Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 173 (click to see context) from:
* In a case from around 2018(?), Judy demonstrates some [[JudgementOfSolomon Solomonic shrewdness]] in a case where a man and a woman are contesting ownership of an adorable little terrier. Hearing that the dog is present in the courtroom, Judy asks for a woman to bring the dog forward and then asks the woman to put the dog down. Without missing a single beat the moment it touches the floor, the dog runs over to the man tail wagging and excitedly jumping up his leg, confirming he is the owner.
to:
* In a case from around 2018(?), Judy demonstrates some [[JudgementOfSolomon [[JudgmentOfSolomon Solomonic shrewdness]] in a case where a man and a woman are contesting ownership of an adorable little terrier. Hearing that the dog is present in the courtroom, Judy asks for a woman to bring the dog forward and then asks the woman to put the dog down. Without missing a single beat the moment it touches the floor, the dog runs over to the man tail wagging and excitedly jumping up his leg, confirming he is the owner.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 172 (click to see context) from:
* From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her "don't you feel stupid?" To which the witness responded "sort of", to which she responded "[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]]." She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, "I wouldn't waste another second with him". She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a "good citizen".
to:
* From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her "don't you feel stupid?" To which the witness responded "sort of", to which she responded "[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]]." She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, "I wouldn't waste another second with him". She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a "good citizen".citizen".
* In a case from around 2018(?), Judy demonstrates some [[JudgementOfSolomon Solomonic shrewdness]] in a case where a man and a woman are contesting ownership of an adorable little terrier. Hearing that the dog is present in the courtroom, Judy asks for a woman to bring the dog forward and then asks the woman to put the dog down. Without missing a single beat the moment it touches the floor, the dog runs over to the man tail wagging and excitedly jumping up his leg, confirming he is the owner.
* In a case from around 2018(?), Judy demonstrates some [[JudgementOfSolomon Solomonic shrewdness]] in a case where a man and a woman are contesting ownership of an adorable little terrier. Hearing that the dog is present in the courtroom, Judy asks for a woman to bring the dog forward and then asks the woman to put the dog down. Without missing a single beat the moment it touches the floor, the dog runs over to the man tail wagging and excitedly jumping up his leg, confirming he is the owner.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Fixing indentation
Changed line(s) 160,165 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
---> '''Plaintiff:''' [[ComicallyMissingThePoint It is!!!]]
---> '''Judge Judy:''' And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
--->'''Defendant:''' [[INeverSaidItWasPoison $12,000]].
--->''(a good chunk of the audience gasps in shock and disbelief)''
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
---> '''Plaintiff:''' [[ComicallyMissingThePoint It is!!!]]
---> '''Judge Judy:''' And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
--->'''Defendant:''' [[INeverSaidItWasPoison $12,000]].
--->''(a good chunk of the audience gasps in shock and disbelief)''
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
to:
Changed line(s) 167,171 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Your case is dismissed. ''(heads to chambers)''
--->'''Ms. Owens:''' Your honour, she already used those photos in court!
--->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a lawsuit against Dr. (censored)?
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]: '''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. NOW you can leave.
--->'''Ms. Owens:''' Your honour, she already used those photos in court!
--->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a lawsuit against Dr. (censored)?
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]: '''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. NOW you can leave.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Spelling/grammar fix(es)
Changed line(s) 143,144 (click to see context) from:
* In 2013, a case involving a mother, Rebecca Jones and her daughter Libby, were suing Libby's coach, Elaina [=McLain=] for $2,000 for return of the league fees. In November, Libby went to a try out and was offered to be on the volleyball team. In December, Libby contracted mono and was forced to stay off the team until the middle of January once she was cleared from her doctor. When Libby returned, the coach started to do warm up exercises with the team but got to an exercise that Libby had missed while she was sick. Ms. [=McLain=] asked Libby to step aside and watch the other kids do the new exercise, but that had bothered Libby. Libby started to get an attitude about it as she wanted Ms. [=McLain=] to teach her the new drill right now, but Ms. [=McLain=] explained (and also pointed out by Judge Judy) that she didn't have time to teach Libby a new drill at that time but could do it at another time after class. Libby was also paired up with another student that she did not get along with as that student was at the same level of play as Libby. After class, Ms. Jones stormed into the gym and confronted Ms. [=McLain=] in front of the other students about how she felt Libby was treated. Ms. Jones yelled at Ms. [=McLain=] and cursed her out, something the plaintiff admitted to. It was then that Libby was embarrassed by her mother and asked her to leave Ms. [=McLain=] alone and just leave. Ms. [=McLain=] asked her to leave, when Ms. Jones stormed out and said she was off the team. Judge Judy found the whole ordeal and the lawsuit a waste of time and told Ms. Jones to stop being a mother hen about it and said to her that she better shape up along with the daughter as she could tell that Libby was also starting to get a sense of entitlement in her from her mother, or else Libby maybe in court more often with Ms. Jones giving excuses for her.
to:
* In 2013, a case involving a mother, Rebecca Jones and her daughter Libby, were suing Libby's coach, Elaina [=McLain=] for $2,000 for return of the league fees. In November, Libby went to a try out and was offered to be on the volleyball team. In December, Libby contracted mono and was forced to stay off the team until the middle of January once she was cleared from her doctor. When Libby returned, the coach started to do warm up exercises with the team but got to an exercise that Libby had missed while she was sick. Ms. [=McLain=] asked Libby to step aside and watch the other kids do the new exercise, but that had bothered Libby. Libby started to get an attitude about it as she wanted Ms. [=McLain=] to teach her the new drill right now, but Ms. [=McLain=] explained (and also pointed out by Judge Judy) that she didn't have time to teach Libby a new drill at that time but could do it at another time after class. Libby was also paired up with another student that she did not get along with as that student was at the same level of play as Libby. After class, Ms. Jones stormed into the gym and confronted Ms. [=McLain=] in front of the other students about how she felt Libby was treated. Ms. Jones yelled at Ms. [=McLain=] and cursed her out, something the plaintiff admitted to. It was then that Libby was embarrassed by her mother and asked her to leave Ms. [=McLain=] alone and just leave. Ms. [=McLain=] asked her to leave, when Ms. Jones stormed out and said she was off the team. Judge Judy found the whole ordeal and the lawsuit a waste of time and told Ms. Jones to stop being a mother hen about it and said to her that she better shape up along with the daughter as she could tell that Libby was also starting to get a sense of entitlement in her from her mother, or else Libby maybe may be in court more often with Ms. Jones giving excuses for her.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 172 (click to see context) from:
From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her “don't you feel stupid?” To which the witness responded “sort of”, to which she responded “[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]].” She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, “I wouldn't waste another second with him”. She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a “good citizen”.
to:
* From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her “don't you feel stupid?” To which the witness responded “sort of”, to which she responded “[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]].” She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, “I wouldn't waste another second with him”. She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a “good citizen”.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 171 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. NOW you can leave.
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. NOW you can leave.leave.
From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her “don't you feel stupid?” To which the witness responded “sort of”, to which she responded “[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]].” She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, “I wouldn't waste another second with him”. She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a “good citizen”.
From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her “don't you feel stupid?” To which the witness responded “sort of”, to which she responded “[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]].” She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, “I wouldn't waste another second with him”. She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a “good citizen”.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 170 (click to see context) from:
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]:'''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
to:
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]:'''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison McDaniels=]: '''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 170 (click to see context) from:
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]:''': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
to:
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]:''': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison McDaniels=]:'''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 170 (click to see context) from:
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
to:
--->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]:'': McDaniels=]:''': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 170 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Ms. [=McDaniels=]:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 169,170 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a case against Dr. (censored)?
--->'''Ms. McDaniels:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
--->'''Ms. McDaniels:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a case lawsuit against Dr. (censored)?
--->'''Ms.McDaniels:'': [=McDaniels=]:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
--->'''Ms.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 160 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
Changed line(s) 171 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. [[CruelTwiatEnding Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.]] NOW you can leave.
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. [[CruelTwiatEnding Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.]] $5,000. NOW you can leave.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 160 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here here. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
Changed line(s) 165 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''''
* Circa 2012(?): A woman is suing a coworker for false charges, alleging that the defendant posted photos of injuries coming from a scuffle between the two of them and a dentist. Judy initially doesn't believe her, and explains why she's dismissing the case, much to the plaintiff's dismay. She dismisses it, but then the plaintiff lets it slip that the defendant is using those same photos in another case against the dentist. Judy, as she heads to the chambers, stops and asks the defendant if she has a lawsuit against the dentist, to which she responds "yes", thus incriminating herself and confirming that she did in fact lie in court about her injuries, and by extension, justifying the plaintiff's claim. Judy reverses her decision and awards the plaintiff $5000.
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Your case is dismissed. ''(heads to chambers)''
--->'''Ms. Owens:''' Your honour, she already used those photos in court!
--->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a case against Dr. (censored)?
--->'''Ms. McDaniels:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. [[CruelTwiatEnding Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.]] NOW you can leave.
* Circa 2012(?): A woman is suing a coworker for false charges, alleging that the defendant posted photos of injuries coming from a scuffle between the two of them and a dentist. Judy initially doesn't believe her, and explains why she's dismissing the case, much to the plaintiff's dismay. She dismisses it, but then the plaintiff lets it slip that the defendant is using those same photos in another case against the dentist. Judy, as she heads to the chambers, stops and asks the defendant if she has a lawsuit against the dentist, to which she responds "yes", thus incriminating herself and confirming that she did in fact lie in court about her injuries, and by extension, justifying the plaintiff's claim. Judy reverses her decision and awards the plaintiff $5000.
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Your case is dismissed. ''(heads to chambers)''
--->'''Ms. Owens:''' Your honour, she already used those photos in court!
--->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a case against Dr. (censored)?
--->'''Ms. McDaniels:'': [[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. [[CruelTwiatEnding Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.]] NOW you can leave.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 160 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here here I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
Changed line(s) 164 (click to see context) from:
--->(a good chunk of the audience gasps in shock and disbelief)
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 160 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here here I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
Changed line(s) 162 (click to see context) from:
---> '''Judge Judy:'''And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
to:
---> '''Judge Judy:'''And Judy:''' And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 160 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam. And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
to:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam. And
---> '''Plaintiff:''' [[ComicallyMissingThePoint It is!!!]]
---> '''Judge Judy:'''And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
---> '''Plaintiff:''' [[ComicallyMissingThePoint It is!!!]]
---> '''Judge Judy:'''And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 163 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy: Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
to:
--->'''Judge Judy: Judy:''' Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 158 (click to see context) from:
'''Judge Judy:''' No, because your argument is so ridiculous I can't allow ten million people to listen to your lunacy.
to:
'''Judge Judy:''' No, because your argument is so ridiculous I can't allow ten million people to listen to your lunacy.lunacy.
* Circa 2018: in a case so confusing that even the person in charge of the title cards apparently couldn't tell what the lawsuit was about and just had the title cards read that the suit was for "$5,000 in stolen cash", the plaintiff had apparently moved into an apartment directly above a church (in the same building). The plaintiff apparently couldn't afford to pay rent month to month but got $5,000 in tax rebates and paid the year's rent in cash. The tenancy started in 2015, and she would end up doing the same in 2016. However, it was becoming clear with her limited income with her part time job at Family Dollar that this wasn't going to last. Around October 2016, a fire broke out in the apartment, and quite conveniently, a few weeks before the fire, the plaintiff took out Renter's Insurance. It's unclear exactly what happened with the Plaintiff and Defendant's insurance payouts, but the Defendant got a hefty payout... without an arson report being filed. From there on, Judge Judy herself was able to piece together what was really going on: it was a scam on both of their parts; the only damage done to the building was in the apartment portion of the building and not the church itself, and likely that the Plaintiff's claim for insurance was deemed bogus given the timing of her Renter's Insurance policy; likely, the defendant wasn't willing to part with half of the sum and she was mad about it. Judy herself told them to take their scamming business elsewhere, and then it all culminates in the Defendant getting foot in mouth:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam. And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
--->'''Defendant:''' [[INeverSaidItWasPoison $12,000]].
--->(a good chunk of the audience gasps in shock and disbelief)
--->'''Judge Judy: Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
* Circa 2018: in a case so confusing that even the person in charge of the title cards apparently couldn't tell what the lawsuit was about and just had the title cards read that the suit was for "$5,000 in stolen cash", the plaintiff had apparently moved into an apartment directly above a church (in the same building). The plaintiff apparently couldn't afford to pay rent month to month but got $5,000 in tax rebates and paid the year's rent in cash. The tenancy started in 2015, and she would end up doing the same in 2016. However, it was becoming clear with her limited income with her part time job at Family Dollar that this wasn't going to last. Around October 2016, a fire broke out in the apartment, and quite conveniently, a few weeks before the fire, the plaintiff took out Renter's Insurance. It's unclear exactly what happened with the Plaintiff and Defendant's insurance payouts, but the Defendant got a hefty payout... without an arson report being filed. From there on, Judge Judy herself was able to piece together what was really going on: it was a scam on both of their parts; the only damage done to the building was in the apartment portion of the building and not the church itself, and likely that the Plaintiff's claim for insurance was deemed bogus given the timing of her Renter's Insurance policy; likely, the defendant wasn't willing to part with half of the sum and she was mad about it. Judy herself told them to take their scamming business elsewhere, and then it all culminates in the Defendant getting foot in mouth:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam. And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
--->'''Defendant:''' [[INeverSaidItWasPoison $12,000]].
--->(a good chunk of the audience gasps in shock and disbelief)
--->'''Judge Judy: Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Page was cut
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* 2007?: [[https://www.snotr.com/video/739/eBay_scammer_on_Judge_Judy In this case]], a woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an Website/EBay seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman takes the case to Judge Judy. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]], [[ReadTheFinePrint and justified it because it was in the fine print]]. Judy proceeds to expose her as a scammer and take her down so hard that she can't get near a computer again without an extreme case of backlash. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious. This left such an impression on Her Honor that Judge Judy still talked about the eBay seller until the end of the show's run in 2021, ''still'' talks about it now on ''Series/JudyJustice'', and has brought it up a number of times over the years about how much of a scam that was. The defendant has since passed away, [[DrivenToSuicide apparently by suicide]] - testament to how an appearance on Judge Judy's show can ruin some people for life.
to:
* 2007?: [[https://www.snotr.com/video/739/eBay_scammer_on_Judge_Judy In this case]], a woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an Website/EBay eBay seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman takes the case to Judge Judy. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]], [[ReadTheFinePrint and justified it because it was in the fine print]]. Judy proceeds to expose her as a scammer and take her down so hard that she can't get near a computer again without an extreme case of backlash. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious. This left such an impression on Her Honor that Judge Judy still talked about the eBay seller until the end of the show's run in 2021, ''still'' talks about it now on ''Series/JudyJustice'', and has brought it up a number of times over the years about how much of a scam that was. The defendant has since passed away, [[DrivenToSuicide apparently by suicide]] - testament to how an appearance on Judge Judy's show can ruin some people for life.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Judy:''' I would sue you for a lot more than the return of his tuition. How dare you? How dare you take children who have special needs...
to:
-->'''Judy:''' I would sue you for a lot more than the return of his tuition. How dare you? How dare you take children who have special needs...needs? ... I don't think that I have to listen to nonsense about two people, who have a bare minimum education where you couldn't get a job in most governmental institutions, taking a child with, clearly, a behavioral special need and putting him in a ''closet'', a closet that had stored food with a table and a chair, and told him to work there during the day, and somebody who worked for 22 years to get an associate's degree went in and said, "Do you need to go the bathroom"? Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2750. That's all. Step out.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 13 (click to see context) from:
* Circa 2000: An early case involved a 75-year-old grandfather who had gifted each of his four grandchildren $500 for their future needs, and was suing his son and daughter-in-law for withdrawing $1500 of the total $2000 sum to use for household expenses, rent, and family outings. In response, the plaintiff had taken back the remaining $500 and planned to open new accounts for his grandchildren. Judge Judy was incensed, pointing out that the defendants essentially stole money from their own children and then had the gall to countersue the plaintiff for the $500 he had withdrawn. She eventually uncovered the defendants' motive: the plaintiff's son believed he was entitled to the money because the plaintiff had been an absentee, alcoholic father. Judge Judy was unmoved.
to:
* Circa 2000: An A very early case involved a young mother who sued her ex-husband's current girlfriend for defamation for allegedly distributing flyers accusing the plaintiff of child abuse. The plaintiff had just moved into the neighborhood where the flyers were distributed and was alerted to the flyers by her new neighbors. The defendant admitted to distributing the flyers but claimed she and the plaintiff's ex-husband did it out of concern for the plaintiff's children. It turned out the defendants had filed no fewer than ''three'' complaints against the plaintiff with Child Protective Services, and on each occasion the allegations were found to be without merit. Determining this to be a vindictive attempt to wrest custody of the kids away from the plaintiff since the ex-husband was upset he'd only been granted visitation with the kids instead of custody, Judge Judy unleashed the full force of her fury on the defendants.
--> '''Judge Judy:''' ''[holding up the flyer the defendant had distributed]'' THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! You are a mean, vindictive woman ... You didn't get what you want when you called Child Protective Services, they conduct no less than three investigations against her, they find absolutely no basis to remove the children, so you decide to make a little trouble, make her life a little bit miserable ... I wanna tell you something. If I were the family court judge, not a mediator, but if I were the family court judge who was deciding visitation with your children, you, sir, would see your children under a ''supervised'' visitation arrangement only. And I am a very serious proponent of fathers having as unrestricted quality time, if they are not the custodial parents of children, as is possible, because I always believe that that's in a child's best interest, to have the love and companionship of both biological parents. ... But NOT, sir, when you live with this kind of witch! Judgment is for the plaintiff in the amount of $2000; whatever counterclaim there is is dismissed! That's all.
* A case circa 2000 involved a 75-year-old grandfather who had gifted each of his four grandchildren $500 for their future needs, and was suing his son and daughter-in-law for withdrawing $1500 of the total $2000 sum to use for household expenses, rent, and family outings. In response, the plaintiff had taken back the remaining $500 and planned to open new accounts for his grandchildren. Judge Judy was incensed, pointing out that the defendants essentially stole money from their own children and then had the gall to countersue the plaintiff for the $500 he had withdrawn. She eventually uncovered the defendants' motive: the plaintiff's son believed he was entitled to the money because the plaintiff had been an absentee, alcoholic father. Judge Judy was unmoved.
--> '''Judge Judy:''' ''[holding up the flyer the defendant had distributed]'' THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! You are a mean, vindictive woman ... You didn't get what you want when you called Child Protective Services, they conduct no less than three investigations against her, they find absolutely no basis to remove the children, so you decide to make a little trouble, make her life a little bit miserable ... I wanna tell you something. If I were the family court judge, not a mediator, but if I were the family court judge who was deciding visitation with your children, you, sir, would see your children under a ''supervised'' visitation arrangement only. And I am a very serious proponent of fathers having as unrestricted quality time, if they are not the custodial parents of children, as is possible, because I always believe that that's in a child's best interest, to have the love and companionship of both biological parents. ... But NOT, sir, when you live with this kind of witch! Judgment is for the plaintiff in the amount of $2000; whatever counterclaim there is is dismissed! That's all.
* A case circa 2000 involved a 75-year-old grandfather who had gifted each of his four grandchildren $500 for their future needs, and was suing his son and daughter-in-law for withdrawing $1500 of the total $2000 sum to use for household expenses, rent, and family outings. In response, the plaintiff had taken back the remaining $500 and planned to open new accounts for his grandchildren. Judge Judy was incensed, pointing out that the defendants essentially stole money from their own children and then had the gall to countersue the plaintiff for the $500 he had withdrawn. She eventually uncovered the defendants' motive: the plaintiff's son believed he was entitled to the money because the plaintiff had been an absentee, alcoholic father. Judge Judy was unmoved.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the [no refunds] policy.\\
to:
'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the [no refunds] [cancellation] policy.\\
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 44,45 (click to see context) from:
* Circa 2012: A Dallasite brought a young couple to court for allegedly filing false charges against him for threatening them with a gun. The incident stemmed from a dispute between the plaintiff and defendants over use of a vacant lot from which the defendants were selling floral arrangements. The plaintiff admitted to pulling a gun on the defendants but claimed they attacked him first. Her Honor was having none of it.
-->'''Judge Judy:''' You pulled a gun on them! You pulled out a gun, and you shot the gun over FLOWERS! Are you a MORON?!\\
-->'''Judge Judy:''' You pulled a gun on them! You pulled out a gun, and you shot the gun over FLOWERS! Are you a MORON?!\\
to:
* Circa 2012: A Dallasite brought a young couple to court for allegedly filing false charges against him for threatening them with a gun. The incident stemmed from a dispute between the plaintiff and defendants over use of a vacant lot from which the defendants were selling floral arrangements. The plaintiff admitted to pulling a gun on the defendants but claimed they attacked him first. Her Honor didn't believe the plaintiff's story and told him there was having none of it.
something wrong with him, adding that she'd revoke his carrying permit if she had the power to do so.
-->'''Judge Judy:''' You pulled out a gun on them! And you shot the gun! You pulled out a gun, and you shot the gun over FLOWERS! Are you a MORON?!\\
-->'''Judge Judy:''' You pulled out a gun on them! And you shot the gun! You pulled out a gun, and you shot the gun over FLOWERS! Are you a MORON?!\\
Changed line(s) 49 (click to see context) from:
---> '''Judge Judy:''' Once you're shot at with a gun, you never view the world the same way!
to:
---> '''Judge Judy:''' Once you're shot at with a gun, you never view look at the world the same way!way! NEVER!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Any time a litigant tries to go toe to toe with Judge Judy and gets quickly put in their place, as in this case involving a dispute over a refund from a canceled motorcycle rental. The plaintiff sunk her own case by contradicting her own testimony, then wouldn't shut up when the judge told her to be quiet.
-->'''Judge Judy:''' In answer to my question, you did say the dates were correct. Then you changed... ''[plaintiff opens mouth to talk]'' Don't speak. Then you changed it later when you saw the direction I was going in. That's number one. Number two: I asked you whether all 14 motorcycles were rented for that period of time - 26th, 27th, 28th. Your response to me, 'cause it's on tape, was, "No, they weren't, and he called pretty far in advance." So the second thing is that you suffered no damage as a result of his canceling, because the rest of your motorcycles weren't rented. He only rented ''one.'' ''[plantiff opens mouth again]'' I'm not finished yet.\\
'''Plaintiff:''' I understand.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' I'm not finished yet.\\
'''Plaintiff:''' I understand.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' So, if I were in business with a customer who had reserved and used my business before, three times...\\
'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the [no refunds] policy.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' Just a...\\
'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the policy.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' Goodbye. Your case is dismissed. We're done!\\
'''Plaintiff:''' That's great.
-->'''Judge Judy:''' In answer to my question, you did say the dates were correct. Then you changed... ''[plaintiff opens mouth to talk]'' Don't speak. Then you changed it later when you saw the direction I was going in. That's number one. Number two: I asked you whether all 14 motorcycles were rented for that period of time - 26th, 27th, 28th. Your response to me, 'cause it's on tape, was, "No, they weren't, and he called pretty far in advance." So the second thing is that you suffered no damage as a result of his canceling, because the rest of your motorcycles weren't rented. He only rented ''one.'' ''[plantiff opens mouth again]'' I'm not finished yet.\\
'''Plaintiff:''' I understand.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' I'm not finished yet.\\
'''Plaintiff:''' I understand.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' So, if I were in business with a customer who had reserved and used my business before, three times...\\
'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the [no refunds] policy.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' Just a...\\
'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the policy.\\
'''Judge Judy:''' Goodbye. Your case is dismissed. We're done!\\
'''Plaintiff:''' That's great.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 83 (click to see context) from:
* 2008, a woman goes drinking at a bar and gets into a car accident. Here the woman was very responsible and knew that she was going to drink so she asked a friend of hers to be the designated driver, which he agreed. On the way home, the friend falls asleep at the wheel with her in the back seat of the car drunk. He crashes into a tree and nearly kills the plaintiff. She was suing her friend for $5,000.00 for medical bills as her health insurance company denied her coverage because she was drunk, but as Judge Judy pointed out, the insurance company isn't allowed to drop her because while she did drink, the accident and injuries had nothing to do with her drinking and called out the insurance company for denying her claim. She also told the defendant that he is suppose to be responsible for her medical bills as he was the driver of the car. Judge Judy told the plaintiff that while the $5,000.00 was only a drop in the bucket for her medical bills, she should sue United Health and Judge Judy also said that she would be more than happy to give a business report and a copy of the tape so the plaintiff can sue the insurance company.
to:
* 2008, a woman goes drinking at a bar and gets into a car accident. Here the woman was very responsible and knew that she was going to drink so she asked a friend of hers to be the designated driver, which he agreed. On the way home, the friend falls asleep at the wheel with her in the back seat of the car drunk. He crashes into a tree and nearly kills the plaintiff. She was suing her friend for $5,000.00 for medical bills as her health insurance company denied her coverage because she was drunk, but as Judge Judy pointed out, the insurance company isn't allowed to drop her because while she did drink, the accident and injuries had nothing to do with her drinking and called out the insurance company for denying her claim. She also told the defendant that he is suppose supposed to be responsible for her medical bills as he was the driver of the car. Judge Judy told the plaintiff that while the $5,000.00 was only a drop in the bucket for her medical bills, she should sue United Health and Judge Judy also said that she would be more than happy to give a business report and a copy of the tape so the plaintiff can sue the insurance company.
Changed line(s) 126 (click to see context) from:
* Circa 2014: The plaintiff was suing his Aunt. The plaintiff recently moved to Florida in May and was living at his Aunt's property where his Uncle and his family (the Aunt's Brother) were living in her house. He was suppose to pay $300 a month starting in July (having an e-mail from her) once he started his new job and to help his Uncle as his Uncle had not been paying the bills recently. In June, after he had a good majority of his property in the house, he went on a trip to pick up his best friend from South Carolina. While he was away, a fire broke out in the house and was a total loss of the house. The plaintiff did not have renters insurance and Judge Judy was about to kick him out when she found out that the defendant had claimed the house as her primary residence and not a rental property and was awarded $48,000. Because if it was a rental property, she would only get 10% of the value of the property and not full amount in the state of Florida. She had claimed the property as her primary residence and had claimed his property as hers. Judge Judy ruled in for the Plaintiff for the full $5,000 and told the defendant that she was sending the tape to the insurance company.
to:
* Circa 2014: The plaintiff was suing his Aunt. The plaintiff recently moved to Florida in May and was living at his Aunt's property where his Uncle and his family (the Aunt's Brother) were living in her house. He was suppose supposed to pay $300 a month starting in July (having an e-mail from her) once he started his new job and to help his Uncle as his Uncle had not been paying the bills recently. In June, after he had a good majority of his property in the house, he went on a trip to pick up his best friend from South Carolina. While he was away, a fire broke out in the house and was a total loss of the house. The plaintiff did not have renters insurance and Judge Judy was about to kick him out when she found out that the defendant had claimed the house as her primary residence and not a rental property and was awarded $48,000. Because if it was a rental property, she would only get 10% of the value of the property and not full amount in the state of Florida. She had claimed the property as her primary residence and had claimed his property as hers. Judge Judy ruled in for the Plaintiff for the full $5,000 and told the defendant that she was sending the tape to the insurance company.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29,31 (click to see context) from:
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Quote indentation cleanup.
Changed line(s) 18,20 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Defendant:''' [[SwiperNoSwiping Very well]].
-->'''Judy:''' Great. How much do you owe her?
-->'''Defendant:''' $2,400.
-->'''Judy:''' Great. How much do you owe her?
-->'''Defendant:''' $2,400.
to:
-->'''Defendant:''' [[SwiperNoSwiping Very well]].
-->'''Judy:'''well]].\\
'''Judy:''' Great. How much do you oweher?
-->'''Defendant:'''her?\\
'''Defendant:''' $2,400.
-->'''Judy:'''
'''Judy:''' Great. How much do you owe
-->'''Defendant:'''
'''Defendant:''' $2,400.
Changed line(s) 34,36 (click to see context) from:
--> '''Judge Judy:''' You pulled a gun on them! You pulled out a gun, and you shot the gun over FLOWERS! Are you a MORON?!
--> '''Plantiff:''' No, ma'am.
--> '''Judge Judy:''' Well, there's something wrong with you! I would be hiding under a rock and not acting as plaintiff in a lawsuit! There's something wrong with you!
--> '''Plantiff:''' No, ma'am.
--> '''Judge Judy:''' Well, there's something wrong with you! I would be hiding under a rock and not acting as plaintiff in a lawsuit! There's something wrong with you!
to:
-->
'''Plantiff:''' No,
-->
'''Judge Judy:''' Well, there's something wrong with you! I would be hiding under a rock and not acting as plaintiff in a lawsuit! There's something wrong with you!
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
--> '''Judge Judy:''' Once you're shot at with a gun, you never view the world the same way!
to:
Changed line(s) 41,43 (click to see context) from:
--> '''Defendant:''' He didn't want to talk to me at all.
--> '''Judge Judy:''' He doesn't have to talk to you! You want to talk to someone, go to a psychiatrist! ... You've been living in L.A. too long. I think you should probably go live somewhere else!
--> '''Judge Judy:''' She's got a counterclaim, a ridiculous counterclaim for $5,000 for "punitive damages and emotional distress due to malicious prosecution." She's operating in La-La Land someplace!
--> '''Judge Judy:''' He doesn't have to talk to you! You want to talk to someone, go to a psychiatrist! ... You've been living in L.A. too long. I think you should probably go live somewhere else!
--> '''Judge Judy:''' She's got a counterclaim, a ridiculous counterclaim for $5,000 for "punitive damages and emotional distress due to malicious prosecution." She's operating in La-La Land someplace!
to:
-->
'''Judge Judy:''' He doesn't have to talk to you! You want to talk to someone, go to a psychiatrist! ... You've been living in L.A. too long. I think you should probably go live somewhere
-->
'''Judge Judy:''' She's got a counterclaim, a ridiculous counterclaim for $5,000 for "punitive damages and emotional distress due to malicious prosecution." She's operating in La-La Land someplace!
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Well then, why are you smiling? That's an inappropriate affect. You know what they say about inappropriate affect? They usually say that you're crazy when you have inappropriate affect. Is your grandmother still alive?\\
to:
Changed line(s) 72 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' Sir, I have to thank you. These pictures have made my job much easier. I normally don't get this much evidence and I wish more people would take pictures before the tenants moved in to show the damages. It clearly shows you are organized and professional in your line of work.\\
to:
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' *smiling* Ma'am, when you went over to the defendant's property to talk with him, did it feel good when you left? Did you feel better?\\
to:
Changed line(s) 88 (click to see context) from:
--->'''Judge Judy:''' How dare you bring this to my court. You already had an agreement not to sue them. How dare you.\\
to:
Changed line(s) 137 (click to see context) from:
-->'''Judge Judy:''' Your argument is ludicrous, sir.\\
to:
