All Episodes Talk: All Rise

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Beauty Pageant Coaching Scam?!-Plaintiff suing for the return of a deposit for the campaign for her beauty pageant coaching business.  Plaintiff paid a $5,000 deposit to defendant.    (Defendant looks very familiar, wonder if she was previously on another judge show, or one of the pageant reality shows).     Plaintiff claims defendant did virtually nothing for the $5k.       Defendant was offering plaintiff a job modeling for a skin injections, fillers, etc. in return for getting the services free, and they started talking, and later plaintiff hired defendant's company.     Plaintiff hired defendant for marketing for the pageant business. Defendant proposed that plaintiff would pay half of the costs for the marketing campaign, and share 50/50 on the profits.   Plaintiff's witness is also an attorney, but is not appearing as an attorney (plaintiff is engaged to him, but fiance doesn't represent her).     

Defendant claims she, and two partners (her own adult children), worked over 300 hours on plaintiff's campaign.   

(Plaintiff was Miss Utah in 2004 or 2005, and advocates for Traumatic Brain Injury after suffering a TBI during a cheerleading stunt gone back in her college career).

Defendant is very slippery, didn't even bring the logo she designed for the marketing campaign.  Contract was made in mid-2018, to the present, and JJ wants to see the work produced by defendant's company.  

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and she actually says thank you.   (I would never work with the defendant)

Covid-19 Business Owner Bites the Dust-Plaintiff suing defendants for return of deposit on a beauty salon, and equipment.    Defendant operated salon for six years, she leases from another person.   Defendant was four months behind on leased space, and asset she was selling was the salon equipment inside the salon (chairs, mirrors, etc).     Defendant was selling lease to plaintiff too, and claims she didn't have to repay the four months rent she owed the landlord.   Registration to run a salon had lapsed almost two years before this, until closed down because of Covid.    Building owner bought salon contents for two years lease payments.      

Plaintiff gave $5k deposit, and it was for lease, and contents, that had already been sold by defendant to landlord.    I think if there is a good contract, that plaintiff should have filed fraud and theft charges.     (PLaintiff won without saying a word). 

$5,000 to plaintiff.

Second (Rerun)-

Blatant Cheater?!-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for unpaid loans, car restocking fee, and damages.  Karen Frolek (Dental Hygienist, not dentist like the plaintiff banner says), met man in February and loans started almost immediately.    Plaintiff gave defendant $3500 to get out of his apartment lease, to move to Diablo for a high paying job.   However, Diablo has virtually no housing, and nothing like what the defendant claimed (most are cabins, and some have no indoor plumbing.  There are no million dollar homes in that town.    Even dumber, Karen Frolek, just announced she keeps a lot of cash at home, bet it wasn't there by the time this was shown.  

Plaintiff purchased a car for defendant for $11,500.   Plaintiff took it back two days later, because she found out he was cheating, and she was charged the restocking fee.   Plaintiff claims defendant said he was buying a million dollar home in Diablo, but needed some money, until his deep sea diving check came in (that was all a lie).    

She must be really desperate.-Meets him in the end of February, gives him $3,500, to pay off his apartment lease,  not repaid because she has no evidence.  The lease money was so he could go to his management job, and something else with the hydro company for big bucks, and he said he would buy her a $1 million plus house, in a place where there are no houses (I looked online the last time this aired, there isn't anything resembling a mansion in that area).     And then he needs a car fixed, which morphs to $11k for a truck.   They were engaged by then.     

Then two days later she finally figures out he's a total liar, the job was part time maintenance and janitor, and he was boinking other women.   So she calls the cops, they stand by while she repo'd the car two days after she bought it for love muffin, and the car dealer only charged her a $2k restocking fee.  She only gets $2,000 back on the car, and but she has texts from love muffin instead of an I.O.U.    She is so stupid, and just announced that she keeps a lot of cash at her home.    I can almost hear the stampede of thieves running to her house, and breaking in.   

She looks just like a college roommate of mine.   They must be related because they both have the I.Q. of a turnip, and my ex-roommate also fell for any line a guy gave her, and they're both totally stupid.  

Defendant says he needed a 4 wheel drive SUV, so plaintiff bought him one, found out he was a liar and cheater, and she repo'd the car two days later.    Defendant wants car back (not happening).    It turns out high paying job was as part time janitor.   Also, the fake realtor plaintiff talked to, was a friend of defendant.   

I can't believe she was so foolish as to meet someone, give them $3500 the next month, and then spend $11k on  credit cards to buy them a truck.   I do love that when she found out about his harem (he said a woman was at his place two days after the truck buy when she repo'd it, but not the woman she thought it was), she got the police, and got her truck.   At least she didn't put it in his name.    I bet the police were familiar with his scamming, because they certainly did jump into the repo situation, and many times they don't.    I'm sure the jerk would have changed the registration and title as soon as he could, so it's good she acted so quickly.   

$2,000 to plaintiff.  She doesn't receive the $4500 she also loaned defendant, no proof. 

I only see 2016 to the present episodes (weekdays I have two hours 4 p.m. are usually 2016-2017 episodes, then the 5 p.m is the new episode, then a more recent episode rerun).    For a while I used to have an older one on Saturday afternoons, where I actually caught the Patricia Bean episode.    I'm hoping once JJ finally retires that some channel will start showing the entire library from season 1.     

Edited September 30, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[bad things are bad]

Quote

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

She reminds me of ME...countdown mode to retirement (11 months, thanks for asking) although I still do my job to the best of my ability, and hopefully more cheerfully than JJ

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, bad things are bad said:

She reminds me of ME...countdown mode to retirement (11 months, thanks for asking) although I still do my job to the best of my ability, and hopefully more cheerfully than JJ

Where I am I only see current episodes - either new or reruns from a couple months ago that come under the same contract - I seldom see anything from earlier seasons. Same holds true for HB and TPC. Thing is, a common thread is that many of us feel JJ was more fun to watch a few years ago. So, I wonder if, when new episodes end for good whether I might start seeing the early years.

Edited September 30, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

You Can't Take the Fireplace With You!-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend, ( the father of her son), for an unpaid credit card bill, and for the return or value of a fireplace.   

Plaintiff left defendant for someone else, when that didn't work out she came back, and is suing defendant.   They lived together for seven years, purchased by defendant.    Plaintiff never worked, SSMOO (Sainted Single Mother of One), says she was a SAHM.   

Defendant bought the house, paid for the house, and plaintiff paid for the appliances.    Defendant didn't pay for the credit card bills, but plaintiff never paid for anything or worked.      Fireplace was put in house in 2014, it was a gift for the house from plaintiff's mother.   Plaintiff gets nothing for the fireplace.      For 3 1/2 years, plaintiff never worked, but only the appliances were put in by the plaintiff. 

Appliances added up to $3500 (stove, microwave, washer/dryer fridge, and TV).    Two years after the appliance purchase plaintiff took off for some other guy, and then after the new guy didn't work out, plaintiff suddenly wanted to sue.

Defendant is a fire alarm inspector for the city of New York, and he pays child support.     Plaintiff looks really pissed she's not getting her $3500 back for appliances, and nothing for the fireplace.   

Plasma TV and microwave will go back to plaintiff, and that's all.   Everything else dismissed.  

Best Friend Split After Party Swipe-Plaintiffs are suing former friend for backing into plaintiff's car during a party.   (Plaintiffs have been dating for nine years, and she's 21).    Plaintiff says defendant backed into plaintiff's car leaving a party, and defendant says he didn't do it.   Defendant's insurance company information was given to plaintiff by defendant.     Litigants were at a party, defendant left, and plaintiff heard a crash, and defendant backed past plaintiff's car, but hit it.    Defendant claims he saw the damage to plaintiff's car, but didn't hit the car, and went in and told plaintiff about the car.   Then defendant gave the insurance information to plaintiff, and as usual, insurance lapsed from non-payment.  

Plaintiff submits the car repair bills.   Defendant never got insurance, and his car got towed, and is gone. 

$2,430 to plaintiff

Second-

$100 Basketball Bet Turns Violent-Plaintiff suing defendant an assault over a basketball game bet, and missing property.    Two years before there was $100 bet on the game, plaintiff lost, and never paid up.   The two men started arguing over the non-payment, and a fight resulted.  Plaintiff claims he was badly injured, and his gold cross was ripped off (cross was found by police and returned).   Police report is presented. 

Defendant was arrested, but is suing for a false police report.    Defendant claims plaintiff attacked him.  Defendant's case was resolved, and he plead out for a lesser charge, (he was originally charged with five charges) so his counter claim is dismissed.   Next time the plaintiff should pay his bets.   Since defendant plead guilty, his claim is gone.   

Plaintiff gets $2500.

Quick!  I Need a Pizza Oven-Plaintiff contracted with defendant to have an outdoor pizza oven, and other items installed, and it had to be finished in a week, and it wasn't finished.  Plaintiff hired someone else to finish the work.   

Defendant claims it rained 5 out of 7 days, and he was in the hospital too.   Defendant will have to return the money for the job.  However, defendant claims plaintiff paid by check, and put a stop payment on the check, and he never received any money from plaintiff.    However, JJ has proof that the check was cashed already.         

(In the hall-terview the plaintiff says the defendant wasn't in the hospital, but was arrested, and in jail). 

$4,000 to plaintiff.   

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Pony Attacked by Pit Bull!-Plaintiffs suing former neighbor for vet bills, and punitive damages.     Plaintiff husband saw a pit bull, and German Shepherd owned by the defendant attacking plaintiff's pony/horse.     First attack was pit bull biting plaintiff on the legs.     Plaintiff husband recognized the dogs,    Defendant owns the dogs.   Plaintiff saw the pony bleeding at 4 a.m., and saw the pit bull and German Shepherd owned by the defendant (she keeps interrupting, and is despicable).      Plaintiff husband saw the same two dogs in October 2019, before, attacking his pony, and he talked to the defendant the next day. 

The second attack was in December 2019, on the horse, and the pony owned by plaintiffs.    The same two dogs were seen on the property by plaintiff husband at the time of the attack.   

Defendant got the German Shepherd years ago (there is no way this is the same dog, it would be ancient), and then the pit bull right before the attacks.    There were no animal issues on plaintiff's property since 2013, when they moved in, until right after the pit bull arrived.   

Vet wrote a statement about the attack, and the surgery required by the horse, and the pony, on the second attack.    After the October incident, plaintiff sent a text to defendant talking about the dog attack, and bills.   Defendant lived with her family, who are renters.    Defendant claims the pit bull was a foster, and wasn't really her dog.     Bet homeowners or renter's insurance wouldn't cover the dog, especially after the attack.  I'm guessing that the defendant's move out from her parent's home, where she lived when this happened, was a landlord telling the parents that either the daughter left, or the parents did.     So the daughter moved out.   Her dogs were confiscated, quarantined, and euthanized.     In spite of the fact (sarcasm) that her German Shepherd was years older than any GSD I've ever heard of, or as Carolina Girl said, four years older than any GSD she's ever had).   My guess is the the pit wasn't the only new dog.  

My guess is the landlord of the defendant's parents said that daughter wasn't on the lease, and I bet anyone 18 or older had to sign the lease, I bet neither dog was on the lease, and the dogs weren't covered under renter's insurance, if the parents even had insurance.  

 Defendant claims she needs video evidence to prove her dogs attacked the pony, and horse.    Defendant claims she gave pit bull up, but that's a lie.   Animal control came out and issued a warning after the October attack, and  after the December attack dogs were confiscated, and euthanized.  

$3,000 for plaintiff.

Pandemic Panic!-Plaintiff wants deposit back on apartment she wanted to rent from defendant.   Apartment wasn't ready in time for move out.  Plaintiff gave a $1450 deposit, then Covid happened, and her two jobs went away, and she could no longer afford the apartment.    Defendant is counter suing for the cost of renovations plaintiff requested, and he completed.    Apartment was attached to the back of a house, a studio for plaintiff and her son. 

Plaintiff wanted a TV, the shower fixed, closet organizer, medicine cabinet installed.   

Plaintiff's problem is that she lost her job, but defendant completed work, and stopped showing it because plaintiff agreed to move in.   

Plaintiff will not get her $1450 back.   Defendant rented the apartment in July,   Plaintiff moved to Louisiana because it's cheaper, and getting started again.

Case, and counter claim dismissed.  

Second (Rerun) (2017)-

Surprise Police Dash Cam Video!- (Woman going to her job at a mall harassed in road rage incident at California mall, and her car was repeatedly hit by an employee of another store.  Man denies police involvement, but there is a dash cam video of a herd of police cars stopping him)-I'm just worried for the plaintiff, because this man is obviously totally unbalanced, and I bet has a long history of this kind of incident, and just hasn't been caught before.   The defendant's purple hair matches his tie.  

Defendant hits the plaintiff's Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV twice, with his Dodge Journey, and takes off.   Plaintiff says defendant was tailgating her, on frontage road.   She was in the left through lane, plaintiff hits defendant from left turn lane on the drivers side, both talked to each other, and then he hit her car on the same side, and took off, and she called 911.   Plaintiff followed him, and he blew some stop signs, and when he paused she got his license plate.     

She gave the police defendant's license number.   Defendant claims no police stopped him, but there are a lot of police cars swarming his car.  He lies and says he stopped at the first parking lot, but there is a police dash cam where the police stopped him, and escorted him back to her car.  It's all caught on police dash cam.    Plaintiff has police dash cam video, the 911 call, and proof defendant didn't have any insurance.  Defendant's story was he wanted to make his bank deposit before he talked to the plaintiff.   

Defendant didn't have insurance, and he claims he did.   Geico said he didn't have insurance at the time of the wreck, and the defendant is such a liar, because he paid his insurance the day of the accident, after the time of the accident.     

I can't believe defendant wasn't charged with road rage, reckless driving, and driving without insurance, and most places no insurance means suspended registration and car license too.   

$4000 to plaintiff for damages.

Dog Pulling Skateboard Scuffle-Plaintiff suing because defendant's son had his dog at the skateboard park, and dog bit plaintiff. Teen goes to dog park with his Husky pulling his skateboard, and the dog bit man at skateboard park twice.     The plaintiff's Siberian Husky bit the plaintiff, when their paths crossed, while the plaintiff was standing on the edge waiting to do his trick, and dog nailed plaintiff.     

Defendant son is making it up as he goes along.  Defendant claims the dog defended itself (from what?).  Defendant claims plaintiff launched his skateboard at his dog.  (Bull pucky)     

The plaintiff has a huge scar on his side, and I can't believe the dog wasn't seized, quarantined, and destroyed.   Of course, if that had happened the defendants would probably get something even meaner next time.    The dog bit twice, the first ripped his shirt, and the second shredded his side.   The scar is at least 6" long.   Medical report is submitted, and photos.  

Dog bit defendant's cousin, a 10 year old in the same year, bitten on the hand.    

Interesting statement on hall-terview, defendant son says "we sent the dog back to our country", so it was imported first?  I wonder what kind of human biting dog the defendants have now?  

Plaintiff receives $1,000.

Edited October 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

On 9/29/2020 at 10:52 AM, patty1h said:

None of the other court shows have litigants using earpieces, so why is JJ so fancy? 

In their case it's because the litigants appear in person in the courtroom and their voices are picked up by microphones, whereas JJ is in a remote location. If her contributions were heard through a loudspeaker they could be picked up by the mikes and then we might get some annoying echo or even the dreaded Larsen effect (i.e. feedback).

On 9/29/2020 at 4:53 PM, dvr devotee said:

I'm thinking that they have cameras set up facing those podium things, so she sees a live feed of them.

Yes, we got a clear idea of how this works in today's episode with the plaintiff putting up one sheet at a time and asking when she could present the next one. The cameras are off-screen and unseen; they may think that it would shatter the illusion if viewers caught sight of them, but I do not believe it would really hurt. I also think it would not be bad to see Byrd in the same shots as litigants, at a safe social distance of course, because right now every component (JJ, Byrd, litigants) seems disembodied or disconnected from the others.

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Pony Attacked by Pit Bull!

Defendant was one of the most off-putting we have seen in a long time with her scornful attitude and her challenging every turn in the other people's story and even JJ's instructions.

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Pandemic Panic!

I could barely follow the case as I was distracted the P's mesmerising case of exophthalmia. Not quite up to the level of Warren Oates in that episode of The Outer Limits, but still quite fascinating.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Florinaldo

[One Tough Cookie]

CRAZY IN ALABAMA;--i am somewhat what  disabled and appreciate your insite  and analysis.Thanks! {hand issues}

[Taeolas]

On 9/29/2020 at 7:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Blatant Cheater?!-Plaintiff suing ex-fiance for unpaid loans, car restocking fee, and damages.  Karen Frolek (Dental Hygienist, not dentist like the plaintiff banner says), met man in February and loans started almost immediately.    Plaintiff gave defendant $3500 to get out of his apartment lease, to move to Diablo for a high paying job.   However, Diablo has virtually no housing, and nothing like what the defendant claimed (most are cabins, and some have no indoor plumbing.  There are no million dollar homes in that town.    Even dumber, Karen Frolek, just announced she keeps a lot of cash at home, bet it wasn't there by the time this was shown.  

I'm surprised she didn't boot both of them for being idiots. The Defendent especially had no respect for anyone, and was glaring at the Plaintiff all the time and kept interrupting. Usually that behavior earns a stern talking to and a boot.

[Carolina Girl]

19 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant got the German Shepherd years ago (there is no way this is the same dog, it would be ancient),

I have had German Shepherds all my life.  I have never had one that lived past the age of 12.  Hers was supposedly 16 years old.  

[SRTouch]

49 minutes ago, Carolina Girl said:

I have had German Shepherds all my life.  I have never had one that lived past the age of 12.  Hers was supposedly 16 years old.  

Ah, you guys need to stop picking on the poor girl....... JJ hasn't gotten that far in her logic classes. On a more serious note - why was girly even here if she still lives at home with her parents? 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. older reruns-probably originally from 2017-

First-

Pekingese Chihuahua Mating Mess-Plaintiff (Pekingese owner male) suing neighbor/defendant (Chihuahua female) over his dog boinking her dog, and the resulting puppies.   Plaintiff suing over unpaid stud fee, and breaching an agreement to breed their dogs.    Plaintiff didn't get her stud dog fixed because she wanted him to have his own sibling (that would be his own descendant, not sibling you dim wit).   Plaintiff claims the litigants agreed for the Pekingese, and Chihuahua to breed, and months later the Chi. had puppies.  Defendant claims Peke didn't knock up his Chi, and if they did, it would be vet bills for him, and that's ridiculous, so defendant claim dismissed.    

Defendant says his dog was already pregnant, but two puppies looked like Peke, and he claims they all died.   As JJ says, daughter and defendant wanted to breed the dog, daughter is 12, so not legally responsible for this. (Daughter is as dim at defendant father).      Defendant says he came home, and the defendant daughter, and plaintiff were breeding their dogs (or not-stupid case). 

JJ doesn't believe defendant said he wasn't going to breed his dog, and only wanted vet bills after puppies died (Sadly, the puppies seemed to have been horribly neglected also.    Both litigants are the worst kind of despicable backyard breeders.    My guess trying to get a crossbreed designer dog, they thought they could get big bucks for the puppies.   Defendant claims the three puppies died, and it would have cost $600 to save one, and he didn't have the money, so all three died.  

Defendant claims all three puppies died, and he now says he gave a puppy to someone, but that puppy died too.  Defendant claims he doesn't like spay surgery, so his female has puppies frequently, and then gives them all away (Guess who I wish Officer Byrd would beat to a bloody pulp in court? I dislike the plaintiff, this was a planned mating of two dogs, to get sellable mutts, she's rotten too).  

Plaintiff case dismissed, and defendant is a dog abusing A-hole.   

Camper vs. Computer-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for an unpaid loan to buy a laptop.   They also bought a camper together in 2014, and made joint payments for the camper.   Plaintiff wants money for a loan she made defendant for a laptop, about the time they bought the camper.   After $1650 in payments on camper, defendant stopped paying.  Defendant wants money back he paid on the camper.

Computer was $3260, and only plaintiff paid for it.   It wasn't until they broke up that plaintiff wanted loan payments for the laptop.   Plaintiff and boyfriend used the camper together, until the break up.   Plaintiff still has the camper, and still uses it.    Defendant had a garnishment against him, and plaintiff said as soon as the garnishment was over, 

$3260 to plaintiff for the laptop.

 

Second-

Sick Cat Travel Alert-Plaintiff wanted a specific kind of  female cat from the defendant.    Defendant says plaintiff wanted the male cat at first, then said she wanted the female cat, but it was sick so it couldn't be sold.   Plaintiff flew from California to Minnesota, there were two females, and one male in the litter.     Defendant says the cat had a cold, and she never offered the female cat for sale.   Defendant was not offering the other female for sale, because she kept her for breeding.    

The plaintiff's witness is holding the cat.   Devon Rex is the breed.  Picture of cat is of the male, and text says it's the boy cat.   That she's buying the male is clearly stated by the defendant's text to the plaintiff, and plaintiff's response.   

When she arrived, the plaintiff demanded the sick female, and now wants to be paid for the medical care.   

Plaintiff is given choice of keeping cat, or giving the cat back, and getting a refund.    Plaintiff keeps the cat, and gets nothing else. 

96 Year-Old Wants What She Wants-Plaintiff is suing his mother's granddaughter.   For a time the granddaughter was responsible for grandmother's care.    Plaintiff claims defendant stole money from grandmother, before she went in a care home.  Plaintiff took mother out of the NC assisted living,  Plaintiff didn't visit while his mother while she was in NC, including for her 96th birthday.   Plaintiff has a disabled daughter who lives with him, and his wife, but he still never visited the mother.  

Plaintiff says defendant wouldn't provide the grandmother's beloved Club Crackers (grandmother wants exactly 19 with each meal), and other items grandmother wanted.   Granddaughter says she bought what the grandmother wanted, and grandmother would then deny granddaughter bought the items that were right next to her.    Grandmother is now in a care home within driving distance from plaintiff/son.  Plaintiff visits his mother three times a week. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.  

Edited October 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. first episode new, second episode from 2017-

First (New)-

Tinder Date Disaster!-Plaintiff (Sainted Single Mother of Two, two children 6 months, and 18 months old) SSMOT her ex-boyfriend for breaching a lease, and an unpaid loan.  They met on Tinder, and two weeks later defendant moved from his mother's basement (OK, home) into plaintiff's home, with her two children.   Plaintiff is crazy for inviting him into her home with two little kids.   I guess plaintiff's goal is to be the subject of an ID channel murder documentary.

When plaintiff met the defendant she was getting behind in rent, at the same time she was served custody battle paperwork, so she took off from work, and fell behind in rent.     They lived together about 6 1/2 months, and moved another place about 4 months later.    (Plaintiff is a school librarian, they often get paid spread over 11 or 12 months of the year, even though they work 9 months during the school year).

Plaintiff hadn't paid rent for four months, and so was evicted by apartment complex.   Then they went from the original apartment at just under $1,000 a month, to a house for $1350 a month.   Defendant cleaned the house, but paid nothing else.   Plaintiff thought defendant would pay for the second apartment, even though he never paid rent at all.   Plaintiff claims defendant was getting certified to be a correctional officer, and passed the written test for L.A. Sheriff's Department (no way he passed the physical, or a physical fitness test).     This idiot plaintiff SSMOT tiny  toddlers thought this man would get a job?   

Landlord wouldn't take defendant off lease early, because he can go after both people on the lease.   Defendant moved with mommy, and now lives in an apartment with his new girlfriend.   Defendant splits the rent with his new girlfriend.     Plaintiff says defendant has belongings he left behind at her current house (tools, mementos,etc.)  Within five days defendant can pick up his remaining stuff.   My guess, she trashed anything he cared about. 

Idiot plaintiff has a new boyfriend, and she claims he doesn't live with her (yes, he does).   Plaintiff actually says she wants to stay in the current house, "if the landlord will let her", whatever that means (must be behind on rent again). 

Plaintiff receives $1,350 for the one month rent for the time defendant lived there, and the security deposit.  

$350,000 Profit vs. a Dirty Carpet!-Plaintiff suing former landlord for return of deposit, and return of rent.   Plaintiff was a tenant for 13 years of defendant.    Lease was up in April, and defendant retained the security deposit, because of damage.     Carpet that defendant wants replaced was done in 2006 when she still lived there.    Plaintiff was the only tenant in the home.    Security deposit was $1650.

Defendant claims 13 year old carpet was dirty, and home wasn't broom clean.   Defendant received rent for 13 years from the man, and then sold the house for over $500,000 after he moved out.     I hate her, she's the reason people dislike landlords.    House was actually toured by buyers before tenant moved out.

Buyers had no issues with condition of house.

Plaintiff receives his security deposit $1650. 

Second (Rerun)-

Botched Tattooed Eyebrows-Plaintiff suing salon owners over her badly Microbladed eyebrows.   Plaintiff should be suing whoever did her streaky hair, since I think that style went out of style years ago (or else it came back in style and I missed it). 

However, plaintiff didn't take photo to show the horrible damage that made her so injured, so I'm suspecting she wants enough to pay her plastic surgery bills.   She barely has any eyebrows now, so I don't understand if she had more microblading or not, and either way her eyebrows are hideous.     

Defendant's witness says the plaintiff also was unhappy with her permanent makeup tattooing from 10 years ago.     Stupid plaintiff wants money back, and they did return it.    She was a long term client for their other services, and I'm hoping they told her not to return after this.   

I guess the idea that tattoos can fade over time, especially when it's in the sun like her eyebrows were.  So she had laser tattoo removal, including the old tattoo that she didn't like and it cost her about $1,500 so far.    Judge Judy has a good point that without pictures, it's her word against the defendant's word.      

I love the defendant's witness who says "we weren't licensed, but we were zoned".     That woman is a total idiot.       Actually, no one on either side is all that smart, or all that sympathetic from my view.   

I think if they would have had a license, that it would have been a different story since they returned her initial fee.   However, they did offer to have a more experienced person redo the microblading, and plaintiff said no.   The shop owner no longer does the procedure, but it's OK you can still get your colon pressure washed.  

Plaintiff in halterview says "I just looked crazy", actually she still does.  

The defendants have to pay $1,575 to pay for her to get the tattoos off.   

Edited October 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[sharifa70]

On 8/30/2020 at 1:32 AM, Zahdii said:

think that she brought someone with her that was sitting in the audience both times.  Compare the woman sitting her left (our right) shoulder on the top photo with the one sitting on the opposite side on the bottom photo.

Judge Judy’s courtroom audience are paid extras from a casting company.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. 2016-2017 reruns-

First-

I Will Never Help Another Soul Again-Plaintiff suing former roommate over a loan that was never repaid, missing property, and stalking.   Plaintiff, and defendant's family lived together in an apartment (with her boyfriend, and her two children), Plaintiff met defendant though defendant's mother.  Agreement was defendant would pay rent of $1550, and utilities were paid by plaintiff (they were in her name).   Then plaintiff loaned defendant $1500, and $288 for defendant's medical bills, and a loan for Christmas gifts for defendant's family, $1388 (or about that).    Amazingly, defendant remembers nothing about the loans.    Defendant claims she didn't give her children much for Christmas.

The iPhone plaintiff paid for defendant was returned, but without accessories, so plaintiff had to pay for the accessories (another $256).  Plaintiff claimed she paid a hotel bill for defendant, because defendant had a fight with her boyfriend, and then defendant returned to boyfriend, and plaintiff moved out of the apartment.    

$2788 owed to plaintiff so far.    Defendant claims plaintiff should have to pay the apartment lease, because she moved out early, claim dismissed. 

Load a Bowl of Cannabis Vendetta?!-Plaintiff suing former friend for theft, property damage, and assault.    Litigants were in the pot business in Washington state (for medical at that time, now all are recreational).    Plaintiff couldn't grow pot himself, and needed to find a grower, defendant was growing pot for plaintiff, and they shared it.    This was to fill the litigants need for medical pot.

Both sides claim the other assaulted them, and threw the pot plants in the snow to die.    Plaintiff (who just called Officer Byrd, "Byrd") has a police report, without a real assault.   Dispute was that plaintiff was having pot grown in Washington, but plaintiff is an Idaho resident.   Defendant says it's illegal to grow pot for out of state residents, too close to a school, and near a mobile home park.    (However, school, mobile home, and residency questions existed before the fight). 

The fight was over who was smoking the other's supply of pot.   

Everything dismissed, because it's all incredibly stupid.

Lost My Checkbook!-Plaintiff suing niece and her boyfriend for unpaid loans, and the return or value for a TV.   JJ dismisses the old TV case.   Niece says she did get a loan for rent from aunt, $1300.   Defendant wrote $100 checks, to equal $600, and they would be cashed on niece's paydays.  Niece says she also baby sat for aunt's children.   Then defendants lost their checkbook, and account was closed by bank, and then defendant would pay aunt the other half in cash (no, it makes no sense to me either), when niece could manage it.  Aunt only cashed two of the $100 checks before checkbook was lost, and account closed (I really doubt they closed the bank account over a lost checkbook the bank would just issue new checks, and change the account number, and transfer funds).  

Aunt was still owed $1100 on the original $1300 loan.   There were two other loans for apartment security deposit, and Christmas money for niece's kids for Christmas, but $1300

Plaintiff receives $1100 for the original loan, but not the two loans made after niece wasn't repaying the original loan. 

Second-

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

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

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

Plaintiff gets $699 for the phone.  

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

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

Under Alabama law, landlords have to document damages in 30 days, and this didn't happen, so former tenant gets double the security deposit.

Plaintiff receives $2400.

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

The Reason This Country is in Trouble!-Plaintiff suing the girlfriend of his wife's nephew for unpaid rent, and damages.   Plaintiff and wife's nephew signed a co-tenancy lease on an apartment.   Tenants were two children, defendant woman, and boyfriend.    Defendants didn't pay the last four months rent.      Defendant is a former foster, and was getting some stipend from the state, which ended.    Defendant is SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four).    Defendant has three of her four children living with her, and her boyfriend, but two kids live full time with defendant woman.     Plaintiff was ruled against, and plaintiff claims he paid the landlord $9010, principal and attorney fees were about a $1,000.  

Defendant woman claims boyfriend sold a car, and paid the security deposit.    Defendant woman is 22 and has four kids, defendant boyfriend has three kids with defendant, and he's 42.    Defendant boyfriend claims he was on the lease, but didn't live there full time.   Defendant boyfriend refuses to say what bills or support he supplies for his girl friend, their three kids, etc.   

I wish Officer Byrd would punch out loser defendant witness/boyfriend.   Defendant boyfriend refuses to say where he lives when he's not at defendant girlfriend's place.   At last JJ has the boyfriend's mike cut off.    

  Defendant is on welfare (that's why boyfriend claims he doesn't live there), and only has TREAD for former foster kids. (My guess is the defendant stopped paying rent is her stipend went bye-bye when she hit 22 years old.  Some states pay stipends until the 22nd birthday for former fosters, I'm not sure what state they were all from). 

JJ tells the plaintiff to sue defendant witness.

$2400 for plaintiff.  

Tweener's Missing Diamond Earring!-Plaintiff (56)suing defendant for value of a diamond earring, and he lives with 38 year old former daughter-in-law of defendant.  Plaintiff gave two earrings to girlfriend, and one to girlfriend's 12 year old son.    Plaintiff noticed son's earring was missing, and he says grandmother took the earring, and threw the earring away. 

JJ explains to plaintiff that girlfriend (former daughter in law of defendant)  has standing to sue on behalf of her son, for the earring, so she needs to sue her mother, the child's grandmother/defendant.    

Defendant says grandson came to visit, and was complaining about the earring hurting.   Grandmother says the earring was accidentally trashed.     Earrings purchased by plaintiff were far superior to replacement earrings purchased by defendant /  grandmother.    

Plaintiff's witness will have to sue defendant.

Case dismissed.  

(They just had the memorial screen for Jerry Bishop, the late announcer for the show).    

Second (Rerun)-

Baby in Danger?!-Plaintiff is suing for false arrest, destruction of his clothing.     They both moved from California to New York, but didn't live together after the move.    Plaintiff says defendant used a hidden key, and let herself into plaintiff's apartment, and destroyed his clothing while she was there for a custody exchange.    Plaintiff says mother of his child (or possibly children) assaulted him while he was holding their baby in his arms.   Then he called police, said she said he  assaulted her, and he was arrested.  She's shown hitting baby daddy on video with liquor bottle while he's holding their baby.  Defendant says it was plaintiff's favorite liquor bottle.   Assault charges against plaintiff were dropped.  

So I'm guessing mother of the year defendant is knocked up again?    What the hell is on that woman's head?     I guess that's the reason she was 5 hours late picking up her son?   She was late because she was getting her hair or nails done.  

Strange point of fact, plaintiff claimed assault happened in June, but video shows a lot of snow on the ground.    

 Who would even pick up a baby at 11 p.m. at night?     And I love how she claimed the plaintiff was drunk, since she seemed to be drunk and/or stoned in the video, and in court.     I can't believe the plaintiff slept with that heifer again, and doesn't even know if the second kid is his.   I feel sorry for the infant, and for the next kid that woman is having, because neither parent seems to have a lick of sense between them.     

Another case of an ex bleaching suits, and wrecking his stuff, with a lot of damage, and no police report.  This happened a few weeks after the assault.      

Judge Judy certainly asked what I wanted to know, why he slept with that heifer after they already had issues?  He couldn't find a girlfriend who wasn't BSC?   Wonder if the second kid was plaintiff's?    I'm betting they were always together, and unless she dumped him, he's still waiting around for her to come back again. 

Plaintiff filed a protective order in July.   Defendant now says she was five or six months pregnant during the video attack, but she didn't look that pregnant. 

Plaintiff receives $5,000, and I hope he buys a better brain with that, and I hope the second kid wasn't his.  

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Taeolas]

It's about time they acknowledged his passing. IMO they should've had the memorium page at the end of all the first week of COVID eps at least. 

We also know what those plastic pedastals are for on the tables. It's so they can put up paperwork so the cameras can zoom in; assumably paperwork that JJ doesn't get copies faxed to her in the first place and/or that they can't get better shots of later. 

[Red Bridey]

Baseball has preempted my JJ three times this week. So sad!

[6Lombardis]

I was without her for about three weeks and this week she’s back on another network.  She really is nasty and annoying.

 

[One Tough Cookie]

On 10/1/2020 at 5:29 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff wanted a specific kind of  female cat from the defendant.

Jesus tap dancing Christ--like there  is not a shit load of cats ready for adoption--but some people have to have the most exotic, "in thing".  I get really pissed--are there not enough homeless cats running around already?

[LetsStartTalking]

On 10/2/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (New)-

The Reason This Country is in Trouble!-Plaintiff suing the girlfriend of his wife's nephew for unpaid rent, and damages.   Plaintiff and wife's nephew signed a co-tenancy lease on an apartment.   Tenants were two children, defendant woman, and boyfriend.    Defendants didn't pay the last four months rent.      Defendant is a former foster, and was getting some stipend from the state, which ended.    Defendant is SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four).    Defendant has three of her four children living with her, and her boyfriend, but two kids live full time with defendant woman.     Plaintiff was ruled against, and plaintiff claims he paid the landlord $9010, principal and attorney fees were about a $1,000.  

Defendant woman claims boyfriend sold a car, and paid the security deposit.    Defendant woman is 22 and has four kids, defendant boyfriend has three kids with defendant, and he's 42.    Defendant boyfriend claims he was on the lease, but didn't live there full time.   Defendant boyfriend refuses to say what bills or support he supplies for his girl friend, their three kids, etc.   

I wish Officer Byrd would punch out loser defendant witness/boyfriend.   Defendant boyfriend refuses to say where he lives when he's not at defendant girlfriend's place.   At last JJ has the boyfriend's mike cut off.    

  Defendant is on welfare (that's why boyfriend claims he doesn't live there), and only has TREAD for former foster kids. 

JJ tells the plaintiff to sue defendant witness.

$2400 for plaintiff.  

Tweener's Missing Diamond Earring!-Plaintiff (56)suing defendant for value of a diamond earring, and he lives with 38 year old former daughter-in-law of defendant.  Plaintiff gave two earrings to girlfriend, and one to girlfriend's 12 year old son.    Plaintiff noticed son's earring was missing, and he says grandmother took the earring, and threw the earring away. 

JJ explains to plaintiff that girlfriend (former daughter in law of defendant)  has standing to sue on behalf of her son, for the earring, so she needs to sue her mother, the child's grandmother/defendant.    

Defendant says grandson came to visit, and was complaining about the earring hurting.   Grandmother says the earring was accidentally trashed.     Earrings purchased by plaintiff were far superior to replacement earrings purchased by defendant /  grandmother.    

Plaintiff's witness will have to sue defendant.

Case dismissed.  

(They just had the memorial screen for Jerry Bishop, the late announcer for the show).    

 

I may be in the minority, but I thought in the first case, defendant Brian Black was very handsome. He needed to lose about 10-15 pounds, but he's definitely one of the infamous 'bad boy hunks' of Judge Judy.

Please make Judge Judy stop with the phony cackling she does at the plaintiffs. It's really irritating. Nothing is as funny as she tries to make it with that hideous laugh of hers.

I'm still not use to Judge Judy's RBG hairstyle - and it's been almost 2 years.

[TVMovieBuff]

On 9/30/2020 at 5:44 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

Quote

Next time the plaintiff should pay his bets.   

$100 Basketball Bet Turns Violent-Plaintiff suing defendant an assault over a basketball game bet, and missing property.    Two years before there was $100 bet on the game, plaintiff lost, and never paid up.   The two men started arguing over the non-payment, and a fight resulted.  Plaintiff claims he was badly injured, and his gold cross was ripped off (cross was found by police and returned).   Police report is presented. 

Defendant was arrested, but is suing for a false police report.    Defendant claims plaintiff attacked him.  Defendant's case was resolved, and he plead out for a lesser charge, (he was originally charged with five charges) so his counter claim is dismissed.   Next time the plaintiff should pay his bets.   Since defendant plead guilty, his claim is gone.   

Plaintiff gets $2500.

 

That is so NOT what I got out of this case! How about, don't go beating up people and kicking the crap out of them?

[configdotsys]

Wow. I have been so far behind on the DVR that I began watching these new shows very recently. First of all, WOW! she has aged a lot. Secondly, she ratcheted up the cranky factor quite a bit. Seems she has zero patience at all. It's definitely time to go.

It looks to me (and i'm sure this has been discussed, I'm trying to catch up, I promise!) like there must be a television monitor on the bench and the litigants see her on screen and she sees them? Not sure why they are putting on the charade of Byrd looking like he's going to hand over the manila folder to her after calling the case. 

I just watched a case where some guy so-signed a lease for a 22 year old that had a 42 year old boyfriend. Wow, the boyfriend was giving JJ the business.

[patty1h]

Elder Abuse and the Escape Artist?! - the second case of this episode was a pretty standard used car sale case but the plaintiff has an amazing name:  Janice Bad Heart Bull.    

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Stealing From the Disabled?!-Plaintiff /former tenant  (Kadisha Fong) suing former landlord (owner of duplex, who lives in one side, and rents the other side out) for stealing from her bank account, and unlawful eviction.  Plaintiff claims her landlady had the account number, and pin number, and used it to steal from her.  However, rent was $715, but the withdrawal was for $713 instead.   Plaintiff had a history of late payments, one month non-payment until well after the due date, so she was served with an eviction notice from landlady. 

Spoiler

Ms. Fong certainly is a frequent flyer in the local courts for a variety of reasons. 

JJ says no proof of theft, no reason to get security back, since no payment for one month's rent was ever made.   Utilities weren't in her name, but that wasn't put in counter claim, so defendant isn't getting more than the withheld security deposit that covers the rent.    Damages are cleaning, holes in wall, etc. 

Both cases dismissed.  

Stalking and Harassment-Plaintiff suing ex-girlfriend for unpaid loans, and the return of belongings (a spare laptop, and a BBQ grill).   Defendant claims stalking and harassment, but no police report.   What a shock, they met online.   Plaintiff loaned her money for her to buy items to resell at the flea market.     Defendant says he bought items for plaintiff to resale at flea markets, and she never repaid him.  As JJ points out, if defendant was so afraid of plaintiff's stalking, then why didn't she return his items?   

Plaintiff loans, and credit charges are dismissed.   Counterclaim dismissed.    Plaintiff has order to retrieve his grill and laptop in the next five days with a police escort. 

Second-

Let's Do the Bad Math!- Plaintiff suing former friend for return of car down payment, emotional distress, and slander.     Defendant sold his nephew the same car, for $1098.   Then sold car to plaintiff for $745, because nephew went to jail, didn't finish paying for it, but plaintiff had to repossess it himself.    Defendant still has the title, but plaintiff has the car.   Defendant wants $5,000 for return of the car, lost wages, and car damages-this man already collected more than double the blue book of the car.     

Plaintiff gets car signed over to him, and defendant gets $730 back.     Nephew told to sue uncle/defendant for his $1098.

Contractor Scam?!-Plaintiff suing contractor for return of payments for home remodeling.    Defendant is a licensed contractor in Orlando, Florida, and was hired to redo a shed.  The contractor was supposed to redo the shed into living quarters from the studs out, and did less than half of the work contracted for.    Plaintiff deposit was $3400.    Defendant has no receipts for supplies he bought for the job. 

Defendant loses, and should have.  Plaintiff receives $3400

Edited October 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Blind Rescue Dog Gets High?!-Plaintiff suing her cousin for vet bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering after dog ate pot brownies bought by defendant.      Defendant brought pot edibles on a visit, anddog got into pot brownies.   Adorable dog was rescued by plaintiff, and is totally blind.  

Plaintiff claims the feeding of the pot brownies was not an accident by the defendant.   Defendant and plaintiff's brother rode train down to visit, and purchased pot brownies in San Diego, and defendant was taking the brownies home (he's from another state, no shipping across state lines, last time I heard).     On June 2 defendant claims plaintiff's brother let dog eat chocolate covered raisins (also deadly for dogs), and pot brownies.    Defendant says dog was fine.   However, plaintiff says dog was stoned.  

( Plaintiff says defendant tried to murder her dog on previous occasions, and this time it was chocolate, raisins, and pot).     

Plaintiff receives $446 vet bill.      

Elder Abuse and the Escape Artist!-Plaintiff Janice Bad Heart Bull, suing defendant over a car sale.   Plaintiff wanted a Scion station wagon type vehicle, and litigants are both Scion enthusiasts.    Plaintiff didn't see car until the day she purchased the car for $4500 (defendant says $4500, but plaintiff claims she paid $5500).   (I find the plaintiff's interrupting irritating.   JJ keeps calling her name, and we have the same first name.  As a result of plaintiff's blabbing, I just got my name called by JJ four times, and she wasn't happy either).

Plaintiff doesn't have a bill of sale, defendant has a statement of fact (in his state used instead of a bill of sale).   Plaintiff had car for 4,000 miles, and six months before engine blew up.  Plaintiff claims the defendant lied to the DMV about the car title, and engine being clean.    It was an 11 year old car, registered to the plaintiff, so there was nothing wrong with the deal.

Plaintiff claims defendant left the country (so what?), and abused her as an elderly person, and she wants JJ to pay her for the second car she had to buy after Scion went to the car junkyard in the sky.      Plaintiff should have checked Car Fax before she bought the car, not after. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   

Second (Rerun)-

Man Claws Own Face?-This is the one where the female plaintiff was arrested for domestic violence by the police.   Her ex-boyfriend had marks all over him, and plaintiff admits to biting the defendant also.  (Maybe we should fix her up with the man who had the $50k bail for almost killing his ex, and her kid, and had current and another ex in the courtroom).     

Plaintiff called police, and then was shocked to be arrested for domestic violence.     Plaintiff may be dressed like a very conservative, and proper person, but she's a beast who assaults domestic partners.     There was a previous police call, but no one was arrested.   

Plaintiff ex-gf says there was no physical contact during the fight in question, and claims the man created his own injuries.   Casey Massacre (yes, an appropriate name isn't it?) is a voice over artist, and claims she's disabled, and doesn't drive, but was just defending herself against the defendant.      Plaintiff claims the defendant was clawing his own face right before the police got there.   

Plaintiff is getting no joy from JJ, and is obviously a total psycho.     Plaintiff is out of control, and totally loco.   

Thank heavens for Officer Byrd, who could take out psycho plaintiff with one hand, because the plaintiff is totally nuts, and obviously violent, and has no control.   

Plaintiff case dismissed.   For once defendant says he has nothing to do with her, and never will again (I hope he stayed away from her).     

Do-it-yourself Puppy Delivery! (Not for the faint of heart, I remember this one)-Susan Ragan-Trouten  had a male boxer she had for two years, dog was actually owned by her son, and son gave dog away, but plaintiff still walked the dog.    Dog was not being treated well, and I'm not sure who by, but Susan's son gave the dog away.  Except she used the dog as a stud, when she didn't even own the dog then.      

 Susan the plaintiff wanted pick of litter, so she could train the puppy as a service dog (probably one of the $50 online Service Dog phony papers, and vest).      Susan the plaintiff, took dog to defendant, and offered to breed dog to his female in return for necessary vet bills, and pick of litter.     

Defendant (Brandon Conrad, of Brandon, Michigan) apparently has no idea how dog breeding works, and let his dog labor for three days, and two puppies died, because defendant had no money for vet.  After two days in labor, defendant took female to emergency vet, and found out dog needed a C-section, plaintiff refused to pay for vet bills, so a-hole defendant took dog home, and started reading online how to deliver puppies.    Defendant claims he took dog to emergency vet twice, but has no proof.     

 Defendant still has some puppies at his house, some actually survived this jerk's online puppy delivery, and apparently the emergency vet.     My question is how can idiot plaintiff get pick of litter, or stud fee when she didn't own the male dog?  

Defendant 'wasn't interested' in spaying his dog.     I wish Officer Byrd would neuter the defendant with a rusty knife, right in court. 

Plaintiff gets pick of litter (apparently six puppies survived this).      I wish JJ had rescued the puppies, and found homes for them instead of letting either one of these two idiots have them.  

I couldn't hate either litigant more.       

[Mashlama]

Can anyone tell me the episode number of the Elizabeth Meadows case? She was the Utah birth mother and was sueing the daughter she adopted out.

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Ex-Wife Gets the Pit Bull-Plaintiff truck driver suing ex-wife, and her mother for the return of his dog, a Cane Corso/Pit Bull mix.  The plaintiff had the dog since three months old, and the dog usually traveled with him. (Bizarre note, plaintiff claims he never lived with the ex-wife for the two years they were married).   (I'm not liking the plaintiff, his previous dog died of heartworm, a disease that's easily prevented, and a horrible way to die). 

(My guess is JJ didn't like that the previous dog died of heartworm, and the plaintiff said he hadn't bred the dog 'yet'.) (The ex-wife is so blitzed in court). 

Plaintiff gets $500, and defendants keep the dog. 

Mercedes Custody Battle-Plaintiff suing former friend for value of a car, and a false restraining order.    Plaintiff claims defendant gave her the car, and then repossessed it, after defendant didn't maintain insurance on it.   Mercedes ML 320 was the car. but I don't know the year. 

Plaintiff claims car was registered in her name, but she didn't have insurance on vehicle.  How did plaintiff try to register car with no proof of insurance?       Defendant has paperwork from the police saying car is hers, claims the plaintiff abandoned the car, and police called her to pick the car up.      Defendant claims plaintiff swiped the car back, had it for a month, and car is now gone.  (No the stories don't make sense). 

 Case dismissed for both sides.    

Second-

Dirty Drug Test Bail Out-Plaintiff suing ex-wife for unpaid bail, and credit damage.  Defendant failed drug test, again.      They were actually living together for a while, because otherwise she would be homeless.   Her children were taken by the state in 2005 after a DUI, and plaintiff has custody since 2005.  This time she was arrested in 2008 for petty theft, 2005 DUI, and this time in 2013 for a dirty drug test.    She tested dirty for meth, and prescription drugs.    Defendant paid child support from her disability.   

Remaining bond amount is $4786, or she would have to go to jail for six months.   She claims to be sober for six months, but she's been arrested many times in El Dorado county.    Defendant's mother claims she didn't know daughter was busted again.     Too bad for plaintiff, the phone number for bondsman is wrong, no contact to verify.   

Sadly, it seems that Molly Labreche didn't change her ways. Such a pretty name, and such a sad story.   (When JJ can't reach the bail bond company, the nasty from defendant when she realizes she'll never pay her own bond off is nasty.   I also think defendant's mother is lying about not knowing her daughter was arrested, and needed bail).  

Case dismissed.  

Teen TV Custody-Plaintiff and defendant lived together, bought a TV two years ago, and plaintiff wants $300 for half of their joint TV.   Defendant has a "Once Upon A Time" Disney tattoo on her upper chest, and between that and her green hair, not a pretty picture.  Also, the defendant's nose piercing looks like a giant booger.  Defendant offered $300, and plaintiff accepted it, so he gets the money.   

$450, for plaintiff, $150 for the phone defendant broke, and $300 for the TV. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Teen Testifies Against Abusive Father?!-Plaintiff suing her ex-boyfriend for ramming her vehicle in a fit of rage, and cost to rent a car.   Plaintiff has a 16 and 14 year old with defendant, SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) only lived with defendant for a year total in their relationship.   Plaintiff and defendant lived apart for 13 years, and plaintiff has a new live-in since 2019.   

Plaintiff claims defendant rammed her car with his car, a year ago.   Defendant says he left plaintiff and two kids at the beach after an argument, and defendant claims plaintiff attacked him physically.    A couple of weeks later plaintiff came back to defendant's house.   Defendant claims plaintiff scratched his face with her nails, and he went to his truck and left, hitting the car by accident, and that was repaired.     Plaintiff claims over the years, defendant hit her at least 10 times, and she reported him to the police twice.

Plaintiff claims defendant hit her in the garage, and then she went to his workplace, and home, and plaintiff claims defendant smashed her phone.   Plaintiff claims defendant hit her car in 2019, and plaintiff claims defendant damaged the rental car also.  Defendant denies that ever happened.     Plaintiff claims she was outside with son, and current boyfriend, and claims defendant came to her house, and plaintiff claims defendant rammed her car with his truck.     Police report says nothing about car damages, or assault.    

(Sorry, but I think plaintiff and her new boyfriend are liars).   SSMOT's new boyfriend testifies exactly the way she did, but without the prolonged profanity the plaintiff used.   JJ has the 14 year-old son testify, and it's amazingly like the plaintiff, and the current boyfriend's story.  I find it amazing that the police would come to plaintiff's home, see a freshly crunched car, and not even issue a ticket, or take a report.   I hope plaintiff's boyfriend realizes what his life will be like after he breaks up with plaintiff. 

Plaintiff didn't put in an insurance claim, for collision on the car.    Plaintiff claims she has full coverage on the car, which is a lease, and she wants to buy when the lease expires.    Plaintiff never got car fixed, and JJ dismisses her case.  No police report, no insurance claim, or defendant would have to pay her deductible, but she never fixed the car.  

(Who is doing JJ's hair?  It's awful.  The bun on her head is lopsided).

Case dismissed. 

Second (Rerun)-

Limo Driver Pummeled By Angry Drunk Passenger?-A was hired to take a group of people to Vic & Anthony's Steak House, by the party hostess.  Scott Braslau, the limo service owner has great reviews about his limo service, and I just don't see him going nuts.       

The defendants are the only two passengers that were picked up at their house (a mile from the hostess' house), by the hostess, and  my guess is they were probably already blotto.       Defendant is suing chauffeur (business owner) plaintiff for 'throwing them to the floor', and pummeling the moron defendant.     The defendant's wife won't shut up, she got bounced.     

The limo with nine guests left from hostess Wellendorf's house, after the guests were drinking already.     The left for the restaurant at 7 p.m., and were to take the limo to the club, at 11 p.m., and then leave from the club, with a final drop off home at 3 a.m.         Drunk, belligerent, defendant demanded that the chauffeur take him, and big-mouthed wife back home after dinner, instead of going to the club, which would have been another hour total round trip drive.      When chauffeur said he wouldn't take the defendants home, and desert everyone else at the club, and waste an hour of driving, and extra driving was not on the contract.  

When defendant demanded a ride home, and was screaming at chauffeur, and when driver got out to talk to defendants, defendant Donald Donica,  whacked him in the face.    Defendants claim that chauffeur drove in an unsafe manner, and threw both of them to the limo floor.      They traded punches.   Defendants took an Uber home after this.   

Chauffeur did make a police report, and chauffeur talked to the woman hiring him about the drunken guests, and their rudeness.   When JJ goes to call Mrs. Wellendorf, defendant Donica looks nauseous.    JJ calls Mrs. Wellendorf, the hostess who hired the chauffeur, and she says that she picked up the Donicas at their house, and spend the hour waiting for the limo's scheduled departure, getting plastered.     

JJ is really steamed after talking to hostess, Mrs. Wellendorf, and says they were all sitting around drinking a lot for the hour before going to the restaurant.   Later  Donica told hostess nothing about pummeling, but Donica claimed both defendants were thrown to the floor of the car, and defendant claims he was pulled out of the car and beaten by plaintiff.      Braslau has medical treatment records too.   

When Donica, the defendant, was asked why he didn't file a police report about his brutal beating, he says "I wasn't raised that way".    The audience really enjoyed that remark.   I hope every limo company, and ride share has banned Donica from their services.   

Breslau receives medical bills, plus $1500 for the assault by the idiot Donica, for a total of $2751.   

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[basiltherat]

So D was raised to NOT tell the truth and report a crime?!  But its OK to get sloppy drunk and belligerent.

[Schnickelfritz]

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(Who is doing JJ's hair?  It's awful.  The bun on her head is lopsided).

Seriously, if you're not going to learn how to do your own hair correctly, how bout spending some of your millions on a good wig?

[basiltherat]

JJ looks WAY older with the bun-bun.  If she was doing it as a tribute to RBG, it is NOT flattering to the Justice!

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Pot Bellied Pig Bite-Plaintiff claims her (two blocks and two acres away) neighbor has a huge pot bellied pig (200 lbs.) that has escaped the stockade fence/chain link defendant's fence., Pig came on the plaintiff's property, and bit her Great Dane.  Plaintiff has an invisible fence, and a stone fence, except for one opening, and says the pig has come on her property before too.    There is a video of the pig in the plaintiff's yard, showing the pig biting the Great Dane.      Dane was bitten on the leg, and owner wants vet bills.      Defendant's excuse is a tree fell on her fence in early January, and at the time of the bite (end of February) fence still wasn't fixed.   

Defendant was notified by the police to get her pig off plaintiff's property.    Defendant wants legal fees, she hired a lawyer to get documentation (defendant wanted plaintiff's dog's medical records), and animal control gave first bill to defendant.  The defendant had fence down over a month before the escape and bite.  Defendant's witness is an animal control officer, testifying for defendant, and claiming the bite we saw on video didn't happen.    Defendant's witness needs her eyes examined, because you can see the pig hurting the dog.     Defendant's ridiculous case dismissed.   

 Total vet bills $626, so $700 to plaintiff.  

Two Bedrooms Too Small-Plaintiff rented room in apartment from defendant.   Plaintiff was up to date on rent, when defendant changed the locks on him.  Defendant claims plaintiff was aggressive the second he moved in, and he evicted plaintiff for safety reasons.   It was a non-smoking apartment, and defendant claims plaintiff was smoking, but that wasn't in the lease (JJ asks what plaintiff was smoking).   Plaintiff claims an assault also.   

Defendant claims plaintiff broke in, and stole two TVs, and other items, without proof, but neighbor who witnessed this isn't in court.  Defendant has photos showing burning items, and says plaintiff set something in his apartment on fire.    There is no proof that the plaintiff is the thief.   

$700 rent and security back to plaintiff. 

Second-

Artwork vs. the Car Wash!-Plaintiff and wife claim the car wash workers ruined his $3,600 painting (plaintiff husband does 'interesting' art work) that was left in the vehicle's trunk.    The painting was unprotected, loose in the trunk, and there is no proof that the car wash people did anything to the painting.     I suspect the wife /plaintiff damaged it,  and they needed a fall guy to pay for it.    

The car wash defendant claims the woman slammed the trunk, and hurt the painting herself.   There's a bunch of garbage about missing phone chargers, and a credit card too.   According to the car wash manager the detailers found the chargers, and put those items in a bag, and put it in the trunk.     Defendant says that when the woman slammed the trunk  when retrieving the chargers, she hurt the painting, and not the detailers at the car wash.

Nothing for the plaintiffs, and I wish they would have had to pay the defendant's company for the harassment, and defamation from their false claim. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

$800,000 T-Shirt Business Dispute!-Plaintiff (Janie Furling) , sold her business to the defendants (Julie and Russell Slaybaugh) for $800k in 2017.    Plaintiff was paid $720k in 2017, with a 5 year note to start payments in 2017, for the last $80k, but never paid.    Contract with litigants say that if the plaintiff has to hire legal help to collect, that she can get legal fees.   Plaintiff hired an attorney, and they went to mediation, but mediation failed because defendant woman failed to show.  Defendant claims she was sick, with no documentation, and did not tell mediator that only one defendant was appearing.      So defendants need to pay legal fees of plaintiff, and mediators fees.

Purchase and sale agreement says signatories were both defendants, so both needed to show up for the mediation.         Plaintiff has been advised that the statute of limitations is drawing close, and that the cost of litigation, court costs, etc. to get the $80k wouldn't be profitable.  JJ will only consider plaintiff's fees if she's not going forward with the remaining purchase price lawsuit.   

Defendants claim plaintiff has been mean to them, telling people they are crooks.     Defendants are smirking, and smiling, and are total jerks. Defendant looks appalled when JJ tells him the statements by the plaintiff are not libelous.  

Plaintiff will not seek the other $80k remaining. Plaintiff submits her attorney fees $2000, mediation service $2875,  totaling  $4875.

Defendant claims there is a clause where they can not pay the last $80k, and they still have the business going.  

Covid Infected Kitten Euthanized?!-Plaintiff is suing (James Hughes, and Penelope Duerkson-Hughes) over the purchase of a Bengal kitten she bought from them.      Bengal kitten was $600, and there's a written contract, requiring a vet visit within three days of the purchase for a full refund, and after 72 hours no refund.   The defendants will not pay vet bills, per contract.   

The vet visit was seven weeks after purchase, and kitten needed surgery, and was found to have kitty Covid (there are a lot of coronaviruses).     FIP, and FIV were in the kitten, but no proof the kitten was sick when purchased.    Kitten was euthanized.

Plaintiff claims she had a verbal contract amending the written contract (no, verbal can't be an addendum to a written contract).  

Plaintiff called the defendants after the vet visit, and they offered a replacement kitten, and plaintiff refused their kind offer.   Plaintiff is wrong, there have been vets open everywhere, but on a limited basis, and there are emergency vets.  Plaintiff now claims it was three weeks until the first vet visit.    

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Second (Rerun)-

Teen Buys Stolen Dirt Bike?!-(The defendant is not a teen, unless he's the oldest looking teen on Earth.  Apparently caption person wasn't paying attention to the case at all)-Plaintiff (Reed O'Ryan), dirt bike owner tracks down his stolen dirt bike, has all of the right paperwork, and sues for damages to the dirt bike by the man.    Plaintiff's bike was stolen out of his back yard in late October, 2017.  

Defendant claims his girlfriend bought the dirt bike in April 2018. The girlfriend of man defendant claims the bike was a great deal from some fictitious guy.   I hope the local police checked every VIN number on the property.    Girlfriend of defendant claims she bought the bike for $400 from some man named Mario, in April (He was a former neighbor of Jessica, defendant).     However, the police checked the VIN number in March.    What a couple of liars.  Defendant didn't get a title, and has three other motor bikes or ATVs, they bought at a garage sale, the others were 1500 or 1700, this dirt bike was $400.    When the sheriff's deputy came to defendant man's house, he told the deputy to get off his property.     

Defendant Jessica Starbuck is such a bad liar.  She can't even look directly at JJ, and is talking to JJ's giant desk, not JJ.    Defendant woman claims she called the local pawn shop to check the VIN numbers, and the police came to check the bike.  Defendants claim they purchased bike in April, but police went to defendant's house in March.    

 They went to mediation, and defendant man (Tim Sole) thinks Jessica 'accidentally' bought the plaintiff's dirt bike, and claims the VIN number didn't match.    The defendant is a scammer, and girlfriend is too.   

(Maybe the teen in the episode title is one of the sons of the plaintiff who are in court as witnesses, but certainly not the defendants). 

Plaintiff gets $1,000.   

I wonder if JJ's hair in the newest episode is because JJ did her own hair?   The bun was off center, and looked like I did it, and was just awful.  (I'm not great with hair styles, yes even though I'm a woman).   

Edited October 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$800,000 T-Shirt Business Dispute!

It certainly took a long time for the plaintiff to understand that she would have to make a final choice regarding lawyer's fees and that she would not get multiple bites at the apple. But the message finally got through.

The husband half on the defendant side was very confused and it seemed clear that the person who really knows what is going on with the business is his wife.

27 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Covid Infected Kitten Euthanized?!

Another ninny plaintiff, but a younger one. She had a total misunderstanding of her obligations under the contract and of her duty of care towards the animal. It was all about her, as the kitten was bought to keep her company because of COVID and at one point she asked why would she now get a replacement kitten from them, as if her need had now passed and she was ready to move on. I may be harsh, but as a non-cat person I say the little beast may be better off dead than having to live under that narcissist's rule.

She was another run-of-the mill neglectful new pet owner who did not make the effort to go to a vet and for whom the pandemic was just a convenient excuse for her laziness.

[insomniac]

I'm going to climb on the bandwagon shared (so far) by Crazy in Alabama, Schnickelfritz, and Basiltherat. . .JJ's hair is AWFUL. 

I was kind of getting used to the change, but this latest look is dreadful. 

[NYGirl]

31 minutes ago, insomniac said:

I'm going to climb on the bandwagon shared (so far) by Crazy in Alabama, Schnickelfritz, and Basiltherat. . .JJ's hair is AWFUL. 

I was kind of getting used to the change, but this latest look is dreadful. 

Not only that...when we get a nice rerun here hair is done up the old pretty way.

[badhaggis]

57 minutes ago, insomniac said:

I'm going to climb on the bandwagon shared (so far) by Crazy in Alabama, Schnickelfritz, and Basiltherat. . .JJ's hair is AWFUL. 

I was kind of getting used to the change, but this latest look is dreadful. 

It looks like she is doing her hair. No more makeup and hair department did to COVID. This might account for her looking so messy.

[SRTouch]

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

It certainly took a long time for the plaintiff to understand that she would have to make a final choice regarding lawyer's fees and that she would not get multiple bites at the apple. But the message finally got through.

The husband half on the defendant side was very confused and it seemed clear that the person who really knows what is going on with the business is his wife.

Byrd needed to boppity bop all those folks....... not sure what took P so long to just say she'd accept the ruling - I mean she was already winning and her legal fees were almost maxing thd 5 grand........ on the other side hubby needed to shut up when he saw the direction JJ was headed - he sure was fixated on the mediation being between the corporation and P, but that ship had sailed with the earlier mediator's decision - not even sure JJ has the power to set aside the other mediator's ruling. How many times/ways did JJ need your say she was going to decide based on signatures on that contract.

Quote

Another ninny plaintiff, but a younger one. She had a total misunderstanding of her obligations under the contract and of her duty of care towards the animal. It was all about her, as the kitten was bought to keep her company because of COVID and at one point she asked why would she now get a replacement kitten from them, as if her need had now passed and she was ready to move on. I may be harsh, but as a non-cat person I say the little beast may be better off dead than having to live under that narcissist's rule.

She was another run-of-the mill neglectful new pet owner who did not make the effort to go to a vet and for whom the pandemic was just a convenient excuse for her laziness.

This one had me about to come help Byrd bop P upside her head - got a Bengal kitten as a companion to get through covid?!  Lady, think of a kitten as a 15-20 year commitment - that said, she essentially had a money back guarantee for a healthy kitten had she followed the contract - covid or no, she knew about the time limit - as JJ said repeatedly, she could have modified the time limit (in writing of course) at time of purchase - truthfully, I've never paid for a cat, they just show up and somehow end up mine - if i was buying an animal where I had a certain time limit for a vet check, I'd check up the vrt appointnrnt before the appointment and before I paid money - I have a pretty good vet who has seen all my critters, but still I don't expect to walk in with a new kitten without an appointment. Ok, I use a 1 vet practice and she sees large and small animals, so part of her week is out of the office visit big animals, 1 day devoted to surgeries, she only sees dogs and cats  3 days a week. And, like JJ said, a blood draw is not usual for a new kitten check. Bottom line, buyer didn't live up to her side of contract which would have activated the quarantee - despite not being given obligated to, sellers offered to replace sick kitten, but P wanted money - P has no case, and hopefully has given up on idea of getting a kitten - entitled woman even tries to blame her failure to abide by the contract as something evil - when she finally contacts sellers her contract was no more, yet they not only tried to offer help finding best medical option for sick kitten but offered a replacement - not sure how P thinks that means they did something wrong....... otoh, I did wonder if the breeders had their cats checked when they heard the kitten was sick - the breeders cats probably do have feline coronavirus - pretty much all adult cats do. It really has no effect on cats unless the virus mutates into FIP - which is rare. Even when it mutates it usually doesn't affect adults - but cats under 2 years old are in BIG trouble. By the time an owner notices the animal is sick there isn't much chance it will survive. This sounds like what happened with this kitten.

Edited October 8, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Arkansas Handyman Hustle-Plaintiffs suing their ex-handyman for incomplete and substandard work on their home.   Defendant was hired to work on plaintiff's house in Arkansas, and is counter claiming for unpaid work.   After moving to Pennsylvania, and then moving back, house has been on the market, still is, and never sold (bet it's overpriced).   Plaintiff's witness is their real estate agent, who seems desperate to keep the listing.       Defendant was paid $2300, including $500 for materials.   Plaintiff wife is certainly unhappy about the way the case is going.   

I agree with JJ, the defendant put in plenty of work, definitely enough for $2300 worth of payment.    The plaintiff's realtor was in and out of the house a lot, and the owners never told handyman to quit.  I hate the parade of litigants that want to get all of their money back, but still had work finished.  

Plaintiff case dismissed. 

Mobile Homelessness-Plaintiff suing former friend for stealing his tools, after she let him stay in her house, use her shed for storage, and hired him for some handyman work.   If defendant wouldn't have let him live in her living room, man would have been homeless.   

Defendant says the plaintiff's daughter brought a dolly, and picked the tools up, and took them to her father.    Daughter claims she didn't pick up the expensive tools .   Plaintiff claims defendant wanted to sleep with him, and stealing the tools was retaliation for saying no to her.   

Case dismissed. 

Second-

Tinsel Town Abandonment-Plaintiff Geoffrey Wiegman ($665 requested) is suing ex-landlord over a bag of Christmas decorations that he left at her house after she (he rented in the winter, generally from December to the end of April, in California, and lives on the Cape the rest of the year) re-rented to others.   Defendant says relative of plaintiff picked up the leftover bags from her attic.   Plaintiff throws in a nasty remark about new renters (apparently Middle Eastern renters).     

Yes, plaintiff is suing over used cheapie Christmas ornaments, and small kitchen items.       He's suing for Christmas decorations, a handheld can opener, and some coffee mugs.    Plaintiff's daughter signed for the Christmas decorations already.   After the daughter picked up the stored items, defendant found another bag of cheap ornaments, and plaintiff's daughter never picked them up.   Defendant gave the leftover bags to the neighbor who was the former pet sitter to plaintiffs.  Pet sitter doesn't know where the bags went. 

Case dismissed.  After this dust up, defendant sold the house.  (I can imagine the defendant selling the house after having the plaintiff sue her over $50 worth of tinsel and other cheap stuff.    Who does the plaintiff think he is?   How dare the plaintiff treat a seasonal rental as his own home.   Storing stuff in the attic in a house he's only a seasonal renter at?)

Nothing for plaintiff. 

Courtroom Kickout-Plaintiff suing defendant for credit card dispute over motorcycle rental.   The rental in question was for $390, for three days.   Defendant made the reservation, rented the bikes, and called to cancel within twenty four hours of the original rental reservation.  Plaintiff refused to refund the money, and defendant disputed the charges, and he had the money refunded by the credit card company.   Now plaintiff is suing him for the rental costs.     

Plaintiff won't shut up, keeps talking over JJ, and gets the boot, and case dismissed.  

Edited October 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Best Used Car Contract Ever Written!-Plaintiffs suing defendant for refund on the sale of a car (Hyundai Elantra), repairs, and registration fees.   Plaintiffs purchased a craigslist car from defendant, and six weeks later they're suing.    There is a Bill of Sale, stating that on initial assessment by mechanic exceeds $1,000 in repairs, or doesn't pass smog test, then there will be a refund.   Car passed smog, and plaintiffs claim the repairs on the car are in excess of $1,000, so plaintiffs want a refund.    Air conditioner wasn't working, and plaintiffs knew that, and it cost $618 to fix a/c, three days after purchase.     Then, on July 23rd they got on the freeway, and the check engine light came on, and mechanic claimed that they needed a transmission rebuild or replacement, both are expensive, and well over $1,000 refund limit on the Bill of Sale. 

Plaintiffs sent a demand letter outlining the repair costs, and wanting a refund.  

Defendant bought the car used, and sold to plaintiffs three months later.   Defendant bought a BMW at auction, and wanted to sell the Elantra.  Plaintiffs claim there is a lien on the car, for $4640 from Advanced Auto (where she bought the Elantra from), and defendant claims she paid the lien off.     

According to contract terms, plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the purchase price of the Hyundai, $4600   Plaintiff put the contract terms in the contract, and defendant gets the car back. 

Convenience Store Crash!-Plaintiff suing fellow motorist for backing into his car in a convenience car parking lot.  Each litigant blames the other one.   2019 Honda is plaintiff's car, and he's paying on it, with insurance, and $1,000 deductible.       Plaintiff wants $5,000, and $1,000 deductible is combined with the work he had to go through to get car fixed (car was fixed six months after the accident).  Plaintiff is only going to get $1,000.   Plaintiff witness co-worker was in the car during the accident. 

Plaintiff says defendant backed out of a parking space, and hit his car.   Plaintiff was in a space, with a car in the next space, and then defendant backed up, plaintiff claims he was at a full stop, and defendant hit him with the trailer hitch on the truck driven by the defendant.   Defendant claims plaintiff hit him, and defendant also claims his insurance company found no fault by either party. 

Plaintiff, and witness say that defendant claimed he had a relative with a body shop, and they could get the car fixed right now.   However, defendant's brother works at a car dealer, and doesn't have a body shop.   Apparently, defendant backed into the front grill of the plaintiff, so drawing on easel isn't right.    Plaintiff car hood, bumper,  and front grill are ruined.    

Defendant claims he backed out of the parking space, stopped, and then plaintiff rammed into defendant's back end.     Bull, as JJ said defendant didn't see the the plaintiff's car, and backed into it.  Plaintiff says defendant gave him an out dated insurance car also. 

$1000 to plaintiff for deductible

Second (Rerun)-

Dog Grooming Trauma Caught on Tape-Not so bad, the show blurred the ear infection picture.  Woman given dog, vet says dog has too much hair in ear canal, but doesn't do anything about it, and idiot new owner doesn't ask.     (Dog doesn't seem to like something off camera, because she starts barking). 

Idiot owner takes dog to grooming shop, and apparently groomer was taught by the Marquis de Sade.    Dog groomer supposedly pulled ear hair (has to be done to prevent infections, but with hair this bad should have been done at the vet's under sedation, the way it was later) but that's not shown, tell idiot owner that dog has ear infection, so she takes dog to another vet.     Dog has a big time ear infection, needs sedation to check on ear drum rupture, and needed the ear hair pulled.   Second vet says ear infection was caused by groomer using the hose nozzle directly in the dog's ear canal.   

Groomer shown on tape using high pressure hose on dog's ears, under the flap, and could easily have injured the ear drum, and hurt the dog severely.   Defendant grooming shop owner keeps saying she was in the room during the groom, but she isn't shown on the video.    Grooming shop owner is an idiot, and claims nothing was wrong, and didn't bring groomer (I bet the groomer is gone or defendant didn't want the groomer to testify, and show how incompetent she is), and doesn't really seem to care either way.     Defendant claims dog had severe ear infection.  

The dog owner gets the grooming price, and some for vet bills, but a lot was probably caused by the ear hair.   JJ is right, the first vet that commented on ear hair and did nothing else was incompetent, but the owner not asking about the hair was stupid too.     

$450 to plaintiff for vet bills, plus the grooming cost. (PLaintiff is a bad pet owner). 

Broken Love, Broken Lease-Plaintiff wants unpaid rent from ex-girlfriend after she broke their lease.   Defendant moved out three months early, and paid nothing for those three months.     Defendant's half of rent was $644 a month.   

The defendant claims there was no verbal or written agreement to pay the lease, so my guess is someone's been watching a lot of judge shows.  Unpaid internship defendant paid nothing, but the plaintiff gets his back rent.    Defendant wasn't paying rent until she got a job, not during her unpaid internships.  

$1932 (three months times $644 a month rent) to plaintiff for back rent. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First-

Knife Fight Threat-Plaintiff claims defendant threatened him with a knife, in front of his little daughter.    Defendant apparently sees nothing wrong with taking a knife to threaten people at their home.   Defendant claims plaintiff punched his younger brother, and the threat with the knife was justified.   Defendant's younger brother can not join us in the courtroom, he's been on house arrest for months, but the actual crime isn't discussed.     (I believe JJ wants to beat both litigants up)  Plaintiff is upset because he claims the defendant and his family confronted plaintiff's eight year old daughter when she was at school, and told her they were going to beat up her father.   

Why do I have the suspicion that a search on any of the litigants, or witnesses would show it's not their first time in court.  

Case dismissed.   

Meter Fraud-Plaintiff (Diane Chapman), and adult daughters (Dumb and Dumber) are suing for meter fraud, harassment, false restraining orders.   Plaintiffs rented property for one year.   Now they're claiming the electric service was only one meter, but it was used to power one light bulb in the work shop, and trailer.  It says in the written lease that rent was reduced $50 a month to compensate for the electric bill.  Plaintiff stayed for the one year lease period.   It would be nice if plaintiff's adult daughter would stop glaring at everyone.   

Defendant did not bring paperwork about the electricity, then says it was an oral agreement.  Unfortunately, since it was an oral modification to the written contract, it's not enforceable.     Also defendant says a pre-hung door from the workshop was stolen by the plaintiff's daughter's boyfriend, and it's on camera.     

Plaintiff upset because the one daughter had a restraining order taken out on her by landlord for the entire year, that means the one daughter couldn't live in the trailer or visit.   

Personally, after seeing the daughters in court, I would never have rented to any of them.  They seem very mean.       Plaintiff claims they forged the lease, and whited out the two daughters names off of the lease, and forged the plaintiff's signature.   Fortunately, plaintiff and demon spawn, have all moved.  

In the hall-terview he sounds like every person I know that was a landlord, and had issues.  Quote "I'll burn the #### place down before I rent it again"

$600 to plaintiffs for electricity, and that's all.   However, I don't think the plaintiffs deserved a penny.   

Second-

Single Woman Snafu!-Boyfriend/plaintiff, and girlfriend/plaintiff are suing the ex-girlfriend defendant, and claim plaintiff man let her use a joint debit card, for car rental fees, towing fees, and a false restraining order.     Plaintiff man claims the defendant is a friend of many years, not a girl friend. (I don't believe the not a girlfriend story about the defendant at all).         Plaintiff girlfriend wasn't happy about lending the defendant their car.    

Plaintiff says defendant has spare vehicles, and felt sorry for the defendant, and wanted the car out his name.   The car was loaned to defendant in July, for four weeks, and then it was traded in by the plaintiff girlfriend, for another car.   When the plaintiffs broke up, they had joint cars, individual cars, and she wanted it cleared up.     

The credit card for the rental car was a joint plaintiff card, and man paid for the rental car, and he didn't discuss paying for the rental car, or loaning the other car (titled to both plaintiffs) to defendant.     Plaintiff girlfriend was really ticked about defendant/not a girlfriend's car use, and credit use.   (In my experience, using a debit card for rentals is a terrible idea, the company puts a hold on the account for a lot of money). 

Rental car fees included toll fees, $442 in collections, plus almost $243 not in collections, $212 in toll road violations, plus $90 from Hertz, rental car fees outstanding, $840.  Plaintiff man, and defendant claim the rental car was a gift.     So plaintiffs filed burglary and theft charges against the defendant.       False restraining order claim by defendant is denied by JJ.    Toll fees are still racking up on defendant's car.  

Defendant filed for restraining orders against both plaintiffs.     Defendant is a realtor (Melissa Corriveau), so the burglary, and theft charges hurt her career.     There are Facebook messages acknowledging the debt for the car, and tows, etc.     

$2038 to the plaintiffs.    

My Sister the Moocher!-Plaintiff sister, and her man bun wearing boyfriend are suing her sister for mooching.    Of course, sister claims it was all a gift.   Defendant moved out due to "a lack of disrespect" by man bun plaintiff. (That is the exact quote). 

Defendant moved in with sister, and agreed to pay rent for $500 a month, stayed for 11 months.     Defendant moved out after a verbal altercation with man bun.   Plaintiff girlfriend bought a gun membership for man bun, and they want money for a mini fridge for the defendant. 

Nothing for either set of litigants.    

[CrazyInAlabama]

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

First (New)-

Schizophrenic Roommate Nightmare!-Plaintiffs suing former landlords for illegal lockout, after they lost their jobs due to Covid, return of belongings, and partial return of rent.    Plaintiff man, and woman, plus woman's child lived in a room at defendant's house (plaintiff woman has one child with another man, and apparently is about to have another child with plaintiff)..  Arrangements were made between plaintiffs, and granddaughter of defendant.    There was no written lease.   Defendant's granddaughter was paying $3,000 a month rent to defendant landlady.   Plaintiff says there were at least 10 people living in the house when she moved in.   

Plaintiffs said they were paying $600 a month, including utilities (paid $300 every two weeks).    In October (when they moved in) they paid $600, then November, December, January, they paid $800 a month, but gave notice in early February because plaintiff man was laid off due to Covid in early February (he was a cargo handler at LAX).     Plaintiff woman was driving Lyft, and then in February she bought a used car.   

Plaintiffs claim to have been locked out February 28, and totally locked out on February 29th.   Plaintiffs paid nothing in February, and by February defendant house owner took over as house manager (her daughter moved out of state).    Plaintiff didn't like her accommodations at house, so she wants rent back.   Plaintiff woman says a fellow tenant was a schizophrenic, and was a safety hazard to her child.  

Luckily or defendant, moratoriums on evictions didn't start in February in California (It started in March, when due to Covid job loss, or something like that).   Defendant is counter claiming for one month's rent, and damages. 

Property plaintiff claims defendants stole a ring.   When plaintiffs were evicted, defendant landlady, and her daughter packed her belongings up, and gave it to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs received everything back within a week, except a ring plaintiff is still paying on.   There are pictures of the room before the pack up by defendants.   Plaintiffs intended to move out by 10 March, so nine days of illegal lockout, and they didn't pay February's rent at all.    

Defendant landlady says plaintiff woman threatened to punch defendant in the face, and taser defendant's grandson (So JJ thinks threats of violence are OK?  Wrong).    The plaintiffs didn't pay the February rent, and I bet weren't going to pay up to March 10 either.   JJ says the illegal lockout will cost the defendant from the unpaid rent for February (this makes no sense). 

Plaintiffs originally said they were leaving 1 January 2020, because she claims landlady was raising the rent to $1,000, and then changed her mind.   JJ is checking to see when California's rent moratorium started (March 27 is when it started), on whether defendants could evict plaintiffs for non-payment.  Because of the 1 January notice by plaintiffs, I think they were no longer tenants by 1 February.    

Defendants receive $800 for February rent.  

Second (Rerun)-

Children Trapped in a Skirmish-Plaintiff mother suing daughter for house damages, rental fees, and trash left behind in house.   Grandmother on father's side lived in rental house, with her daughter.    Fight between the two litigants when started when estranged husband of defendant was hired to work at plaintiff's house.   

Defendant is alleged to have assaulted her two young siblings, but no police or medical evidence is submitted, so that's dismissed.    Plaintiff claims daughter trashed the house, after mother sent her an eviction notice.   Plaintiff daughter took bedroom sets, but no receipt available.    Defendant claims she bought her own washer/dryer, but plaintiff has no receipts to prove she bought washer/dryer. 

Plaintiff alleges house damages, but doesn't have before and after pictures, just after.   Defendant claims all of the junk left behind wasn't hers, and claims she was locked out so she couldn't clean.  No unpaid rent either.   Plaintiff says locks changed in February, after lease ended.   Unfortunately, the plaintiff works for the company that gave her the receipt, and is also the company that employs the ex-husband of defendant.   

Defendant claims she left her laptop behind on move out, but that's the first thing anyone takes with them.    Defendant also claims the locks were changed days early, but plaintiff says it wasn't true.  

Defendant gets to pick up her dryer, and that's all anyone receives.  

Collision He Said, She Said-Plaintiff suing other motorist for car accident.   Mother of plaintiff was driving the car, was going straight through the signal, with a green light.  Defendant was  turning left on a green light, but without a green turn arrow, without making sure it was clear.   Mom claims she was t-boned by defendant turning without checking on clear traffic lanes.  Plaintiff's insurance company paid for his car, minus the deductible.    

Defendant's car was towed, and insurance company didn't cover the 2019 Jeep Cherokee, and dropped the insurance coverage, so he never reclaimed the car.  (No, no one understands how someone lets a brand new car go back over a $1700 impound and towing charge.  My guess is he didn't have insurance.  I bet he's one of the buyers that gets insurance on the financed or leased car, and then cancels it soon after).        

Plaintiff gets $500 deductible back, but is not getting $4500 for using Uber and Lyft, and rental cars.  I would have given the plaintiff $5,000, because I loathe the defendant that much.    

 

There is another memorial screen, Timothy Regler (He was a show producer). 

(Next week all episodes are reruns, but some are really interesting.  However, the first episode is the despicable dog owner that blames a dog attacking a disabled woman and her caregiver on the disabled woman). 

With the artwork vs. car wash case, I found a description and the plaintiff husband is a full time artist, but the wife is some kind of attorney.  

Edited October 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[One Tough Cookie]

On 10/7/2020 at 5:38 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Artwork vs. the Car Wash!-Plaintiff and wife claim the car wash workers ruined his $3,600 painting (plaintiff husband does 'interesting' art work) that was left in the vehicle's trunk

If I remember this episode correctly, the male plaintiff was lawyer?!?

[Toaster Strudel]

I have been watching Judge Judy every day for over 15 years.

The case of the couple with the guy who worked at LAX (got laid off due to COVID) and his pregnant wife was one of the most poignant illustrations of how hard it is to be working poor in the US these days. Was it always so hard? I feel like things have gotten much worse in Judge Judy Land.

They were renting a crappy room in some big flop house with 10 other roomies. Their small TV was standing on two $10 blue plastic crates. Their lease was for $600, within months they were asked $800, and out of nowhere suddenly they wanted $1000. At first they didn't get the room they were promised and slept in an open loft! All of this concluded with two adults having to go back to live with their parents.

They were getting hit from all sides. Not getting a living wage, having to do Door Dash when laid off, car breaks down, need a new car to work... these two weren't catching a break by a system rigged against workers. Always tethering on the edge of financial ruin, a regular lay off, or COVID, is all it takes to have to return to parents or live in one's car. Some people are getting obscenely rich somewhere, at the expense of people like them.

I was hoping she wasn't going to be too hard on them. Sometimes I felt like she wanted to give them her usual capitalist speech about pulling themselves by their bootstraps but stopped herself. So much hopelessness before her.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, One Tough Cookie said:

If I remember this episode correctly, the male plaintiff was lawyer?!?

Nope, the female plaintiff was the lawyer behaved as badly as lawyers usually do on these shows. I had a lot to say on this one the first time around. The "artist" asshole is completely delusional on the value of his shitty art, and rolled up his multi thousand dollar piece of art with the good side out (I have transported important drawings and you ALWAYS roll them good side in and in a tube). That clown had his crappy art rolled the risky way and without any tube or other protection. Plaintiffs were snotty self important delusional jerks

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. rerun episodes-

First-

I Don't Have Rent...Take My Car!-Plaintiff (Jacob Knott) suing former roommate (Jax Underwood)for return of security deposit, property damage, and lease breaking.    Two litigants rented the apartment together, and both were on the lease.   They were supposed to split expenses, and ran for nine months.    Defendant didn't have security and first months rent, so plaintiff paid it, and defendant claims letting plaintiff use defendant's car was equivalent.   Lease was terminated in February, and plaintiff says security wasn't returned at the end of the lease, because of damages mostly in plaintiff's room.  

There is no list of damages for security deposit (landlord's wife was in hospital), so security is sent back to local court (dismissed without prejudice) for adjudication.   Plaintiff is advised to sue landlord for the security deposit.    $300 was first month's rent for defendant, and plaintiff paid the one month.    Plaintiff wants the remainder of the lease after defendant moved out (after three months of the nine month lease).   

Plaintiff claims defendant moved out after argument over dog dumping on the floor, and it was plaintiff's dog, and not defendant's dog.   Defendant claims he let plaintiff use his car for three months, and it was worked out to the security, and first month's rent.    When defendant got a girlfriend in the next state, plaintiff was upset.   

JJ will give two months rent to plaintiff, $300 for two months. $600.   Then defendant claims there was a roommate that moved in after he moved out.   

Plaintiff receives $300.  

Who Stalked Who?!-Plaintiff (Blyth Butler-Lopez) and defendant met online, never in person.   Plaintiff claims that defendant was stalking her, because he's facebook friends with her ex-husband.    Litigants never met in person until court.    Plaintiff says defendant was advertising for a law firm for clients, and plaintiff contacted the defendant online.   

Plaintiff claims she has proof of the stalking, and friendship between defendant, and plaintiff's ex-husband.   Plaintiff claims the defendant was friends of friends on FB, and claims her ex-husband was a friend of a FB friend.   Plaintiff claims she has a ten year restraining order against the ex-husband.   Plaintiff claims defendant admitted the friendship over the phone, but defendant denies that.  

Plaintiff filed for a restraining order, and defendant had to drive seven hours each way to the restraining order hearing, and plaintiff didn't even show up in court.   Defendant is counter suing for a false restraining order, attorney fees, and travel expenses to go to the restraining order hearing.  

Plaintiff's proof of stalking is that defendant received a speeding ticket a few blocks from her home. (No, I'm not kidding about any of this).

Plaintiff claims because ex-husband, ex-brother-in-law, and defendant are all facebook friends.   Dustin Gayeta had to take two days off of work, and drive seven hours each way to go to the hearing in San Francisco (that's where she lives).   

$5000 to defendant, and plaintiff gets nothing.  Plaintiff doubles down in the hall-terview, and defendant says he never contacted her. 

Second-

Spaniel Mixed Blessings-Plaintiffs are suing former friend, and daughter, for the return of their dog, or some amount of money.     Defendants have had the dog for ten months.  

Plaintiffs (Christine Galvan)and five children, and dog, were evicted by the previous landlord (It says evicted in the sworn statement by plaintiff wife).    Defendants had the dog for a weekend before the eviction.  Plaintiff boarded the dog (for 6 weeks, at $15 a day, and boarding bill was paid), and then dog went to defendants.   Defendants took the dog after the kennel,  and say dog was matted, nails over grown, and needed a lot of vet care after the boarding kennel.   Plaintiffs only had the dog for a month before the eviction, and dog boarding.        

 Plaintiffs moved into a new townhouse, and claims the homeless shelter they were in before the town house allowed pets.  JJ tells plaintiffs to get another dog, and leave the dog with the defendants.    

Defendant mother ( Trina Cruze)asked if she could borrow the dog for a little while for experience for her daughter (Jamaica Cruze)studying animal behavior.    After plaintiffs were evicted, and dog boarded, then defendants took care of the dog for months.   Defendant says boarding kennel was just an older lady who kept the dog at her home for six weeks.     Then plaintiffs came to the defendant's block party, never even visited with the dog, and left the dog at defendant's home.   Plaintiff then claimed she wanted the dog, but never even came to visit or pick up dog, this happened over many months.   

Plaintiff wife keeps laughing.    JJ tells plaintiffs to get another dog, and I hope they didn't.   

Dodger the adorable dog never even glances at the plaintiffs.    The plaintiff husband keeps blasting JJ in the hall, saying she has no heart,   Sorry plaintiff jerk, JJ has more heart than the plaintiffs

Plaintiff case dismissed.  (My guess is the plaintiffs wanted the money, not the dog.)  Defendants keep the dog.  

Choking Scare at Day Care-Plaintiff suing day care provider for medical bills, expenses, and punitive damages.   Plaintiff's child had a sticker in his mouth, and plaintiff came to day care, saw the sticker situation, and took child for medical care. 

Baby went to ER on the first day, and says baby had fever for five days after the sticker removal.  Nothing on the medical report links the sticker removal to the fever five days later.     

Plaintiff gets $200 for the ER visit.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. recent reruns-

First-

Wailing from Disabled Ignites Dog to Attack?-Plaintiff was assisting disabled patient on the roadside, past the defendant's driveway.  When defendant's gate opened,  her German Shepherd (GSD)  dogs attacked the patient, and the caregiver.    Defendant blames the disabled patient for their vocalizations infuriating the dog, and causing the attack.   Plaintiff is suing for medical bills, and lost wages.

Defendant (Laura Bruff) claims her dogs didn't hurt the plaintiff, or her client.   Plaintiff was bitten on the thigh, and says defendant told her, and client to shut up, and defendant said they weren't hurt.   Medical records say dog bite wound on the thigh.   Defendant claims when her gate opened, that the disabled client wailed, and it upset the dog, and claims the bite never happened.   Defendant never answered animal control after multiple attempts.  

Despicable defendant claims plaintiff is a fraud, and blamed the bite (if it happened) on the disabled client's noise.  Defendant wanted plaintiff and client to go into her house, and plaintiff refused.   Plaintiff would have been a fool to go into that woman's house.   

Animal control reports were done.    Defendant claims plaintiff, and client were on her property.    Defendant in the hall-terview blames everything on plaintiff, and says she could have controlled her patient.  

$3,000 for plaintiff.  

I Didn't Go to Law school for $38 in Dirt-Plaintiff suing ex-boyfriend for a loan ($800), planter material (yes, dirt for planting), and storage fees.    As usual, defendant claims the $800 was a gift.    JJ is not dealing with potting soil.   

$800 back to plaintiff, and that's it.   

Second-

Nervy Son Sues Mother for Being Late-Plaintiff was late bringing back grandson, when she had been told the son and family had an appointment.  Plaintiff wants balance on an unauthorized account, cell phone, and some other stuff.  Plaintiff bought phone in 2015 for son, and put him on her phone plan.   

Defendant also told plaintiff that he didn't want his son around a relative with a drinking problem.   However, the grandmother did have the grandson around this drunk, and her defense is that she didn't take him around the person when the person was actually drinking.       The defendant wife was going to take the child to the movies with them, and the plaintiff was over 15 minutes late.   I bet stopping to get the grandson a Blizzard was to ruin grandson's appetite.   Also, grandmother was told to get grandson back by 1:00 p.m. at the latest, making the grandson, and mother later for the movie (movie was at the mall right before Christmas).  I bet the grandson would have been very disappointed to miss the movie too. 

I suspect letting the plaintiff back into his life was a mistake for the defendant, and my guess is that it's been remedied by now.   

I also suspect the mention by Granny Dearest about the drunk relative not being around the 'grandkid when the person was drinking' was another passive-aggressive shot at the parents.   

Also, I think there was nothing accidental about bringing the child home late, so it would ruin the movie plans for the daughter-in-law.  Grandma's comment about the son and girlfriend/wife not marrying was a low blow, and nasty as hell. 

$282 to plaintiff for phone bill.

Baby Daddy Blues-SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) bought a car with defendant (they have two kids together, and he's moved on to a wife, and three kids),   Man paid on note for three years, then they broke up, and he turned he car back in to the loan company.    Defendant claims nothing was owed on the car, but plaintiff has a bill from collections, and the loan company for $7,458.   When you turn a car back to the loan company, they send it to auction, and whatever the shortfall is on the loan, the former owner owes.   

JJ's solution was for plaintiff to give social security number, address, and employer to loan and collection company, and tell them to go after ex-boyfriend.    

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

4 p.m. reruns-

First-

Anger Mismanagement-Plaintiff (Sainted Single Mother of Five-SSMOF) suing former friend for vandalizing her car, tow fees, and the return of belongings.   From the case preview I can see the plaintiff witness is a smart aleck.   Plaintiff met defendant at anger management, and mental health classes, and allowed woman and five kids (soon to be a sixth child) to move into defendant's house.   On the day of move in, the plaintiff's five kids were taken away by CPS (The kids are with her sister).   

Plaintiff claims even before move-in, defendant broke plaintiff's car window.  Plaintiff says she left the defendant's home, but wanted her clothes back.   Plaintiff claims defendant had roaches in her house, and plaintiff can't deal with that.   Plaintiff went to defendant's house at almost noon, after a funeral party, and the plaintiff witness broke into the defendant's house.   

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

Plaintiff says defendant came out of the house naked, and carrying a stick.   Plaintiff says defendant broke her car windows, and they left.   

Defendant picks up the narrative at the start of the burglary, and JJ is hinting defendant should shut up.   As JJ says, conspiring to break in to someone's home is a crime, and next time she'll get jail time. 

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

Defendant gets $300 for her screen door. 

Ex-Con Hook-Up Hijinx-Plaintiff suing ex-con ex-boyfriend for unpaid loans.  (after looking at the defendant's hideous prison tattoos, I have to think the normal looking plaintiff is desperate, and not worried about ending up the subject of a ID channel story about her murder.   She was also endangering her two year old twins).    What the hell was the plaintiff thinking?    

Defendant's counter claim is dismissed, since his allegations that he lost his job because of plaintiff, and his parole officer was mean to him, can't be proven because the ex-boss, and parole officer aren't in court to testify.     

Defendant also says he was living with plaintiff, and that turns out to be that he stayed the night, and was told to be gone before plaintiff's parents came to her place.    Plaintiff has two year old twins, and mother was coming over to baby sit.   

Defendant did give plaintiff $1400, but claims the loans were actually gifts.    Plaintiff claims she gave defendant $2100 for a Mercedes SUV, but he only repaid $1400, still owes $700.   Plaintiff paid $241 to the dentist.  (I bet the ever hunky and protective Officer Byrd wasn't playing a crossword puzzle during this case).   Plaintiff got an emergency restraining order, and permanent order case is pending.  

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

Second-

Mean Girls Stage an Intervention-Plaintiffs (three roommates) suing their former roommate/defendant for unpaid rent.   Defendant plead guilty to the assault, and one defendant has a retraining order against defendant.     This case ended in an assault, an arrest, and a plea bargain.    The four litigants were apartment college roommates, and two months later the three plaintiffs did an 'intervention' on defendant who they said was drinking, drugging,  and partying too much, and not cleaning apartment enough.         Plaintiffs say it was an intervention in their sworn statement to court, but now they say it was just a conversation.   

 The three loons did their 'intervention', and claim defendant shoved one plaintiff off of her chair, after plaintiff cursed at defendant.    Police were called, and two were arrested, and defendant took a plea deal, so defendant's counter claim for lawyer fees, etc., is dismissed.   (Defendant is not the brightest either). 

Defendant's mother says the plea deal, and guilty plea wasn't a guilty plea, and yes it is.   Plaintiff that was assaulted, received a restraining order against defendant after the guilty plea.    Defendant moved out, and didn't come back.   Plaintiff withdrew the protective order, so plaintiffs could get their five months rent (if the restraining order was in place, the defendant couldn't move back, and wouldn't owe rent).     So plaintiff coven of b-$*%&$# want the five months rent, because technically defendant could have moved back in. As JJ says, nice try, but it won't work. 

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

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

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

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

[CrazyInAlabama]

5 p.m. reruns-

First-

Racing Motorcycle Rip-Off-Plaintiff suing mechanic for fraud, saying that mechanic didn't use original parts on plaintiff's racing motorcycle the plaintiff wrecked.    In the photo, it shows zip ties on the bike.    Plaintiff gave mechanic $3500, with a total of $5,000. 

 When plaintiff came to pick up motorcycle he was unhappy with the defendant's work, police said to pay the mechanic and then sue him.    Plaintiff's accident case is still pending in court, and plaintiff alleges that other driver was at fault, however, plaintiff can't discuss that part of the case. 

 Plaintiff wants to be paid for the mechanic's work, but wants the other driver to pay him for the motorcycle too.       JJ is convinced it's two different cases.    There are photos of the pre-accident bike, the wrecked bike, and the after photos of the repair.   The wiring harness is zip tied to the bike!     The original parts are ordered only from Honda, but plaintiff claims after market cheap parts were used.   

Plaintiff had another estimate that was much more expensive, and defendant was cheaper.      When you ask for a cheaper repair, you get cheaper parts.      Motorcycle is being driven, and plaintiff is still whining.   I don't think the plaintiff made a legitimate case for the repair being separate from the payment from the original accident, I think the repair should have been paid for by the accident payout, because that's where the damages came from.  

Case dismissed.  

Second-

My Yard is Not Your Pet's Bathroom!-Plaintiff suing neighbor (two houses down) defendant over property damage from dog, defendant only fesses up, after video shown.    There is a lot of damage to the yard from dog urine.   The harassment by the defendant started after plaintiffs were granted a TRO against the next door neighbor (neighbor is the defendant's witness), between the litigants' houses.  Plaintiffs have a Ring doorbell video of the off leash dog nailing the yard.    There are numerous still photos of the defendant and his dog on the plaintiff's property. 

My guess is that next door neighbor the plaintiffs have a TRO against, and dog walker are buddies, and he's helping the witness/neighbor harass them.   As JJ says, one dog nails a yard, then others will too, and the defendant knew that, and the neighbor with the TRO against them knew that.  

My guess is the next door neighbor, and the dog owner will never stop, and plaintiffs need to move if they can. 

 $2.045 to plaintiffs, to repair the lawn. 

Speeding Away With Identity Theft!?-Defendant borrowed plaintiff's ID, because he loses his ID all of the time.    Defendant used the plaintiff's ID when he received a speeding ticket, driving 56 in a 35 mph zone.   A warrant was issued for the plaintiff, and he was arrested in the TSA line at the Atlanta airport (he works at the airport).       Plaintiff couldn't work at the airport until the case was cleared up.   

$1000 for the plaintiff.  

(Next Monday all four JJ's will be preempted by NFL football in my area.   What a blow we've all been dealt (TM Jenny 90 Day fiance).   

[missnoa]

On 10/9/2020 at 4:53 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

I have been watching Judge Judy every day for over 15 years.

The case of the couple with the guy who worked at LAX (got laid off due to COVID) and his pregnant wife was one of the most poignant illustrations of how hard it is to be working poor in the US these days. Was it always so hard? I feel like things have gotten much worse in Judge Judy Land.

They were renting a crappy room in some big flop house with 10 other roomies. Their small TV was standing on two $10 blue plastic crates. Their lease was for $600, within months they were asked $800, and out of nowhere suddenly they wanted $1000. At first they didn't get the room they were promised and slept in an open loft! All of this concluded with two adults having to go back to live with their parents.

They were getting hit from all sides. Not getting a living wage, having to do Door Dash when laid off, car breaks down, need a new car to work... these two weren't catching a break by a system rigged against workers. Always tethering on the edge of financial ruin, a regular lay off, or COVID, is all it takes to have to return to parents or live in one's car. Some people are getting obscenely rich somewhere, at the expense of people like them.

I was hoping she wasn't going to be too hard on them. Sometimes I felt like she wanted to give them her usual capitalist speech about pulling themselves by their bootstraps but stopped herself. So much hopelessness before her.

In my opinion, she has just been a lot meaner and less patient overall with everyone for awhile now. It's like she can't wait to be done and is just sick of everyone. I am with you though, it sounded like there was literally nothing that couple could have done differently and she still was short and I agree that it seemed like she wanted to "bootstraps" them but couldn't because again, they were literally doing everything they could in the pandemic.