@@voiceofmoderation9810 Agreed. They should have a limited audience like they do on Judge Mathis nowadays during Covid, or maybe even a Zoom audience like Judge Faith's Divorce Court has.
Part of me says you should give him credit for trying to put one over on Judge Judy. The rest of me says, "No, actually, that attempt was rather pathetic."
Interesting because she had another case just like this one but with an older black lady and the same damage to her car. Both cars and photos were the same. I saw both here on RU-vid.
He was trying to get the defendant to pay for the damage to his car, Im not sure but I imagine the defendant did indeed damage his car, but the plaintiff never actually fixed the damage, he just wanted to pocket the money So what he did was give her one picture of the driver's side (the damage) and then another picture of the passenger side showing that the damage was "fixed" Luckily judge judy has a brain and understood that it was not the same side of the car haha
@@stevenroche263 But even if he didn’t fix the damage he could sue for the amount to fix it. Also, if he pocketed the money and never got it fixed, there’s nothing wrong with that. That actually happens a lot. Not sure what happened here.
I know this reply is 2 years late, but here you go: The plaintiff was claiming damage from an accident by the defendant and said that he had the damage fixed really nice and pretty for an expensive price and he wanted the defendant to pay the cost of the repairs he had done. BUT! The plaintiff screwed up, because the damage was done on the driver side of the car, but in the pictures he showed Judge Judy, he showed a picture of the driver's side damage, and then a picture of the passenger side being all fixed up and pretty, which means that he didn't actually fix the side of the car that was damaged, he decided to fix up the other side and make it look better, and then try to pass it off as necessary repairs after the accident, or he didn't do anything to the car and tried to make it seem like he fixed the damage so he could get a free check. It's like if somebody breaks into your house by breaking through the front windows and then you use your house insurance to get a check for the cost to fix the windows but then instead of fixing the window that was broken, you decide to swap out all the windows in the back of the house for a different design that you like better, and then lie to the insurance and try to get them to pay for the new shiny back windows, pretending they were the ones broken into, instead of the front, or if the window was broken and you filed a claim and got an insurance check to fix it but you pocketed the money instead and showed them a picture of a different window and said "Here, see? It's not broken, I fixed it" Ultimately, it's a scam designed to get a free check that you can spend on whatever you want instead of the actual damage the check was made for you to spend it on.
Aw, did the 1 minute and 10 seconds of someone pointing a gun to your head and ordering you to watch this video, affect your life greatly? Please share your survival story.
You are right if you were talking about sha. I was living in the woods for over a year and you have no idea what that does to someone's mental state I absolutely did not sign up for having my money stolen and given to kids who are not mine. or being treated as second-class or looked down upon because I am wht. if you are talking about moving to Maryland over 20 years ago I would also agree...... But the feds started their stuff when I was about 17 and needed me to be gone..... Now I am old and held hostage
