All Episodes Talk: All Rise

DoctorK · December 11, 2020

4 hours ago, Bobby88 said:

JJ's lack of consistency that frustrates me the most.

Same here. I am roughly in her age bracket but I really can't cut her slack, if you can't do the job, it is time to retire. It happened to me, I hated to be in an office or cubicle but loved being out in the field, but at some point you have to realize that you just can't do it anymore. For me, that was at 60 years old.

Edited December 11, 2020 by DoctorK
spelling

LetsStartTalking · December 11, 2020

12 hours ago, pagooey said:

In these forums, "Edited to add". 🙂

Thanks! I never knew that !!

One Tough Cookie · December 11, 2020

10 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Same here. I am roughly in her age bracket but I really can't cut her slack, if you can't do the job, it is time to retire. It happened to me, I hated to be in an office or cubicle but loved being out in the field, but at some point you have to realize that you just can't do it anymore. For me, that was at 60 years old.

Same here. I was laid off in 2008 and looked fruitlessly for several years until my husband said you might as well Get SS since it's not gonna happen for you. And I bless him every snowy or or rainy morning when I can just roll over and go back to sleep no matter how much I loved my students.

LetsStartTalking · December 11, 2020

On 12/10/2020 at 6:50 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. first one new 2020, second one 2020 rerun-

First (2020)-

Take Shorter Showers!-Plaintiff Steven Weiss paid for son's (Dylan Weiss) rented room at defendant Apawari Martins' house. Plaintiff wants return of security deposit, and rent increase, by $100 a month, and wrongful eviction. Defendant says plaintiff father claimed son would get a job, and claims son was running a business out of the house, impacting utilities, and businesses aren't allowed in residential areas. Defendant son claims he had to sign the agreement, but JJ thinks the defendant signed the agreement, committing forgery. However, son claims he signed the contract, and addendum. (Sadly, another parent who wants others to put up with their adult child, instead of having them live with them. The father couldn't live with the son, [or maybe the new wife or girlfriend didn't want to cope with him], so other people are supposed to? ALso, father lied that son was going to be employed, and he wasn't then, and still isn't, unless his online services are really paying well. Personally, I don't like plaintiff father).

Son/plaintiff isn't sure if he ever signed the contract, and addendum or not. However, son kept paying the higher amount, so that sounds like a contract to me. (I studied law at the school of Law & Order, JJ, and The People's Court, so I know everything). If son isn't competent to sign contracts and pay bills, then how is he competent to live alone? Son also is supposed to have several web services companies too. Plaintiff son cut back on utilities use, so $100 increase was lowered to $50 for utilities, making rent plus utilities $750. Plaintiff father claims he didn't talk to defendant about the rent increase, just his son.

Then defendant gave plaintiff son eviction notice. According to defendant, plaintiff son took very long showers, and was in the home 24/7, using more utilities. Plaintiff father wants 11 days rent back (not happening).

Rent increase dismissed. Defendant is showing damages. This isn't going to go well for the defendant. Fair Housing court said plaintiff wasn't entitled to security deposit back, so why is JJ rehearing another adjudicator's decision? JJ wants to see the estimate, which is $800. However, I think the stucco corner had to be patched, and painted, not just painted.

$600 to plaintiff for the security deposit.

Plaintiff Dylan Weiss, 23, is a great example of the 'unwashed and unclean' generation which has permeated our culture. I should know, as I work with many Dylans every day at the College which I'm employed at. So here's my take:

I don't believe he took 'long showers every day', as a matter of fact I don't believe he took many. These young adults belong to the generation which roam around our communities looking like they just rolled out of bed, didn't do laundry, and didn't bathe. I see it every single day on campus - it's the 'accepted' look. The clothes of choice are 'work out clothes' (though they don't work out), pajama bottoms, sweatshirts and slippers. They go to class that way, they show up for on-campus jobs that way, they socialize that way. It's worse with the pandemic.

I don't believe he was working from his room, running a business like the landlord claimed. Not at all. However I do believe he had big-screen computer monitors running all hours of the day and nigh which jacked up the utility bills. So what was he doing? No doubt, like all the 223 year old Dylans across the country - he's a professional 'gamer'. Again, I know through the experience of working with these kids every day.

In their free time (and in Dylan's case, he has only free time since he never left his room), they 'game' constantly. They have three or four computers - plus their iPhones and iPads - playing different electronic games and opponents at once (electronic chess is a hot new trend), This is what they do 24 / 7. I know kids who go back to their rooms or off-campus apartments on a Friday and 'game' all weekend, with little sleep. They live off 'Red Bull' and other power drinks, and just game. They do this each school night, also - after they set aside an hour for homework, they 'game' all night and sleep very little (and they tell me this!). It's quite an addiction, unfortunately. Some kids can't wait to graduate so they can become 'professional gamers' ; not sure how they can make money at this, but that's what they want in life.

So that's my take - it wasn't said, but this jibroni was definitely a 'gamer', and his father was supporting this addiction.

ETA (now that I know what that means! LOL): I should point out ythere are two physical types of these 'gamers' both male and female. If they are living off of 'Red Bulls' and 'Monster' power drinks, they have the 'rebel' emaciated, skeletal look (complete with tattoos). If they are living off of Mountain Dew (to replace the power drinks), Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, KFC and dozens of rubbery hot dogs from 7-11 each night, they look like the 23 year old plaintiff.

Edited December 14, 2020 by LetsStartTalking

parrotfeathers · December 11, 2020

Every time I see one of these entitled child/parent episodes on JJ and especially Dr. Phil it remind me how glad I am I didn't have kids.

CrazyInAlabama · December 11, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Unwed Parents Feud!-Plaintiff Telisa Jackson SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) suing her former boyfriend, Steven Johnson for car damage when he wrecked her car. Defendant claims plaintiff took money out of his account without his permission, after they broke up. He says she forged his signature on the receipt saying he had been repaid the $800. Most loans were taken out when they were living together, so that's gone.

Plaintiff also loaded his clothes he left behind at her place into her car, drove to his new place, and poured bleach on the clothes in front of the new girlfriend. Nothing to plaintiff for car damage, since they lived together for months after that happened, and defendant had her permission to drive the car.

$800 to defendant for the bank withdrawal.

Twin Sisters Huge Settlement?!-Plaintiff Tyra Evans Johnson, suing twin sister, Trina Shaw over an unpaid loan. After their mother's death, both received huge settlements. $149,000 to plaintiff, and $100,000 to the defendant. Defendant took out $50,000 in loans in anticipation of getting the settlement. (If defendant doesn't stop swaying from side to side, I'm going to barf), Defendant is doing a four year college degree program for criminal justice, but is getting federal loans ($9,000 per year) that she will have to repay.

Plaintiff loaned $1500 the first month. Plaintiff told defendant to go to her bank, and withdraw what she put in investments (retirement account) but defendant claims the money was confiscated by the bank. Why do I suspect the $100k defendant received is long gone?

Plaintiff has a husband, and son, has a good job, her disabled husband has a couple of part time jobs, and the son is graduating soon, and they have their own house. Defendant is living with some friend.

$2074 to plaintiff for unpaid loans. As plaintiff says in hall-terview, "The bank is closed", my guess is defendant only will call or visit when she wants more money.

Second (2017)-

Remodel Fail in Old Hickory, Tennessee-Plaintiffs Alton Billings, and wife Roshell Smith hired defendant, Kyle Gibson, to do remodeling work, and they're suing for breach of contract. Defendant was paid $3,000. Another $1,000 defendant was paid by check, that plaintiffs paid him, and then stopped the check/money order. Defendant, and plaintiff witness tried to help settle this matter, but not after suit was filed. Defendant's counter suit is for unpaid money.

According to contract, the work had to be substantially completed, but no specific deadline was mentioned. JJ mentions that the $4,000 that was going to be paid to contractor for a long list of remodeling work. Total price was supposed to be $7500, but only $3,000 was paid (minus the $1000 money order defendant revoked).

It also cost plaintiffs $14,000 to finish the remodeling job. Defendant had a signed initial contract with plaintiffs, but their change orders were not written down, and signed by all parties.

Plaintiff gets nothing. $1,000 to defendant.

Woman's Weak Defense-Plaintiff Britnee Pinkston is suing her former roommate, Sarah Ward, for return of her rent, and security deposit, and punitive damages. Plaintiff says she gave her portion of the rent to defendant, but defendant didn't pay the landlord, and plaintiff won't get her security deposit either. Defendant claims the lease expired in February, but had signed another 1 year lease, that didn't take effect until the month the defendant moved out. Defendant move out with her then boyfriend, and didn't pay the landlord for February, or give notice to landlord, or plaintiff.

Defendant says plaintiff gave her plaintiff's part of the rent money for gas. The audience giggles, and JJ and Officer Byrd don't shush anyone. JJ's glare at defendant is epic.

The only cleaning on security deposit was rug cleaning. The rest of the charges from security are for unpaid rent.

$810 to plaintiff.

Edited December 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · December 11, 2020

On 12/11/2020 at 2:23 PM, LetsStartTalking said:

don't believe he took 'long showers every day', as a matter of fact I don't believe he took many. These young adults belong to the generation which roam around our communities looking like they just rolled out of bed, didn't do laundry, and didn't bathe. I see it every single day on campus - it's the 'accepted' look. The clothes of choice are 'work out clothes' (though they don't work out), pajama bottoms, sweatshirts and slippers. They go to class that way, they show up for on-campus jobs that way, they socialize that way. It's worse with the pandemic.

So much this. I'm hand-handicapped so please bear with me. What happened to the concept of looking , ya know, NICE? Before the pandemic we used to go to the theater and concerts in NYC and I am appalled at how people show up--shorts,u neckline tank tops sandals. How much effort would it take to put together a clean, presentable outfit? I'm not talking expensive, but come on people, make an effort. A student of mine (ouch) recently opened a fine dining restaurant and I think it is an insult to the owners to show up looking like a slob. Comb your damn hair make sure your clothes are clean and presentable.

There's nothing I like more than going out--the preparation, the dress up and girly things-- Little black dress with a string of pearls is always appropriate.. Maybe it's not someone elses cup of tea, but seriously--doesn't someone know when their cloths smell?

Edited December 13, 2020 by One Tough Cookie

CrazyInAlabama · December 11, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both 2020-

First (2020)-

Man Suffers Rabies Shots After Attack? (2020)-Plaintiff Daniel Swanner suing Sonja Barnes, defendant after her 'rescued' stray Pit Bull mix attacked, and plaintiff had to get rabies shots. The attack was caught on video by the apartment security tape. Plaintiff was walking his year old puppy, adopted from animal control, and dog was up to date on shots, and on leash. Defendant claims Pit mix was a stray, and followed her home months before the attacks. Defendant's dog bit plaintiff, and dog, and they both had to get rabies shots.

Defendant did not take dog to vet for shots, but did check for a chip, but dog didn't have a chip, and no shots. Defendant claims she found dog on other side of town, and that's where she claims she posted lost dog fliers.

On May 8th plaintiff took his puppy for a walk, and puppy had harness and leash on, and completed his walk, and came into the lobby. In the lobby, the defendant's dog came down the interior stairs, and attacked without warning. Defendant's fiance Mr. Smith, was taking dog for a walk, Mr. Smith says plaintiff's dog was in heat, and claims dogs were playing, but not attacking. Mr. Smith claims defendant's dog got out of the collar when they arrived in the lobby.

Plaintiff had broken skin on his arm, but other bites were more minor. Plaintiff had to have four shots in the arm, for rabies. Defendant dog is much bigger than plaintiff's 78 lb. dog. Defendants are whining because Pit mix was put down by animal control, after they quarantined the dog. Defendant witness claims animal control would keep dog and they could get dog out. Defendant went to a doctor who wrote the dog was an Emotional Support Animal. Then the assistant manager at the apartment complex said defendant dog was not allowed back (they can ban ESA's if they have a record of being vicious, the way the defendant's dog did. I would have bounced the defendant's dog when it was discovered that it had no rabies shots).

Rabies shots costs were covered by Medicare. Plaintiff couldn't afford to take his dog to the vert.

Pictures from security camera show plaintiff's dog on leash, and defendant dog off leash. Defendant claims they have no ill will toward plaintiff, but plaintiff says they tried to get management to evict him.

$3,000 to plaintiff.

Caregiver Turned Thief? (2020)-Plaintiff Annette Watson is suing former caregiver Judy Stolte for stealing belongings from her, and an illegal eviction. Defendant was paid $1,000 a month by the state government to give care to plaintiff, however, defendant doesn't look like she's capable of taking care of herself, let alone anyone else. Both litigants look fragile.

Plaintiff was in a shelter, and now lives in another shelter, in her own room. At defendant's place, defendant was paid $1,000 by the state, in lieu of rent, for caregiving for plaintiff. Paying for caregiving isn't the same as getting subsidized rent, so both litigants are liars.

At Stolte's home, plaintiff didn't have a room, but slept on the living room couch. Plaintiff did all of the cooking, and defendant occasionally took plaintiff to shop for food.

JJ is not happy that plaintiff figured out a way to get state to pay defendant as a caregiver, which was really renting the couch, and it sounds like the plaintiff did the work, and not the defendant. All of this happened two years ago, so plaintiff's claim was way out of date.

(In the hall-terview, plaintiff said, "I don't know if I'm going to let this case go", someone needs to explain the agreement she signed to come on the show. That remark by plaintiff changed my view of who was the scammer in this case, and it wasn't the defendant, who wasn't innocent either).

Case dismissed.

Second (2020)-

Tinder Date Disaster!-Plaintiff Bailin Hummitsch (Sainted Single Mother of Two, two children 6 months, and 18 months old) SSMOT suing her ex-boyfriend, Mason McNatt 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 further 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. With working before the school year, and after, a lot of 9 months jobs are more like 11 or 12, with pay spread out through every month, and so the employee gets benefits, such as health insurance, year round).

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 house she rented, even though he never paid rent at all. I really want to know how someone who was so behind on rent at her first apartment gets a second lease at another apartment (I bet that was one of the short term furnished apartments, extended stay), and then a house? 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, or a background check). This idiot plaintiff SSMOT tiny toddlers thought this man would get a job? Plaintiff borrowed $5,000 from her sister, to pay the rent debt.

Landlord wouldn't take defendant off lease early, because then he can go after both people on the lease. Defendant moved in with mommy, and now lives in an apartment with his new girlfriend. Defendant splits the rent with his new girlfriend. Current landlord will only let plaintiff stay if her rent is current, and her income is adequate to support the rent and utilities (that's my guess, and I'm betting the landlord saw this case, and decided not to renew her lease).

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). How does this woman get three subsequent landlords to let her move in while owing thousands on her previous apartments? It sounds like she's screwing a third landlord over too.

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.

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 Karl Kohl suing former landlord, Deborah Dixon, 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.

I can't stand the defendant, and love JJ's hatred for this woman (only in this case).

Plaintiff receives his security deposit $1650.

Edited December 12, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · December 12, 2020

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, both 2020-

Caregiver Turned Thief? (2020)-Plaintiff Annette Watson is suing former caregiver Judy Stolte for stealing belongings from her, and an illegal eviction. Defendant was paid $1,000 a month by the state or federal government to give care to plaintiff, however, defendant doesn't look like she's capable of taking care of herself, let alone anyone else. Both litigants look fragile. Plaintiff was in a shelter, and now another she lives in, alone. At defendant's place, defendant was paid $1,000 by the state, in lieu of rent, for caregiving for plaintiff. At Stolte's home, plaintiff didn't have a room, but slept on the living room couch.

Plaintiff did all of the cooking, and defendant occasionally took plaintiff to shop for food.

JJ is not happy that plaintiff figured out a way to get state to pay defendant as a caregiver, and this happened two years ago.

Case dismissed

That was rather insulting for JJ to tell that woman she didn't look like she could take care of herself. For what reason ? If she's not happy with the scam the plaintiff played, so be it. No need to insult the defendant that way.

CrazyInAlabama · December 14, 2020

4 p.m. both reruns-

First (2017)-

Landlord Lock Out-Plaintiff/former Harold Barnes, kind of tenant suing former landlady Peggy Howell for illegal eviction, loss of property,. Plaintiff's witness is his estranged wife, also Dusty Sr. (I'll call her Dusty Sr., and her daughter is Dusty Jr. ) and wife was the legal tenant. However, landlady knew plaintiff was living there on and off with estranged wife. Landlady is counter suing for shed materials, back rent, and that's tossed,

Landlady claims man was an illegal tenant, and she had every right to lock him out. Landlady claims she didn't know plaintiff moved back, but she sometimes employed him as a handyman to build the shed for her. Defendant's counter claim about the shed is tossed. Plaintiff witness/estranged wife, was moving out as of a certain date, and two days later the defendant changed the locks.

Landlady claims the plaintiff changed the house locks, not her. Plaintiff claims he changed the door knob, but not the locks. Plaintiff witness/ex-wife complains in text that locks were changed, but then says that plaintiff changed the locks. Plaintiff witness could still get into the house.

Defendant is not getting back rent, and accepted rent from both plaintiffs, even though man was never on lease. Legal tenant (plaintiff witness) gave 30 days notice to landlady, and she says plaintiff also said he was moving out. Plaintiff estranged wife's daughter (Dusty) claims she helped move man's property out, with the plaintiff's wife's help, and put them in the shed at the house. Plaintiff witness claims the landlady's husband, and maintenance man moved plaintiff's property to the shed.

Landlady's witness that helped plaintiff witness move out plaintiff's property, is Dusty Jr. the (the plaintiff witness/estranged wife/former tenant) witness's daughter. Plaintiff seems shocked to find out his wife Dusty Sr., is the mother of Dusty Jr., the defendant's witness. Plaintiff witness/mother keeps weeping through the whole case.

$5,000 to plaintiff for illegal eviction.

Wronged Man Returns for Justice-Plaintiff Augustine Evans suing defendant Reginald Burkett over a traffic accident. The defendant's insurance company already said the plaintiff was at fault, but he thinks JJ will reverse that (apparently he never watched this show before agreeing to appear). Plaintiff is suing for $250 for his insurance deductible. Plaintiff's insurance paid plaintiff for his totaled car, and he had $250 deductible from that amount. Defendant was driving a 1991 Toyota, plaintiff was driving a 1997 Acura.

The front of defendant's car hit the back of the plaintiff's car (defendant's wild tie, and matching shirt is amazing), so it sounds like the accident was plaintiff's fault. Plaintiff claims defendant ran a red light, and hit plaintiff in the rear from the side. Defendant is standing there with his mouth wide open in amazement at the plaintiff's testimony. Defendant claims he thought plaintiff hit him. Defendant says he was going straight across the intersection, and plaintiff hit him (it scares me that drivers like the defendant are out there on the roads, he's a hazard).

Photos show the defendant's car front hit the back passenger side of plaintiff's car. Plaintiff is suing because his car only had the bare minimum insurance coverage, and he didn't get anything for his car. Defendant actually claims the plaintiff slid sideways into his car.

Plaintiff receives $250, and defendant is still deluded. Defendant's hall-terview is bizarre, and he still claims the plaintiff was driving like a NASCAR wannabe, and hit him.

Second (2017)-

Pomeranian Custody Battle-Plaintiff /daughter Elaine Wales is suing defendant /mother Betty Donnelly, for the return or value of a purebred Pomeranian. Plaintiff says one dog is hers, but defendant took custody of the second Pom. when the ne'er-do'well daughter went to jail again. Mother bought two dogs, and daughter claims mother gave her the one dog, and she kept the dog for two years, but also claims the mother gave her the second Pom. Daughter claims second Pom didn't get along with mother's five other dogs.

In 2013-2014 defendant moved into a trailer owned by her father, and stepfather moved into the trailer too. In 2014 plaintiff gave the male Pom to her stepfather to keep the dog for her, because she could only take one dog on her move to Denver. (I have totally lost track of who lives where, who had custody of the dog, or who owns what home). Mobile home that plaintiff lived in belongs to the father, not defendant or the stepfather (stepfather also lived there, with plaintiff and her then boyfriend).

Then plaintiff moves back to the home city, and wanted the second Pom back from the defendant, and defendant still has the dog as of the court case.

Plaintiff gets the second Pom back, per Judge Judy. Mother/defendant says in court that she's not giving the dog back to daughter.

Here's one case I wish there was an update about what happened to the dog.

Day Care Serial Conman-Plaintiff Diane Gillett suing former day care customer Johnell Parker for non-payment. Defendant has full physical custody, and joint custody with the child's mother. JJ wants to know former child care provider, and he was terminated as a customer, for non-payment. JJ decides that defendant is a deadbeat child care customer. Plaintiff wants $25 a day for watching defendant's child for 10 days total. Fatima was the previous child care provider, and defendant claims he wasn't behind on child care services (he's lying).

Defendant said that he was enrolling his child in a Crystal Stairs program, and claimed to be a single father, but child's mother went with him. (Crystal Stairs is a non-profit that gives low income families on public assistance, attending job training, or job hunting, child care assistance. If the person has not been on public assistance, then they can get on a list for child care, but that list is really long, so no way defendant would qualify).

Plaintiff receives $250 for the two weeks of child care services she provided.

Edited December 14, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 14, 2020

5 p.m. both reruns-

First (2019)-

Blind Man's Outrageous Request-Uber driver Kimyade Johnson is suing blind customer, Darrell Bowles II, for complaining about her to Uber. Plaintiff drove defendant to Sonic, he ordered at the parking slot, and defendant forgot his debit card, and had no cash, but he had other cards on him. Defendant asked driver to pay for the ride and his food, and then didn't pay her back. Defendant wanted driver to pay for ride, and food for him.

Defendant says plaintiff threatened to file police charges, and instead of paying her back, he called Uber and filed a complaint. Two negative reports were made to Uber, by defendant. Defendant finally paid woman back, but did nothing about the complaints. Defendant called the police whining about someone expecting him to pay them back.

Plaintiff gets $586, and defendant is a total jerk.

Service Dog Attacked in Coffee Shop-Defendant's (Pamela Stallings) dog (coffee shop owner) attacked plaintiff's (Mingje Zhai) dog at a coffee shop. Defendant's dogs were on leashes, but no one was holding the leashes. but defendant claims it was the plaintiff's fault. The defendant's dogs are Lab/Pit mixes. about two years old. Personally, most service dogs I've seen are a bit bigger than the 10 lb. Papillon the plaintiff has, but they do all kinds of jobs, Foxy is one cute dog, and really likes Officer Byrd.

Plaintiff claims both of defendant's dogs bit her service dog. Defendant claims plaintiff opened door to coffee shop, and threw her service dog inside, so her dogs attacked. That's the most outrageous thing I've heard in a long time. Dogs were seldom at the coffee shop. Defendant tells the ludicrous story about how it happened, and she's absolutely lying.

Defendant should have paid the vet bills, and hoped no one would tell animal control what happened. I hope animal control took action about this, and you're not allowed to have pets in food prep areas, so I hope the health department did also. Defendant claims that only one of her dogs bit the plaintiff's dog. Defendant was happy about the decision, because Byrd pays the money, not her.

Plaintiff gets $2100.

Second (2018)-

Black Mold Mess!-Plaintiffs Carly Londell and Alexandra Tabetznick suing former roommates Tori Laugell and Logan Piel for breaking the lease on the apartment, which was $2580 a month for a two bedroom. Apartment complex put all of them up in a hotel to remove the mold, for black mold, dust, and dirt. Defendants said they were signed off of the lease by the apartment complex, but they moved out on the 31st of a month, Defendants left the plaintiffs on the hook for April's rent, but claim they put online ads for a new roommate, or roommates. This was filmed in May, and no new roommate yet.

Defendants claim they found another roommate, but no one has moved in yet. Defendants are counter claiming for harassment for their portion of the rent for April.

$1250 for rent to plaintiffs.

Grocery Store Romance Sours-Plaintiff Felicia Novoa suing former girlfriend Alicia Hufnagel for $1500 for a car loan. Defendant says until they broke up that it wasn't a loan. ANother case of the poor phone going to it's reward, and everything going bye-bye. However, plaintiff never pressed for payment, or set up a payment schedule. Defendant did pay $300 to plaintiff, so it's a loan. Plaintiff and defendant talked, and plaintiff gave the $300 back to pay her bills.

$1500 to plaintiff.

SRTouch · December 15, 2020

Hmmmm, think I may be getting some unique reruns on another local channel. If no one else is seeing these I'll stop writing about them. These are episodes shown without any information or original air date - from before the hairdo change, but recent enough that I recognize them.

1st case was the big strapping young airport worker who stole/pawned a bunch of defibrillators and aircraft headsets. He's already been found guilty and ordered to pay restitution to the airport/airline, and today the pawn shop owner is here suing for reimbursement of what the shop paid for the stolen equipment...... pawn shop owner and employee not at ALL likeable, very iffy case where dude wants reimbursement for stuff police confiscated as stolen - but can't tell JJ what law enforcement confiscated - thief also not exactly sympathetic, but at least he's admitting he stole the stuff - problem with his side is his mouthy sidekick who keeps chiming in. Case dismissed

2nd case crazy car deal where P paid 18 grand for Mercedes when seller still owed several thousand....... P here trying to convince JJ that seller was essentially giving him the car and was going to keep making payments......... P argues he was never told there was an outstanding balance (in hallterview he admits he was told there were 'a few payments' left on loan) and that seller provided bogus title........ enough unanswered questions that JJ sends case back to local courts

Edited December 15, 2020 by SRTouch

CrazyInAlabama · December 15, 2020

That's the rerun I get at 4 p.m. Most of them are 2017, at least recently. I can only tell the date because when I search to see if I already wrote about it, or anyone else did, then the IMDB listing comes up, or on Titan TV's listings it gives the date. The 4 p.m. reruns I get have all been 2017 recently. However, on the new episodes, the second case is often any time from 2012 to 2016, and only occasionally does JJ give enough clues so I can figure out when they aired originally.

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Defibrillator Pawn Shop Shocker-Plaintiff/pawn shop owner Daniel Risis suing defendant Joseph Frazier for pawning stolen property. Defendant took a plea on the theft charges too. Defendant pawned 20 aviation head sets, and 9 defibrillators (theft of portable defibrillators is a big issue, endangering lives). Defendant made restitution to the airport for the thefts.

Police confiscated 4 defibrillators, and 20 head sets, and pawn broker wants his money back, but has no proof of the numbers confiscated. (Interesting note, Daniel Risis owns 11 pawnshops, called Perfect Pawn in NJ, so I can imagine it is hard to keep up with the number of items taken by the police. I bet the police don't keep up with their paperwork back to the pawn shop owner).

Defendant claims the pawn shop called the police. Plaintiff claims the police came by the stores, and confiscated the items. Items weren't pawned, but bought out right by the pawn shops. JJ is ticked the pawn shop didn't call police. However, calling the police only works when a theft report was filed, and no one said that happened.

However, I bet the police caught the thieving defendant, and he told them where he sold the property, then the police visited, and confiscated. Defendant's witness just interrupted, and got the glare of death. Plaintiff claims defendant said his late grandfather had airplanes, and that's where everything came from.

(I don't like the pawn shop owner, but I doubt he bought anything from defendant himself, he owns way too many pawn shops for that to happen, but the defendant is a thief, and a jerk. Why did I suspect the plea bargain was a real deal for the defendant, and he learned nothing about stealing).

Plaintiff case dismissed.

Mercedes-Benz Deal of the Century-Plaintiff Gerald Washington Jr is suing defendant Anthony Widner over the purchase of a 2008 Mercedes C300, plaintiff wants his money back. Byrd's Blue Book 2011 says $11.200, but plaintiff paid $18,000 for the car. Plaintiff paid the asking price of $18000 in 2011, and it was repossessed in 2018. Defendant brought his own old Blue Book, saying the car value was $28000 in 2011.

Plaintiff says the car title is fake. Defendant claims it was $18k down, and plaintiff would make the payments remaining on the car ($6,000 plus interest up to now). In 2011 plaintiff still owed $6,000, plus interest. This would have given the plaintiff a $28k car, for $24k.

Plaintiff claims the $18,000 car payment was complete, and that he didn't know about $6,000 remaining on the car loan. The car title has the lien company misspelled on the title, and it has the defendant's home address as the car lien company.

JJ sends them back to local court, which since they live in separate states, mean plaintiff is SOL unless they want to file and pursue this in the other state.

Second (2017)-

Couch-Surfing Son Sued by Mother-Plaintiff/mother Tela Morton suing defendant/son Michael Whitmore, for damage to her car, impound fees, and lost wages, for wrecking her car. Defendant plead guilty to 'failing to maintain a lane'. Defendant was living with mother for about a year before the wreck, accident happened in the middle of the night.

Plaintiff claims car was insured on the date of the accident, but son says car wasn't insured. Defendant didn't have a license on him at the time of the accident, and didn't have one, and went to jail on an alias. Defendant was charged with removing tags from car, and had expired registration.

Car was registered in Missouri, but accident happened in Georgia, and plaintiff and son, didn't register car in Georgia (she lived there 10 months). You have to get insurance to the address you live at, and it has to be a company that operates in that state. Insurance didn't fix plaintiff's car, because defendant wasn't on her insurance (her insurance was American Family, and they don't operate in Georgia. I used to have the same insurance). Plaintiff claims she only lived in Georgia for a month before the accident, and son lived with her, but they actually lived there for ten months before the accident.

Plaintiff did not have valid insurance when the accident happened. Plaintiff is raising son's child (child is 10 now, and grandmother has raised him since he was 2), and only gets food stamps (from Missouri. at least until this case aired). I guess she doesn't change her address with states for the child's benefits either. JJ advises the mother to have authorities in Georgia garnish the son's wages for his child support.

$1500 to plaintiff. (JJ only did that for the grandchild, not the grandmother).

Retaliatory Freeway Brake Tapping-Plaintiff Matthew Kemmerle suing defendant (couldn't catch the defendant's name) for an accident on the freeway, defendant is countersuing for his deductible. Accident was deemed 60% plaintiff's fault.

Plaintiff say defendant was tail-gating him at high speed, and plaintiff tapped his brakes, and defendant went all of the way right. However, plaintiff pulled in front of defendant in the high speed lane. Instead of getting out of defendant's way, plaintiff tapped his brakes, and defendant pulled back in front of plaintiff's car. Then defendant tapped on his brakes, causing plaintiff to swerve, and the accident to happen.

Another case where people let someone irritate them, and then react. Great way to end up dead. You never know who is in the other car, and if they're armed, and will go after you. Defendant didn't have to say anything in court.

Case dismissed.

Edited December 15, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Taeolas · December 15, 2020

Yeah I saw the pawn shop case this morning on the repeat block around 11am eastern (WSBK, Boston).

I didn't pay as close attention to the case as I probably should've but the thief was a hell of a lot more polite and a better litigant than the pawn shop crew.

The Pawn shop had a legit case, IF they had their paperwork in line. I get the feeling they filed one thing, but only had the paperwork for something else, and weren't listening to JJ's questions. Really, it should have been a dirt simple case for them. "We're suing to get money back for the items the police confiscated as stolen", and I'm sure the police would have an inventory of what they confiscated from the shop. Show those list(s) (seemed like that shop was the fence for multiple thieves) and maybe show they bought the items from the defendant and they would've had it all.

We did get to see JJ do her impression of a back alley Rolex dealer. 🙂 And JJ has a defibrillator machine in her home gym apparently.

CrazyInAlabama · December 15, 2020

5 p.m. first case of first episode 2020, second case?, second episode 2020 rerun-

First (2020, and ?)-

Harassing the Elderly?! (2020)-Plaintiff Cindy Olson suing her mother's former caregiver, the defendant Ethel Martinez over an unpaid loan, and mental anguish for defendant not returning to the caretaking job. Plaintiff hired the defendant, and hired her for $13.40 per hour, for 13 hours a week, and paid by the county. There is a lag time, after the hours are submitted to the county, and then paid to the caregivers. Defendant worked for eight days, for 23 hours, and then plaintiff loaned her $300, Plaintiff never paid the defendant, or submitted the paperwork or certified the defendant's hours (defendant should have received over $300 from the county).

Defendant never got paid by the county, or plaintiff for her hours. Defendant didn't come back to the plaintiff's home to work with the mother, after she never got paid or had her hours certified. JJ is upset because defendant wasn't professional in not calling plaintiff to say she wasn't returning. My guess is plaintiff was never intending to make sure the defendant got paid. Defendant is counter claiming for harassment, in plaintiff showing up at defendant's other job at Walgreen's, and yelling at her at work in front of customers and employees, and plaintiff returned again. The second time manager told plaintiff to leave the store, and left a note on her windshield.

Plaintiff's note actually tried to get defendant to come back to work. Defendant says paperwork was submitted for certification to plaintiff, and plaintiff never signed it.

JJ will give plaintiff the IHSS number, and defendant's hours will be submitted, and plaintiff will keep $300 of it.

Bad Tenant? (2016?)-Plaintiffs Ronald and Lisa Kern suing defendant Malory Elliott, for rent, and damages after she moved out (defendant claims it was a material eviction). Defendant gave $5,000 down, and was supposed to pay ($1200 a month) rent/purchase until house was paid off, or until she could qualify for a mortgage. Defendant lived there for four months (plaintiffs dispute that she lived there the entire four months), and then the plaintiffs changed the door locks. Plaintiffs claim defendant moved out to live with her boyfriend, and allowed her brother and his friends to move into the house, and claim they have video proof.

Plaintiffs say she didn't pay for July, August, September, (they changed the locks in August). $1200 rent for July to plaintiffs.

Video is shown (OK DVD), Video shows a few clothes for little kids, and brother's room had all male clothing and items. Brother was not on lease, as required by lease/purchase contract. $5,000 was for the completion of the lease to purchase contract, and plaintiffs claim they don't have the money to pay back. $5,000 went for commission to the real estate broker, according to plaintiffs, but they have no receipts.

$5000 down, minus the $1200 rent for one month, so $3800 to defendant.

Second (2020 rerun)-

Schizophrenic Roommate Nightmare!-Plaintiffs Sharon Souice and Deunte Lawrence suing former landlord Eileena James 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 (some were kids). Defendant says tenants were only supposed to be granddaughter, husband, and her child.

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 mid February (he was a cargo handler at LAX). Plaintiff woman was driving Lyft, and then in February she bought a used car (to drive for Postmates, and other food delivery services).

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's daughter (Jennene) took over as house manager (the granddaughter 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 for defendant, moratoriums on evictions didn't start in February in California (It started in late March, when due to Covid). 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. (If the plaintiffs were so unhappy, then they could have done what they did after they left defendant's place, each plaintiff moved in with relatives).

At the end of February, defendant and daughter packed up everything from the room, and put it downstairs for pick up by plaintiffs. Defendants took photos of what was being packed from the room. There is no proof of a ring ever being in the room, next to the TV in the picture, which is where plaintiff said ring was kept.

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 did not pay for February, but man was still employed through 11 February.

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. Plaintiff gave landlady 30 days notice in January, that she would move out in March. However, plaintiff was paying twice the rent for day care for her son.

Defendant receives $800 for February rent.

(I have thought about this case since seeing it for the second time. I don't like the plaintiff, and her excuses for why she didn't pay her rent. I don't believe anything she said about that 'missing' ring either. The defendant granddaughter was obviously making a hell of a lot of profit, by putting a lot of people in the house, but we only have the plaintiff's statements about that. I think JJ’s decision was legally fair, and my sympathy for the plaintiff went out the window when she claimed Covid for not paying the rent, but the moratorium didn't start until the end of March, and they didn't pay for February, but lived there anyway. At least we all know the defendant’s back rent came from the show, and not the plaintiffs. What prevented the plaintiff boyfriend from getting a job, or doing childcare after he was laid off? Or working other jobs the way the plaintiff claimed she was? After the second watching, I agree that they 'ate the steak' and if they hadn't have been locked out, then they would still be there, squatting).

Edited December 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · December 16, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. first case of first episode 2020, second case?, second episode 2020 rerun-

First (2020, and ?)-

Harassing the Elderly?! (2020)-Plaintiff Cindy Olson suing her mother's former caregiver, the defendant Ethel Martinez over an unpaid loan, and mental anguish for defendant not returning to the caretaking job. Plaintiff hired the defendant, and hired her for $13.40 per hour, for 13 hours a week, and paid by the county. There is a lag time, after the hours are submitted to the county, and then paid to the caregivers. Defendant worked for eight days, for 23 hours, and then plaintiff loaned her $300, Plaintiff never paid the defendant, or submitted the paperwork or certified the defendant's hours (defendant should have received over $300 from the county).

Defendant never got paid by the county, or plaintiff for her hours. Defendant didn't come back to the plaintiff's home to work with the mother, after she never got paid or had her hours certified. JJ is upset because defendant wasn't professional in not calling plaintiff to say she wasn't returning. My guess is plaintiff was never intending to make sure the defendant got paid. Defendant is counter claiming for harassment, in plaintiff showing up at defendant's other job at Walgreen's, and yelling at her at work in front of customers and employees, and plaintiff returned again. The second time manager told plaintiff to leave the store, and left a note on her windshield.

Plaintiff's note actually tried to get defendant to come back to work. Defendant says paperwork was submitted for certification to plaintiff, and plaintiff never signed it.

JJ will give plaintiff the IHSS number, and defendant's hours will be submitted, and plaintiff will keep $300 of it.

Bad Tenant? (2016?)-Plaintiffs Ronald and Lisa Kern suing defendant Malory Elliott, for rent, and damages after she moved out (defendant claims it was a material eviction).   Defendant gave $5,000 down, and was supposed to pay ($1200 a month) rent/purchase until house was paid off, or until she could qualify for a mortgage. Defendant lived there for four months (plaintiffs dispute that she lived there the entire four months), and then the plaintiffs changed the door locks.    Plaintiffs claim defendant moved out to live with her boyfriend, and allowed her brother and his friends to move into the house, and claim they have video proof.

Plaintiffs say she didn't pay for July, August, September, (they changed the locks in August). $1200 rent for July to plaintiffs.

Video is shown (OK DVD), Video shows a few clothes for little kids, and brother's room had all male clothing and items. Brother was not on lease, as required by lease/purchase contract. $5,000 was for the completion of the lease to purchase contract, and plaintiffs claim they don't have the money to pay back. $5,000 went for commission to the real estate broker, according to plaintiffs, but they have no receipts.

$5000 down, minus the $1200 rent for one month, so $3800 to defendant.

Harassing the Elderly?!

'Ruth Bader Ginsburg' Judy presiding.

I disagree with JJ on this one. In order for the defendant to get paid she had a responsibility to file the correct paperwork (which she probably could do on-line in 2020) and then the County would get back to the plaintiff for her to sign off that it was all correct. The defendant didn't do this (knowing there would be a lapse in time before she got her paycheck) and cried poverty to the plaintiff, who was kind enough to loan her $300.

The defendant never went back to work, never contacted the defendant, and never paid her back. Again, if this was a male, JJ would have called him a 'scam artist' and ruled against him. But this time, for some odd reason, Judge Judy sided with the defendant and gave the heavy work to the plaintiff to figure out being paid by the County.

At one point, JJ told the plaintiff (who worked for the county, but in a completely different department than senior services) to find out what was going on with the defendant's claim - since she worked for the county. I guess JJ has no understanding how info like this is considered 'confidential' and that not every employee has access to confidential information. It's a foreign concept to her.

Bad Tenant?

'Estelle Getty / Sofia Petrillo' Judy Presiding

Defendant put $5,000 deposit down to eat the steak. While eating the steak, she ordered four glasses of wine at $1200 each. She paid for three. In the middle of eating the steak and sipping the wine, she up and left, and the waiter (plaintiff) removed the steak and cleared the table. Defendant now wants her $5,000 deposit back. $1200 goes back to waiter to cover the last glass of wine, but she gets the rest of her steak deposit back.

CrazyInAlabama · December 16, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Stay Out of Big Limos Lady!-Plaintiff/limo company owner John Mosby suing former limo drivers Lalo and Kay Lynn Landres for damages to his limo. Plaintiff has a limo company, and owns 14 limousines. Plaintiff claims defendant had three separate accidents that were her fault. JJ doesn't like the employment contract where limo drivers are responsible for the insurance deductible, if the accident is the driver's fault.

Defendant wife damaged three limos, so she owed $3,000 in deductibles (two were on the same day). Plaintiff tried to deduct the $3,000 from husband plaintiff's salary, after he fired the wife, and that's not legal. I absolutely believe the wife had all three accidents, and they were all her fault.

Defendant husband is counter suing for wrongful termination. If this is California, it's an At Will state, so you can fire at any time, for any reason. Many states are at will employment also. Defendant was also counter claiming for future wages, didn't get that either.

Plaintiff receives $ 612

Second (2017)-

Damages from Police Invasion-Plaintiff Demetra Dunbar rented the front of her house (for the first and last time) to defendants, Marquie and Kenisha Jackson. Plaintiff suing defendants for damages from the police raid, utilities, unpaid rent. Police had a warrant on defendant, and broke down the front door. Defendant couple and their child, plus a few other people were living in the home.

They had a month to month verbal agreement, for $1200 a month rent, and half of the utilities. In January, after the police raid she gave them a 30 day notice to quit, and defendants moved out in February.

The warrant on Marquise Jackson was served by the police, on October 2016, for assault with a deadly weapon, and the case is still going on (this was filmed in 2017). Defendant husband was held in jail for two months. January rent was never paid. and on 2 January the 30 day notice was issued. Plaintiff will get $1200 rent (no security deposit existed).

Photos and bill for door are produced. The front door damage was from the police raid, there is another door destroyed by defendant's dog, and the garage door has damage. Defendant claims they paid $1200, for the first month's rent, and $300 the next month for the security, but there is no receipt for the security.

Plaintiff receives $1695 for one month’s rent, and door damages. Defendant's counter claim is for loss of dog (he had to give the dog away when they moved), defamation of character, and motel costs, everything is dismissed. I love a defendant with a case for assault with a deadly weapon still going on in court is claiming plaintiff defamed him.

Dog was not allowed to be there, and guests not on lease, then the police raid happened. Defendant claims the visiting relatives were babysitting the 14 year old daughter, but plaintiff claims the daughter was left alone a lot. Defendant's ridiculous claim dismissed.

$1695 to plaintiff.

Teens' Camaro Clash-Plaintiff Romarin Bell suing ex-girlfriend Briana Woodson for the value of a 2002 Camaro, purchased for $900. Plaintiff said he loaned the girlfriend the Camaro. He also had a 2003 Camaro, and a 1999 Hyundai. Camaro is in impound, and it will cost almost $2000 to get car out of car jail. (What is wrong with plaintiff's speech? New braces, or what?).

Car ran out of gas, and Camaro was pushed to curb by defendant's house, Camaro was taken to mechanic, and it needed a blown head gasket replaced. Defendant claims she gave plaintiff $500 to plaintiff for 2002 Camaro.

There is nothing in defendant's written statement that says anything about her buying the car, and getting it repaired.

JJ dismisses everything, because she believes nothing the litigants say.

Edited December 16, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Bobby88 · December 16, 2020

In today's rerun from 2018 about the girl hit in the face with a chair at the pool party, JJ made what may be one of the silliest "Don't tell me what someone else told you, that's hearsay!" admonitions ever. When describing what happened after getting hit, the plaintiff said "My friend looked at me and said 'you're bleeding'" and JJ told her it was hearsay! She also called it hearsay when the plaintiff told her that said friend explained to her that she'd been hit with a chair! EVEN AFTER THE VIDEO OF HER GETTING HIT WITH SAID CHAIR WAS SHOWN AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED WHAT HAPPENED!

That seemed really nit-picky even for JJ. Getting hit in the head or face suddenly is extremely disorienting. The plaintiff was likely so out of it (looking at the video, I'm surprised she didn't lose consciousness altogether. She got hit pretty hard.) that she likely wouldn't have known what happened or that she was bleeding unless someone told her. Maybe the witness should have been in court to say it directly, but still. Everything was on video and it was clear that she was totally not at fault. Given that this woman was hit in the head and could have been hurt way worse than she was, I think JJ probably could have let that little bit of so-called hearsay slide under the circumstances. Then again, she wouldn't be JJ if she looked at things in context, would she?

Edited December 16, 2020 by Bobby88

CrazyInAlabama · December 16, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, both reruns-

First (2018)-

The Wild Party Injury and the Uneducated Fool?!-Plaintiff Veronica Brown-Hansen is suing Gyasi Murillo , 18 years old who had a huge party in the back yard of grandma's house, (mom, and apparently everyone lives there too), where they were selling booze, and it turned into a wild melee

Defendant is 18, his co-host of the party is also 18. The party invitations were on Instagram, Wet & Wild Pool Party, (Strictly Business is the company) with booze available. The party announcement says no outside liquor allowed, females are $7 admission, males $15 admission, and you buy a booze bracelet to get liquor inside the party.

The plaintiff was badly injured when someone threw a chair that was outdoor furniture over a balcony rail, and hit her. It was funny about the booze, because the young man is way underage, and it's the second huge concert/party with drinking that the man, and his friends put on (the other one was in Queens, after prom).

Don't people in his neighborhood call 911 when hundreds of people show up for a backyard booze fest with a DJ? There's a video of the party, and chair toss also. Mother, and sisters were home during the party. Sister is who bought the booze I bet, or the mother.

Plaintiff says there's lots of booze, bottles in hand, and drinking inside the party.

There was $100 deductible on her health insurance, which covered the injury treatment retroactively.

Plaintiff should have filed against the grandmother, or mother, whoever owns the house, and her homeowner's insurance, and then gone after them in civil court. I bet if that house is that fancy, that someone would take it on contingency. Witness who was outside in the hall, now says this is the second party, and says the mother was also at the party. Zachary Dalce (witness) collected money at the gate for admissions, and was supposed to keep liquor out. The third partner of the defendants lives in Florida according to defendant Murillo, but Zachary says the third 18 year old partner lives on Long Island and Queens.

(Does the party host think that a club will rent to him, and his friends? Bet it will be mommy's name on the rental)

You know this a good case when some of the audience have to muffle their laughter to keep from getting booted.

Plaintiff gets $5,000. (This means the defendant receives nothing from the show payment pool).

Second (2018)-

When Pink Floyd Albums Attack?-Plaintiff Kathi Weaver suing former landlord Edmund Scallion over her illegal eviction, a false restraining order, and the loss of her Pink Floyd Album, and other property. Plaintiff and disabled husband moved into the room at the defendant's house, for $950 a month rent.

Evicted after 19 days? That's not even a record for this show. Plaintiff certainly looks like a potential bunny boiler, doesn't she? This woman is exactly why I would never have a roommate from Craigslist.

She was chewed on by a police puppy, after the landlord got a restraining order, and the litigants had to stay five feet apart, and the police showed up because she violated the order. I wish I could get the body cam video of the police rooting her out of her room, and the police dog going after her. I love a good police dog biting video, with appropriate screaming and crying by the perp. The final protective order hearing was after plaintiff moved out, so neither litigant showed up for the protective order hearing, so it was dropped.

There was a temporary protective order that both litigants would stay 5 feet away from each other. Defendant says the police asked him to watch her dog, until she could come back and get the dog, that was when she tried to break down the front door, took her dog, and left. After the plaintiff moved out, she got arrested again with her dog in the car (for other warrants?), after she tried to break in the house. Poor dog disappeared, and I guess went to animal control, so I hope it has a nice owner now. And she was in jail for five months for missing a couple of court dates for trespassing on other property, so that's trying to be a squatter I guess? Doesn't five months in jail for missing a couple of court dates seem a lot? Kind of forgot to mention that stay in jail didn't she?

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant counter claim is dismissed because it's over a year old.

CrazyInAlabama · December 17, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Neighbor Nastiness Caught on Video-Plaintiff John Helfer suing defendant Michael Shorey over a dog bite. Plaintiff saw, and videoed his neighbor walking his dog in the common area, and taking a German Shepherd size dump right next to the "clean up after your dog" sign. When plaintiff was handing him a bag to clean up the poop, dog bit the plaintiff. Plaintiff has seen the defendant leaving dog piles behind repeatedly, on the complex common area. Defendant also grooms his GSD, and leaves the hair to mess up the common area.

Plaintiff and his daughter video, or take pictures of pet owners that abuse the common area of the condo complex. The plaintiff's daughter took a video of the incident with the dog, and plaintiff. Defendant didn't have a poop bag, and didn't care about the mess his dog leaves. As JJ says, defendant is disrespecting his condo complex common area, and being a bad neighbor.

Plaintiff is in law enforcement, and JJ tells him not to embroider his story. (It says engineer under his name on the screen, so I wonder where the law enforcement part came from? Or did he retire from one job, and then works as an engineer? Or do they let people change professions on the show, for privacy?).

Plaintiff receives $1000 for the medical bills.

Second (2017)-

Harley Handshake Deal-Plaintiff Scott Coates suing motorcycle sellers, Preston Clay and his wife Denise Robinson Clay, for return of his deposit on a Harley, and the cost to get bike running again. $14,500 was the purchase price, and the price was $2000 down, and a kitchen remodel for the defendants. JJ says verbal contract was completed, with an offer, an acceptance, and exchange of property, however contract wasn't finished. Plaintiff did do some work on planning the kitchen, with elevations, and prints of cabinets that were prepared for the defendant's kitchen.

Plaintiff wanted to borrow bike for a weekend trip, had the bike for three days after changing the starter. Plaintiff returned bike, and defendant backed out of kitchen deal, and plaintiff claims defendant said he would give the deposit back. Plaintiff says defendants didn't want to redo their kitchen, because they were going to move. Defendant says he lives in the same house, and was never going to redo the kitchen. Defendant says plaintiff wanted too much to redo the kitchen.

Plaintiff receives $2,000 deposit back. Plaintiff gets nothing for the parts he put on the bike, because he used the bike for the 3 day trip.

Rottweiler Puppy Death Drama-Plaintiff Yasnaya Lorick suing Elia Gomez for return of money paid for a Rottweiler puppy. Plaintiff selected a puppy from photos. Plaintiff put down money on the puppy (she put down 1/2, $600), but puppy died. Defendant had 9 puppies, and 3 died, and she sold the other six puppies. The defendant took the puppies to the vet in August, but three more died in October, and no vet care for the three that died. Defendant claims she offered another puppy, but plaintiff didn't want that puppy. Defendant claims the five puppies she sold were all fine, but there is no proof of that.

The only "contract" was the text message exchanges between the litigants. Defendant claims deposit wasn't refundable. Defendant claims the deposit was only $200, not $600, then plaintiff husband gave her $392. A week after tail docking, the puppy died. I'm wondering who did the tail docking? My guess it wasn't the vet, in spite of the fact defendant claims she has paperwork. I wonder what killed the three puppies? Defendant says infection, plaintiff says she suspects parvo.

Plaintiff receives her $592 deposit back.

Edited December 17, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 17, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first episode, first case new, second case date?, second episode 2020 rerun-

First-

Business Partner Destroys Case Remotely! (2020)-Plaintiff James Ramos suing Kandi Cook defendant for unpaid rent and utilities. Plaintiff purchased house in 2018, and he always intended to flip and sell the house. Plaintiff says his business partner met the formerly homeless defendant, because partner rents vans to homeless people to live in. Plaintiff and defendant say that the agreement was that the house was to be rent free, but the boyfriend had to renovate the house.

According to Tom, plaintiff's business partner, there was never an agreement to work on the house, just do work for him. Defendant says she met the plaintiff business partner after her husband died suddenly, and she says the business partner pays her for side jobs in cash, including bookkeeping.

On the Body Crystal Inc website, Kandi Cook is listed as General Manager, with the address in 29 Palms, and plaintiff claims defendant took the business over from the business partner, Tom.

Then JJ calls the plaintiff's business partner, and plaintiff's case goes boom. Tom, the business partner ran the company for 15 years, until recently. Then defendant filed paperwork with the state of California, to reinstate the business legal status. Tom also is asked about the order to stop working on the house, and says defendant sued Tom numerous times in small claims, and lost every one. Tom, the business partner, also filed for a restraining order against the defendant.

Tom, says defendant sued him for legal work on the corporation, Body Crystal Inc. Shane Dacastello, defendant's boyfriend and witness, says he's a truck driver, but only used to be a handyman.

JJ explains to plaintiff that Tom, the plaintiff's partner said he made an arrangement that he would cover the rent, if defendant would finish the legal work for the business.

Plaintiff's stupid case dismissed.

Up a Creek Without a Boat (2013)-Plaintiff Rosada Haines suing former friend Kenneth Steele-Breitweg, Jr. for boat costs, rental fees, and mental distress, after boat ownership ends in a fight. They each paid $800 for the sailboat, and they thought they were getting a great deal. Defendant claims plaintiff wanted more than to be co-owners, and he didn't want that.

Defendant gets snotty with JJ, and tells her that she doesn't know what she's talking about (I bet Officer Byrd just snapped his pencil in half), and defendant gets booted. Defendant case dismissed.

Plaintiff wants $2,271, to get rid of her part of the boat, and doesn't want to own with the defendant.

JJ's solution is to sell the boat, and split the proceeds, or defendant can buy plaintiff out. Plaintiff receives $800.

Second (2020)-

$800,000 T-Shirt Business Dispute!-Plaintiff Janie Ferling, 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 defendants never paid. Contract with litigants say that if the plaintiff has to hire legal help to collect, that she can get legal fees. $80k was supposed to be paid over five years, and the first two years were interest only.

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. Plaintiff said the attorney told her the statute of limitations is nearing, and that the chances of her winning, and actually collecting, minus legal fees, are poor.

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.

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

Plaintiff will not seek the other $80k remaining.

Plaintiff submits her attorney fees $2000, mediation service $2875, receiving a total of $4875.

Covid Infected Kitten Euthanized?!-Plaintiff Jessica Isham 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 says because of Covid, she couldn't take the kitten to a vet. There are procedures, they come and pick up the kitten from you in the parking lot, and bring the animal back after a diagnosis/exam, etc.. 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.

Edited December 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · December 18, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Up a Creek Without a Boat (

"You don't know what you are talking about!". Words JJ should hear more often.

Too bad they came from a truly dickish litigant. It also led her to be more generous towards the plaintiff; instead she should have been told that she must bear the consequences of her choices and find a way to get the boat sold (I do not think JJ can order such a sale to happen).

Not that JJ would have listened to that comment even if it came from a reasonable and polite litigant. After all, she is the Infallible-One-Who-Knows-All-About-Everything.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Florinaldo

LetsStartTalking · December 18, 2020

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first episode, first case new, second case date?, second episode 2020 rerun-

First-

Business Partner Destroys Case Remotely! (2020)-Plaintiff James Ramos suing Kandi Cook defendant for unpaid rent and utilities. Plaintiff purchased house in 2018, and he always intended to flip and sell the house. Plaintiff says his business partner met the formerly homeless defendant, because partner rents vans to homeless people to live in. Plaintiff and defendant say that the agreement was that the house was to be rent free, but the boyfriend had to renovate the house.

According to Tom, plaintiff's business partner, there was never an agreement to work on the house, just do work for him. Defendant says she met the plaintiff business partner after her husband died suddenly, and she says the business partner pays her for side jobs in cash, including bookkeeping.

On the Body Crystal Inc website, Kandi Cook is listed as General Manager, with the address in 29 Palms, and plaintiff claims defendant took the business over from the business partner, Tom.

Then JJ calls the plaintiff's business partner, and plaintiff's case goes boom. Tom, the business partner ran the company for 15 years, until recently. Then defendant filed paperwork with the state of California, to reinstate the business legal status. Tom also is asked about the order to stop working on the house, and says defendant sued Tom numerous times in small claims, and lost every one. Tom, the business partner, also filed for a restraining order against the defendant.

Tom, says defendant sued him for legal work on the corporation, Body Crystal Inc. Shane Dacastello, defendant's boyfriend and witness, says he's a truck driver, but only used to be a handyman.

JJ explains to plaintiff that Tom, the plaintiff's partner said he made an arrangement that he would cover the rent, if defendant would finish the legal work for the business.

Plaintiff's stupid case dismissed.

Up a Creek Without a Boat (older, 2016? )-Plaintiff Rosada Haines suing former friend Kenneth Steele-Breitweg, Jr. for boat costs, rental fees, and mental distress, after boat ownership ends in a fight. They each paid $800 for the sailboat, and they thought they were getting a great deal. Defendant claims plaintiff wanted more than to be co-owners, and he didn't want that.

Defendant gets snotty with JJ, and tells her that she doesn't know what she's talking about (I bet Officer Byrd just snapped his pencil in half), and defendant gets booted. Defendant case dismissed.

Plaintiff wants $2,271, to get rid of her part of the boat, and doesn't want to own with the defendant.

JJ's solution is to sell the boat, and split the proceeds, or defendant can buy plaintiff out. Plaintiff receives $800.

Business Partner Destroys Case Remotely!

'Ruth Bader Ginsburg' Judge Judy presiding.

Again, I don't know if this was due to sloppy editing or directing, but this turned out to be the one of the most convoluted cases for this season. Who the hell could follow what was being tossed around ? All I know is 'Body Crystals Inc' got millions of dollars of free advertising right before Christmas thanks to Judy and the litigants. I'm sure their on-line sales went 'through the roof' in the past 24 hours. Kandi Cook must be one happy woman.

Up a Creek Without a Boat

'Estelle Getty' Judge Judy presiding.

All I know is after this case, I'll be glad to spend some time on the boat with Kenneth Steele-Breitwieg. Handsome, sexy 'older' guy (though I think he's younger tan he appeared with his salt-n-pepper hair). I do believe the plaintiff was in love with him, and I do believe she wanted 'much more' than friendship with him. I also agree with him 100% - Judy didn't know what she was talking about since she had her mind made up before either one could speak. She asked for no proof of anything - no contracts, sales contract, texts, emails - anything at all to iron out the details of the sale and the conditions. She ruled 'the sexy guy always loses'.

BTW: According to anothe Judge Judy site, this case was scheduled to air on November 30, 2013.

parrotfeathers · December 18, 2020

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

"You don't know what you are talking about!". Words JJ should hear more often.

I kinda enjoyed him storming out.

SRTouch · December 18, 2020

Ok, just watched the early rerun episodes. First one notable because 'no evidence' lemon car buyer actually won over the crooked used car salesman. I think only reason P won and got her money back was that JJ HATED the crooked salesman (also light on evidence). JJ wanted to rule against D, but scatter brain P wasn't providing anything to go on....... eventually JJ used the 'call a friend' lifeline and got what she needed from P's friend. P got back amount she claimed she paid, even though D claimed she never paid that amount. Again, neither side had evidence, but JJ really didn't like D not having a receipt since he supposedly works for a dealer........ wonder what that dealer thought when he heard D was taking cars home with him, selling them, not giving receipts and customer claims to have paid way more than D turns over to business.

2nd episode was the drunk abuser D who rammed his truck into P's car in front of their young teenage son (think kid is 14yo) I remembered this case well enough that I stopped watching once I recognized the players. D looked like he might be drunk in court - not good look for any litigant, especially one being accused of violent domestic abuse while toasted.

UPDATE: Posted the above this morning thinking I was watching the 10am morning reruns. Now here it is and my 4pm evening episodes are airing and, at least this first episode, is listed as new "car salesman put to shame." Grrrrr, with my local providers ever get their stuff together!?!

Edited December 18, 2020 by SRTouch

CrazyInAlabama · December 18, 2020

7 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

BTW: According to anothe Judge Judy site, this case was scheduled to air on November 30, 2013

Thanks! I changed the date. I vaguely remembered this case, I always enjoy someone getting the boot, or stomping out, and they go the wrong way every time. I actually like the solution, to sell the boat. I agree that the plaintiff wanted a relationship with defendant, and he wasn't interested in her.

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Ambulance Ride Revisited-Plaintiff Cesian Deal (mother of five children with defendant), including son Mark Wright Jr, suing defendant Mark Wright Sr for medical bills (ambulance ride cost $878), and accident settlement. Son's accident while living with defendant had a car accident, and son was taken to hospital, treated, and released. This was in October 2013, but in 2017 the ambulance company is garnishing the plaintiff's salary for the $878 ambulance ride. However, defendant claims plaintiff only takes the son back to her home, because of child support, but defendant hasn't gone to court to change custody, and child support to plaintiff for all five children. Child support is $107 a week for all of the children, and when son was living with the defendant, he still paid the $107 to the ex/plaintiff.

Plaintiff doesn't give two flips that child support should have been reduced for the children when they age out (four are out of both houses now), and it's only for the son, Mark Jr. And defendant still paid when son lived with him, and plaintiff had no children living with her.

Defendant received a settlement, $1500, and kept it. A letter from the insurance company says the settlement was $3200, but defendant claims it was another accident, not the first accident. Letter of $3200 settlement says for accident in November of 2014.. Check for son's settlement should have been deposited, and held for the son when he hits 18. Mark Jr used the money for shopping, movies, etc. Plaintiff found out about the settlement when she was sent to court for collections, and garnishment. However, defendant's child support should have been reduced by 80% when son lived with mother, and zero when he lived with the father, and when he ages out.

Defendant is still paying current and back child support, but plaintiff son is on his own.

Plaintiff case dismissed, for lack of proof, and because this is stupid.

New Get Out of Jail Clothes!-Plaintiff Lavisco Barr suing ex Aloysius Graham for a phone ($1400), phone cancellation fees, and clothing she purchased for him when he left his recent incarceration. JJ throws out the clothes purchases, because they were a couple then.

Plaintiff bought herself a new cell phone, and added another line for defendant, and he was supposed to pay his part of the bill. The defendant says plaintiff's phone was messed up, and then fixed, and when she bought her new phone, she gave her old phone to him. Defendant had the phone for two months, and paid $50 a month for the phone, and plaintiff cut the phone off for defendant. This was after defendant found spy ware plaintiff put on the phone, and he wanted it off. Plaintiff cut his phone off, and defendant couldn't get the phone in his own name, or the spyware removed.

Lavisco (plaintiff) says she lost her phone, got the new phone, found the old one, and gave it to defendant.

Plaintiff's ridiculous case dismissed.

Second (2017)-

Co-Worker Embarrasses Man Online-Plaintiffs Danielle Brown and fiance Terence Powell, are suing defendant/ co-worker/roommate Ernesto Connerfor unpaid rent and car damage. Plaintiffs, and defendant worked together, and when defendant became homeless they offered him the couch for $150 a week. Defendant was in home for five weeks. ($600 a month to sleep on the couch!). Defendant borrowed plaintiff's car, and plaintiff said she didn't notice the vehicle damage until a month after defendant moved out.

Plaintiffs will not get vehicle damages.

However, plaintiff woman should ashamed at posting her nasty rants on social media. Plaintiff woman posted a nasty video online of defendant's girlfriend, Plaintiff woman needs her filthy mouth washed out with soap. Revolting plaintiffs are suing for harassment, and car damages, and that will be tossed.

Back rent is $100, to plaintiffs.

Ex Gets Short End of the Lizard Stick-Plaintiff Darlene Lobato suing her ex-boyfriend Michael Velezfor lizard support, a false restraining order, and expenses, and says he has her car. They lived together at his mother's house, he moved out two years ago, and left his two dogs, and the six lizards behind, but visited the animals occasionally. Plaintiff took care of the defendant's mother, and all of the animals. Plaintiff pays the rent since defendant moved out.

JJ has plaintiff sign over title to defendant's old vehicle (to get her liability for the vehicle canceled). Plaintiff will keep the dogs, and if defendant doesn't pick up his lizards in the number of days JJ specified, they will be going to lizard jail. There is no contract for pet care, so no money for plaintiff for that.

Defendant says he visited his late mother, she has died), often, but plaintiff says he came to visit less than once a month. Defendant says plaintiff tried for a false restraining order, and his property is messed up or missing. Plaintiff keeps the dogs.

Plaintiff filed for a restraining order, and says defendant threatened her. It was only posted on his social media, but didn't mention plaintiff's name, and is song lyrics, and stalked her after the mother died. (As they say where I live, the defendant just ain't right in the head. If the plaintiff is smart she moved far away from where he lives.)

Cases dismissed. Defendant will pick up his lizards or they go to lizard jail, and plaintiff keeps the dogs.

Edited December 18, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

LetsStartTalking · December 18, 2020

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Thanks! I changed the date. I vaguely remembered this case, I always enjoy someone getting the boot, or stomping out, and they go the wrong way every time.

I don't recall this case ever airing. I can usually recall a case no matter how long ago it aired - but this one I don't remember.

Come to think of it, I had my 50th Birthday celebration on that day (my birthday is the 29th, like Byrd's) and that was a SATURDAY - so there's no way it would have aired on the 30th in 2013. Go figure.

CrazyInAlabama · December 18, 2020

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

First (2020)-

Car Salesman Put to Shame!-Plaintiff Tamika Brown SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four), suing car dealer/car seller defendant Jeremiah Coleman for a car ($1900), it has a substitute pink slip. Plaintiff was taken to meet dealer by her aunt, and she says defendant was supposed to bring four cars to his house in L.A, but only had two. Plaintiff wanted the $1800 car, and she paid $1500 in cash (from her $2200 stimulus check). Defendant claims plaintiff only paid him $500. Defendant says plaintiff paid him a down payment, never paid in full, and claims plaintiff parked the car somewhere, and he has no idea where the car is now.

Plaintiff claims car was purchased in April, and towed by her HOA in June. Car was never registered to plaintiff, so she couldn't get car out of impound. Plaintiff claims defendant never gave her the pink slip, and plaintiff claims defendant wanted sexual favors in return for the pink slip.

Defendant works for Goonies Auto, and says the company was called, and claim the car was stolen, and impounded. Plaintiff says defendant never called her back. Defendant has had the same cell number for 10 years, and says plaintiff never called him.

Plaintiff says car was towed in June, and probably was sold at auction, she thinks. Plaintiff actually drove the car back to defendant's house, and says he promised her the refund on the car. Plaintiff says she was dragging her four kids with her, car died down the street from defendant's house, left her kids in the car (in June in L.A.), someone pushed her car to the curb, and someone got the car started, and she drove home.

(My view is that whatever Tamika paid the guy was a lot less than she said, and he also lied about everything. My guess if she paid any cash it was the $500, and not $1500, or $1800. If she had paid the full amount, then she would have received a bill of sale, or whatever she needed to register the car. I'm definitely thinking that the word insurance never crossed her mind too. I really suspect that whatever changed hands wasn't very much money either. I think what tilted JJ to plaintiff's side was that defendant had virtually nothing credible saying what the price was, no receipts, and who takes a bunch of cars home to sell when they work at a dealership?).

$1800 to plaintiff for car.

Second (2020)-

Teen Testifies Against Abusive Father?!-Plaintiff Daniela Hernandez SSMOT (Sainted Single Mother of Two) suing her ex-boyfriend and the father of her two children, Luis Nieves, for ramming her vehicle in a fit of rage, and the 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, Dominic Martinez, 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 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 by his insurance. 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. So plaintiff wants us to believe that the police saw the smashed in car, proof someone hit her, and they didn’t even write a note about either crime? I don’t believe it. ).

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. No police report, no insurance claim, or defendant would have to pay her deductible, but she never fixed 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. I did not find plaintiff or her son credible.

(Next Friday, Christmas Day, there are college sports all day, so no JJ, or most of the other regular smutty shows that Fox loves so much. )

Edited December 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

Florinaldo · December 19, 2020

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Teen Testifies Against Abusive Father?!-

Why was plaintiff making such a sourpuss face at the proceedings? Either she did not have complete coverage – which is why she did not put in a claim – or she does not understand how insurance claims work and that she would have been out only for the deductible , which JJ said she would have given her.

I favour the first explanation.

Like @CrazyInAlabama I think that everyone on the plaintiff's side had coordinated their testimonies and were lying.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Florinaldo

DoctorK · December 19, 2020

27 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

testifies exactly the way she did ... JJ has the 14 year-old son testify, and it's amazingly like the plaintiff, and the current boyfriend's

I noticed that, all three said the defendent "reversed" his truck into plaintiff's car. Sounded rehearsed to me, other than cops and accident reconstructers, who says that, don't most people just "backed into"?

Edited December 19, 2020 by DoctorK
Correcting the spell checker

LetsStartTalking · December 19, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

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

First (2020)-

Car Salesman Put to Shame!-Plaintiff Tamika Brown SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of Four), suing car dealer/car seller defendant Jeremiah Coleman for a car ($1900), it has a substitute pink slip. Plaintiff was taken to meet dealer by her aunt, and she says defendant was supposed to bring four cars to his house in L.A, but only had two. Plaintiff wanted the $1800 car, and she paid $1500 in cash (from her $2200 stimulus check). Defendant claims plaintiff only paid him $500. Defendant says plaintiff paid him a down payment, never paid in full, and claims plaintiff parked the car somewhere, and he has no idea where the car is now.

Plaintiff claims car was purchased in April, and towed by her HOA in June. Car was never registered to plaintiff, so she couldn't get car out of impound. Plaintiff claims defendant never gave her the pink slip, and plaintiff claims defendant wanted sexual favors in return for the pink slip.

Defendant works for Goonies Auto, and says the company was called, and claim the car was stolen, and impounded. Plaintiff says defendant never called her back. Defendant has had the same cell number for 10 years, and says plaintiff never called him.

Plaintiff says car was towed in June, and probably was sold at auction, she thinks. Plaintiff actually drove the car back to defendant's house, and says he promised her the refund on the car. Plaintiff says she was dragging her four kids with her, car died down the street from defendant's house, left her kids in the car (in June in L.A.), someone pushed her car to the curb, and someone got the car started, and she drove home.

$1800 to plaintiff for car.

Car Salesman Put to Shame!

'RBG' Judy presiding.

Plaintiff Tamika has absolutely NO PROOF of anything she's claiming, yet she wins $1800.

Judge Judy doesn't ask her for proof of insurance (she did drive the car a few times) or proof of registration. Not sure how she could register the car or insure the car without the pink slip but Judy didn't seem to care. Tamika helped her friend move in LA, so she drove the car a few times. In what appears to be an uninsured, unregistered car.

Tamika said the defendant wanted 'sexual favors from her' to get the pink slip, and defendant laughed (so did I). Judy believed her. Once again, if it was a male plaintiff accusing a female plaintiff of that, she would have said something rather sarcastic to him about his looks ('you may think you're good looking but I don't) and not believed him.

Tamika is a fast talker, and has nothing to back up what she's saying. Her fast talking changes her story numerous times and doesn't completely match up to what she swore to, but that's OK - JJ believes her.

Maybe it's because JJ called Tamika's friend D'neesha - who just happened to answer her cell phone on the first ring! D'neesha was a big help to JJ- she told her everything she needed to know and more. Defendant barley had to speak and tell his side of the case - Tamika wins!

Florinaldo · December 19, 2020

1 hour ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Plaintiff Tamika has absolutely NO PROOF of anything she's claiming, yet she wins $1800.

I did not find her very believable either. But the defendant acted like a smirking and smug asshole, who did not take any aspect of the case or of the hearing seriously. Perhaps that's what prompted JJ to overlook the absence of evidence and rule for the plaintiff.

parrotfeathers · December 20, 2020

11 hours ago, LetsStartTalking said:

Maybe it's because JJ called Tamika's friend D'neesha

In the end I believed her also. As JJ says sometimes, she couldn't have made all those details up.

LetsStartTalking · December 21, 2020

23 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

In the end I believed her also. As JJ says sometimes, she couldn't have made all those details up.

I think Tamika was talking through a stream of conscious and anything which went into her head came out of her mouth. Her details were confusion and contradictions (IMO).

On 12/19/2020 at 11:43 AM, Florinaldo said:

I did not find her very believable either. But the defendant acted like a smirking and smug asshole, who did not take any aspect of the case or of the hearing seriously. Perhaps that's what prompted JJ to overlook the absence of evidence and rule for the plaintiff.

I must say, I didn't take much of the case or hearing seriously. He was being sued by someone who had no proof of anything, and talked endlessly while changing her story around. And JJ didn't ask the basics once she knew the plaintiff was driving the car - proof of insurance and registration. The case was a joke. I guess JJ didn't have 'other things to do' that day.

Florinaldo · December 21, 2020

14 minutes ago, LetsStartTalking said:

I must say, I didn't take much of the case or hearing seriously.

Even if a case is not very serious, you have to keep your attitude in check and carefully choose your behaviour during a hearing.

If you act like he did, you risk alienating the arbitrator or judge, especially one as mercurial as JJ. He made the wrong choice.

CrazyInAlabama · December 21, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Child Deprived of Food on Dad Day-Plaintiff Ronald Aragon suing his child's mother, Alexandra Rosado, over her limits on visitation, for a false restraining order, and defamation. Plaintiff claims a false restraining order petition filed by defendant was just to harass him. Daughter was 18 months old when defendant moved in with defendant's father. Defendant lived with her father for one year, and no visitation with child's father happened.

Defendant claims to fear plaintiff, but never called police, or filed for a restraining order. The only time plaintiff saw his daughter after almost a year, defendant says she 'let him' see his child, and that was the only time in a year plaintiff saw his child. Plaintiff hasn't seen his daughter since the one meeting, and it was over a year before the child custody hearing, which resulted in joint custody. Judge's order was agreed on during mediation, and there was visitation on weekends for the father.

Plaintiff went back to mediation to get more time for visitation with his child. About a year later, defendant claims the baby came back from visitation and claimed no one fed her. Daughter is now eight years old. Defendant claims she tried to go to family court, but instead defendant filed for an emergency restraining order, and plaintiff hasn't seen child since. Defendant never went for modified visitation. Defendant claims plaintiff reported her to CPS. At hearing judge took testimony, and defendant's case was dismissed.

Application for protective order says plaintiff assaulted defendant, but there are no police reports, medical proof, or anything else to back that up. Plaintiff gets child from school on Thursday, but he says defendant doesn't send the child to school on Thursdays. Judge dismissed order of protection because the only testimony was defendant's claims, and that judge went back to the same visitation schedule (plaintiff is supposed to get daughter from Thursday afternoon, to Sunday afternoon).

Police would not take the child from mother for visitation. Unfortunately, plaintiff made a mistake on when child wasn't in school, it was a different month. (To make this shorter, the litigants lived together for 1 1/2 years, then defendant disappeared with child for a year, and has been fighting legal visitation ever since. Then she tried to get a false protective order, instead of dealing with custody. My guess, the 50/50 visitation means the defendant doesn't get child support, and that’s what she wants). (My guess is this child has heard their whole life what a deadbeat her father is, and probably will never have a relationship with him).

Plaintiff receives $2500 for the false protective order.

Second (2017)-

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

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

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

I'm hoping the local court tells plaintiffs to stuff it too.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited December 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 21, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first case of first episode 2020, others date?, second episode 2013-

First-

Passed Out on the Lawn! (2020)-Plaintiff Marco Polo suing Gary Zapata, his former landlord for return of deposit, $250. Defendant says one incident was plaintiff being passed out on the lawn, and plaintiff was arrested for public intoxication, and spent a day or two in jail. Defendant also says plaintiff damaged the garage door, by hitting it with his car. Plaintiff was given a 30-day notice to leave and claims he was only given the notice because defendant told him he was going to rent the entire house to a big family. Defendant, and the other two roommates who lived there when Marco Polo lived there are still in the house. Plaintiff says his car only 'kissed' the garage door, and it didn't hurt the door. When defendant opened the garage door, the car parked against it ruined the garage door mechanism. The photo of the plaintiff's car against the garage door also shows a flattened tire, from plaintiff hitting a curb (driving drunk?).

Since defendant never presented plaintiff with the bill for the garage door, then the damages are dismissed.

Woman Demands Quiet Time (older ?)-Plaintiff Ernesto Rios suing Sarah "Sally" Fulmer, former landlord for return of his security deposit. Plaintiff moved to California, and rented a room at defendant's apartment. Plaintiff paid $1300, first and last month's rent, and $200 security deposit. Plaintiff received a notice to leave after two months at her apartment. Defendant likes quiet time, and said plaintiff was too noisy, and was home during the day. Defendant claims she offered to give the last month's rent back, but not the $200 security deposit.

Plaintiff left in September, but notice from defendant said he could stay through October. $550 for last month's rent to plaintiff. Defendant claims damages are holes in the wall, no estimate.

Plaintiff receives $750, a month's rent, and security deposit.

Tenant Conflict (older ?)-Plaintiff Erna Stark ( a woman) suing former landlord-to-be Derek Larson for rent and deposit. She was going to rent a room for $500 a month, and security of $600. She asked when she could move in, and was told she couldn't move in on the first of the month, because the room wouldn't be ready yet, but could move in the middle of the month. Erna has a text from the landlord, that he will repay her rent, and deposit. The move in issue was defendant's parents own the house, and didn't want roommates immediately.

$500 to plaintiff, and jerk defendant's mike cut off.

Second (2013)-

Back Kicking a Toddler-Plaintiff Timothy McCarty suing former landlords/defendants Jillian and Salvador Delgado. Plaintiff was paying $300 a month rent, for a bedroom in the defendant's house. Plaintiff only stayed three weeks, so he's not getting rent back. He paid no security deposit. When plaintiff and defendants had an argument, the defendants locked plaintiff out when plaintiff walked outside, but his two children were still inside the house. Then plaintiff broke the door to get back in to his children.

Defendant woman claims plaintiff assaulted her, and her daughter, and the lock out and argument happened the next day. Defendant never gave a written notice to leave the house. Defendant says plaintiff said he wasn't leaving, and sent his two children up to shower. Then defendant woman locked the plaintiff out, with his children upstairs. Defendant woman says she considered the plaintiff a lodger, not a tenant, but plaintiff had paid for the month already.

Plaintiff waffles about his income, $175 General Relief, and $200 food stamps, but nothing for the children, and plaintiff works at a medical Marijuana dispensary. After the argument, no medical records, for defendant woman or her child, just some photos. Police report is smudged, and illegible. How could the plaintiff assault defendant woman if she was inside, and he was locked outside.

Defendant woman claims he broke the door down, grabbed her and assaulted her. Defendant woman has a recording, that clearly proves that plaintiff behaved badly, and defendant woman lied. However, plaintiff was trying to get to his two kids that defendant had locked in her house. The recording is an old fashioned tape player/boom box. She also claims plaintiff back kicked her two year old (no medical report, or photos, or anything). It is clear from the tape that the assault was by defendant woman on plaintiff.

Also, as JJ points out, woman was taping this, so she added histrionics for her audience, and her husband butts in.

(What advertising genius has a giant pack of Santa impersonators running to a Ford dealership, and stealing cars?). The defendant woman separating the plaintiff from his children, and locked him out.

Defendants want damages, dismissed.

Plaintiff gets no money either.

(Yes, the passed out on the front lawn plaintiff is named Marco Polo).

Edited December 22, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

snarts · December 22, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Passed Out on the Lawn! (2020)-Plaintiff Marco Polo suing Gary Zapata, his former landlord for return of deposit, $250. Defendant says one incident was plaintiff being passed out on the lawn, and plaintiff was arrested for public intoxication, and spent a day or two in jail. Defendant also says plaintiff damaged the garage door, by hitting it with his car. Plaintiff was given a 30-day notice to leave and claims he was only given the notice because defendant told him he was going to rent the entire house to a big family. Defendant, and the other two roommates who lived there when Marco Polo lived there are still in the house. Plaintiff says his car only 'kissed' the garage door, and it didn't hurt the door. When defendant opened the garage door, the car parked against it ruined the garage door mechanism. The photo of the plaintiff's car against the garage door also shows a flattened tire, from plaintiff hitting a curb (driving drunk?).

Since defendant never presented plaintiff with the bill for the garage door, then the damages are dismissed.

Thank you. I was dozing yesterday and thought I heard Marco Polo. Seriously people?

CrazyInAlabama · December 22, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

Go Find Yourself Another Harlequin Great Dane-Plaintiff Billee Hirsch suing former neighbor, Kara Pedroni for the return or value of a Great Dane, and punitive damages for having the dog spayed. Counter claim if dog is awarded back to plaintiff is board for taking care of the dog. Plaintiff paid $1200 for the two month old dog, in 2014. Plaintiff had a Staffordshire Terrier, and Great Dane for a few months. Then plaintiff moved in with her boyfriend six weeks after she bought the dog (2015), and his Pit Bull didn't like the puppy, and plaintiff gave dog to defendant to dog sit. Defendant had the dog spayed, because she wasn't going to have a 110 lb dog in heat in her house.

After two years, defendant still has the dog, Plaintiff claimed she paid defendant for dog food. Defendant says plaintiff paid no bills for the dog. Over two years, plaintiff claims she visited dog every two weeks. Plaintiff says she was waiting for a settlement for her father's estate, and then would get her own home, and get the dog back. However, plaintiff had her own place when dog was 10 months old or so, but never got the dog. Defendant has taken the dog to the vet for shots, treatment, and spaying. Defendant said plaintiff's cell phone was disconnected, and that's the only way she could contact plaintiff.

Defendant says she received a bag of food twice in the two years, and says she only saw plaintiff twice in two years.

Defendant keeps the dog. Plaintiff told to get another dog. She only had the dog for six weeks, and almost never visited, or brought food. I'm betting she only wanted the value of the dog, because she wanted a breeding animal, and defendant spayed the dog.

Plaintiff gets nothing.

Judge Judy Shares Her Husband's Approach to Telemarketers-Plaintiff Judy Dietzler suing former business partners John Toth and Carolyn Leonard (Carolyn Leonard is a retired psychotherapist), for the return of money, and jewelry. Plaintiff received a phone call from the male defendant, promoting a telemarketing investment business, and she was dumb enough to do that. On a bizarre note, plaintiff actually works for Idaho, as a Consumer Advocate.

(JJ's husband tells the telemarketers where to go, and how to get there, I really like Judge Jerry)). Defendants talked plaintiff into joining their pyramid scheme, where the idiot makes money by conning other people into joining the pyramid scheme. Plaintiff whines because she was never paid for cheating other people that she recruited into the scheme. Plaintiff's first and only sale was for $15,000. Defendants want training costs, and making false allegations.

Plaintiff didn't have enough cash, and some jewelry for collateral. Plaintiff paid $4,000 cash, and the jewelry. The product was digital downloads teaching you to make money online, by getting people into the business (pyramid scheme). Defendant says they sell digital licensing franchises.

(In my opinion, plaintiff joined the scheme, recruited others to join the scheme, and that makes her a criminal. She did not come to court with clean hands. I wouldn't have given the plaintiff a penny back.) Defendant claims plaintiff didn't pay him anything, but paid his partner $3500 cash, and the jewelry.

As JJ says, plaintiff was stupid, and is lucky to get her money back. The two defendants split the $3500, and never paid the commissions to the plaintiff for recruiting other suckers.

$3500 to plaintiff. Plaintiff gets her jewelry back from the wonderful Officer Byrd in the hall-terview.

(My telemarketer story is I was at my last job, and we had a lot of international students. Then some telemarketer called from India, probably Mumbai (maybe Sumit from 90 Day Fiance?), and I asked him to wait a second, and told the officer from India about the situation. He took the phone, and started talking to the man in Hindi or one dialect, and you could tell the officer was not happy. The telemarketer hung up, and the officer said the man wouldn't be calling back again, ever. I've been known to tell others that called my office (I worked for the federal government) that a Predator drone with a Hellfire missile was in their future).

Second (2017)-

Get Me On Oprah?!-Plaintiff / small business owner chiropractor Donna Skerry is suing her former marketing manager, Matthew Steffen she claims he did not deliver the publicity for her business he promised, she's suing for breach of contract, harassment, hacking and stalking . The Chiropractor has nutrition services too, and she wanted the defendant to get her on Oprah. Defendant claims the $900 defendant was paid was wasted. Plaintiff wanted market research, and online marketing, and to expand the nutrition part of her business. The proposal was submitted, but there was no signed contract.

Defendant filmed three videos for the business, and one is on the plaintiff's website now. There is a portal that included the three videos, and articles written from the videos, and articles were approved by the plaintiff's daughter the office manager for her mother's business. The fee paid was $899 one time fee, for the videos, and portal.

Plaintiff's breach of contract is thrown out, because contract terms were fulfilled. Plaintiff and daughter claim they never had access to the web portal and videos, but they downloaded the one video, and that's the only place that the video they're using is available.

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

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

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

Both cases dismissed.

Edited December 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 22, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first case on first episode new, the other two are older, second episode 2018-

First-

Simulated War Game Gone Wrong! (2020)-Plaintiffs Kenneth and Rosemarie Bass suing defendants Richard and Travis Monson over the trashing of property they rented to defendants for simulated war games/paint ball games involving hundreds of participants, over several days at a time. Company was Weapon Blender, from 2014 to 2016. Property rent was $3,000 a year, and a signed contract. Contract requires that property be cleaned up, and it's totally trashed. Plaintiffs were supposed to get a cut of entry fees, and were paid less than $2,000 for each of the three years. The company shut down in 2016, after contract ended.

Plaintiffs say they have an estimate to clean the property up that is over $5,000. Defendant smart ass #2 says he had people lined up to clean out the property, but didn't bring any proof to court.

Plaintiffs have several estimates, so they receive $5,000

Angry Grandfather Demands Payback (2020)-Plaintiff George Teixeira grandfather, suing grandson Michael Malone over a car loan (personal loan to pay off the car note). So grandfather co-signed for grandson. Grandson lied to grandfather that he would repay the loan. Grandson stopped paying on the car loan, then collections kicked in, and the collections people told the grandfather (2018). Grandson now says he doesn't think he should have to pay the car loan, and his grandfather.

Defendant's mother made three payments for him. Then the grandfather paid off the loan, because he was notified that there was a judgment against him, and he paid attorney fees to settle the loan. Defendant is now in law enforcement, that does not give me a good feeling. Defendant says he was ready to go to court over the debt. Defendant and his two children live with his mother, the kid's mother is close by, and his wife is living with her mother too.

$4424 to plaintiff for deadbeat grandson.

Child Daycare Provider Dispute (older, has an audience)-Plaintiff Tina Dayton suing defendant Bessie Miller, over day care she paid to defendant, and a $90 inconvenience fee. Defendant sent plaintiff a letter saying the daughter's potty training issues meant that the child had to leave the day care program. Charges were $35 per day, plaintiff says child there for four days. Defendant claims child was there two days a week, for a month. Defendant says daughter wasn't potty trained, but it's not in the contract that kids have to be potty trained. If the defendant wants to run a business, then the contract should list all of the rules.

Then defendant's much older boyfriend, chimes in and irritates JJ, and I'm sure Officer Byrd.

JJ says plaintiff will get the $210 deposit back.

Second (2018)-

Where’s the Love?!-Plaintiff suing defendant mother Sara Peterson , and stepfather Joseph Maciewski suing child's father Mr. Sylvester (I missed his first name). Plaintiff and bug eyed husband never had full custody of the now 9 year old daughter, and the little girl lived with the father since 2013. Plaintiffs want half of the deduction for the daughter, he took on his taxes, but neither side pays child support. There is no written agreement on tax deduction, or health insurance for daughter. However, defendant has daughter on his health insurance since 2015 to present. Plaintiff and current husband, have four children between them, including the little girl with defendant and plaintiff wife.

Stepfather plaintiff keeps butting in, and I'm betting that he's the person pushing the deductions, and other issues. Since plaintiff paid no child support, never had custody, and doesn't cover the child's health insurance, then defendant gets the deduction. Plaintiff woman pays nothing for child, or any other thing for the girl.

When defendant was not the custodial parent, then he paid his child support. All of the filings were by the plaintiff's current husband, not the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's case dismissed. (Defendant's father, I guess, chimes in).

Small Dog Takes a Bite Out of Delivery Man?!-Plaintiff Zandro Bautista, food deliverer for Grub Hub, suing Ms. Rios defendant, over defendant's dog biting him. The defendant's roommate ordered from Grub Hub (Burger King if anyone cares), and plaintiff rang the doorbell, roommate answered the door, and let the defendant Rios' dog out. Then the plaintiff said the dog bit him (it's a Chi., or cross, or a Min Pin, about that size).

Defendant's roommate claims she saw no bite, but plaintiff says his leg was bleeding. (Some small dogs have very sharp teeth, and nasty temperaments. A friend who is Vet Tech says her only bites have been from small dogs).

Then the funny part, plaintiff called 911, and said he called because he was afraid for his life. JJ really reacts badly to plaintiff calling 911, and she's so right. I hope no one else needed the fire department's services when they were looking at a bruise on this guy's leg, and the dog had all of it's shots.

Plaintiff was suing for $5,000. I will never forgive the defendant dog owner for putting a dress on that dog.

Plaintiff actually wanted the dog removed from court. The plaintiff has actually delivered to the defendant's home several times since the 'bite'. The dog was quiet, and in the owner's arms the entire time, the plaintiff was trying to make his case that the dog was vicious.

Plaintiff gets $250 for his doctor visit. $1,074 was the ER bill, why didn't he go to urgent care?

Edited December 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · December 23, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

JJ's husband tells the telemarketers where to go, and how to get there

I ask them for their home phone # and tell 'em I'll call them tonite and we can discuss the matter

SRTouch · December 23, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first case on first episode new, the other two are older, second episode 2018-

First-

Simulated War Game Gone Wrong! (2020)-Plaintiffs Kenneth and Rosemarie Bass suing defendants Richard and Travis Monson over the trashing of property they rented to defendants for simulated war games/paint ball games involving hundreds of participants, over several days at a time.

Oh my, JJ really burned through these today. Guess it doesn't take long when litigants show up with no evidence. This first case one of the paintball brothers actually told JJ he had no evidence, and she should just take his word.

Quote

Angry Grandfather Demands Payback (2020)

This one over so fast I blinked and missed it........ well, actually I left room for a few minutes and it was over by time I came back. Now that I'm watching live with an antenna there is no rewinding the DVR to see what I missed

Quote

Child Daycare Provider Dispute (older, has an audience)-Plaintiff Tina Dayton suing defendant Bessie Miller, over day care she paid to defendant, and a $90 inconvenience fee. ...... If the defendant wants to run a business, then the contract should list all of the rules.

Yet another person 'sort of' running a business without learning the basics of what this means...... we see it all the time, especially with landlords who don't bother learning duties/responsibilities before renting....... this time daycare provider wants to unilaterally add conditions to the contract, but that will only work if both parties agree........ does not help that D charges per day and has nothing to show what days she cared for the kid....... never helps when mouthy moral support witness keeps butting in..........

Edited December 23, 2020 by SRTouch

LetsStartTalking · December 23, 2020

On 12/21/2020 at 6:59 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first case of first episode 2020, others date?, second episode 2013-

First-

Passed Out on the Lawn! (2020)-Plaintiff Marco Polo suing Gary Zapata, his former landlord for return of deposit, $250.     Defendant says one incident was plaintiff being passed out on the lawn, and plaintiff was arrested for public intoxication, and spent a day or two in jail. Defendant also says plaintiff damaged the garage door, by hitting it with his car. Plaintiff was given a 30-day notice to leave and claims he was only given the notice because defendant told him he was going to rent the entire house to a big family. Defendant, and the other two roommates who lived there when Marco Polo lived there are still in the house.    Plaintiff says his car only 'kissed' the garage door, and it didn't hurt the door. When defendant opened the garage door, the car parked against it ruined the garage door mechanism. The photo of the plaintiff's car against the garage door also shows a flattened tire, from plaintiff hitting a curb (driving drunk?).

Since defendant never presented plaintiff with the bill for the garage door, then the damages are dismissed.

Woman Demands Quiet Time (older ?)-Plaintiff Ernesto Rios suing Sarah "Sally" Fulmer, former landlord for return of his security deposit. Plaintiff moved to California, and rented a room at defendant's apartment. Plaintiff paid $1300, first and last month's rent, and $200 security deposit. Plaintiff received a notice to leave after two months at her apartment. Defendant likes quiet time, and said plaintiff was too noisy, and was home during the day. Defendant claims she offered to give the last month's rent back, but not the $200 security deposit.

Plaintiff left in September, but notice from defendant said he could stay through October. $550 for last month's rent to plaintiff. Defendant claims damages are holes in the wall, no estimate.

Plaintiff receives $750, a month's rent, and security deposit.

Tenant Conflict (older ?)-Plaintiff Erna Stark ( a woman) suing former landlord-to-be Derek Larson for rent and deposit. She was going to rent a room for $500 a month, and security of $600. She asked when she could move in, and was told she couldn't move in on the first of the month, because the room wouldn't be ready yet, but could move in the middle of the month. Erna has a text from the landlord, that he will repay her rent, and deposit. The move in issue was defendant's parents own the house, and didn't want roommates immediately.

$500 to plaintiff, and jerk defendant's mike cut off.

Passed Out on the Lawn!

RBG Judy presiding:

Judy totally disappointed me on this case. I was waiting for her to say to the plaintiff: "Marco Polo ? That's the most ridiculous name I've ever heard." But Marco Polo has other problems, namely drinking. Along with destroying his landlord's property, namely garage doors. But the landlord has his problems, namely Marco Polo, so he evicted him. Along with a damaged garage door, namely with no repair estimates. So Judge Judy ruled in the case - namely 'dismissed'.

Woman Demands Quiet Time

Estelle Getty Judy presiding:

Sarah "Sally" Fulmer needs to find a new way to support her income. Not wanting her housemate to spend time at home, is like being a prostitute but not willing to have sex with her clients. If she's desiring the 'quiet life' in her golden years, maybe she should consider a convent.

Tenant Conflict

Estelle Getty Judy presiding:

I knew when sexy, handsome stud muffin Derek Larson walked up to the defendant's table, his goose was cooked. If there's one thing Judy can't stand is handsome young men. Derek couldn't get his defense out because Judy believed she had the whole case figured out. Even Erna got giggly and turned to Jell-O at the mention of Mr. Larson, and couldn't help admit that she took the room to rent because he was nice looking in his appearance. But when she met him a second time, he was disheveled and unkempt, with a different personality. Certainly not 'marrying material' for Erna, and not 'housemate' material, either.

LetsStartTalking · December 23, 2020

15 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

5 p.m. episodes, first case on first episode new, the other two are older, second episode 2018-

First-

Simulated War Game Gone Wrong! (2020)-Plaintiffs Kenneth and Rosemarie Bass suing defendants Richard and Travis Monson over the trashing of property they rented to defendants for simulated war games/paint ball games involving hundreds of participants, over several days at a time. Company was Weapon Blender, from 2014 to 2016. Property rent was $3,000 a year, and a signed contract. Contract requires that property be cleaned up, and it's totally trashed. Plaintiffs were supposed to get a cut of entry fees, and were paid less than $2,000 for each of the three years. The company shut down in 2016, after contract ended.

Plaintiffs say they have an estimate to clean the property up that is over $5,000. Defendant smart ass #2 says he had people lined up to clean out the property, but didn't bring any proof to court.

Plaintiffs have several estimates, so they receive $5,000

Angry Grandfather Demands Payback (2020)-Plaintiff George Teixeira grandfather, suing grandson Michael Malone over a car loan (personal loan to pay off the car note). So grandfather co-signed for grandson. Grandson lied to grandfather that he would repay the loan. Grandson stopped paying on the car loan, then collections kicked in, and the collections people told the grandfather (2018). Grandson now says he doesn't think he should have to pay the car loan, and his grandfather.

Defendant's mother made three payments for him. Then the grandfather paid off the loan, because he was notified that there was a judgment against him, and he paid attorney fees to settle the loan. Defendant is now in law enforcement, that does not give me a good feeling. Defendant says he was ready to go to court over the debt. Defendant and his two children live with his mother, the kid's mother is close by, and his wife is living with her mother too.

$4424 to plaintiff for deadbeat grandson.

Child Daycare Provider Dispute (older, has an audience)-Plaintiff Tina Dayton suing defendant Bessie Miller, over day care she paid to defendant, and a $90 inconvenience fee. Defendant sent plaintiff a letter saying the daughter's potty training issues meant that the child had to leave the day care program. Charges were $35 per day, plaintiff says child there for four days. Defendant claims child was there two days a week, for a month. Defendant says daughter wasn't potty trained, but it's not in the contract that kids have to be potty trained. If the defendant wants to run a business, then the contract should list all of the rules.

Then defendant's much older boyfriend, chimes in and irritates JJ, and I'm sure Officer Byrd.

JJ says plaintiff will get the $210 deposit back.

Simulated War Game Gone Wrong!

RBG Judge Judy presiding:

This is one of those many cases where you ask yourself, "Wow ! Judge Judy went to post-graduate law school to decide a case about a lot filled with trash ?" or better yet, "Doesn't Judge Judy have better things to do today ?" I know I had better things to do than listen to this case.

Child Daycare Provider Dispute

Estelle Getty Judy presiding:

Plaintiff asked for $90 'inconvenience' fee, but Judy claimed she was the one being inconvenienced (doing her job, no less). How many of us can tell clients and customers we're 'inconvenienced' by them when it's part of our job to deal with them each day? Would we last 25 years and get a hefty pay raise each year ? Hmmmm...

As for potty-training, I thought the defendant was going to pee herself standing in front of Judge Judy, as she was so nervous. Best part of the case was when her orangutan of a boyfriend decided to join in and 'mansplain' to Judge Judy. That went just as I expected.

SRTouch · December 23, 2020

Ok, now that JJ is running older reruns on one of my local stations it's confirming what I long suspected - JJ, who is so abrupt and rude that I can barely watch current cases, was much more enjoyable just a few years ago. It's not that litigants have changed - they were just as clueless, it's the way JJ reacts when litigants do and say stupid stuff.

cheap fiddle with premium price: P bought violin, then decides it's not worth what she was charged and wants refund - her problem is that the seller/broker bought it from a company with a 'no return' policy after 14 days, and she took too long to try to return it - as I heard it, D was offering partial refund if she waited until he resold the violin, but the place where he bought it (online, maybe) was NOT refunding anything....... JJ took time to explain - several times - that P was not entitled to any refund, and eventually dismissed case

Breakup kerfuffle: broke-ass bf moves in with gf after agreeing to pay rent - dude supposedly lost job just before moving in - still no job and currently bunking with mommy's bf (when not homeless sleeping in his truck) - 4 months later she gives him the boot - JJ doesn't dig for reason for breakup, but at least part of it is because bf likes the booze a lot more than gf is comfortable with - during their time together stuff went back and forth, he gave her a ring (JJ says engagement ring, P says no way, just a gift) she pays to repair his truck - simple case as both agree he agreed to pay rent and never paid, the rest JJ writes off as normal cohabitation with marriage - P has some of D's property which she has been holding hostage for the rent and JJ tells D he has 5 days to pick it up and awards P her rent money

DIDN'T WATCH SECOND EPISODE........not sure how long I'll be getting these older reruns....... not even sure how long they've been airing them since the tv guide still says "Caught in Providence" is scheduled for this time slot

Carolina Girl · December 23, 2020

21 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I ask them for their home phone # and tell 'em I'll call them tonite and we can discuss the matter

I like getting the scam callers from Apple. I ask where they're calling from, and they apparently know enough about Apple to say "Cupertino." Then I ask them for the zip code. *click*

CrazyInAlabama · December 23, 2020

4 p.m. reruns-

First (2017)-

The Joy of Music...Murdered-Plaintiff (violin buyer)Badra Saljooghi suing defendant Armen Movsessian (violin teacher and seller) over the cost of a violin, and violin classes. Plaintiff bought a violin for $700 from defendant, and she says that was over priced, and wants teacher to refund money for lessons. The teacher credited her for one lesson, and actually taught the second lesson until plaintiff got mad at defendant. Defendant bought the violin for $500 from a violin maker who sells on Ebay, and replaced the strings, and sold it to plaintiff for $700. Plaintiff wants $700 back. The plaintiff's case is ridiculous. I don't know, but I'm guessing replacing a full set of strings, and the labor involved is probably close to $200. (Why do I suspect that plaintiff found another violin, and it was cheaper, and she either wanted to get the full refund, and save money buying the cheaper one, or just give up the violin because she wasn't an instant expert).

(The violin teacher appeared as a performer at several years of Yanni concerts and tours, and has been teaching for years. He's very accomplished in his field apparently)

Plaintiff case dismissed.

It Was Not an Engagement Ring-Plaintiff Teri Furgison suing ex-boyfriend Jerry Egger (yes, they were Terri and Jerry) for unpaid rent ($1600), money owed for other loans, and money for car repairs. Plaintiff also wants engagement ring back from defendant, but she says it wasn't a proposal or engagement, because she's never getting married again.

Ring cost $9,000, but woman claims it wasn't an engagement ring. Plaintiff paid for defendant's truck repairs, in return for her driving the truck, but he moved out first, and truck went with him. If it wasn't an engagement ring, then why is plaintiff suing her "ex-fiance".

Defendant put $2700 down on the ring, and is still paying for it, even though he sold it (apparently still short on the payments remaining). Defendant wants property back from plaintiff's home.

Other loans, and the ring dismissed. Defendant is still out of work, lost his job due to 'his stupidity', and is living in his truck, or sometimes with his mother's boyfriend.

Plaintiff will get the $1600 for rent, and defendant will get his property back if he picks it up in five days, with an escort.

Second (2017)-

Roommate Cat Fight?!-Plaintiff Paige Morgan is suing former roommate Natasha McClendon for rent, bills, stolen possessions, a broken bed, and an assault. Defendant was staying at a motel, and could no longer afford it ($1300 a month extended stay). So, co-worker plaintiff (they're both servers) wanted to have defendant move into her apartment and split the rent, and bills. Rent was $650, $325 each. Defendant stayed from mid-September to the end of December 2016. Defendant claims she paid her rent for the three months. However, defendant only paid the $325 for two of the three months.

Also, plaintiff's boyfriend was in the apartment a lot of the time, and defendant wanted to pay only a third of the rent, even though the plaintiff and boyfriend shared the same bedroom. Defendant didn't pay her half of the utilities, so plaintiff took her name off of the cable bill.

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

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

$325 to plaintiff for the month's rent.

Pink Eye, Stink Eye!-Plaintiff Linda Booker suing makeup artist Debbie Grant (Oh So Natural is her business name according to plaintiff's postings) for refund of fee, medical expenses, and damages. Plaintiff went to defendant to get permanent makeup tattooed on her eyelids.

The defendant is certified for the makeup by her teacher, and some organization I've never heard of. Since it tattooing, not classified as cosmetology, many states don't require a cosmetology license. Plaintiff claims she got pink eye at the defendant's house during the procedure (since when does pink eye require hospital visits?)

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

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

JJ throws out the defendant's harassment counter claim. JJ doesn't care about the waiver plaintiff signed refusing an allergy test.

(I think JJ was wrong. Plaintiff could have used older mascara, or some other issue, causing the infection, or caught pink eye after the tattooing).

Plaintiff receives her $862.

Edited December 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · December 24, 2020

5 p.m. episodes, first episode first case new, second case?, second episode rerun-

First (2020) new-

Buffalo Head Mystery (2020)-Plaintiff Michael Carpenter is suing defendant for the stuffed buffalo head that was in her bar, but plaintiff claims was his stolen buffalo head, and disappeared from the bar after plaintiff wanted the buffalo head back. Defendant Kimberly Morales is the bar owner. Plaintiff says he took the buffalo head to a taxidermist 40 years ago (he's 70), and his father picked the head up, but he never got the head back. For many years, plaintiff claims the buffalo head in the bar was his, and came to Ms. Morales by her recent purchase of the bar from the previous bar owner. There is no way of knowing what plaintiff's father did with the buffalo head he picked up from the taxidermist. My biggest question is why did the plaintiff's father pick up and keep the buffalo head from the taxidermist? Was plaintiff out of town (incarcerated? On a trip to Mars?).

Plaintiff asked previous bar owner where he got the buffalo head from (hearsay, inadmissible). 10 years ago, plaintiff claims he found his buffalo head in the bar was the same head he had mounted, and was hanging in the bar. Plaintiff had no room to hang the head until recently, and then he went to get the head. (Buffalo heads aren't that distinctive, so I think he's out of luck). Plaintiff is moving to Wyoming to open a restaurant, and has three semitrucks to move his stuff, including the buffalo head he wants back. Defendant has a bill of sale for the bar, and says two buffalo heads were loaned, but it doesn't say who they were loaned from. The one buffalo head is still hanging in the bar, but plaintiff's buffalo head is gone, and defendant claims some other customer picked it up over a year ago.

Case dismissed, defendant doesn't have the damn buffalo head. Defendant says another person came with proof, and took the head. Defendant says even plaintiff's daughter told her that the head wasn't plaintiff's buffalo head. Plaintiff can get another one for about $100 and up on ebay.

Plaintiff ridiculous case dismissed.

Stop Stinking Up My House! (2020)-Plaintiff Divanny Ledesma suing former landlord Allison Hunt for security deposit. $1700 was for two months rent, and security deposit. Plaintiff moved in mid-September, and moved out in October, before plaintiff's notice until November.

Landlady thinks because $1700 check was written by plaintiff's parents, then that is important. Plaintiff says defendant's rules were ridiculous. Plaintiff says defendant didn't like the smell of cooking eggs, and other items.

Plaintiff says between Sept. 30th and Oct. 5th, she figured out from the HOA documents that the room rental was illegal. On Sept 30th plaintiff gave notice, and then on October 5th, plaintiff said she woke up to defendant pacing, and peering in her bedroom window. Plaintiff moved out on the same day. Plaintiff moved in temporarily with a co-worker, and rented an apartment with another co-worker, she found the apartment the same day she moved out. JJ doesn't believe that plaintiff found another apartment on the same day she moved out of defendant's place, signed a lease, and moved in. That is pretty quick if the new landlord does a credit check, and other procedures before signing the lease.

Since plaintiff lived there the first five days of October, so she owes the October rent. Defendant claims plaintiff stained the granite in her brand new house. Defendant seems to have confused landlord with mommy. Defendant claims half of security deposit isn't refundable. Defendant wants to see a picture of the granite, with a bill to repair it, $130. Defendant claims there is an oil ring on the counter that was the plaintiff's fault. (Defendant's granite wasn't properly sealed I bet).

$400 security back to plaintiff.

Second-(2018)-

Back Child Support Eats Up Settlement Check!-Plaintiff Jessica Benham suing defendant Jesus Luna over loans she made to defendant two weeks after meeting him online, and bail money, $750 bail, and $3850 for motels = $4,600. He dumped her for his ex-girlfriend (big surprise to plaintiff). Defendant was expecting a workman's comp settlement, $116 after garnishments for child support (he would have received $2,600 without the garnishment). Defendant immediately told plaintiff how broke he was pending his settlement check.

Plaintiff loaned defendant $ after he was evicted by previous landlord, who had no right to lease his property, and plaintiff paid for defendant's motel room after the eviction. Plaintiff didn't go in the hotel room, just go to the office, and pay his rent with a credit card. Defendant claims plaintiff was in the motel room waiting for him, and suggesting sex for hotel room.

Defendant only agree to pay plaintiff out of his settlement, and only received $116.

Plaintiff took out six payday loans to pay the motel bills for the defendant. She had to pay Motel 6 every day for the room. After plaintiff ran out of motel money, he stayed at the plaintiff's place for three days, and then left (for his ex).

(Defendant confesses to being an A-Hole, which was bleeped. A statement we can all agree with).

Plaintiff took out $750 loan for bail, but bail was only $150.

$150 for plaintiff for bail, but nothing for fees or loans (so she loses $4.450.)

$65,000 Black Ice Settlement-Plaintiff Jessica Tenorio suing defendant Ashley Patterson for a loan of $4,000. Plaintiff slipped, and fell in her building, and the settlement was $65,000 net to plaintiff. Defendant was loaned $4,000 by plaintiff for back bills. Meanwhile, plaintiff had boob enhancement in Colombia from her settlement, and that was $4,000. Plaintiff did the 'loan' before the settlement came in, so she took the money out of her bank account. However, there is no proof of anything, except that plaintiff took money out of her account, and the amounts don't even match.

Plaintiff's statement says she loaned the money out of her settlement, but she didn't receive that for months after the loan. JJ says she thinks the defendant borrowed money, but it wasn't the unproven amount of $4,000. Defendant says she borrowed $4k in January.

(This case was stupid to bring to JJ's court. I agree with JJ, there may have been a loan, but it wasn't $4k. By the way, plaintiff's new boobs were not impressive. You get what you pay for, and she went cheap).

So JJ will send this back to the local court, and they can straighten it out. Bet you this will never be tried again.

(My view is Officer Byrd has been doing this long enough that he knows when to pay attention, and when to just stand there glaring at people).

Edited December 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

One Tough Cookie · December 24, 2020

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff claims the defendant's child had pink eye, or eye infections,

Yeah, I have had my make up done professionally, and I use my make up if I can and Always use my own brushes.

eta: Byrd is just phoning it in lately, isn't he?

Edited December 24, 2020 by One Tough Cookie

parrotfeathers · December 24, 2020

14 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$150 for plaintiff for bail, but nothing for fees or loans (so she loses $4.450.)

This case truly proves there is an idiot born every minute. She wasn't unattractive at all and lots of men like "healthy" women. It amazes me that men and women fall for things like this. She should send a thank you note to his ex girlfriend for taking him off her hands.

Sign In

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ItsHelloPattiagain

bad things are bad

AZChristian

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment