“UH” IS NOT AN ANSWER!
this only here so the above could be all caps
I’m just watching an episode now with a pitbull owner; Judge Judy asks the pitbull owner if his dog has bitten someone before, and after lying two times, the owner finally says yes, he has bitten before. She’s got a pretty good eye for liars.
This makes me think of how great Jules Winnfield would be as a TV Judge:
Speaking of bailiffs, I’m always amused when Officer Byrd acts like he is soooo put out when he has to saunter over to a table and retrieve a document. Perk up, dude! I mean, does Vanna White roll her eyes when she has to go and touch a lighted screen?
Byrd is my husband’s hero - he’s a perfect sidekick for Judge Judy. I mean Byrd, not my husband.
She’s my favorite. She still comes down squarely as a judge and from what I’ve seen, she treats people fairly without taking any guff. She also seems to have a sense of humor but I’ve seen her lose her cool and really chew someone out when they deserve it.
As for the money aspect, when I was on the Judge Mathis Show, the person I was suing did get paid for being there, as did both of our witnessess. We also all got flown to Chicago, put up in decent hotels, and all our expenses were paid.
On a side note, the defendent in the case was told that the total amount he was being sued for was put into a “pot” and if he won the case, he would get then money (I assumed this is how they get people to really defend themselves)
I don’t like Judge Judy. I want to like her and I think she is usually right, but she seems very arbitrary and jumps to conclusions on too many occasions. Too emotional, she needs to stay more objective. But I guess that’s what people tune in to see, annoying or shady people getting lectured.
She’s fucking trashy is what she is. HATE Judge Judy. HATE her and all her ilk. :mad:
ETA Ahem by “her” I mean the TV persona and the archetype it personifies in the public mind.
My favorite episode like this was as follows:
Plaintiff daughter (who is a minor) and defendant daughter (who is a minor) are friends, and DD (defendant daughter) stays over at PD’s house one night. They live in the country. PD and DD decide to take PM’s (plaintiff mother) car for a joyride. PM always leaves her keys in the vehicle, and so they boost the car and joyride. During the joyride, the car is wrecked. DD DIES in the accident. PM sues DM for damages to the car, as PD has told her mother that it was DD’s idea to take the car.
I really thought Judy was gonna have a stroke laying into the plaintiff.
I saw a different tax case on her show. Former live in but unmarried boy friend and girl friend filed taxes jointly. They split up and the gf kept the whole refund. Bf was suing for half. Judy found out that they were unmarried and she told them that what they did was illegal and that she was going to inform the Feds and that the case was over.
While I would probably have to smack those TV judges if I ever got too drunk and signed a release to appear, and was sober when appearing, I think some of the ‘jump to conclusion’ comes from the editing of the show. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt every case is resolved in 15 minutes.
I don’t really watch any of the courtroom TV shows except Judge Judy, but I’ve always assumed that a lot of the opinions she jumps to are a product of the fact that she’s already read the complaint and the answer to the complaint. IOW, she starts off with more info than the show ever gives us.
How does a TV judge have a right to access someone’s private bank records?
If that woman gave Judge Judy permission to look at her bank statements, knowing that the IRS refunds would be in there, then she should claim innocence on the grounds that she’s too stupid to figure out the plan in the first place. I’m surprised she could turn on a computer.
She probably signed something that gave JJ permission to access all of her records.
And I think that the producers of these shows purposely screen the applicants for lack of intelligence and common sense. It’s scary to watch these shows and realize that some of these people are going about life without keepers.
Probably part of the contract they sign when they agree to dismiss their small claims cases and instead allow the TV judge arbitrate the case. I imagine you’d have to agree that if you don’t give TV judge the same access to documents and such an actual judge would have, the TV judge will throw you out on your ass and give the judgment to the other party.
I dunno, I’ve seen some really stupid people come up with some really intricate schemes on these judge shows. Just smart enough to get themselves in deep shit, I guess.
And that most of them have kids. Nope, the stupid isn’t dying out any time soon.
I have a question about a recent Judge Judy episode. One co-worker was suing another for posting inapropriate photos of herself online. At the very end of the segment, Judge Judy asked the defendant if she had a pending lawsuit against their employer (a dentist). When the defendant answered in the affirmative, Judge Judy immediately ruled in favor of the plantiff for $5,000. What was thte judge’s reasoning for this ruling?
Heh. I was wondering this, too. I hope someone comes back with an answer.
I haven’t watched Judge Judy in several years, but thanks to this thread I watched an episode recently. The plaintiff was a hairdresser who used to work at a salon (actually I’m not sure if she was an employee or a contractor or co-owner or what - I missed the beginning of the show). So I guess the salon was robbed, and she had a laptop and some hair extensions stolen from her work station. She filed an insurance claim, and for some reason the cheque for $5000 arrived and was made out to someone else (the owner/co-owner, I’m not sure, of the salon). So the plaintiff is suing the owner because the owner is refusing to endorse the cheque so the plaintiff can cash it.
The defendant’s case is that she believes the plaintiff is involved in insurance fraud. The initial police report said that a laptop and hair extensions were stolen ($4700 total value). The insurance policy has a $5000 deductible. The defendant states that the plaintiff lied to the insurance company about the value of the things that were stolen, and that several months after the robbery she saw the plaintiff using several other items the plaintiff told the insurance company were stolen.
Plaintiff tries to tell Judge Judy, “well, the deductible used to be lower ($500 or $1000) and the defendant changed the policy to raise the deductible without telling me. I never would have agreed.” Judge Judy asks, what does that have to do with anything? What was the value of the stuff that was stolen?
Plaintiff blusters around. She says that the defendant shouldn’t have let the stuff get stolen. Judy Judy says that’s the stupidest thing she ever heard. The defendant isn’t responsible for the criminal actions of a third person. Compensation for stolen items is why people get insurance.
Plaintiff whines that the defendant won’t sign the insurance cheque, and says that Judge Judy should force her to sign it. Judy says that’s ridiculous, and you can’t force someone to be a party to what they believe to be insurance fraud. Furthermore, Judge Judy says that in the (unlikely) event that there is no insurance fraud going on, the plaintiff should just get the insurance company to issue her a cheque in her name.
The plaintiff says that there was no insurance fraud and she didn’t lie to the insurance company. Judge Judy asks why the police report lists less than $5000 in stolen items. Plaintiff says “well, I didn’t remember everything right away. If you asked me to list everything I have in my purse right now off the top of my head I probably wouldn’t remember everything.” Judge Judy looks dubious that someone would “forget” over half the items that were stolen when giving a report to the police.
Of course, plaintiff still appears to be incredibly stupid and insists that the defendant should be forced to sign the cheque, and that the deductible was too high anyways and she didn’t know the deductible was so high, etc… etc…