judge judy's finest 10 minutes

[nine_inch_rear]

Watch till the end for the final judgement.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/84800/Judge_Judy_Nails_An_Ebay_Scammer.html

[ALANRIDER7]

:laughing :laughing :laughing

[drizz]

woooot!!

[Ducky_Fresh]

5k bitchesssssssssssssssssssssss

[Mike T]

DAMNSSSS!!! MONEY IN THE BANKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!

[slowpoke]

:laughing

[mercurial]

now to burst everyone's satisfaction, by coming on these small-claims court television shows, I think the show agrees to pay the damages (or some large portion thereof).

So the fat ho who sent the photo, aside from getting embarrassed, probably didn't pay anything.

[insyder]

Originally posted by mercurial
now to burst everyone's satisfaction, by coming on these small-claims court television shows, I think the show agrees to pay the damages (or some large portion thereof) Really?

So who wants to go on and sue me so we can split the payoff?

[fUxAsAUrUs]

actually i think both sides get 500 bux and air fare for being on the show...

and i dont think this is a real court.. no matter how much i agree that scammers suck and should burn, if it indeed said in the AD that the auction was for photo-only, legally the mom/daughter was the losers and the fat bitch is right..

[Cali]

But the description of the product didn't say 8x11 piece of paper, 0.05 oz, xxx pixels, etc. It gave the specs of the phone, not of the picture of the phone.

However, having been a small claims mediator and watching some of the cases that did go before the judge, you are only allowed to collect actual costs, such as, the money you spent on the phone. In small claims there are no punitive damages and the plaintiff being badmouthed on eBay isn't going to bring her any money.

[mercurial]

its not punitive damages, its an award for defamation of character. the plaintiff left intentionally malicious, patently false accusations on the defendant's ebay accounts. This is a legitimate claim in small claims court, but it doesn't prevail very often except in relatively outrageous circumstances.

furthermore the mom/daughter are indeed correct and would be victorious in any court, the auction was setup in a manipulative and disingenuous manner, no sane person would pay $250 for a picture of a cell phone.

in very basic cases like this, common law usually works in a common sense fashion.

[Kwang]

Dam, mother and daughter are hot:drool :drool

[Cali]

The mom and daughter would absolutely win, but from everything I heard from the judge I worked with, you can only sue for actual damages and have proof of the amount you are out. Maybe there are certain, and unlikely, circumstances that show otherwise, but I never heard of one.

[SoarAndEnvision]

well that about reinstilled by desire to work in the legal profession.

damn that was delicious.

when she asked her a bunch of questions in the beginning... and then went "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" - I almost fell out of my chair.

All I aspire for professionally, is to represent the government, and tell someone "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" in front of millions of people.

Love it.

[SoarAndEnvision]

Originally posted by leupold18
The mom and daughter would absolutely win, but from everything I heard from the judge I worked with, you can only sue for actual damages and have proof of the amount you are out. Maybe there are certain, and unlikely, circumstances that show otherwise, but I never heard of one.

What you are referring to is a breach of contract action. And that's technically correct if it were just that...

However there is an additional defamation action, fraud and you might even be able to get an intentional infliction of emotional distress action out of it - for which you can get $$$ way beyond your actual damages.

[SoarAndEnvision]

Originally posted by mercurial
its not punitive damages, its an award for defamation of character. the plaintiff left intentionally malicious, patently false accusations on the defendant's ebay accounts. This is a legitimate claim in small claims court, but it doesn't prevail very often except in relatively outrageous circumstances.

furthermore the mom/daughter are indeed correct and would be victorious in any court, the auction was setup in a manipulative and disingenuous manner, no sane person would pay $250 for a picture of a cell phone.

in very basic cases like this, common law usually works in a common sense fashion.

+1

[Cali]

Just saying what I observed during my internship. Have heard many plaintiffs ask for emotional damages, pain and suffering, be reinbursed for time missed at work by having to be in court, and all kinds of other things you can think of and it was never granted because it isn't allowed in small claims court. And as far as getting money way beyond your actual damages, small claims is usually limited to $4-5k total depending on your state. Every time a plaintiff won their case they had to show exactly how much money they lost or think they should be entitled to and why. But perhaps I just didn't observe enough cases or special circumstance cases and something is allowed I don't know about.

[mercurial]

did a little bit of googling, you are right for the most part Leupold (although defamation is different than emotional trauma and pain and suffering). It looks like defamation cases are usually barred (but not always, it depends on the state).

I remember seeing a different small claims court on TV awarding a police officer a similar judgement when defendent submitted a complaint that made false accusations (verifiable by the patrol car's video camera). I always pretty much assumed that these TV shows were just televised small claims courts and that the reason why defamation cases usually don't prevail is because judges are hesitant to award damages unless the defamation was callous and malicious, and did verifiable damage to a person's reputation.

[SoarAndEnvision]

This is more likely an agreed-to binding mediation than a small claims proceeding.

I haven't read that big disclaimer at the end - but I'm just guessing that the small claims cap is a term they agree upon since it's their max. liability if they go to a small claims venue.

[954Rider]

Fat Bitch Fat Bitch! What you gonna do when they come for you?

[drizz]

If Judge Judy wasn't so anti-pitbull-breeds, I'd like her still... but she's WAY to harsh on the breed.

[faz]

Originally posted by mercurial
now to burst everyone's satisfaction, by coming on these small-claims court television shows, I think the show agrees to pay the damages (or some large portion thereof).

So the fat ho who sent the photo, aside from getting embarrassed, probably didn't pay anything.

Judge Judy on an interview with Larry King said that all of the damages are paid by the show... so when she says 5000 for the plaintiff, the 5000 is paid by the show. These are all real cases though... the parties are contacted by the show and are asked if they would like to do this on their show or not. That is what Judge Judy was talking about... why the defendant would agree to go on television, instead of paying back a measly 500 bucks or so.

F#$king scammer bitch... selling pictures of phones for $200! :finger

[nine_inch_rear]

Originally posted by 954Rider
Fat Bitch Fat Bitch! What you gonna do when they come for you?
no kidden.. i mean NObody should be wearing horizontal stripes and a bobbed hair do' .. like that is gonna make you look thinner.
Mommy and daughter were lickable though