Truth is often stranger than fiction and you won't believe some of the characters who appear in these courtrooms.
Go on http://www.youtube.com/ and search for some of the following shows:
People's Court Judge Milian
People's Court Judge Wapner
People's Court Ed Koch
Judge Judy
Judge Joe Brown
Judge Mathis
Judge Jamie Kennedy
Look for segments that are at least 9 minutes long. Then come back to the blog to discuss.
- What was the case? (Who was suing whom and for what)
- How much money was involved?
- Who do you think was right?
- What was the judge's ruling?
- Do you think the judge ruled fairly?
I saw a case of Judge Judy where a woman had
ReplyDeletesold A PICTURE of two cellphones on e-bay to two women from Orlando for 400 dollars. I think that the blonde girl is quite ridicuous, because she can't say "hey, you've got to learn reading" even if she's right. She's definitly a stupid girl who's got "funny" idea, but after a while say it's a joke and stop this silly game. Judge Judy act for the show and nothing else. What kind of judge can say "stop talking, you're an idiot"? Ok, she ruled fairly, but com'on, it's not an Hollywood film!
A man from Cleveland was doing a party in his home, and a friend that was at his party took his car and crashed it cause she was drunk.
ReplyDeleteThe owner of the car wants 4.300 dollars cause the vehicle`s conditions are really bad and she wants to give him only 100 dollars for the demages.
I think the man was right cause his friend drove his car without a permission.
The judge`s dicision is that the girl have to pay all the money for the reparation of the vehicle.
I think the judge was right because she drove and crashed a car without the owner`s permission.
1) A man name's Ronald Thomas was suing Tanya Tetterton, for knocking down his mailbox. And she said it's true. She crashed the car into it, because the road was frozen. And so she called the police and then they left the mailbox at his door.
ReplyDeleteBut when he came home, the mailbox was nowhere. And he didn't know what happened. So he went to the police and found out that it was Tanya.
2) Ronald said that it costs him 493.96$ to buy a new one. But Tonya said that a mailbox is not that expensive. She would pay for it, but not so much.
3) I think Tonya was right.
4) The ruling was, that Tonya had to pay 175$ for a new mailbox.
5) I think it was fair, because a mailbox isn't that expensive and she had to pay for a new one, so everything is OK.
In this case, there was a woman (Francis Sad's mother) who was suing Kellene Campbell (Francis Sad's ex-girlfriend) for faking paternity. She wanted 925$ for the gifts she bought for the kids thinking she was the grandmother. Kellene knew and let this woman know that there was a possibility that the kids were not her son's because she had slept with other men. I think Kellene was right and honest all along and that the jugde was right to give it to her. The actual wife of Francis can't have kids so that's probably why she wanted so badly those to be their son's.
ReplyDeleteHow would I find a copy of this episode...I've looked everywhere. If you can help please email me at 03162013savethedate@gmail.com.
DeleteThanks
The case I've chosen deals with a girl who decided to sue her ex-boyfriend for a car loan, a broken tv, and an assault. She would be repaid for all the demages caused.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the plaintiff would take the car with her but the defendat claimed to have paid almost all the amount of the car; secondly she's accusing her ex-boyfriend of property violation, because he had gone into the her home and thrown out the window. He defended himself saying that he had put some money inside the tv and she wouldn't give it back. Finally the plaintiff said that his ex boyfriend has assaulted her in a parking lot after a party because he was drunk. Instead the defendant said that his girlfriend made up everything on her own. She fell down by herself because of the alcohol.
According to me it's difficult to say who's right because the guys gave two completely different versions of what happended, but the defendant presented more evidence.
The judge believed the defendant too. So she claimed that he didn't have to give back money to his ex girlfriend. Sincerly I don't agree with the way she managed the case, she didn't seem to have been so impartial, and this should be the first quality for a good judge.
People's Court Judge Wapner
ReplyDeleteThe case is about a man, Da Ling, who was having a nap and suddenly he woke up because of a huge rumble and he saw a tree on his head. It fell down on his house, making a big hole in the roof. The defendant was the Owen Development Company that didn't want to pay for the damage. Mr. Ling was asking for $5,000 for the damage.
I think it's a funny but difficult case, because everybody knows who cut the tree. There was a witness, Mr. Ling's neighbour, who saw sombody cutting the tree but she wasn't able to recognize the man. According to this, Judge Wapner estabilished that the defendant was right, because there wasn't evidence. Although I think Mr. Ling was right, the Judge's decision is uncontestable. He decided according to the law.
I saw a segment of a process were there was an e-bay seller against 2 girls. These paid over $400 for 2 cellphones, but the seller sent them only a picture of the cellphones!!
ReplyDeleteThis process was a TV show, so the judge is an actor, but I think that it's not a good example of the real jurisprudence because the judge's behavior is not the same with the two parties. A good judge should be impartial.
Instead this judge is very aggressive, rude and offensive with the defendent.
I saw the case of judge Judy in wich a woman sold a picture of two cellphones for about 400$. the woman who buy them give to the judge all the proves of the facts. the judge wasn't impartial all the time and says idiot so many times to the defender.All the situation seemed like a film but i agree the judge's opinion.
ReplyDeleteI watched a case of Judge Jamie Kennedy, which was not a real case (Jamie Kennedy is an actor and he played in movies like Scream and Ghost Whisperer), but the Plaintiff and the Defendant didn’t know this.
ReplyDeleteThe Plaintiff said, that his ex-roommate sold his $400 TV. But the Defendant says it was a birthday present. A funny thing happened when the Judge came into the room.
He didn't let them speak out, when they tried to say something, he just said "bla bla bla, let's go what happened?" or "this is baby talk".
At the end of the case, someone had to give someone else $10,000 but no one really knows whom. And the two men were just confused and the Plaintiff said that he will try to sue the Judge.
And at the end Jamie Kennedy came in and told them the truth, that this was just a camera show. And they were laughing.
I think this kind of case is much better then the real ones, because they were laughing at the end. That can be a sign that maybe they haven’t broken up their friendship just because a $400 TV. And I think a friendship is better then a $400 TV.
I saw Judge Judy.
ReplyDeleteA woman and her daughter sued the defendant beacause of scamming on eBay.The plaintiffes paid more than $400 for 2 cellphones.But the defendant sent them only photos of them, and she claimed her add was only for photos.At the end the judge ordered fairly the defendant to pay $5000.I think she was right.
I saw a case for a person who kill a child and when they r tryin to find him they catch a piece of his hair. after that, they take the DNA and then they find him but the problem that the killer has an identical twin has the same DNA !!!
ReplyDeleteso the judge let them free cause they can't know who is the killer !!!!
wat u think guyz ?!
I watched a case of The Judge Marilyn Milian in which the defendant is accused of faking paternity. In fact, the defendant had a "love story" with the plaintiff's son and a few weeks later, the defendant was pregnant. But she said that the plaintiff's son wasn't the father and the DNA test proved it. So, the plaintiff wanted money back for baby stuff, because she believed she was the grandmother.
ReplyDeleteI think the plaintiff was a little crazy. From the start, the judge seemed to agree with the defendant. And finally, the defendant won. I agree with this verdict, but I think the Judge had an unprofesional behaviour, because she didn't stay calm and for me a judge must to be neutral.
I watched a case of Judge Wapner.
ReplyDeleteIt's about a woman who sued the defendant for 5,000 dollars because she broke her foot and she had medical bills and she lost salary because of him.
It's difficult to say who was right and who lied.
They both said different things.
Finally,the judge ordered the defendant to pay $5,000.
I don't know how he decided.
I watched the case of step mother and step daughter. Step mother gave daughter $2000 because she had so many tickets that she couldn't pay all of them. And step daughter didn't give it back to step mother even if she promised to give it back as soon as she can.
ReplyDeleteMoreover there is a doubt that daughter used that money for other purpose. I liked this judge bacause she told mother that 'as soon as she can' is not reliable and that means she give it back when she want to. I totally agreed with it. Then judge asked daughter to bring her lisence to prove she paid for tickets however she couldn't. As a result judge dismissed this case. I thought judge was not really fair because defendant was a girl who look like prostitute and of course approximately 60 years old judge Judy seemed not like her. But judge succeeded in proving step daughter's lie. So I think this case was ruled fairly.