|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 16, 2018 12:59:52 GMT
Curious cases this week where JJ seemed rather mixed up....
Yesterday's case had a young woman suing for a used camera back, claiming it was 'not wrapped' so how can it be a gift? She only gave it to her boyfriend in a box, so she quickly objected to it being a 'gift'. If there's one thing I always like is getting money in a birthday card, and each bill is wrapped in beautiful paper.
What really didn't make sense was the fact that they dated from August 2016 - March 2017, and JJ kept referring to this as "a year and a half". WHAT? It's 6 months - not 18 months.
On Monday, there was a handsome 22 year old named Kyle who was renting a room from the defendant for three months at $800+ per month. In his room, he had a cat which was independent: there was a device that would let out enough food each day, a water changer and I believe a self cleaning litter box (or something like that). Kyle paid up front in full for the month of August, but the defendant wanted him out around the third week of August. When the plaintiff went to retrieve his cat the following week, it was gone - and he spent a lot of money tracking it down and getting it back. He was suing for reimbursement for fees to track down the cat, but Judy just refunded his August rent. HUH?
The defendant had no right to get rid of the cat - that room was paid in full for the month of August, and as Judge Judy has told everyone else - you can't trespass in the room/house/apartment if the property is paid in full. Landlord can not remove ' a toothbrush' from the room.
|
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 16, 2018 13:02:00 GMT
Woman dragged through the mud on JJ - I really felt bad for the woman yesterday who was being sued for rent and she had a counter-suit for wanting her dog back. THERE WAS NO REASON JJ HAD TO BRING HER TO TEARS ON THE SHOW AND DRAG HER THROUGH THE MUD ABOUT HER DAUGHTER'S CUSTODY. HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE AT ALL,
|
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on May 16, 2018 15:28:14 GMT
Woman dragged through the mud on JJ - I really felt bad for the woman yesterday who was being sued for rent and she had a counter-suit for wanting her dog back. THERE WAS NO REASON JJ HAD TO BRING HER TO TEARS ON THE SHOW AND DRAG HER THROUGH THE MUD ABOUT HER DAUGHTER'S CUSTODY. HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE AT ALL, Well, if you can't care for a dog you should not be allowed to care for a human being. Notice how if the ASPCA investigates you and finds ANY violation, the animal gets taken THAT DAY. It takes years for CPS to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on May 17, 2018 18:00:03 GMT
I didn't see it at all like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Jun 25, 2018 0:01:20 GMT
The episode which aired on June 22 was rather interesting...
And older man (age unknown. I'm guessing mid-40s) was 'quite friendly' with a 22 year old stud-muffin from San Diego, as they both worked for a year or so at Homo Depot. Older man bought studmuffin a cell phone, and also loaned him $800, so he could buy back his car from someone he previously sold it to, but it wouldn't pass emission testing in California. (Therefore, studmuffin - whose name was Esteban Morales) had to refund the money, take back the car. But Esteban didn't see it as a loan to refund the money to a third party; he saw it as older man 'buying' the car from the third party.
Older guy lived with his mother and father still, while sexy Esteban lived with his dad. Esteban did acknowledge that the past few months had been pretty rough (I believe the episode was recorded in April, from what JJ said) he had even gotten into some 'trouble' down in Mexico, and his dad helped him out. But he didn't feel as though the $800 had to be returned to his friend, and JJ ruled otherwise.
What struck me as odd was that even though Esteban came across as the macho stud of 22, I picked up he was gay. Not once did JJ ask them if they were a couple or dating, as she almost always asks an older man when it involves a younger female. She didn't ask if these two were 'more than friends', if they were dating, or point blank - intimate with each other. I assume they may have asked her not to 'out them' on TV.
But Esteban outed himself. In the 'hall chat' at the end, his older friend said the friendship was over, he didn't like being taken advantage of and he thought Esteban would be different and not take advantage of him.
Esteban said he was sorry, said the two of them became very close friends, and at the end - choked up a bit and teary eyed, he said 'I really loved this guy'.
If I was the older guy, I would keep Esteban in my life as my boy-toy. The yung guy was beautiful, and probably going to get sexier as he gets older.
|
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
 
|
Post by Gubbio on Jun 25, 2018 17:17:45 GMT
Older man bought studmuffin a cell phone, and also loaned him $800, so he could buy back his car from someone he previously sold it to... I picked up on much of what you picked up on: Whenever an older, single male rains gifts on a younger male, and it comes down to "gift or loan," their relationship is always suspect. There is no logical reason for one person to give so much to another person -- unless they are more than friends. The age difference makes you wonder what [else] they would have in common. On more than one occasion on these types of cases, Judge Milian has asked same sex litigants if they were romantically involved. Otherwise, the giving makes little sense. However, I disagree the young Esteban came across as a studly 22 year old. He looked more like a "deer caught in the headlights" to me. I'll never figure out why people go on these shows to air their dirty linen. Sometimes, embarrassing things come out that have nothing to do with the actual case. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 28, 2018 23:09:22 GMT
I just watched a case where Judy's ruling totally confused the hell out of me.
Two former friends (mid 20s, waitresses) were on. The plaintiff sued the defendant for 5000 that she said she loaned to her so she could buy a car. The plaintiff said she got 8000 from a settlement so she was able to loan the defendant 5000 of it (but she expected it back). The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff gave her the money, but claimed it was a gift. Judy doesn't believe the one gave the other 5000 as a loan (supposedly because she doesn't have the income she would keep it herself and didn't have paperwork that satisfied Judy about getting the 8000). She finds for the defendant. But what does the settlement info have to do with anything when the defendant didn't even dispute the plaintiff gave her the money? |
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Jun 29, 2018 1:02:09 GMT
I just watched a case where Judy's ruling totally confused the hell out of me.
Two former friends (mid 20s, waitresses) were on. The plaintiff sued the defendant for 5000 that she said she loaned to her so she could buy a car. The plaintiff said she got 8000 from a settlement so she was able to loan the defendant 5000 of it (but she expected it back). The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff gave her the money, but claimed it was a gift. Judy doesn't believe the one gave the other 5000 as a loan (supposedly because she doesn't have the income she would keep it herself and didn't have paperwork that satisfied Judy about getting the 8000). She finds for the defendant. But what does the settlement info have to do with anything when the defendant didn't even dispute the plaintiff gave her the money? i didn't see this episode yet but with the settlement. consider the reality. waitresses. if not for the 8 grand from a settlement, she would not be able to loan/gift 5grand to the other one. she would not have anything close to that money on hand at all. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jun 29, 2018 1:07:09 GMT
I just watched a case where Judy's ruling totally confused the hell out of me.
Two former friends (mid 20s, waitresses) were on. The plaintiff sued the defendant for 5000 that she said she loaned to her so she could buy a car. The plaintiff said she got 8000 from a settlement so she was able to loan the defendant 5000 of it (but she expected it back). The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff gave her the money, but claimed it was a gift. Judy doesn't believe the one gave the other 5000 as a loan (supposedly because she doesn't have the income she would keep it herself and didn't have paperwork that satisfied Judy about getting the 8000). She finds for the defendant. But what does the settlement info have to do with anything when the defendant didn't even dispute the plaintiff gave her the money? i didn't see this episode yet but with the settlement. consider the reality. waitresses. if not for the 8 grand from a settlement, she would not be able to loan/gift 5grand to the other one. she would not have anything close to that money on hand at all. True, I'd see what you mean about being skeptical if the defendant said the plaintiff never gave her any money. But why would Judy dispute that she did provide the other woman the 5000 when the other woman said she did? That's what I found bizarre. If someone never gave you 5000 and is suing you for it you say she never gave it to you. You don't say she gave it too you, but it was a gift.
|
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Jul 17, 2018 14:38:12 GMT
Older man bought studmuffin a cell phone, and also loaned him $800, so he could buy back his car from someone he previously sold it to... I picked up on much of what you picked up on: Whenever an older, single male rains gifts on a younger male, and it comes down to "gift or loan," their relationship is always suspect. There is no logical reason for one person to give so much to another person -- unless they are more than friends. The age difference makes you wonder what [else] they would have in common. On more than one occasion on these types of cases, Judge Milian has asked same sex litigants if they were romantically involved. Otherwise, the giving makes little sense. However, I disagree the young Esteban came across as a studly 22 year old. He looked more like a "deer caught in the headlights" to me. I'll never figure out why people go on these shows to air their dirty linen. Sometimes, embarrassing things come out that have nothing to do with the actual case. If it were an older man and younger woman (as has been many cases on her show) she outright asks them if they were intimate, or romantically involved. (The male plaintiff always says yes - while the younger female defendant always says a defiant 'no!'). Why she didn't ask these two the same question is beyond me - it would have shed a whole new light on the case, as it has done so in the past with M/F litigants. For Esteban to say "I really loved this guy" at the end seems like he didn't mind his sexuality being 'out there' at such a young age. Unless the older guy was still closeted, but he did a horrible job of staying in the closet on JJ. |
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Jul 17, 2018 14:48:48 GMT
i didn't see this episode yet but with the settlement. consider the reality. waitresses. if not for the 8 grand from a settlement, she would not be able to loan/gift 5grand to the other one. she would not have anything close to that money on hand at all. True, I'd see what you mean about being skeptical if the defendant said the plaintiff never gave her any money. But why would Judy dispute that she did provide the other woman the 5000 when the other woman said she did? That's what I found bizarre. If someone never gave you 5000 and is suing you for it you say she never gave it to you. You don't say she gave it too you, but it was a gift.
I don't think the transfer of $5,000 from the defendant to the plaintiff was in question, though. Both litigants acknowledged the plaintiff gave the defendant $5,000. The question in dispute was: Was the transaction intended as a loan or a gift ?Plaintiff said "loan", defendant said "gift", but plaintiff had no proof it was a loan (such as a signed letter, document, text, email, etc.). If you are handing someone $5K, and the intention is a loan, there's going to be some 'memorialized' communication between the two of you that it's a loan. Maybe not a legal document, but something as simple as a text or email between the two acknowledging it's a loan and expected to be paid back, is legal enough these days. |
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Jul 17, 2018 14:56:40 GMT
This past weekend, a friend of mine texted me a photo of a HUGE yacht (looked more like a cruise ship) docked in the harbor in Newport, RI - towering over every other yacht in the harbor. (My friend lives in Newport, the ritzy summer vacation spot in New England while I live in Providence - about 409 miles away - and avoid Newport at all costs in the summer season). Anyhow, her text below the photo tells me 'Judge Judy' is here for the rest of the summer, and that is her yacht 'Just J'.
She's been spotted around the island (once dubbed 'playground for the rich' at the turn of the 20th century) at the Tennis Hall of Fame, and some of the very exclusive restaurants, country clubs, and stores in Newport joined by her husband and family.
So next time she says to a litigant "I didn't go to law school to divide up pots and pans", the litigant should answer: "But my pots and pans are paying you well enough for that cruise ship called 'Just J' docked in Newport, RI all summer!"
|
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Aug 2, 2018 13:35:37 GMT
UPDATE: Judge Judy purchased a $9M mansion known as 'Bird House' while in Newport, RI. It' the highest residential real estate transaction in RI history, I believe. Judge Judy's Purchase on the news |
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on Aug 2, 2018 15:39:23 GMT
UPDATE: Judge Judy purchased a $9M mansion known as 'Bird House'.....
|
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Aug 2, 2018 15:43:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 3, 2018 0:35:38 GMT
True, I'd see what you mean about being skeptical if the defendant said the plaintiff never gave her any money. But why would Judy dispute that she did provide the other woman the 5000 when the other woman said she did? That's what I found bizarre. If someone never gave you 5000 and is suing you for it you say she never gave it to you. You don't say she gave it too you, but it was a gift.
I don't think the transfer of $5,000 from the defendant to the plaintiff was in question, though. Both litigants acknowledged the plaintiff gave the defendant $5,000. The question in dispute was: Was the transaction intended as a loan or a gift ?Plaintiff said "loan", defendant said "gift", but plaintiff had no proof it was a loan (such as a signed letter, document, text, email, etc.). If you are handing someone $5K, and the intention is a loan, there's going to be some 'memorialized' communication between the two of you that it's a loan. Maybe not a legal document, but something as simple as a text or email between the two acknowledging it's a loan and expected to be paid back, is legal enough these days. Judy turned the question into did the 5000 change hands at all. She expressed she didn't believe it changed hands at all a few times actually. That's what made it so odd. |
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Aug 3, 2018 13:22:26 GMT
UPDATE: Judge Judy purchased a $9M mansion known as 'Bird House'.....
When I first read it in my local newspaper, I skimmed through it and the first thing I thought of was "She's buying this for Byrd?"  The story made quite a bit of news because it was the highest real estate transaction in our state's history. Before her, I think that honor went to Taylor Swift about five years ago, when she over-paid for a mansion in Watch Hill, RI - another 'playground for the rich and famous', but more for younger people (I believe Justin Timberlake also owns property there). Newport is more for the older wealthy New Yorkers - like Judge Judy. |
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Aug 9, 2018 18:06:23 GMT
I'm going through JJ withdrawal. I can't wait for the new season to start (Sept 10?) and I do hope the new season is much more entertaining than the past four or five. No more dog bites / dog attacks / loose dogs running around. Bring back the sexy bad boys who don't pay loans. Bring back the 'hoodrats who pull each others weaves off their heads. Bring back excitement. |
|
|
|
Post by doggiedaddy on Aug 23, 2018 14:40:19 GMT
They are promoting 'new episodes' but it's still listed as season 22, which means this week and next are the 'burn off episodes' (the cases which were too dull to air during the regular season - hence, they've been edited down to ten minutes or so and they are fitting three cases into a 22 minute show). I believe the new season starts on September 4, according to ads on my local network which airs JJ.
By the way, JJ was 100% wrong this week on the case with the young stud muffin who's car was hit by the older guy. Stud muffin was exiting a parking lot and making a left hand turn. To do so, he had to cross two lanes of oncoming traffic and a 'left turn lane' coming at him, and cross over a double line for the median. This scenario is very common throughout the US, and it is not illegal to make the left turn (otherwise, when exiting the parking lot, it would say "No Left Turn" or there would be some kind of median barrier to prevent you from doing so). He carefully pulled out, but the older guy did not make his left turn in the turn lane - he was riding up the turn lane till he reached the corner (over 500 feet away). THAT is illegal.
JJ foolishly said they were both at fault (agreeing with the older guy's insurance company, not the younger guy's insurance company NOR the patrolman who wrote the report!). Since when does she not believe a police report? The cop said the older guy was driving illegally, not the young stud.
|
|
Gubbio
Sophomore
@gubbio
Posts: 254
Likes: 217
|
Post by Gubbio on Sept 1, 2018 22:11:51 GMT
Hi Grace, Thanks for the update. Apparently, he got into Judy's panties (now, there's a horrible mental image) and they had to edit the episode. That guy was some flake. How have you been? I am still limping along (literally) (arthritis).   |
|
The story made quite a bit of news because it was the highest real estate transaction in our state's history. Before her, I think that honor went to Taylor Swift about five years ago, when she over-paid for a mansion in Watch Hill, RI - another 'playground for the rich and famous', but more for younger people (I believe Justin Timberlake also owns property there). Newport is more for the older wealthy New Yorkers - like Judge Judy.