Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on May 1, 2018 22:24:43 GMT
On the "previews" for the next show, they show Judy using her old chestnut about teenagers: "If their mouths are moving, they're lying." How dare she paint all kids with the same brush. Or, am I hearing the voice of experience -- with her OWN spoiled brats ?
|
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on May 1, 2018 22:39:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on May 2, 2018 1:39:04 GMT
Thank You all for the 'welcome back'. I've had so much trouble logging in since last time I was here a few weeks ago. Kept getting bounced back and forth as 'guest'...'register'....'reset password'...'create a new account'....EHHHHHH! Well, anyhow... The case that really upset me yesterday (4/30/18) was the little girl who ran into the side of the plaintiff's car and damaged her mirror. JJ sided with the kid and wouldn't award the plaintiff any damages to repair her mirror.1. JJ said her car must have been moving faster than a crawl, because the girl had some serious injuries. Sorry, JJ - if the kid ran into a brick wall she would suffer serious injuries as well. The wall is stationery, so no go there. 2. JJ asked the plaintiff if the girl got killed instead of serious injuries, would she still be suing for money. The woman stumbled, said she didn't want to answer the question, and JJ was furious. If I were the woman, I would have said "No, I wouldn't...but on the other hand, if she didn't receive any injuries, I still would. So this case lies in the middle of two different endings." 3. JJ was rather upset with the crossing guard. Why? Most crossing guards go through an extensive background check, are trained by the police academy, and often employed by the local police (in my state, at least). If this was an off-duty or retired cop (which she didn't ask him), would that make him more 'credible'? Thoughts? Maybe JJ figured the serious injuries were sufficient to teach the young girl her lesson, especially if whatever monies get paid automatically to each side were enough to cover the car's damage. In that case you end up having a pretty decent verdict even if the plaintiff did no wrong.
|
|
|
Post by kls on May 2, 2018 11:49:17 GMT
Thank You all for the 'welcome back'. I've had so much trouble logging in since last time I was here a few weeks ago. Kept getting bounced back and forth as 'guest'...'register'....'reset password'...'create a new account'....EHHHHHH! Well, anyhow... The case that really upset me yesterday (4/30/18) was the little girl who ran into the side of the plaintiff's car and damaged her mirror. JJ sided with the kid and wouldn't award the plaintiff any damages to repair her mirror.1. JJ said her car must have been moving faster than a crawl, because the girl had some serious injuries. Sorry, JJ - if the kid ran into a brick wall she would suffer serious injuries as well. The wall is stationery, so no go there. 2. JJ asked the plaintiff if the girl got killed instead of serious injuries, would she still be suing for money. The woman stumbled, said she didn't want to answer the question, and JJ was furious. If I were the woman, I would have said "No, I wouldn't...but on the other hand, if she didn't receive any injuries, I still would. So this case lies in the middle of two different endings." 3. JJ was rather upset with the crossing guard. Why? Most crossing guards go through an extensive background check, are trained by the police academy, and often employed by the local police (in my state, at least). If this was an off-duty or retired cop (which she didn't ask him), would that make him more 'credible'? Thoughts? Maybe JJ figured the serious injuries were sufficient to teach the young girl her lesson, especially if whatever monies get paid automatically to each side were enough to cover the car's damage. In that case you end up having a pretty decent verdict even if the plaintiff did no wrong. Exactly, she can issue a feel good verdict even the other side also deserves some compensation because he or she will get it simply for being on the show. In a courtroom outside a tv studio if a judge issued the plaintiff would be s.o.l.
|
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on May 2, 2018 17:02:58 GMT
permutojoe I disagree. Small Claims Court isn't about "teaching one a lesson" -- although that's what Judy may think. It's about making the financially injured party whole. Secondly, if Judy is going to "play" judge, she should run her studio set like a REAL courtroom. I'm tired of her making up her own rules.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 2, 2018 22:59:26 GMT
deembastille Oh, she knows what the case is about. But, she won't let anyone speak or express themselves. She interrupts. ("Just a second.") I've always felt that she LEADS the litigants to say what SHE wants them to say, so she can rule the way she wants to. In many cases, I think she has her mind made up before her ass even hits the chair. I also think she's wrong in REFUSING to hear parts of their claims. She doesn't "do" pots and pans and household items. ("Her parents didn't send her to college for that.") Why not? That's what she's there for. If I felt I was cheated out of something, the claim should at least be heard. It annoys me to no end when she refuses to consider certain parts of a claim, like pots and pans. Okay, in her world--where you make $45M a year for sitting in a pretend court on TV--pots and pans may seem trivial. But in the real world, where people have to use their hard-earned money to pay for things like that, it can be a very big deal. My live-in helper and her boyfriend work hard but are always broke. If they went to court and included something like pots and pans in their claim, I assure you that would be a big deal to them as they don't have the spare money to buy replacements. Ugh. i get where you are coming from but you can buy pots and pans at target and get general run of the mill pots and pans. one usually doesn't NEED a copper pot unless you are Martha steward. and.... many of the people on judge judy claim these things because they over spend and over extend themselves. i make 13hundred dollars a month... how many movies can i buy on pay perview with that? damn. i need to feed my kid... oh well...
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 2, 2018 23:08:03 GMT
Thank You all for the 'welcome back'. I've had so much trouble logging in since last time I was here a few weeks ago. Kept getting bounced back and forth as 'guest'...'register'....'reset password'...'create a new account'....EHHHHHH! Well, anyhow... The case that really upset me yesterday (4/30/18) was the little girl who ran into the side of the plaintiff's car and damaged her mirror. JJ sided with the kid and wouldn't award the plaintiff any damages to repair her mirror.1. JJ said her car must have been moving faster than a crawl, because the girl had some serious injuries. Sorry, JJ - if the kid ran into a brick wall she would suffer serious injuries as well. The wall is stationery, so no go there. 2. JJ asked the plaintiff if the girl got killed instead of serious injuries, would she still be suing for money. The woman stumbled, said she didn't want to answer the question, and JJ was furious. If I were the woman, I would have said "No, I wouldn't...but on the other hand, if she didn't receive any injuries, I still would. So this case lies in the middle of two different endings." 3. JJ was rather upset with the crossing guard. Why? Most crossing guards go through an extensive background check, are trained by the police academy, and often employed by the local police (in my state, at least). If this was an off-duty or retired cop (which she didn't ask him), would that make him more 'credible'? Thoughts? i wasn't able to see the episode but i'd have a problem with a crossing guard who is involved with a child getting hit by a car or anything. for those twelve seconds, that child is in your custody. your job as a crossing guard is to make the cars stop BEFORE the people start to cross. then once cars have begun to behave themselves, you beckon the pedestrians to cross. this is just common knowledge and common sense. the thing about a child running into a wall versus running into a still car... the thing moving faster will get less damage than the thing standing still or moving slower. i was involved in a 't bone' type incident while driving through an intersection in nyc where the sides of the street were separated by a median of foliage. the foliage made it impossible for me to see anything so i inched and inched and inched (i did have the right of way) and BOOM. here comes this van who ends up having a dented fender and a broken axel. i had the front of my car all bashed in. i was going under 5 miles an hour and i got the most damage. even the tow truck driver who was towing my car when he took a look at the vehicles was like: you were like, still, right? i said nearly, inching out to see. so it is not hard to see why if the woman was standing still and anyone ran into her car and broke anything, how she fails to see anything as being her fault.
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 3, 2018 12:38:23 GMT
According to his testimony, he did in fact yelled to the girl to "Stop!" as she was running towards the cars, from where he was standing. She didn't listen - kept running towards the cars. So he did his job as expected. But Judy had her mind made up, and that's that.
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 3, 2018 13:01:21 GMT
On 5/1/18 there was an interesting case about a former waiter (yummy Tyler Stoneking) suing his former Buffalo Wild Wings coworker for defamation of character, and a host of other things. The issue stemmed from a day in October 2017, where he claimed he had permission to leave early from his manager that day, and his coworker got upset (which she admitted to, and getting the manager further involved).
JJ ruled against him, and found in favor of the plaintiff, which made me upset.
If the 21 year old defendant was upset that the plaintiff had gotten permission to leave right after his shift was over (and excused him from doing his sidework), then Judge Judy should have advised her to 'quit'. Instead, she purposely tried to make trouble for him. She's an instigator, so she's at fault. Again, all she had to do was QUIT IF SHE WASN'T HAPPY with the way her coworker was being treated more favorably than others. There are plenty of restaurants in Springfield, IL - she could find one where she'd be happier.
Instead, she complained enough about him and blew this isolated incident up where he ended up getting fired. (JJ had no problem with that.) She then felt 'scared of him' and 'threatened', so instead of quitting, she...she then wasted the court's time in getting a restraining order against him - and he, in turn, got a lawyer to bring to court. JJ was angry with him for that move - why? He has every right to choose to take a lawyer, a legal team, or go solo - what did JJ care? He wasn't using JJ's money.
When the defendant saw him with his lawyer, she felt scared - she they delayed the hearing for another month so she could get a lawyer! ANOTHER MONTH!
JJ should have called her 'a big baby' and reprimanded her for 'wasting the court's time over such nonsense'. Instead, JJ agreed to the actions she took.
NOT ONLY THAT, but JJ also listened to her testimony about what their manager 'Kevin' said, throughout the case!
Whatever happened to 'Is he here? Why not? Then you can't tell me what he said if he's not here, so I can cross-examine him. That's hear/say'.
JJ broke all the rules on this one.
|
|
thornberry
Junior Member
@thornberry
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1,055
|
Post by thornberry on May 3, 2018 15:02:41 GMT
On 5/1/18 there was an interesting case about a former waiter (yummy Tyler Stoneking) suing his former Buffalo Wild Wings coworker for defamation of character, and a host of other things. The issue stemmed from a day in October 2017, where he claimed he had permission to leave early from his manager that day, and his coworker got upset (which she admitted to, and getting the manager further involved). JJ ruled against him, and found in favor of the plaintiff, which made me upset. If the 21 year old defendant was upset that the plaintiff had gotten permission to leave right after his shift was over (and excused him from doing his sidework), then Judge Judy should have advised her to 'quit'. Instead, she purposely tried to make trouble for him. She's an instigator, so she's at fault. Again, all she had to do was QUIT IF SHE WASN'T HAPPY with the way her coworker was being treated more favorably than others. There are plenty of restaurants in Springfield, IL - she could find one where she'd be happier. Instead, she complained enough about him and blew this isolated incident up where he ended up getting fired. (JJ had no problem with that.) She then felt 'scared of him' and 'threatened', so instead of quitting, she...she then wasted the court's time in getting a restraining order against him - and he, in turn, got a lawyer to bring to court. JJ was angry with him for that move - why? He has every right to choose to take a lawyer, a legal team, or go solo - what did JJ care? He wasn't using JJ's money. When the defendant saw him with his lawyer, she felt scared - she they delayed the hearing for another month so she could get a lawyer! ANOTHER MONTH! JJ should have called her 'a big baby' and reprimanded her for 'wasting the court's time over such nonsense'. Instead, JJ agreed to the actions she took. NOT ONLY THAT, but JJ also listened to her testimony about what their manager 'Kevin' said, throughout the case! Whatever happened to 'Is he here? Why not? Then you can't tell me what he said if he's not here, so I can cross-examine him. That's hear/say'. JJ broke all the rules on this one. "JJ was angry with him for that move - why? He has every right to choose to take a lawyer, a legal team, or go solo - what did JJ care?" No, she wasn't. During the the woman's counterclaim, Judy told the woman that he had every right to an attorney and she couldn't sue him for her legal fees. I didn't hear the whole case, but you're making the guy out to be better than he was. Wasn't there something about intimidation and slashed tires? If Judy was angry with him, it was for other reasons. "she they delayed the hearing for another month so she could get a lawyer!" He delayed the case, too, by not showing up for a hearing with another judge on the advice of his attorney. It's all legal cat-and-mouse. And no, people don't have to quit a job if they are being unfairly treated, they have every right to protest unfairness. If it's not race-based or gender-based it may be harder to get a legal judgment in their favor. "JJ ruled against him, and found in favor of the plaintiff, which made me upset." Remind me what the woman got out of it, nothing materially, I thought. Weren't both claims dismissed?
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 3, 2018 15:19:25 GMT
According to his testimony, he did in fact yelled to the girl to "Stop!" as she was running towards the cars, from where he was standing. She didn't listen - kept running towards the cars. So he did his job as expected. But Judy had her mind made up, and that's that. And being a teacher I "do my job" all the time and I constantly get reamed whenever something would go wrong. And again, his job is to make the cars stop before the peds start crossing. How old was this child? Was she alone--as in no parents around?
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 5, 2018 0:41:47 GMT
On 5/1/18 there was an interesting case about a former waiter (yummy Tyler Stoneking) suing his former Buffalo Wild Wings coworker for defamation of character, and a host of other things. The issue stemmed from a day in October 2017, where he claimed he had permission to leave early from his manager that day, and his coworker got upset (which she admitted to, and getting the manager further involved). JJ ruled against him, and found in favor of the plaintiff, which made me upset. If the 21 year old defendant was upset that the plaintiff had gotten permission to leave right after his shift was over (and excused him from doing his sidework), then Judge Judy should have advised her to 'quit'. Instead, she purposely tried to make trouble for him. She's an instigator, so she's at fault. Again, all she had to do was QUIT IF SHE WASN'T HAPPY with the way her coworker was being treated more favorably than others. There are plenty of restaurants in Springfield, IL - she could find one where she'd be happier. Instead, she complained enough about him and blew this isolated incident up where he ended up getting fired. (JJ had no problem with that.) She then felt 'scared of him' and 'threatened', so instead of quitting, she...she then wasted the court's time in getting a restraining order against him - and he, in turn, got a lawyer to bring to court. JJ was angry with him for that move - why? He has every right to choose to take a lawyer, a legal team, or go solo - what did JJ care? He wasn't using JJ's money. When the defendant saw him with his lawyer, she felt scared - she they delayed the hearing for another month so she could get a lawyer! ANOTHER MONTH! JJ should have called her 'a big baby' and reprimanded her for 'wasting the court's time over such nonsense'. Instead, JJ agreed to the actions she took. NOT ONLY THAT, but JJ also listened to her testimony about what their manager 'Kevin' said, throughout the case! Whatever happened to 'Is he here? Why not? Then you can't tell me what he said if he's not here, so I can cross-examine him. That's hear/say'. JJ broke all the rules on this one. "JJ was angry with him for that move - why? He has every right to choose to take a lawyer, a legal team, or go solo - what did JJ care?" No, she wasn't. During the the woman's counterclaim, Judy told the woman that he had every right to an attorney and she couldn't sue him for her legal fees. I didn't hear the whole case, but you're making the guy out to be better than he was. Wasn't there something about intimidation and slashed tires? If Judy was angry with him, it was for other reasons. "she they delayed the hearing for another month so she could get a lawyer!" He delayed the case, too, by not showing up for a hearing with another judge on the advice of his attorney. It's all legal cat-and-mouse. And no, people don't have to quit a job if they are being unfairly treated, they have every right to protest unfairness. If it's not race-based or gender-based it may be harder to get a legal judgment in their favor. "JJ ruled against him, and found in favor of the plaintiff, which made me upset." Remind me what the woman got out of it, nothing materially, I thought. Weren't both claims dismissed? When he first told JJ he hired a lawyer, she put the 'sour look' on her face and asked "For what?" She asked how much it cost him ($1,000) and then questioned why a waiter at BWW would spend $1,000 on a lawyer. What did she care? He hired a lawyer - and that's that. He had every right to do so , as she did admit much later. I don't think I was making him out to be better than he was - I think JJ was making her out to be better than she actually was. She came across as the fearful innocent. He didn't delay the case - his lawyer went in his stead, which is perfectly legal in a matter such as this. She then got frightened, and delayed the hearing so she could hire a lawyer, as she was 'intimidated' by his lawyer being there. Ridiculous - she should have proceeded with the case that day, and be her own litigant. REMEMBER - it all started with him getting permission to leave at 2:00 on the dot to keep an appointment, and she was angry that he didn't stay and do his 'sidework'. No, people don't have to quit their jobs if they're being treated 'unfairly' (and that was between her and the manager who gave Tyler the early dismissal). There are proper ways of handling the situation, which she didn't follow (like going through the proper channels in a corporation like that). If she didn't like the outcome, or still felt she was being treated unfairly, she should have looked for another job. Instead, she instigated to make the situation worse and then he got fired.
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 5, 2018 0:47:49 GMT
According to his testimony, he did in fact yelled to the girl to "Stop!" as she was running towards the cars, from where he was standing. She didn't listen - kept running towards the cars. So he did his job as expected. But Judy had her mind made up, and that's that. And being a teacher I "do my job" all the time and I constantly get reamed whenever something would go wrong. And again, his job is to make the cars stop before the peds start crossing. How old was this child? Was she alone--as in no parents around? It sounded like her mother was not there, from what I remember. And the 10 year old girl ran out into traffic, despite the crossing guard's direction to 'Stop'.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 5, 2018 2:09:57 GMT
And being a teacher I "do my job" all the time and I constantly get reamed whenever something would go wrong. And again, his job is to make the cars stop before the peds start crossing. How old was this child? Was she alone--as in no parents around? It sounded like her mother was not there, from what I remember. And the 10 year old girl ran out into traffic, despite the crossing guard's direction to 'Stop'. At ten years old she ought to know better. But this day and age parents no longer parent their kids. I see it more and more. Now I see parents ever so gently push their kids into traffic so they could get hit and Sue the poor driver AND get a GoFundMe page going. Adding... Try trying to teach 25 of these mindsets.
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 5, 2018 22:23:50 GMT
It's really pathetic of how kids behave these days.
I work in a private, prestigious university. Though the 'kids/young adults' are well-behaved for the most part, they are very spoiled and expect everything to be done for them yesterday. That's how they were brought up. Mom, Dad, Grammy and Grampy have done everything for them since the day they were born.
When things don't go their way, or something becomes a 'struggle', they get very dramatic - to the point of sobbing and saying "I'm going to kill myself! This sucks!" as they have their tantrum.
As they get set for graduation next weekend, I wonder how they're going to make it into the 'real world' where they have jobs lined up - Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, D.C., even London, Paris, Rome...
Will they cry in the boardrooms, court, hospitals, etc when things don't go their way? Will they tell everyone they're going to go home and 'kill themselves' when they lose a court case?
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 5, 2018 22:35:24 GMT
It's really pathetic of how kids behave these days. I work in a private, prestigious university. Though the 'kids/young adults' are well-behaved for the most part, they are very spoiled and expect everything to be done for them yesterday. That's how they were brought up. Mom, Dad, Grammy and Grampy have done everything for them since the day they were born. When things don't go their way, or something becomes a 'struggle', they get very dramatic - to the point of sobbing and saying "I'm going to kill myself! This sucks!" as they have their tantrum. As they get set for graduation next weekend, I wonder how they're going to make it into the 'real world' where they have jobs lined up - Manhattan, Boston, Chicago, D.C., even London, Paris, Rome... Will they cry in the boardrooms, court, hospitals, etc when things don't go their way? Will they tell everyone they're going to go home and 'kill themselves' when they lose a court case? i hear ya, doggie daddy. the inner city kids are much much worse. their parents are the driving forces for their behavior and the parents are still behaving like they are 14 anyway. they are just itching to sue anyone they THINK disrespected them. do you know how hard it is trying to keep a straight face at a parent who comes to a school function wearing fuzzy pajama bottoms, slippers, no brassiere for their triple D's, reeking of booze and weed????
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 8, 2018 20:01:20 GMT
Yes, I have a friend who's been teaching 8th grade English in a public inner-city school for over 30 years, where the overwhelming majority of the students don't speak English at home, and don't care to learn English in school. The stories she tells me are heartbreaking: her students have no ambition or interest in getting a good education or going to college as they find it's more lucrative to sell drugs and weapons on the streets (as their older relatives do). The parents of her students have zero interest in school or how their kids are behaving. The majority of them don't have a working phone (most just get disposable burner phones) nor email to even get in touch with them in case of an emergency.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 8, 2018 20:55:33 GMT
Yes, I have a friend who's been teaching 8th grade English in a public inner-city school for over 30 years, where the overwhelming majority of the students don't speak English at home, and don't care to learn English in school. The stories she tells me are heartbreaking: her students have no ambition or interest in getting a good education or going to college as they find it's more lucrative to sell drugs and weapons on the streets (as their older relatives do). The parents of her students have zero interest in school or how their kids are behaving. The majority of them don't have a working phone (most just get disposable burner phones) nor email to even get in touch with them in case of an emergency. Yup. Just last year new trends started... Second graders who tell us what their parents tell them... Don't worry about doing well in school. You can always go on public assistance like we are now. FDR is spinning in his grave! Getting a new phone every month complete with a new number because... The bill came. Srsly. This is the most heartbreaking... Parents actually pushing their kids into traffic so three things could happen... 1: sue the unsuspecting driver into Oblivion. 2: start a GoFundMe. 3: both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 5:59:16 GMT
I am surprised the show is still going. Not that I think it is bad and should be cancelled but I never thought it would last as many years as it has and 22 Seasons is very impressive when you look at how many other shows are getting cancelled now.
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 9, 2018 11:57:50 GMT
Yesterday's show concerned a woman suing another woman for ignoring a stop sign, trying to avoid her (plaintiff), but the hitting her. The defendant had a different story (which I didn't believe and JJ didn't believe). The defendant had a letter from her insurance company who did an investigation of their own (as they usually do) and found her not at fault. Judge Judy responded: "I don't read letters from insurance companies..."
Since when?
|
|