History Awesome / JudgeJudy

18th Apr '16 7:54:17 AM SwimToTheMoon
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Judy makes a commentary on how funny it is when people are able to remember small details during a case but not the crucial ones:
-->'''Judy:''' Let me explain something to you, my husband once offended me on July 6th 1978. I can tell you exactly where I was sitting, and what he was eating. Most people have a memory of important dates and times. Now if somebody, gave me/loaned to be $5000 I would remember some of the circumstances surrounding it - because you, sir seem to have a very, very good memory of everything you did - calling the bank, calling the title company, getting the checks, sitting down and going over everything - the only thing you don't have a memory of is "Can I borrow $5000?"
28th Apr '15 10:28:02 AM case
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->'''Defendant:''' Very well.

to:

-->'''Defendant:''' [[SwiperNoSwiping Very well.well]].
16th Mar '15 4:54:21 PM JMQwilleran
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNrwd8X3jeA takes the case to Judge Judy.]] The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.

to:

* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNrwd8X3jeA takes the case to Judge Judy.]] Judy. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.
7th Oct '14 7:48:59 AM SwimToTheMoon
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* 2014: A man sued his ex-wife for false arrest for domestic violence. As per usual, Judy saw right through the defendant and noted how she kept giggling throughout the case and even questioned how she was even able to get away with abusing the justice system if she can't keep a straight face. The kicker? Her epic speech to her when she got up and was about to head to her office at the end of the case... and caught her giggling AGAIN:
-->'''Judy:''' You know, I don't know why you think this is funny. I don't find it funny at all. I find it SAD. Because if what you're telling me is that since this all happened, he's been getting supervised visits (to their child, of course), then YOU, madam, are a truly outrageous person!!!!
24th Jul '14 12:56:52 AM zequeins
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy.]] The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.

to:

* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs com/watch?v=iNrwd8X3jeA takes the case to Judge Judy.]] The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.
15th Feb '14 6:48:08 AM KD
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* February 2014: A defendant, clearly in the wrong after not paying a babysitter for services rendered, is making so many bad excuses that he's contradicted his own testimony several times.
-->'''Judy:''' Hey, are you playing with me, or what? Making you appear to be foolish is my specialty. If you're gonna double-talk me, it'd be my pleasure. Hone my skills for next year. If you, however, wanna say, "You know what? We stiffed her, and I got fired [from my job], and then there was no reason to have her anymore," then I'd say to you, "You know what?" ''(Judy shrugs as though to say, "Hey, at least that's honest.")'' And then you leave here, at least with your dignity intact. Do we understand each other?
-->'''Defendant:''' Very well.
-->'''Judy:''' Great. How much do you owe her?
-->'''Defendant:''' $2,400.
25th Nov '13 10:38:51 AM PF
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two '''pictures''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy.]] The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.

to:

* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two '''pictures''' ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy.]] The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.



** Sure, the defendant didn't have to pay it (the production team does from a $5,000 "pot", with whatever remains being divided between the participants; if the ruling's for the maximum amount, the loser gets nothing), there's a consequence even she ''did'' get money: the loss of dignity. Having the nation watch you on TV after Judy finds out you did something nasty like screw someone out of casino winnings they won fairly (for example) will wreak havoc on your personal life when your family and friends and everyone you care about find out.
*** Employers these days will look up your name on the web, usually for your Facebook/Twitter account, and for any criminal records on your person. The defendant is forever marked not only as a scammer, but as "the scammer Judge Judy ripped apart on national TV". Since then, she went to prison, lost custody to her children, divorced from her husband, and went into hiding once she got out of jail...but either way, she may never be hired with such a record, and that's good enough justice.
* 2013?: In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f68fwy7Ugc this case]], a plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet, to drive it on their property.

to:

** Sure, the defendant didn't have to pay it (the production team does from a $5,000 "pot", with whatever remains being divided between the participants; if the ruling's for the maximum amount, the loser gets nothing), there's a consequence even she ''did'' get money: the loss of dignity. Having the nation watch you on TV after Judge Judy finds out you did something nasty like screw someone out of casino winnings they won fairly (for example) will wreak havoc on your personal life when your family and friends and everyone you care about find out.
*** Employers these days will look up your name on the web, usually for your Facebook/Twitter account, and for any criminal records on your person. The defendant is forever marked not only as a scammer, but as "the scammer Judge Judy ripped apart on national TV". Since then, she went to prison, lost custody to her children, divorced from her husband, and went into hiding once she got out of jail...but either jail. Either way, she may never be hired with such a record, and that's good enough justice.
* 2013?: In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f68fwy7Ugc this case]], a plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination cross-examination, it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet, to drive it on their property.
16th Jul '13 5:23:47 PM WarioBarker
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two '''pictures''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy]]. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.

to:

* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two '''pictures''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy]]. Judy.]] The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.



* 2013?: In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f68fwy7Ugc this case]], a plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet, to drive it on their property. That hit Judy's BerserkButton pretty damn hard.

to:

* 2013?: In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f68fwy7Ugc this case]], a plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet, to drive it on their property. That hit Judy's BerserkButton pretty damn hard.
16th Jul '13 5:23:16 PM WarioBarker
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two '''pictures''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy]]. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.

to:

* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her two '''pictures''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy]]. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones.cellphones]]. 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 InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.
16th Jul '13 5:23:02 PM WarioBarker
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her a '''picture''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman takes the case to Judge Judy. The seller's wife (because the actual seller [[DirtyCoward was too scared to appear]]) explains they were [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only a picture of a cellphone]]. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9r4MfV0u0A Judy proceeds to expose her as a scammer and take her down so hard]] that she and her husband could never get near a computer again without an extreme case of InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the show's maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.

to:

* 2007?: A woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an {{eBay}} seller. The seller sends her a '''picture''' two '''pictures''' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman takes the case to Judge Judy. The seller's wife (because the actual seller [[DirtyCoward was too scared to appear]]) explains they were [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only a picture of a cellphone]]. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9r4MfV0u0A com/watch?v=rHSte37BrOs takes the case to Judge Judy]]. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones. Judy proceeds to expose her as a scammer and take her down so hard]] hard that she and her husband could never can't get near a computer again without an extreme case of InternetBackdraft. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the show's maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious.



** It should be noted that the defendant didn't have to pay it however, the production team does, except that the $5,000 settlement would have consumed the entirety of the fund for paying the two parties, which means that the defendant received NO payment for appearing, while they would have received a sizable appearance fee. (The show has a "pot". The judgment is deducted from the pot, and the remainder is divided between the participants. If the judgment consumes the entire pot, the loser gets nothing.)
** And yes, there's a consequence even if the loser gets money: the loss of dignity. Having the nation watch you on TV after Judy finds out you did something nasty like screw someone out of casino winnings they won fairly (for example) will wreak havoc on your personal life when your family and friends and everyone you care about find out.
*** Employers these days will look up your name on the web, usually for your Facebook/Twitter account, and for any criminal records on your person. The defendant is forever marked as a scammer, but she will be known as "the scammer Judge Judy ripped apart on national TV". Since then, she went to prison, lost custody to her children, divorced from her (just as guilty) husband, and went into hiding once she got out of jail. But either way, she may never be hired with such a record, and that's good enough justice.
* In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f68fwy7Ugc another instance]], a plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet, to drive it on their property.
-->'''Judy:''' (''to plaintiff'') There is something very wrong with you! Because, rather than saying to this lady ... "I can't tell you how terrible I feel that in MY HOUSE, in MY CAR, WITH THE KEYS THAT I LEAVE IN THE CAR, your daughter met such an early death." Instead of saying that, you sue her for the damage to your car! YOU'RE AN IDIOT! Judgment on the counterclaim for $5000, your claim is DISMISSED!!!! [[GetOut OUT]]!

to:

** It should be noted that Sure, the defendant didn't have to pay it however, the (the production team does, except that the does from a $5,000 settlement would have consumed the entirety of the fund for paying the two parties, which means that the defendant received NO payment for appearing, while they would have received a sizable appearance fee. (The show has a "pot". The judgment is deducted from the pot, and the remainder is "pot", with whatever remains being divided between the participants. If participants; if the judgment consumes ruling's for the entire pot, maximum amount, the loser gets nothing.)
** And yes,
nothing), there's a consequence even if the loser gets she ''did'' get money: the loss of dignity. Having the nation watch you on TV after Judy finds out you did something nasty like screw someone out of casino winnings they won fairly (for example) will wreak havoc on your personal life when your family and friends and everyone you care about find out.
*** Employers these days will look up your name on the web, usually for your Facebook/Twitter account, and for any criminal records on your person. The defendant is forever marked not only as a scammer, but she will be known as "the scammer Judge Judy ripped apart on national TV". Since then, she went to prison, lost custody to her children, divorced from her (just as guilty) husband, and went into hiding once she got out of jail. But jail...but either way, she may never be hired with such a record, and that's good enough justice.
* 2013?: In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f68fwy7Ugc another instance]], this case]], a plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet, to drive it on their property.
property. That hit Judy's BerserkButton pretty damn hard.
-->'''Judy:''' (''to plaintiff'') There is something very wrong with you! Because, rather than saying to this lady ... "I can't tell you how terrible I feel that in MY HOUSE, in MY CAR, WITH THE KEYS THAT I LEAVE IN THE CAR, your daughter met such an early death." Instead of saying that, you sue her for the damage to your car! YOU'RE AN IDIOT! Judgment on the counterclaim for $5000, $5,000, your claim is DISMISSED!!!! [[GetOut OUT]]!OUT!]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 20. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Awesome.JudgeJudy