pictures of house and car damage are horrible.

There is an audio clip of the vandalism (sadly, they don't play it). I feel sorry for the child, his mother will never let go of her jealousy that the plaintiff father has moved on to someone else, and will never come back to her.

Plaintiff gets $1250. (They should have received $5,000). In the hall-terview plaintiff says he's going to sue for full custody, and supervised visitation for the mother, and I hope he gets it.

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

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

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

Edited September 29, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

SRTouch · September 29, 2020

1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

Granddaddy was giving me some serious Charlie Manson vibes there. It must have been the beard. Or the murder charge.

Yes! I didn'the think of it before, but now clear see resemblance with older Manson - I think this guy even bought his house in the desert at outside of 29 Palms - Manson had his ranch/commune/whatever north of 29 palms in desert

Schnickelfritz · September 29, 2020

That new format is not doing JJ any favors. Seriously, they can't figure out how to get lighting that doesn't highlight her every wrinkle, harsh angles and loss of hair? She now personifies the harshness she exhibits during court.

I haven't noticed, does Byrd still do crossword puzzles or does he have to be on high alert in case someone breaks social distancing rules or forgets and approaches the now vacant bench?

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment