Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Bobby88

Judge Judy's worst moments, rulings, etc.

Recommended Posts

I love Judge Judy just like everyone else, but like many of you, I sometimes find myself shaking my head at some of her decisions. I thought it would be neat to make a thread to discuss such moments. This thread isn't limited to just rulings you disagree with, but also:

* Certain remarks JJ made to litigants that you feel were inappropriate or overly-insulting or judgemental (Seriously, we've seen her use that "haven't missed a meal" line sometimes out of nowhere. That's not necessary.)

* Cases where it was obvious that there was more to the story than we're being shown and that if such info had come out in court, it may have affected the ruling.

* Irrelevant questions asked by JJ. (I don't think this happens as often as some of the other things I've listed. I have to admit that when it does happens, I get a slight sense of satisfaction at those few litigants who politely ask the relevance or tell her it's none of her business. Not the ones who do so in a smug or combative fashion, though. Anybody else feel similarly?)

* Certain biases expressed by JJ.

I think you get the gist. I'm really not trying to bash the show or JJ, but after reading some of the posts in the All Rise thread, I can see that some of you get just as frustrated as I do sometimes. Consider this a place to vent.

My contributions to this thread to get things going (I haven't seen many of these in years, so apologies if my memory is foggy on certain details):

* A cop suing a motorist for filing a false complaint against him for rudeness at a traffic stop. Although the ruling in favor of the plaintiff was totally fair, I thought JJ was slightly harsher than she need have been with the defendant. On the tape recording of the stop, the cop is somewhat curt (even JJ admits that the officer could have been a bit friendlier) toward the driver who is perfectly cooperative and admits that he was speeding. When the officer hands him his ticket, the motorist notices that the cop mistakenly wrote down that his car was brown instead of gray and calmly inquires about it. The officer replies somewhat smugly "Well, it looks brown through my sunglasses ." From there, a slight argument ensues, which understandably irritates JJ. The reason I think she may have overreacted a little is because she seemed to be annoyed with the fact that the defendant even found the error in first place. They always tell you to read any document, especially legal one, carefully before signing. He did and found an error. To the cop and JJ, who know the law, it was a silly mistake that likely would not have caused the defendant any problems in traffic court. But the defendant, who has very little legal knowledge, probably didn't know that and that's why he brought it to the cop's attention. The argument beyond that was of course unacceptable. This was one of those cases where although the officer was not unprofessional and rude in this case, his smug demeanor in court and on the tape made me think that he could potentially be, if that makes sense.

* A case where a father leaves his 18-year-old daughter home alone and she invites her 19-year-old boyfriend (that dad doesn't care for) over. The TV gets broken and the boyfriend gets blamed. Eventually, JJ is able to get the plaintiff's daughter to admit to her role in the incident. Although JJ was actually nice to the defendant (who initially came across as a slight smart-ass) and even admitted that he seemed like a nice young man. She gently stated that his girlfriend's father may have a problem with him is because he was somewhat of a wise guy. The defendant agrees with this and when she asks what he does for a living, he states that he works at McDonald's and that he's not in college. JJ replies something like "Well, McDonald's isn't going to get you very far in life and I have a feeling that the plaintiff wants more for his daughter than that.". I'm sorry, what? What's so bad about working at McDonald's, especially at 19? How many 19-year-olds does she admonish for sitting around and not even trying to work and choosing to collect "her and Byrd's taxes" or mooching off their parents? McDonald's may not be the most glamorous job, but it's an honest living. Besides, some people aren't cut out for college.

Edited by Bobby88
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

On a rerun yesterday JJ was particularly nasty to a landlord who was trying to get money for holes his tenant's children had put in the walls of the house.  From the pictures it looked like multiple holes has been kicked in walls.  She kept snarling at the landlord, "she lived there five years, normal wear and tear.  Don't show me any pictures of the walls!!"  I didn't understand why she felt holes in the walls were normal wear and tear, when on other occasions she has yelled at tenants for leaving the place a mess and awarded damages.  the landlord may have been highballing the damage but there was definitely damage, yet she ruled the he has to give back part of the security because the damage wasn't that bad.  Strange ruling IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

There's one episode I've seen twice, and I really feel like JJ "blew it" in her ruling.

Scenario:  Plaintiff's vehicle going southbound has a green arrow to turn left to go eastbound and proceeds to do so.  Defendant's vehicle going northbound has a red light, stops, and then turns right to go eastbound.  The eastbound street has two lanes.  The two vehicles collide very close to the lane markings right after both vehicles have turned to go eastbound.  

JJ ruled against the plaintiff, saying that she believed the plaintiff had taken a wide turn and come into the defendant's lane.  I contend that the defendant didn't legally "have" a lane in that scenario.  According to AZ state law (and similar to others, I assume):  "The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.  (Emphasis added by me.)  The plaintiff in this case had a green arrow and was, therefore, "proceeding as directed by signal."  The defendant was at a red light, and should have yielded the right of way.  JJ ASSUMED the plaintiff had made a wide turn (not proven).  But the defendant had a legal responsibility to stay stopped when she saw the defendant turning towards her.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

And following on with the above, if you don't have a left turn light, JJ thinks that you should not even enter the intersection to make a left turn unless you can turn without stopping.  That's virtually impossible in some areas.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

We have had the "enter the intersection to turn left" discussion on this board many times. Posters who know the law - lawyers, law enforcement, insurance adjusters - all agree that she is correct. You don't wait in an intersection - you don't enter the intersection if you can't immediately get out of the intersection. It's dangerous and, in most places, absolutely illegal. Even if you don't get slapped with a moving violation, you will most certainly be found responsible for any accident that results. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

In Arizona, you are permitted to enter the intersection to wait for straight-through traffic.  You just can't hit the oncoming vehicle.

28-772. Vehicle turning left at intersection

The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

27 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

In Arizona, you are permitted to enter the intersection to wait for straight-through traffic.  You just can't hit the oncoming vehicle.

28-772. Vehicle turning left at intersection

The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard.

California too. You can enter the intersection to wait, and you're allowed to finish the turn once the light changes. 

A couple of days ago, JJ was aggressive right from the start against a young couple who had objected to an eviction notice on the grounds that it was retaliation. Was it? I have no clue, because she cut them off every time they tried to explain. But from the sound of it the landlord had tried to steamroll the eviction process, and JJ has sided with tenants in unfair evictions before, so it would really have been nice to know what she was basing her attitude on.

Edited by Jamoche
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I just thought of a few snap judgements (at least, I felt they were) JJ made on a few old cases. What's your take on them?

* I'm sure many of us JJ fans have seen this heated closing hallterview clip from 1997 on YouTube:

The entire episode was on there briefly before being yanked and some of you had to have seen it, but for those of you who didn't, here's a brief synopsis.

An entertaining yet sad case of parents who act like bratty children in front of their own kids (but the plaintiff is the FAR more obnoxious of the two, IMO) . Cathy Burgess (lady in red) is suing neighbor and former friend Ronna Rojas for failing to pay her for babysitting her children while Ronna and her boyfriend went out of town. Ronna never did pick up her kids that night; she and her boyfriend went EIGHT hours away to San Diego ("Because we wanted to," was her explanation to the judge) and didn't bother to get them until 6pm the following night! She never called in the meantime to tell them! While this is clearly irresponsible on its own, Cathy's handling of Ronna's absence is outrageous. She takes the three children (aged 9, 5, and 3) to the local police station and in their presence, tells officers she that their mother needs to be found and arrested for child abandonment and neglect! JJ yells at both litigants and does end up reluctantly awarding Cathy (Ronna admitted all along that she never paid up) the money for the babysitting, but not of the other crap she tried to sue for.  The scariest part? The kids were in the courtroom THROUGH ALL OF THIS! JJ never had them removed!

My objection was that JJ went so far as to scream at Ronna "You are clearly an unfit custodian for your children!". Irresponsible, yes. Inconsiderate, yes. Unfit seemed a bit of a stretch to me. No evidence apart from this lapse of good judgement was presented to suggest that Ronna was in any way an unfit or abusive mother. Her nine-year-old daughter Brittany was questioned by JJ and was extremely well-spoken (naturally, not in a coached-by-mom sort of way) and polite, although I'll admit that that doesn't always mean anything. What stood out most was that Brittany sat properly in the chair behind her mother while Cathy's son and daughter who were about the same age could be seen squirming and chewing on their shirts. JJ just really appeared have a dislike for Ronna that seemed out-of-proportion to the situation at hand. She had Byrd remove her from the courtroom before a commercial break because she called Cathy a liar, stating "That's why you got that red dress on lookin' like Satan!". But Cathy was in bitch-mode the whole time. She repeatedly talked over both Ronna and JJ and even got smart with JJ a few times, and JJ was remarkably calm and restrained with her.  Ronna seemed far more pleasant and likable, despite what she did. JJ even asked Brittany at one point how long her mother had this boyfriend and whether or not she liked him. I didn't think that was any of her business and it felt like she was trying get a little dirt on Ronna that she didn't end up getting. I seriously doubt there was any abuse going on in Ronna's household. Cathy seemed far more volatile in my opinion. A little tiny part of me was glad that Ronna never paid her.

* In the famous case of LAPD officer Brett Robinson vs. spoiled daddy's girl Anissa Davis, JJ tells Anissa that she can tell that she didn't write the letter of complaint herself because "the words weren't all yours [Anissa's]". What exactly does that mean? Does that mean she thinks it came across as too articulate for an 18-year-old to have written? If so, JJ had no way of knowing just how articulate or well-educated the defendant was and it was inappropriate of her to imply that she wasn't smart enough to have written it herself. I may be a bit biased about this one because when I was in seventh grade, my history teacher accused me on two non-consecutive assignments of plagiarism (although she didn't use the word plagiarism) by writing on the paper "These are not your words.". She had no evidence of any cheating other than the fact that some of the words were not typical of most 12-year-olds. Never mind that I was one of her best students and it was common knowledge among all my teachers that my best subjects were English and creative writing. There's no question that Anissa was a spoiled brat and that Officer Robinson deserved every last penny for her bogus complaint. But JJ had no way of knowing or proving that she didn't write the complaint without assistance and if she did, it was edited out of the broadcast.

Basically, the following meme sums up how I feel JJ viewed the litigants in these two examples (and I'm sure there are other examples.)

aa5b0f8135bb685db8018fec4ee49553.jpg

Thoughts?
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 0:31 AM, Bobby88 said:

* In the famous case of LAPD officer Brett Robinson vs. spoiled daddy's girl Anissa Davis, JJ tells Anissa that she can tell that she didn't write the letter of complaint herself because "the words weren't all yours [Anissa's]". What exactly does that mean? Does that mean she thinks it came across as too articulate for an 18-year-old to have written? If so, JJ had no way of knowing just how articulate or well-educated the defendant was and it was inappropriate of her to imply that she wasn't smart enough to have written it herself. I may be a bit biased about this one because when I was in seventh grade, my history teacher accused me on two non-consecutive assignments of plagiarism (although she didn't use the word plagiarism) by writing on the paper "These are not your words.". She had no evidence of any cheating other than the fact that some of the words were not typical of most 12-year-olds. Never mind that I was one of her best students and it was common knowledge among all my teachers that my best subjects were English and creative writing. There's no question that Anissa was a spoiled brat and that Officer Robinson deserved every last penny for her bogus complaint. But JJ had no way of knowing or proving that she didn't write the complaint without assistance and if she did, it was edited out of the broadcast.

Was that the one where the girl's dad was a cop, or knew cops, or something along that line, and she filed a nasty complaint?  If so, I took it to mean that JJ thought the defendant had her dad write the complaint for her because of all of the terminology, etc, that was used.  Like it was obvious it was written by a cop and used certain language in an effort to give maximum "heft" to the complaint.  YMMV.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Officer Robinson vs. Spoiled ("Oh, wow - he didn't want to talk to ME??") Daddy's Girl -  I think everything is self-evident here:

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Officer Robinson vs. Spoiled ("Oh, wow - he didn't want to talk to ME??") Daddy's Girl -  I think everything is self-evident here:

OMG the police brutality! A cop put his hand up in her face! Like, couldn't he just see that she was a blonde?

Damn, she should've had to pay it with her own money.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

One mistake that stands out is her absolute insistence that NO ONE EVAH situates their books/packages/purse on the passenger seat and THEN reaches back to close the driver's door.  Hell, I did that twice just yesterday.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

In general, a lot of her rulings where insurance is involved irritate me.  "Well, just turn it in to your homeowners/car insurance!".  Sure.  Then the premiums will go up, and not just for one payment.  My mom got hit by an uninsured motorist, and her insurance went up for a year - with a clean driving record.  She was advised to sue him for reimbursement, but the guy had nothing.  He couldn't pay his insurance premium - he has nothing else.  The car was an old piece of crap, and he wrecked it beyond repair.  She was upset - she'd been with that insurance for over 40 years.  She called around and talked to other companies - they all said they'd have to up her premiums for a year, so she decided to stick with them.  In the end, she got lucky.  About 2 months after having the car repaired, she got a check from the repair facility.  They had quoted a new part, but were able to use a used part after they had the car torn apart, and they reimbursed her the difference.  She turned the check over to the insurance company to cover her costs for a year, but if that wouldn't have happened, she would have gotten stuck.

Some of her rulings involving kids irritate me too.  There have been many where some parent dumps a kid off at someone's house and they're not prepared for the kid to be there, or is visiting with someone and not paying attention their kid, and something gets damaged, and JJ rules against the plaintiff, using her "kid runs in to the street and gets killed" analogy.  Sometimes, yes, but much of the time, I do think the parents should be held responsible, but she's a broken record on that.  Just like the recent repeat of the one where the mom brings the wrong car seat for the kid and the driver gets fined.  She has no kids, so she didn't know.  I wouldn't know either if it was the correct car seat or not.  Or the one where the parents tell the girl she can't ride the scooter and she goes and sits on it and knocks it over and damages it.  The parents said no to a ride.  The girl knew this.  She asks if she can sit on it.  She was old enough to know better.  Her hand-wringing parents slayed me.  They practically portrayed him as someone who terrorized little kids on his scooter, driving dangerously, etc.  Please.

Edited by funky-rat
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, arejay said:

One mistake that stands out is her absolute insistence that NO ONE EVAH situates their books/packages/purse on the passenger seat and THEN reaches back to close the driver's door.  Hell, I did that twice just yesterday.

Yeah, no. I'm from Texas originally and on a hot day you don't want to close the door until just before you start up the A/C. Plus it's awkward to wriggle around to get the door closed while you're still holding things, and you have less space for the wriggling.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The ruling on the case shown a month or so ago (don't know if it was a rerun) where the defendant kept trying use his security deposit to cover not only damages,  but late rent and all sorts of crap. The plaintiff certainly deserved at least some of the money she was awarded (namely rent), but not all of it. She claimed he left the apartment a mess, but her photographic "evidence" was a picture of a small pile of dust and dirt with an old pencil that she found behind the washer/dryer and a dirty microwave or something stupid (don't quote me on the last one, but it was something dumb like that). Basically, stuff that we've seen JJ declare to be normal wear and tear and refuse to consider. Then she claimed that the apartment was so dirty that she took 54 bags of trash out of there. Yet she had not one picture a single bag, let alone 54. JJ awarded her that too. The only thing that she rightfully withheld from the plaintiff was damage from a few years prior when the defendant's ex-wife lived there. At the time, the lease was in her name and only when they divorced was the lease signed over to the defendant.

While the defendant came across as shifty, I don't blame him for being pissed about the alleged damages. When JJ showed him the picture of the dirt and pencil, he deadpanned, "Well, that's dirt." And when she continued to admonish him about leaving the apartment such a mess, he came back with "Your honor, she says I left 54 garbage bags but all she can show you is dirt on the floor?". JJ awards the plaintiff her money and gives the defendant a "Gah-bye!"

I think this is one of the cases I talked about earlier where it seemed like JJ didn't like the offending party and that clouded her judgement. Just because a litigant did something wrong doesn't mean that EVERY SINGLE STUPID LITTLE ALLEGATION leveled at them by the plaintiff is true. She took the snooty plaintiff's word about the trash bags and such and I really think it was grossly exaggerated if not made up.

I'm sure you've all seen other examples of cases like the ones I've mentioned where JJ's dislike for someone kept her from being totally impartial.

Edited by Bobby88
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I was just thinking of my initial post in this thread about the smug traffic cop and it raised a question. Has there ever been a case (I've only ever seen one) where a cop sued someone for a false accusation or something and it turned out he was lying or at least exaggerating and that the defendant's complaint actually had some merit? The only one I can think of is from way back in 1998:

Officer Charles Muse is suing motorist Larry Pasley for hitting him with his (Larry's) car door when he was writing him a ticket for being illegally parked at his daughter's soccer game. He says his leg was severely bruised and he had to miss the next few weeks of work. The defendant pleaded guilty because he said it was an accident (the plaintiff implied that the he did it carelessly in anger), but says that Officer Muse is lying about how badly he was injured and how much time he missed at work. Larry and his wife somehow managed to get the plaintiff's hospital records which state that not only was he cleared to go back to work the day after the injury, he did! A couple weeks after that, Officer Muse went to the hospital saying he hurt himself when he slipped at work. There were a bunch of "injuries" this officer sustained right around the time of the ticket incident. Judy is understandably disgusted with the plaintiff, but since the defendant already pleaded guilty, she legally MUST award the plaintiff something. She renders the lowest figure she can legally give the plaintiff: $1.

Anybody know of others?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, no, JJ.  One may NOT make a left turn in front of oncoming traffic in an uncontrolled intersection.  No, Ma'am.  No way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/1/2017 at 6:51 AM, arejay said:

One mistake that stands out is her absolute insistence that NO ONE EVAH situates their books/packages/purse on the passenger seat and THEN reaches back to close the driver's door.  Hell, I did that twice just yesterday.

She also doesn't believe that a woman would leave her purse in the car.  Woman said car was in the garage. But it sounds like a perfectly rational thing to do. Not every woman keeps her whole life in her purse. I rarely have to get anything out of my purse while I am home. Only money for a food delivery or credit card to order something online. And if you need it,  go out to the garage and get it. For many homes, it's as easy to go to the attached garage to get your purse as it is to walk upstairs and go to a bedroom and get your purse

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

One mistake that stands out is her absolute insistence that NO ONE EVAH situates their books/packages/purse on the passenger seat and THEN reaches back to close the driver's door. 

I've never heard her say that. She did take issue with a woman who opened her car door, then leaned over to pick up all her things off the passenger seat, and clearly hit/kicked the door open further so it hit another car pulling into a parking spot.  And she's right - every women knows you gather all of your things, then open the door precisely so you don't hit another car and also because it's safer than sitting with your back to an open door in a (perhaps deserted) parking lot.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The episode I was talking about in my original post was on a college campus somewhere in an above-ground parking lot.  Defendant had opened her door, gotten in, reached over to the passenger seat to set her books down, THEN reached back to close the door.  Plaintiff pulled into the adjoining space and struck the defendant's driver door.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just thought of two somewhat older cases where JJ's snobbery seemed to shine a bit.

* Remember that case with the three Southern sisters suing each other over their dad's rifles? JJ admonished them, citing that things like "dad's Bar Mitzvah suit" or "rosary" are sentimental, after which she raged "GUNS ARE NOT SENTIMENTAL!" and proceeded to list off every gun in their complaint, adding "is not sentimental" after each. All the litigants were super annoying, but who is JJ to decide what has sentimental value to a bereaved (albeit irritating) person? If they all hunted together (which I believe all three sisters said they did) and that's how they spent their quality time with their late father, I can definitely understand the sentiment in that. Different things have value for different people, but JJ immediately turned her nose up at the thought that something other than a Bar Mitzvah suit could possibly mean something to grieving relatives.

* In 2012, there was the case of the cancer patient (Sheryl something or other) who gave a friend some jewelry to have appraised in case she needed to sell it to pay for medical treatment. Shifty defendant (who took about five minutes of questioning to tell JJ what he did for a living because he just kept saying "self-employed") pawned it and took the cash. At the end of the case, JJ asked Sheryl what half of the jewelry's value would be, and Sheryl responded "About $5,000.". JJ responded with a smirky "Five thousand dollars? No, half their value is $2500. Judgement for the plaintiff in that amount.". Granted the jewelry wasn't there in court, but how the hell would JJ know off the top of her head that said jewelry wasn't worth $5000? I really don't think the plaintiff was trying to get one over on her and I heard an implied tone of "Yeah, right. Like you could afford $10,000 worth of jewelry." when she gave the ruling. Why not give the plaintiff the maximum amount? Especially since she did so for the fighting sisters above, and she did that for no other reason that the fact that the defendant wouldn't STFU! Seems kinda inconsistent to me.

Edited by Bobby88
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I can't stand when she decides someone's lying because of her own ignorance about a topic.

There was a case where two teens got into a fight at school. Both plaintiff and defendant were suspended. JJ decided that fact alone meant that the plaintiff was equally culpable. The plaintiff's mother said the school policy was anyone involved in a physical fight gets suspended to which JJ yells, "HA! NO WAY!"

Yes way, your honor! That was 100% the rule in my schools. Administrators aren't going to do a Mueller style investigation to determine how a fight started.

Edited by WhoaWhoKnew
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

I can't stand when she decides someone's lying because of her own ignorance about a topic.

There was a case where two teens got into a fight at school. Both plaintiff and defendant were suspended. JJ decided that fact alone meant that the plaintiff was equally culpable. When the plaintiff's mother said the school policy was anyone involved in a physical fight gets suspended to which JJ yells, "HA! NO WAY!"

Yes way, your honor! That was 100% the rule in my schools. Administrators aren't going to do a Mueller style investigation about how a fight started.

We had the same policy at my school. I was bullied a lot, but never suspended. But they would then chew me out because I pushed the person away or yelled back at them, "which escalated things". I'm so glad I didn't have at 13 the mouth I have now at 29 because I would've been put of school for sure with the things I would have told some of the faculty members. LOL

And I agree about JJ dismissing certain things because she's never had any personal experience with them.  She lives in a bubble and God help anyone who tries to suggest that not all teenagers in her court are inherently evil and untrustworthy or that every litigant on public assistance is not actually just stealing her and Byrd's money.

Edited by Bobby88
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I also resent her "Have you been psychiatrically hospitalized? Do you take psychotropic drugs?" I understand she trying to make a point about litigants not making things up, but it really suggests that someone who has a mental illness they are being treated for isn't reliable because of it.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, WhoaWhoKnew said:

I can't stand when she decides someone's lying because of her own ignorance about a topic.

There was a case where two teens got into a fight at school. Both plaintiff and defendant were suspended. JJ decided that fact alone meant that the plaintiff was equally culpable. The plaintiff's mother said the school policy was anyone involved in a physical fight gets suspended to which JJ yells, "HA! NO WAY!"

Yes way, your honor! That was 100% the rule in my schools. Administrators aren't going to do a Mueller style investigation to determine how a fight started.

 

The plaintiff -  the teacher mom -  in that case really bothered me, though. She behaved in a smart-alecky manner, from waving her hand around in a circular motion when she wanted to speak, to her  comment  that she couldn't replace her son's glasses because "teachers take a vow of poverty,"  which was utterly  ludicrous.  I taught in a state where teachers are paid far less than they are in Florida, where the mother teaches. I didn't have children yet when I taught there, but I did have two informally-placed foster children with no stipend from the state.  (One of my kindergartners' fathers was deployed in Kuwait and the mother became seriously ill after giving birth. There were no family members anywhere near and not many relatives, period. I  couldn't live with the idea of my student, who was an extremely timid five-year-old, formally entering the foster care system and being placed wherever there was room for her. The father signed temporary custody over to me via fax. I took the newborn as well primarily for the parents' peace of mind.  We had them  for two months [with help from my in-laws and from three parents of students in my class, who took turns babysitting while I was teaching or in class] until the father could get back to the states. The mom did make a full recovery.) My husband was in medical school and I was in law school and we could barely afford bread and peanut butter, but when the kindergartner's glasses were broken, we came up with the money to replace them. 

 

I'm a former teacher, and I don't like bullying any more than the next person does, but the plaintiff didn't have a very good handle on how to deal with it.  For one thing, we had only the word of the mother and her son that he was bullied. That's a claim anyone can make in defense of any action, and it is sometimes used to excuse all sorts of actions.  In absence of other compelling evidence, the case really had to be judged on what went down on that particular day. The plaintiff's kid started the altercation on that day.  His mother cannot then expect to prevail in a suit for damages in a fight when the first act of aggression on that given day was by her son.

 

Though my children are not yet school-aged, and though Judge Judy didn't agree at all,  I totally get that if a kid is being bullied, a time may come when the parent finds it necessary to give a kid  permission to defend himself against a bully.  The parent needs to tell the kid, however, that he or she cannot  protect him from school or legal consequences. If, for example,  the school administration decides that it was a mutual fight and not an assault by one student against another, it's conceivable that both students will be suspended.  Likewise, if the plaintiff's child was the first of the participants to get physical, so to speak, his mother is not going to be successful in litigating against the other combatant over her own son's broken glasses.  

 

Right now the public in general reacts strongly to allegations of bullying, and rightly so. On the other hand, it should be considered that anyone can make an allegation of bullying.  Not every allegation of bullying or of anything else is inherently true. Furthermore, even if the allegations are true,  one kid cannot initiate aggression on a given day - no matter what is said to him on that day by the alleged bully -  then expect to prevail in using "bullying" as a reason why the other kid  should pay for the replacement of broken glasses.  

 

Assuming that there was substance to the allegations of bullying, I would have had a serious issue with the kid who had been bullied being prosecuted for the incident as described.  If he really was the victim of bullying, I, unlike JJ,  understand why a parent would tell him to defend himself.  If I gave my son permission to defend himself, however, I would  be more specific in my instructions to my son, and would tell him not to start the physical aspect of a fight, but to defend himself if someone hit, kicked, pushed, spat on, or detained him.   If one kid escalates the altercation from verbal to physical, his mother cannot expect the other kid's parent to pay for her kid's broken glasses.   As a teacher, the boy's mother should have understood this.

Edited by jilliannatalia
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/27/2017 at 12:31 AM, Bobby88 said:

* In the famous case of LAPD officer Brett Robinson vs. spoiled daddy's girl Anissa Davis, JJ tells Anissa that she can tell that she didn't write the letter of complaint herself because "the words weren't all yours [Anissa's]". What exactly does that mean? Does that mean she thinks it came across as too articulate for an 18-year-old to have written? If so, JJ had no way of knowing just how articulate or well-educated the defendant was and it was inappropriate of her to imply that she wasn't smart enough to have written it herself. I may be a bit biased about this one because when I was in seventh grade, my history teacher accused me on two non-consecutive assignments of plagiarism (although she didn't use the word plagiarism) by writing on the paper "These are not your words.". She had no evidence of any cheating other than the fact that some of the words were not typical of most 12-year-olds. Never mind that I was one of her best students and it was common knowledge among all my teachers that my best subjects were English and creative writing. There's no question that Anissa was a spoiled brat and that Officer Robinson deserved every last penny for her bogus complaint. But JJ had no way of knowing or proving that she didn't write the complaint without assistance and if she did, it was edited out of the broadcast.


 

Totally agree on this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/26/2017 at 3:03 PM, AZChristian said:

There's one episode I've seen twice, and I really feel like JJ "blew it" in her ruling.

Scenario:  Plaintiff's vehicle going southbound has a green arrow to turn left to go eastbound and proceeds to do so.  Defendant's vehicle going northbound has a red light, stops, and then turns right to go eastbound.  The eastbound street has two lanes.  The two vehicles collide very close to the lane markings right after both vehicles have turned to go eastbound.  

JJ ruled against the plaintiff, saying that she believed the plaintiff had taken a wide turn and come into the defendant's lane.  I contend that the defendant didn't legally "have" a lane in that scenario.  According to AZ state law (and similar to others, I assume):  "The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.  (Emphasis added by me.)  The plaintiff in this case had a green arrow and was, therefore, "proceeding as directed by signal."  The defendant was at a red light, and should have yielded the right of way.  JJ ASSUMED the plaintiff had made a wide turn (not proven).  But the defendant had a legal responsibility to stay stopped when she saw the defendant turning towards her.

I don't recall the case -- but did you mean that there were two lanes going east? If there are two lanes going east, then the person making a left must turn into the left lane. - that's the law in NJ & NY and JJ is correct.   If you meant there were two lanes, one going east and one going west, then you are correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ElleMo said:

I don't recall the case -- but did you mean that there were two lanes going east? If there are two lanes going east, then the person making a left must turn into the left lane. - that's the law in NJ & NY and JJ is correct.   If you meant there were two lanes, one going east and one going west, then you are correct.

That's pretty much AZ law as well.  But the law for the person turning right on red is more definitive, IMO.  If the left-turning car has a green light, they should turn into the left of two lanes (both going eastbound in your example).  But the right-turning-on-red car still must exercise a higher level of care, because they are turning on a red light and legally, the left-turning car has the right-of-way.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Totally agree on this.

On the other hand, had JJ said, later in the case, after more evidence had been presented, that she was sure the plaintiff hadn't written the letter herself because she likely had never been required to handle anything of significance without her helicopter parents' assistance and oversight, I could very easily have gone along with that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, jilliannatalia said:

On the other hand, had JJ said, later in the case, after more evidence had been presented, that she was sure the plaintiff hadn't written the letter herself because she likely had never been required to handle anything of significance without her helicopter parents' assistance and oversight, I could very easily have gone along with that.

Was her dad a cop or something?  I can't remember anymore, but if he was,  I could see JJ thinking that certain lingo used would indicate her dad wrote it, but I don't remember for sure, and I don't believe JJ elaborated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

You know what drives me crazy about JudgeJudy?  When she says “if you don’t like where you are living, then MOVE”.  We don’t all have JJ money to just pick up and move when within the first month we find a problem with our landlord.  JS

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On April 6, 2018 at 9:24 AM, funky-rat said:

Was her dad a cop or something?  I can't remember anymore, but if he was,  I could see JJ thinking that certain lingo used would indicate her dad wrote it, but I don't remember for sure, and I don't believe JJ elaborated.

No, I believe he was a dentist.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, lasandi said:

You know what drives me crazy about JudgeJudy?  When she says “if you don’t like where you are living, then AH-MOVE”.  We don’t all have JJ money to just pick up and move when within the first month we find a problem with our landlord.  JS

Fixed it for ya.  LOL.  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Fixed it for ya.  LOL.  

Lol. I meant to do that.  Thank u so much for fixing it 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/6/2018 at 7:24 AM, funky-rat said:

Was her dad a cop or something?  I can't remember anymore, but if he was,  I could see JJ thinking that certain lingo used would indicate her dad wrote it, but I don't remember for sure, and I don't believe JJ elaborated.

 

On 5/6/2018 at 7:22 AM, Spunkygal said:

No, I believe he was a dentist.

 

Yes, he was a former police officer. The video is on Youtube.

Edited by Kazu
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Kazu said:

 

Yes, he was a former police officer. The video is on Youtube.

Can you give us a link?  I've never heard her say he was anything but a dentist.

The thing she does that really annoys me is when she looks with disgust at a male litigant and then says to the female who is suing him, "He must have some charm or wit that I don't see."  In other words, "He's really unattractive and appears to be stupid."  She's usually right, but I don't think the impartial judge should verbalize those things.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Can you give us a link?  I've never heard her say he was anything but a dentist.

The thing she does that really annoys me is when she looks with disgust at a male litigant and then says to the female who is suing him, "He must have some charm or wit that I don't see."  In other words, "He's really unattractive and appears to be stupid."  She's usually right, but I don't think the impartial judge should verbalize those things.

Hmmmmm think this is a bit of miscommunication caused by texting versus spoken word. I'm thinking some folks are seeing the "he" and "him" being used and not understanding just who is being talked about. Going back to the early April thread (gotta admit, after 2 months I could have the case confused) I think @funky-rat 's comment  "JJ thinking that certain lingo used would indicate her dad wrote it"  was saying that JJ meant litigant's daddy was a cop. Somewhere along the thread, seems some folks are thinking JJ was saying her own pops was the cop in question. Now, I think we're seeing other folks correcting that by saying "nope, he was a dentist".... so, in the interest of clarity --- litigant's pop was the cop ; JJ's pop was a dentist

Or, maybe I'm just all confused and not understanding WTH you folks are saying ?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Hmmmmm think this is a bit of miscommunication caused by texting versus spoken word. I'm thinking some folks are seeing the "he" and "him" being used and not understanding just who is being talked about. Going back to the early April thread (gotta admit, after 2 months I could have the case confused) I think @funky-rat 's comment  "JJ thinking that certain lingo used would indicate her dad wrote it"  was saying that JJ meant litigant's daddy was a cop. Somewhere along the thread, seems some folks are thinking JJ was saying her own pops was the cop in question. Now, I think we're seeing other folks correcting that by saying "nope, he was a dentist".... so, in the interest of clarity --- litigant's pop was the cop ; JJ's pop was a dentist

Or, maybe I'm just all confused and not understanding WTH you folks are saying ?

Yes, I mean the Defendant's dad was a cop.  Sorry if that wasn't more clear.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm old and easily confused.  Now I understand.  LOL.  Thanks to those who went the extra mile to confirm that JJ's dad was not a cop.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I want to slam Judy for a few things she's said on her show [I don't watch it anymore as I KNOW she doesn't know the law and she lets her priviledge show in all her episodes]

1} One time a person said they had a 'dental emergency' and had to go to the dentist. Judy yelled 'THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A DENTAL EMERGENCY". 

My thought→Like Hades there isn't! When one has a simple cavity, it becomes a dental emergency. The pain of a simple cavity makes doing one's job almost impossible. And having to pop all the OTC pain pills can reek havoc on the bodu. And when it comes to dentistry, there's a lot worse/imminent things than a cavity. Just ask any dentist.

2} One time Judy got onto someone for not using their bank account while in jail.  This was about a late payment to someone on the outside. Well, even the dumbest judge knows that inmates have no access to outside financial accounts.

3} She ridiculed a man for having to look at his paperwork to refer to certain dates. He said "I have brain damage. I have to write things down to remember them. I have to refer to the paper of the dates I wrote down as I won't be able to remember what happened when." But Judy still reprimanded him every time he would look at his paper to see the dates when Judy was asking him about what happened on what date. She told him straight out that she didnt believe his story because he had to keep looking at the paper to see the dates. SIDENOTE: As a person who suffers from brain damage, just having to admit to brain damage on national TV is embarrassing enough, but to be ridiculed after that BY A JUDGE is against ADA laws.

4} One person who came in had an obvious nervous system disorder. The person kept swaying. Judy yelled at the person to quit swaying. The person tried to stop, but eventually started swaying again. She kept yelling at the person to quit swaying. 

Judy is a total jerkaholic.

I know this is a late entry. I have been holding this in for years. I needed to vent somewhere.

Edited by QuakerMaid · Reason: Forgot to add something
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not done yet!!!!!!!

[I thought I was, but just remembered another thing that solidifies Judy's ignorance]

One time a man was talking about his former girlfriend's slip into mental illness. She was later diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The man said he went to visit her at the hospital during her stay~~ while she was still having an episode but prior to the diagnosis~~ and she acted all afraid of him, telling the staff that he had beat her. Judy refused to believe him when he said he never laid a hand on the woman. "If she was afraid of you, there MUST be a reason," and she refused to believe the man no matter what he said.

The woman was in the middle of a psychotic episode, for crying out loud! She was seeing, hearing, and thinking things that were not factual!  That's what schizophrenia entails. Everyone that knows the least thing about the illness knows this.

Judy is just plain ignorant.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

On 5/1/2017 at 6:51 AM, arejay said:

One mistake that stands out is her absolute insistence that NO ONE EVAH situates their books/packages/purse on the passenger seat and THEN reaches back to close the driver's door.  Hell, I did that twice just yesterday.

I NEVER close the door before setting all my crap in the passenger seat.  Sometimes I throw the crap in the back first, then get into the car. But I always empty my hands first before closing the door. I drive small cars. I want as much room possible when I need to move around. That door stays open until I'm ready to drive off.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, QuakerMaid said:

Judy is just plain ignorant.

Well, they don't keep her up there because she's knowledgeable - they keep her up there because she's shmawt (or thinks she is anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/2/2018 at 3:44 PM, Bobby88 said:

And I agree about JJ dismissing certain things because she's never had any personal experience with them.  She lives in a bubble and God help anyone who tries to suggest that not all teenagers in her court are inherently evil and untrustworthy or that every litigant on public assistance is not actually just stealing her and Byrd's money.

Judge Judy seems at her worst when she just cannot comprehend life outside her very wealthy bubble and the litigants suffer for it.  We've seen people on the show admit:

"I don't use that account because I don't know how to write out a check"

"I didn't expect my bank to add those fees because I didn't understand about miniumum balance"

And Judge Judy either ignores it, or implies that they are lying and/or stupid.

Well, some people don't know how to write out a check because nobody taught them how.  And some intelligent, hard working people don't know about minimum balances and fees because nobody explained it to them.

Just because Judge Judy doesn't hang out with people like this doesn't mean that they don't exist.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TheLastKidPicked said:

Judge Judy seems at her worst when she just cannot comprehend life outside her very wealthy bubble and the litigants suffer for it.  We've seen people on the show admit:

"I don't use that account because I don't know how to write out a check"

"I didn't expect my bank to add those fees because I didn't understand about miniumum balance"

And Judge Judy either ignores it, or implies that they are lying and/or stupid.

Well, some people don't know how to write out a check because nobody taught them how.  And some intelligent, hard working people don't know about minimum balances and fees because nobody explained it to them.

Just because Judge Judy doesn't hang out with people like this doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Another one that gets me everything is she automatically assumes someone is lying/scamming/getting paid under the table/etc, when they say they have a stash of cash in their home. Lots of people, myself included, are either paid in cash or come home with tip money. I usually make it to the bank a couple times a month, but sometimes a month will go by. I may have a stack of cash (not in the sock drawer or under the mattress, I bought a safe after I forgot where I hid my stash and had to go treasure hunting). My safe has a slot that I can drop money through without opening it, so tip money goes in when I come home. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Some of her rulings may seem incongruous bc viewers are not privy to all the facts of the case. For those of us who have filed suit in small claims and eviction court, we are required to write a narrative describing the details of what we are alleging and the context. Then the other party is invited to write a response. These accounts can be quite lengthy and....boring. The details of which do not always make for exciting tv. And sometimes both parties' accounts will mirror each other until one key difference. The parts that agree are called stipulated facts. JJ may scream at someone for leaving one hole in the wall and we may not understand why. But the written narratives may describe years of other abuses. And the litigants may actually testify to a bunch of other things in court that get edited out for time. 

Edited by BallisticNikki
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BallisticNikki said:

Some of her rulings may seem incongruous bc viewers are not privy to all the facts of the case. For those of us who have filed suit in small claims and eviction court, we are required to write a narrative describing the details of what we are alleging and the context. Then the other party is invited to write a response. These accounts can be quite lengthy and....boring. The details of which do not always make for exciting tv. And sometimes both parties' accounts will mirror each other until one key difference. The parts that agree are called stipulated facts. JJ may scream at someone for leaving one hole in the wall and we may not understand why. But the written narratives may describe years of other abuses. And the litigants may actually testify to a bunch of other things in court that get edited out for time. 

Yep, actually, I think that explains one way to spot the staged court tv shows with actors versus actual litigants where we're sometimes puzzled over decision. Sometimes JJ explains her decision by stressing the written statement, other times I'm left wondering where heck her ruling came from...... and there is a whole list of types cases where JJ hasn't got a clue, but is going to rule anyway

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

one way to spot the staged court tv shows with actors versus actual litigants

On the sloppiest of the second and third tier court shows, it is obvious in the hallterviews that the actor/litigants are looking off to one side and reading off their cue cards with absolutely no inflection.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size