Jump to content
Toaster Strudel

All Episodes Talk: All Rise

Recommended Posts

@Florinaldo, I get what you're saying, but what I think JJ was saying and I'm agreeing with, is that when you are legally married it is easier to dissolve assets and marital debt/money than when you are 'playing house'. There are no laws or statutes to help you get what you brought in and/or earned while you live together, however divorce laws do. I think JJ was letting that young lady know that she'd be better served to marry the father so if the relationship doesn't work out at least she will be able to recoup something. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen these cases before - someone is doing you a favor and breaks your item.  JJ had a case today - flat screen TV gets damaged while a non-professional attempts to hang it and she threw the plaintiff out with no award.  Is there a law that supports these events or is this a Judy thing?  This one always confused me.  Another thing that confuses me is the person who does break an item and doesn't pay for the broken item - that seems just crass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, patty1h said:

I've seen these cases before - someone is doing you a favor and breaks your item.  JJ had a case today - flat screen TV gets damaged while a non-professional attempts to hang it and she threw the plaintiff out with no award.  Is there a law that supports these events or is this a Judy thing?  This one always confused me.  Another thing that confuses me is the person who does break an item and doesn't pay for the broken item - that seems just crass.

I think it’s important to recognize that JJ is an arbitrator of these cases and not a judge, per se. Both parties agree that her rulings are binding and there is an obligation to comply. But while she bases her rulings, more or less, on common law she’s not obligated to follow it. That’s while she’ll bark at some guy who argues this or that based a some parking statute from Nowhere, MN. Her rulings are sometimes based on logic and fair play (not always present in the law) and sometimes they’re just arbitrary and capricious. If I broke your TV while trying to hang it I’d probably pay for it. But I’d probably also expect you to shoulder shoulder some of the responsibility since it was an accident and I had nothing to gain by helping. Most of us have been there, done that and didn’t up in court. They fact that many of these dopes can’t work things out like grown ups is half the fun!

Edited by Byrd is the Word
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I think it’s important to recognize that JJ is an arbitrator of these cases and not a judge, per se. Both parties agree that her rulings are binding and there is an obligation to comply. But while she bases her rulings, more or less, on common law she’s not obligated to follow it. That’s while she’ll bark at some guy who argues this or that based a some parking statute from Nowhere, MN. Her rulings are sometimes based on logic and fair play (not always present in the law) and sometimes they’re just arbitrary and capricious. If I broke your TV while trying to hang it I’d probably pay for it. But I’d probably also expect you to shoulder shoulder some of the responsibility since it was an accident and I had nothing to gain by helping. Most of us have been there, done that and didn’t up in court. They fact that many of these dopes can’t work things out like grown ups is half the fun!

I think most people who tried to help and broke something would be contrite and at least offer to split the cost at minimum... and most of us who had asked for the help would refuse and eat the loss. 

The halterview was interesting ... 

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I've seen these cases before - someone is doing you a favor and breaks your item.  JJ had a case today - flat screen TV gets damaged while a non-professional attempts to hang it and she threw the plaintiff out with no award.  Is there a law that supports these events or is this a Judy thing?  This one always confused me.  Another thing that confuses me is the person who does break an item and doesn't pay for the broken item - that seems just crass.

It gets into determining negligence, in legal sense. That's why she kept asking the guy if he had any particular experience with installing TVs or did something like the installation for a living. A non-professional is held to a different standard than someone who specializes in that type of work. JJ seemed to be  looking to see if he had any intent to cause damage -- if he acted maliciously. Without a showing of that, I think she either determined he wasn't negligent or that the person with the TV was more negligent than he was in asking for a non-professional to do the installation of the item. (My guess based on how things went.)

Edited by DropTheSoap
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, parrotfeathers said:

I understand about the son getting payment for taking care of Mom.  I agree he didn't really do enough to get payment, but the gov't will pay for home health care.  Sometimes a family member will apply and will be approved as that health care worker and payment will go to him/her instead of a stranger.  I guess it is legal.

It's legal -- if someone's actually taking care of the person.

I just kept thinking the guy looked like Mick Belker from Hill Street Blues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

I think it’s important to recognize that JJ is an arbitrator of these cases and not a judge, per se. Both parties agree that her rulings are binding and there is an obligation to comply. But while she bases her rulings, more or less, on common law she’s not obligated to follow it.

An arbitrator usually follows a certain set of rules or principles, a framework that guides and sometimes limits the decisions. I have played that role a few times, on panels or solo in the field of labour law, and we couldn't improvise arbitrary guidelines.

JJ sometimes barks "that is what the LAW says!", other times she declares "I don't care what the law says" and in other instances she simply makes up her own rules on the spot. In that sense I don't see her as a real arbitrator, but rather as an "arbitrarinessator," to make up a new silly word.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't get this. Def lives with Mom, works 12 hrs a day and spends a few hours at night with Mom, tidies the house he lives in and cooks meals he eats and strangers are forced to PAY him to do this? Even then, the money he got wasn't enough, so the plaintiff, who actually did care for mom got nothing from him. What kind of racket is this?

It's probably cheaper than paying a professional, and it's definitely cheaper than nursing home care.  I think that's the premise for a lot of state and federal programs that provide funds to family members caring for other family members -- care for them at home if at all possible. 

What I don't understand is why the plaintiff and defendant were both paid for care during the same time period, and why plaintiff was paid less. 

Also, the producers goofed up big time by showing that dog attack video as a preview.  I have a strong stomach but that had me shouting "No" loud enough to wake my napping husband.

Dog lovers -- skip the episode entirely -- you won't be able to avoid the video.

Edited by AuntiePam · Reason: Warning on the dog case
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

In the caretaker case, the aide was coming in for five hours a day, five days a week, while the son was working his usual 12 hour work day.    Before he found out about the state program, the man had left his mother alone for 12 hours a day, and then he had the aide for a month, and he was getting paid for taking care of his mother after he got home, and on weekends or at least his two non-work days.     I'm sure since the aide was only there for a month that the mother is now alone all day again. 

I put today's episodes in the Chambers Thread, oops!   And skip the dog case.    

Both are new today (repeating the warning that the first case of episode two is a tiny poodle getting shredded on video by two bigger dogs)-

Episode One-

The Duped Duo!-Defendant gave $5k for a car, and same car was on craigslist for $7k later.     Plaintiff is suing defendant for fraud and theft over sale of a car.    Plaintiff is suing the defendant, but never met him before today.    Brian Bolton tried to buy a Subaru Crosstrek from craigslist, in October 2018 from Charles Griffith.     Charles Griffin is who the defendant bought the Crosstrek from (there is a Calif. Drivers License copy).   The plaintiff bought the car from someone else, and the registration, insurance, etc was Charles Griffin.    Defendant Bolton was supposed to get more keys, title, etc the next day after purchase, and the car couldn't be registered, because of no clear title.   

Car was parked in front of defendant's house, and disappeared one day, and police would not take a report, because it wasn't in defendant's name.   A few days later the car was on craigslist for $7500, and plaintiff bought it, the seller said he was Charles Griffin, but she couldn't title the car.    She was given the def. wife's ID, which hey exchanged after they bought the car from Griffin.   

Plaintiff claims the defendant realized he was scammed, so he ripped her off, which is all in her empty head.    The plaintiff's male witness is a jerk, and looks like Jim Carrey with the same stupid haircut, high water skinny pants, and looks like his mommy dressed him, and he's also an idiot.    Don't try to tell JJ hearsay, the way the plaintiff, and her amateur lawyer friend did.   

What kind of idiot buy a car on the California craigslist, that was previously cheaper on Tiajuana's craigslist? 

Why can't the idiot plaintiff see that she was scammed, and the defendant was too?   

And I really hope Byrd will boot her witness, her brother I guess, who looks like he escaped from a cult of Jim Carrey worshipers from the Dumb and Dumber days.   

Nothing for the plaintiff.    

Co-worker Hang Up!-Woman plaintiff asked male co-worker defendant to come to her house, and hang her TV on the wall, and the TV was broken.  They are both supervisors at Capitol One, perfect background for hanging a TV isn't it?  Plaintiff wants defendant to pay for the TV.   I can predict how this will end, before it airs.  Nothing for idiot plaintiff, and she deserves nothing.  She's just too cheap to get a TV installer.    The plaintiff's flowered leggings are a crime against fashion. 

EpisodeTwo-

Don't Let Children Watch This!-(Video of tiny poodle getting mauled by two Pit Bulls)-Plaintiff's witness saw the Pit Bull's attack on tiny poodle, and got the poodle free, and threw them back over the chain link fence, so the idiot defendant claims her dogs never left her yard.    What a liar the defendant is, and claims her dogs are American Bulldogs, not pits.    

Plaintiff let her dog out to wee, and suddenly the other dogs jumped the fence (4 ft. chain link) and attacked her poodle.   Plaintiff said she's seen the female pit jump the fence many times, and brought her dog back in, and sent her son to tell the defendant her dogs were out again.    

Plaintiff witness heard screaming and yelling, and went to the door,and saw the two dogs playing tug of war with the poodle,   The witness has also seen three dogs in the plaintiff's yard.     The man jumped the fence, and one dog ran and jumped back over the fence, and the man picked the dog up and tossed this dog over the fence, the dog came back again, and the man tossed the dog over again. 

 The defendant claims she came to the door, asked what happened, man told defendant what happened, and she said she would take care of it.     The video is horrific, and the defendant was actually standing  in her yard, and did nothing but stand there and watch.   The defendant is a total b-word, and heartless, and stupid too.   Defendant just said she's not mentally balanced.      Now defendant sees the video, and still denies her dogs did this, and her son is just as bad.    

The defendant's moron son keeps defending his mother.  I think they're going to show the video again, and the defendant keeps claiming the dogs were the plaintiff's witness's dogs.     I hope there is a decent animal control where they come from, and these dogs are gone.    The defendant only brought photos of two dogs, a tiny puppy, and the big male in the video, and claims she doesn't have three dogs, and she's a total liar.  $5k for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff says the little dog is still alive.

Go Back Where You Came From-Two former roomates, co-mingled funds, bought things on each other's accounts, and the only thing JJ will hear is about a guitar, and that the defendant posted photos of her.     Rhiannon Flint, the plaintiff is stupid, and has neon pink nylon looking hair.    JJ threw her back to small claims court.   That happens when you have zero evidence, and no witnesses.

Was She High?!-Woman plaintiff claims assault by defendant during a car ride, destroyed her phone, etc.   Defendant says woman assaulted him, and fell out of his car when he opened the door.  JJ asks a good question, "Was she high?", and my guess is she was high then, and she's high now.   

The two litigants had an argument on a trip to Atlanta, and he was driving, and she claims he wanted to put her out by the side of the road.   She claims he threw her phone out the window, and she claims he ripped out her dreadlocks by the roots.     Defendant claims plaintiff threw her phone at him, and he never touched her.    

The plaintiff is so stoned.   No medical records, no police report, nothing for the plaintiff, so now she has to pay for her own weed.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I only want to add SKIP THE DOG CASE!  Not only is it graphic and distressing, it is played in full TWICE.  Simply horrendous. :(

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

The only redeeming part of the dog case is when JJ asked the despicable defendant who has no heart, if she was mentally ill, and the defendant said she is.   

Byrd is the Word is right, Cody Lucas is a very brave and wonderful person to rescue that little dog. 

Now my computer screen has 100% ads for Doodle dogs.       

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The man jumped the fence, and one dog ran and jumped back over the fence, and the man picked the dog up and tossed this dog over the fence, the dog came back again, and the man tossed the dog over again.

A huge shout out to Mr. Cody Lucas who is a brave man, a fine human being and an honest to God hero. You have my respect and admiration sir. 

Edited by Byrd is the Word
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The only redeeming part of the dog case is when JJ asked the despicable defendant who has no heart, if she was mentally ill, and the defendant said she is.   

Byrd is the Word is right, Cody Lucas is a very brave and wonderful person to rescue that little dog.    

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the best that this country has to offer in Mr. Lucas versus the worst this country has to offer in likes of this horrible defendant and her equally horrible progeny illustrated so well. This case will be under my skin for some time. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

This case will be under my skin for some time. 

Me too.  I cannot get that screaming dog out of my mind.  What a brain-dead woman!  Her son, too.  Getting all huffy because their precious doggies were being maligned!  I sincerely hope the dogs (at least) were put down.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The man jumped the fence, and one dog ran and jumped back over the fence, and the man picked the dog up and tossed this dog over the fence, the dog came back again, and the man tossed the dog over again. 

I was in awe of his determination; I do not know if I would have had the courage to interpose myself in that fight with only my bare hands. But perhaps he was familiar with those dogs and knew they are typical bullies, just of the canine variety, i.e. fearless when dealing with smaller creatures but scared when confronted by a human. Him picking up the dog and throwing it over the fence was really something to behold.

The defendant's argument seemed to be that since she allegedly did not see it, it did not happen; even after watching the recording twice, she stuck to that line. Of course your dogs were back in your yard and not in the plaintiff's you vile ninny; the neighbour had chased them away back to their own territory.

JJ did not give a stellar performance in her exchanges with the plaintiff; instead of simply pointing out to her that the fact she did not witness the incident was irrelevant and moving on, she kept trying to drown her out while the other stupid woman was doing the same. The son seemed to admit that it did happen, but he was more intent on defending his mother's honour in that she told the truth about not seeing it happen (again, of no consequence as far as liability), adding to the cacophony.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 9
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

No dog case. I don't want to watch vicious and savage beings or dogs living with those savage beings.

I did enjoy the "Whose Car is it Anyway?" Erin, plaintiff is a 21-year old student who is rather hard-headed and dull, as is her high-waisted boy witnes/whatever.

Erin: "They told me that in California-"

JJ: "Don't tell me what anyone told you."

Erin: "Of course. They told me that in California-"

Def, who is 3 times her age, is just as stupid and shouldn't be. I get that in the olden days, it was easier to scam people. But now, with scam warnings abounding, we still have people of all ages and all levels of intelligence who completely put all their trust in some person on Craigslist. It's like CL is some unimpeachable source of honesty and integrity. WTF is going on? Has no one learned that seldom does anything good come from using CL? Anyway, Erin has this whole CSI theory about how def undertook this elaborate plan to scam her and enrich himself with a whole 2K. Frankly, def did not seem bright enough to be some criminal mastermind. GTFO, Erin and take Mr. Highpants with you.

Time waster with Shatavia, who invited her co-worker from the bank to mount her TV on the wall, even though he had no special knowledge of doing such. He says she invited him over at midnight, with the music going and a glass of wine in hand and was looking for a little hoochie coochie. I believed him. He broke the TV and Shatavia wants him to pay for it. Don't think so. Call the Geek Squad next time, Shatavia, but not at midnight.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Me too.  I cannot get that screaming dog out of my mind. 

It was blood-curdling alright.

Pitnutters have to see this, though. It's the only way. Pits will do that to babies, the elderly, their owners... let potential pit owners have their blood curdled by this video before deciding to invite this kind of potential bloodshed into their own homes. Though, I've long suspected, deep down, pitnutters secretly hope to see bloodshed inflicted on others, as evidenced by this particular owner just standing around, not helping, and then denying the whole thing. She enjoyed it.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/12/2019 at 4:43 AM, Byrd is the Word said:

My best guess is collagen injections that have collected in one area over an other. 

Are you serious? How dare you accuse Robin of having cosmetic procedures done to her face! 😁

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

That awful dog owner was a total POS, and she was definitely standing in the yard, and watching her dogs attack that poor, little dog.     

  • Like 8
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

That video might have been one of the most disturbing things to ever air on this show. My mother was over at my house while it was on, and while she's no great lover of dogs, she had to hide her eyes for the second showing. The neighbor who broke it up is lucky he didn't suffer any injuries. 

All the litigants in the second episode seemed to be competing for the title of craziest hair, with the possible exception of the last defendant.

Lastly: SHATavia. That's all I could see. Unfortunate. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Though, I've long suspected, deep down, pitnutters secretly hope to see bloodshed inflicted on others, as evidenced by this particular owner just standing around, not helping, and then denying the whole thing. She enjoyed it.

I absolutely agree with this observation.  That bitch wasn't the first Pit Thug that I've noticed barely containing a smirk.

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

JJ did not give a stellar performance in her exchanges with the plaintiff; instead of simply pointing out to her that the fact she did not witness the incident was irrelevant and moving on, she kept trying to drown her out while the other stupid woman was doing the same. The son seemed to admit that it did happen, but he was more intent on defending his mother's honour in that she told the truth about not seeing it happen (again, of no consequence as far as liability), adding to the cacophony.

I was surprised JJ engaged for that long with POS & Son.  It was clear from the second that POS opened her yaw, that she was completely incapable of normal logic and reason.  POS Jr. made several smartass remarks, too...way past the Byrd Escorts You Out limit.  

It seemed like JJ was kind of trying to goad them into some histrionics for sweeps week.

If those dogs lived near me,  there would be a big ol' pile of poisoned ground beef tossed over the fence.

I'm a huge dog lover, but that attack was too much and won't be the last if they are allowed to live.

1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:
Edited by zillabreeze
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Toaster Strudel said:

Pitnutters have to see this, though.

"Pittnutter" is my new word of the week.

From what I know of this breed of humans however, I don't think they would lean anything from watching that video. They would probably says something along the lines of "sure, those dogs are savage brutes, but my adorable and cuddly little pit would never do anything like this".

I also think that a number of them would actually cheer the attack, more or less overtly depending on who is watching with them.

41 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

That awful dog owner was a total POS, and she was definitely standing in the yard, and watching her dogs attack that poor, little dog.   

Although we did not see her in the far background during the attack, the way she came into view later on, not running out of her house, is indeed a strong indication that she was there all the time. As demonstrated by her testimony, she just did not care about the mayhem caused by her dogs, and still does not.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion, it's always the owners, and I've said this for years. Irresponsible people see pitbulls as a symbol of toughness, and before that it was Rottweillers and Dobermans, etc, etc, and while overbreeding is a thing, that's also due to some irresponsible idiot who doesn't have any idea of how to take care of an animal, like that moron the other week who didn't call the vet until his dog had been in labor for something like ten hours.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

No dog case. I don't want to watch vicious and savage beings or dogs living with those savage beings.

I did enjoy the "Whose Car is it Anyway?" Erin, plaintiff is a 21-year old student who is rather hard-headed and dull, as is her high-waisted boy witnes/whatever.

Erin: "They told me that in California-"

JJ: "Don't tell me what anyone told you."

Erin: "Of course. They told me that in California-"

Def, who is 3 times her age, is just as stupid and shouldn't be. I get that in the olden days, it was easier to scam people. But now, with scam warnings abounding, we still have people of all ages and all levels of intelligence who completely put all their trust in some person on Craigslist. It's like CL is some unimpeachable source of honesty and integrity. WTF is going on? Has no one learned that seldom does anything good come from using CL? Anyway, Erin has this whole CSI theory about how def undertook this elaborate plan to scam her and enrich himself with a whole 2K. Frankly, def did not seem bright enough to be some criminal mastermind. GTFO, Erin and take Mr. Highpants with you.

Time waster with Shatavia, who invited her co-worker from the bank to mount her TV on the wall, even though he had no special knowledge of doing such. He says she invited him over at midnight, with the music going and a glass of wine in hand and was looking for a little hoochie coochie. I believed him. He broke the TV and Shatavia wants him to pay for it. Don't think so. Call the Geek Squad next time, Shatavia, but not at midnight.

Car scam defendant looked a bit like Ed O’Neill from Modern Family. And was smart enough to let JJ deal with the nutty plaintiff without interrupting. I wonder how many hours she and goofy bf spent building that elaborate pile of evidence? 

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

That would be the usual scenario (no way do I believe the plaintiff's "sympathy" BS) but in this case, the def was charging more than a real contractor. That is the part I don't get. What person in his right mind is going to hire some clown for 1500$ more than a legit contractor would charge? He's not running a charity and doesn't even know the def. Not a great business plan. I have no idea what shady business was afoot but whatever it was, it backfired.

I agree with the general 'WTH was going on' thread. Only thing I could come up with is to wonder if the price difference was sort of apples and oranges. What I was thinking was the legit contractor bid on just the moldy drywall remediation - these two clowns expand the job to remove/replace all the drywall. Not what legit contractor bid on, and reason his bid was lower.  Unlicensed contractor sends wife and unskilled labor to tear down all the drywall - not knowing how to remediate mold, they end up spreading contamination all over the place, which is why legit contractor raised price even though demo had been done.

Oh, and once again JJ used her warped ideas to declare unlicensed buffoon did half the job. If there are just two line items on the contract, the job is NOT necessarily half complete when first line item has been completed... no, there is a big difference between unskilled labor doing demo and experienced craftsmen - your tile, plumber, electrician, or in this case mud/drywall guys (for those who have never tried it, there is a certain art to taping/mudding that I never mastered on my DIY projects. And, as I mentioned, I wonder if in this case there maybe should have been professional mold remediation - which can turn pricey fast).

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

**** MOD NOTE ****

I moved the general discussion of pit bulls over to the Small Talk thread.  We are getting a bit far afield.  I understand this discussion was sparked from this horrifying case, which evokes strong emotions. That's okay.  Just doing a little housekeeping. 

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

I was surprised JJ engaged for that long with POS & Son.  It was clear from the second that POS opened her yaw, that she was completely incapable of normal logic and reason.  POS Jr. made several smartass remarks, too...way past the Byrd Escorts You Out limit.  

I was surprised POS Jr. was allowed to stay at the mic and keep making snide comments.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I have not read above this comment because I am afraid to see anything about the dog case. Last week there was a case that said To be continued.... at the end. I can't even remember what it was about but my DVR never recorded the second half and I record both the 4-5 pm episodes and the 10-11 pm episodes because sometimes one or the other gets delayed or whatever for weather, news or basketball. Does anyone know what happened in the second half of that show?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone else get this weird blip:  the first case was a contractor (with his hair hanging over one eye), then a commercial and the show comes back to an entirely different case involving a dog attack?   Seems like my cable service needs better techs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 Then all of sudden there's no baby daddy and no money and they start dragging everyone to court to argue over cribs and diapers and soccer leagues and who knows all else, without the benefit of marriage and a divorce where the judge can sort out their couches and TEE VEES and VEEHickles. 

Don't forget the tablets and cell phones. Every yahoo these days has a "flat screen" and a "tablet" (aka cheap a$$ Ipad) along with a 20 year old luxury veeehickle (think Lexus, Mercedes or even an Altima) 


Patty1H, I'm trying to figure out what's going on with my JJ right now. I ran the DVR back twice and was wondering if it was just me. 

I was fine with the poodle case as long as I didn't "hear" the woman yelling about her dog. But I was really impressed watching her neighbor pitch that pit bull over the fence TWICE. Dude is like a modern day Sir Galahad. 

1 hour ago, DropTheSoap said:

I was surprised JJ engaged for that long with POS & Son.

That was one rotten loose-lipped apple that didn't fall fall from the loose-lipped tree. The Pit Bull mama was ignorant and her child was even more ignorant. I imagine he's going to be a frequent flyer in the judicial system soon, if not already, and PB Mama can bail his sorry self out while she pontificates about how she didn't see nuthin. . . . 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

I can’t believe the vet was able to save that poor poodle! JJ didn’t ask how he is doing. I soooo wish I hadn’t watched the video. I had a nightmare about it last night. If that had been my dog, I would have run outside with every knife I owned and those savage dogs would not be alive. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Any woman the likes of Robin Gilden who is more concerned about a root canal on her dog than she is about carelessly exposing a child to pepper spray or mace is in serious need of a tune up. And her remark in hallterview about not being able to get out of bed because of the stress and strain of pulling on a leash. Really? 🙄 You’re either an academy award winning drama queen or grossly out of shape. And either way you’re an messed up old hag. 

Edited by Byrd is the Word
  • Like 6
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

Just watched yesterday's car repossession/theft case.

I have never seen someone declare they are dating someone's husband with such unbridled pride. 

It really takes all kinds.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, DropTheSoap said:

I was surprised POS Jr. was allowed to stay at the mic and keep making snide comments.

Exactly. I think JJ was just so shocked at the case that she lost her reasoning ability, too!  The case was "almost" worth watching just for the sheer OMG-ness of POS and her mouthy, deplorable, odious son.  JJ: I always have the last word!  Jr.:  "You think so?"  Gah!    POS's  hairdo was another high point in an otherwise awful case.  

I'm guessing there are multiple rap sheets on both those charmers, and if not on Jr, there will be soon, and it will be just as horrific as the crimes his dogs commit.

VERY glad to hear Flippy the sweet doggy is alive and well.  When it wasn't mentioned in the case, I was a little worried.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:

That was one rotten loose-lipped apple that didn't fall fall from the loose-lipped tree. The Pit Bull mama was ignorant and her child was even more ignorant. I imagine he's going to be a frequent flyer in the judicial system soon, if not already, and PB Mama can bail his sorry self out while she pontificates about how she didn't see nuthin. . . . 

Great minds thinking alike!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

If those dogs lived near me,  there would be a big ol' pile of poisoned ground beef tossed over the fence.

Mom and Lil' Wayne Wannabe should be the recipients of the poisoned meat.... so surprised JJ let the son talk back to her, talk over her, disrespect her. I've never seen JJ let that happen. 

  • Like 10
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The painter in the contractor case needed to learn important rule #1 — answer the question asked and otherwise keep quiet. Esp. when you’re not losing. 

Neighbor (defendant) in the dog/pepper spray case referred to plaintiff as an attorney. I guess it’s been a few decades since she’s taken evidence. 

Her callousness about pepper spraying the kid was rather amazing. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, patty1h said:

Did anyone else get this weird blip:  the first case was a contractor (with his hair hanging over one eye), then a commercial and the show comes back to an entirely different case involving a dog attack?   Seems like my cable service needs better techs.

Yeah, we got the same wonkiness in the NYC/tri-state area. My first episode started with the legal fees for the teenager, then the contractor case started, but when it came back from commercial, it was the end of the pepper spray case, followed by the car vandalism. Then in the next half hour, it was the legal fees and the contractor AGAIN, but then the contractor case was completed. It sounds like the pepper spray case was more interesting than the legal fees case, but oh well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Divorcees Fight Over Son's Assault!

Pretty unremarkable case except for the fact that the defendant dad looks oddly like Steve Buscemi.

Edited by Byrd is the Word
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Slick ponytail suing bizarre man-bun.

I didn't find this guy repulsive because of his pony tail and greasy hair.  But it helped.

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, stephinmn said:

I also happened to notice that she used her Facebook page to shame woman in NYC who wore a fur trimmed coat and posted a full face picture of the woman.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

****** SITE ADMIN MESSAGE ******

Official notice that we are done on the topic of Sean DeMarco for now. If you have 1-on-1 thoughts to complete please take it to PM with each other.

****** READ ME ******

Share this post


Link to post

On yesterday's case of the mother suing the father for attorney's fees, I am glad to have learned that the only tax-paying citizen in this country is Judge Judy who seems to think she's the only one (sometimes with an assist from Byrd) who "contributes" paying for anything. If I recall correctly, the father in this case also had a job. And from that job, I presume he pays taxes—just like the National Bank of Judge Judy. So for her to bleat on and on and on and on about herself being the benefactress of everyone in this country is pretty galling. (Yes, exaggerated for effect.) The woman makes $45 million (or whatever a year). Of that, maybe a nickel of her taxes (which I'm sure are finessed to within the letter to the law to make her pay the very least tiniest amount possible) would go to pay whatever legal assistance is needed for people of lesser means. In the same breath, the father also pays taxes so he also "paid" for the lawyer. Or because he's a person of lesser means does his "contribution" not count for anything? And between the two of them, I wonder who's gonna miss that nickel more every month?

She needs to take her overprivileged ass to the corner and shut up. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Byrd is the Word said:

Pretty unremarkable case except for the fact that the defendant dad looks oddly like Steve Buscemi.

I was surprised by the decision. Usually, JJ refuses to interpose herself in child support matters that are under the jurisdiction of real family courts, especially if a formal support judgment was rendered.  Here, she was able to read into the father's support obligations a duty to pay for half of the lawyer's fees, because they were a "life necessity", much like food and clothing.

I know I should not try to look for consistency in JJ's decisions (that way lies madness), but this seemed particularly nonsensical, especially because he did not have a say in the decision to hire the lawyer.

The decent thing might have been for him to contribute somethng on his own initiative, but that was a case where JJ should just butt out.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Here, she was able to read into the father's support obligations a duty to pay for half of the lawyer's fees, because they were a "life necessity", much like food and clothing.

JJ is correct that it's a life "necessity" though.  In a criminal matter as this, you're grist for the mill without representation. Furthermore, I did find this ruling consistent in that she frequently rules (or pontificates) in favor of the tax payer as her lengthy and a bit redundant explanation of her ruling indicated.  So, if I put two and two together, the minor 17 year old needs an attorney and the parents who have the means should pay before you and I are required to do so. Once the kid turns 18 and you want to feed him to the wolves, so be it; it's your life I guess.  Until then be a man and protect your offspring.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Giant Misfit said:

If I recall correctly, the father in this case also had a job. And from that job, I presume he pays taxes

He may pay taxes, but that fact hardly frees him for the obligation of his half of a $5,000 legal bill.  The implication that as a taxpayer himself he pays for a public defender for his son's misdeeds ignores the fact that, at best, his obligation to the child he fathered is distributed among every other tax payer. As tax payers non of us should be paying for food, housing, health care or legal expenses for anyone who can afford it themselves and doing so robs from the people who truly need assistance and can't get by without out it.

Edited by Byrd is the Word
  • Like 4
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Byrd is the Word said:

JJ is correct that it's a life "necessity" though. 

It depends on what circles these people run in I suppose. I stil think he should have been a party to the hiring of the lawyer in order for him to be held accountable for a full half of the fee.

As for JJ's rant, it was consistent in that it was directed at her usual targets, but her legal reasoning was not, particularly when it comes to support obligations and relevant family court decisions.

At least she told the boy he owes his parents that money, although there is probably zero probability the little delinquent would ever reimburse anything, not that he has to since the show pays out the award (which still leaves him in debt to his mother).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 8:46 PM, Toaster Strudel said:

Pitnutters have to see this, though. It's the only way. Pits will do that to babies, the elderly, their owners... let potential pit owners have their blood curdled by this video before deciding to invite this kind of potential bloodshed into their own homes. Though, I've long suspected, deep down, pitnutters secretly hope to see bloodshed inflicted on others, as evidenced by this particular owner just standing around, not helping, and then denying the whole thing. She enjoyed it.

They'll just blame the owners, and say the dogs shouldn't be punished. Yes, it is the owner's fault, but a dog that aggressive should be put down anyway, and NOT put in to some shady "rescue" to be adopted out to someone else who likely doesn't have the knowledge or patience to properly train a Pit.  I will absolutely be around Pits who are trained correctly, socialized properly, and don't come from fighting stock.  If you can't prove that to me, no thanks.  If you "rescued" your Pit, no thanks.  The barber shop where my husband gets his hair cut has two pits.  The female is super sweet.  She does get a bit carried away sometimes when she wants to play, but many dogs do.  The male is HUGE.  He's friendly, but he is not neutered, and that concerns me sometimes.  I don't mind them too much because they're in the barber shop all day, and are well socialized.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×