Ebay Scammer gets her due!

[Komakino]

Then its even more pathetic. And so is anyone who buys into it.

Presumably by 'buying into it' you mean anyone who accepts US civil proceedings?

 

[Komakino]

No. Wrong. They refer to it as "a forum". Read the fine print presented at the end of the actual TV show (I have frozen the screen and read it). The participants give up their rights, and agree to the arbitration put forth by "Judge Judy" in this "forum".

She is, however, a legitimate former magistrate (Judge).

I know what a magistrate is (though actually in this country it is subtly different from a Judge in that a magistrate has no formal legal training and is a lay person).

I have never read the fine print, but if that's the case then I take back what I've said. Why anyone would submit themselves to that when there are perfectly good small claims courts is therefore beyond me

[edit] when I say "take back what I said" that doesn't extend to my opinion that countries have laws against unfair contracts for exactly the reason that people can't then post ads like the one on JJ and get away with it.

 

[morf]

Presumably by 'buying into it' you mean anyone who accepts US civil proceedings?

If you agree with the fact that this woman will now have a civil worker on her case trying to seperate her from her children because she scammed some idiots, then by all means I mean you.

 

[Basshole]

Why anyone would submit themselves to that when there are perfectly good small claims courts is therefore beyond me

The inexplicable overwhelming desire to be on TV.

 

[BassyBill]

I'd take her kids off her tomorrow. Give 'em a chance to grow up anywhere away from that lying, stupid smug cow would be my choice. Hell, why not?

 

[Komakino]

If you agree with the fact that this woman will now have a civil worker on her case trying to seperate her from her children because she scammed some idiots, then by all means I mean you.

Actually it was because there was fraud and a possible tax evasion. Anyway, we don't know if it was an idle thread to scare her, or if is somewhere enshrined in US law that the family situation should be investigated where there is deception or fraud involved. I'm not saying that is the case, I'm saying we just don't know.

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

For those of you not paying attention Judge Judy said she'd like to remove them. All she did was offer an opinion.

I guess she shouldn't be allowed to express her opinions, eh?

 

[morf]

I'd take her kids off her tomorrow. Give 'em a chance to grow up anywhere away from that lying, stupid smug cow would be my choice. Hell, why not?

Cause you wouldnt want her doing the same to you? You dont know that woman. So she scammed someone, does that make her an unfit parent? Maybe one day you got drunk and got in a fistfight, does that give anyone the right to judge your ability to raise your own child? You need to think things through before you make such ridiculous statements is what I think.

 

[morf]

Actually it was because there was fraud and a possible tax evasion. Anyway, we don't know if it was an idle thread to scare her, or if is somewhere enshrined in US law that the family situation should be investigated where there is deception or fraud involved. I'm not saying that is the case, I'm saying we just don't know.

Fraud yes, tax evasion? Nothing was proven form that, thats just "judge" judy's assumption, nothing more. As for an idle threat to scare her, that is not how an impartial judge should behave. That Judge Judy woman's behavior is intolerable for a person representing the law, and moreso justice. It seems to me like too many people take it too lightly.

 

[Trevorus]

Fraud yes, tax evasion? Nothing was proven form that, thats just "judge" judy's assumption, nothing more. As for an idle threat to scare her, that is not how an impartial judge should behave. That Judge Judy woman's behavior is intolerable for a person representing the law, and moreso justice. It seems to me like too many people take it too lightly.

I think Judge Judy may have been referencing the fact that this lady was making sizable amounts of money, which could be considered taxable income. It's very doubtful that she would claim it as income, and thereby committing tax evasion. It was a warning, and not a bad one, either.

 

[Basshole]

If you think that fat skank reported a single dollar of the money she and her cowardly husband have stolen online, you're delusional. I hope they both end up in prison.

 

[beyondhairy]

OWNED! lol

that lardo reminded me of my ex-friend who sold boxes on ebay for a nice chunk of change... he told atleast 3 times that he did this scam, and on the last time he told me about it, i punched him n the face and called him a didlo.... i hate people that have no morals

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

Cause you wouldnt want her doing the same to you? You dont know that woman.

You seem to be a terrible judge of character. There's a goldmine of information in those 8 minutes of tape, friend. A Goldmine.

So she scammed someone, does that make her an unfit parent?

What kind of person do YOU think is an habitual thief? She didn't just scam someone, she was in the process of scamming others as well. She's teaching her children that it's okay to do this.

Maybe one day you got drunk and got in a fistfight,

I'm really amazed at what you find to be a "good" example to your children. I can safely say that this WILL NEVER happen to me.

does that give anyone the right to judge your ability to raise your own child?

Absolutely. Drunks lose their children all of the time. Violent drunks especially. What world do you live in, sir?

You need to think things through before you make such ridiculous statements is what I think.

You need to follow your own advice. Seriously.

 

[BassyBill]

So she scammed someone, does that make her an unfit parent?

I guess that depends on your own personal standards for what constitutes a "fit parent". I think her kids would be better off elsewhere. In fact, I don't think she's fit to look after a dog, never mind impressionable youngsters. I'm actually surprised you ask. Do you think her kids have a chance of growing up just fine with that sort of mother?

Maybe one day you got drunk and got in a fistfight, does that give anyone the right to judge your ability to raise your own child?

Any child of a parent with a criminal record involving violence would be judged as "at risk" here.

There's lots of would-be foster parents out there who would love to offer her kids a better environment to grow up in than they'll ever get living with that lying smug piece of misery and her worthless piece of dirt husband.

You need to think things through before you make such ridiculous statements is what I think.

I honestly wouldn't expect you to understand this at present, but I think you will at some point in the future, maybe when you have kids of your own.

 

[Komakino]

Fraud yes, tax evasion? Nothing was proven form that, thats just "judge" judy's assumption, nothing more. As for an idle threat to scare her, that is not how an impartial judge should behave. That Judge Judy woman's behavior is intolerable for a person representing the law, and moreso justice. It seems to me like too many people take it too lightly.

It strikes me that you only read what you want to read...I was quite careful to put possible tax evasion. Both of my suggestions were merely speculation - she might have done it to scare her, she might have said it because of possible tax evasion implications that might need to be investigated in the US. That's a lot of mights, I was just trying to say that whatever Judy said there may be more to it that you or I know.
I don't believe that Judy's behaviour is intolerable. People too often think the law doesn't apply to them. The woman is/was a scammer. If she was let off lightly she'd go back and do it again and again, and her children will grow up believing that that sort of behaviour is OK. In the UK we have a real problem with pathetic sentences that serve only to make the offender look 'cool' in front of their peers, they don't act as a deterrent or a real punishment at all. I'm all for coming down more harshly on people who think the law doesn't apply to them or take small print to extremes. $5000? Bravo, I say.

 

[morf]

I think Judge Judy may have been referencing the fact that this lady was making sizable amounts of money, which could be considered taxable income. It's very doubtful that she would claim it as income, and thereby committing tax evasion. It was a warning, and not a bad one, either.

And I thinkif judge judy can make the long shot assumption that shes not taking care of her kids right based on this case, the tax evasion assumption is as far fetched as the first assumption.

 

[morf]

You seem to be a terrible judge of character. There's a goldmine of information in those 8 minutes of tape, friend. A Goldmine.

So you're telling me you can judge that girl from the 8 minutes you just saw? You can come to the conclusion that she evades taxes and taxes bad care of her kids? And I'm the terrible judge of character? Please.

What kind of person do YOU think is an habitual thief? She didn't just scam someone, she was in the process of scamming others as well. She's teaching her children that it's okay to do this.

First of all, you dont know she was going to scam anyone else, although it is indeed a fair assumption. Then again, maybe her husband's the bad influence here, you simply dont know. Second of all, her children as she said, which you clearly didnt care to hear, are all under 5. I doubt they'll be influenced to scam people at that age, I even doubt they knew about it.

I'm really amazed at what you find to be a "good" example to your children. I can safely say that this WILL NEVER happen to me.

So you never got in a fight, never will? Good on you. My guess is you need to get out more

Absolutely. Drunks lose their children all of the time. Violent drunks especially. What world do you live in, sir?

Thats preposterous. Not all drunks getting in a fight lose their kids because of that. You cant judge a man guilty without evidence, you can make assumptions just like that and pass judgement according to what your impression of someone is. What world do YOU live in?

You need to follow your own advice. Seriously.

Right back at ya.

 

[morf]

I guess that depends on your own personal standards for what constitutes a "fit parent". I think her kids would be better off elsewhere. In fact, I don't think she's fit to look after a dog, never mind impressionable youngsters. I'm actually surprised you ask. Do you think her kids have a chance of growing up just fine with that sort of mother?

I think so too. But I only THINK so, I dont KNOW so, and without EVIDENCE, its RIDICULOUS for a JUDGE with LEGAL AUTHORITY to make such assumption and judgement, period.

Any child of a parent with a criminal record involving violence would be judged as "at risk" here.

There's lots of would-be foster parents out there who would love to offer her kids a better environment to grow up in than they'll ever get living with that lying smug piece of misery and her worthless piece of dirt husband.

And thats exactly whats ridiculous! I've been arrested for smoking pot when I was 15, so 10 years from now you should take my kids away because when I was younger I smoked a joint with my friends and got caught? Point is, without looking DEEP into this you CANNOT, as a judge with legal authority, make such decisions.

I honestly wouldn't expect you to understand this at present, but I think you will at some point in the future, maybe when you have kids of your own.

Whatever you say.

 

[BassyBill]

Second of all, her children as she said, which you clearly didnt care to hear, are all under 5. I doubt they'll be influenced to scam people at that age, I even doubt they knew about it.

Oh. Well, that's obviously alright then.

 

[morf]

It strikes me that you only read what you want to read...I was quite careful to put possible tax evasion. Both of my suggestions were merely speculation - she might have done it to scare her, she might have said it because of possible tax evasion implications that might need to be investigated in the US. That's a lot of mights, I was just trying to say that whatever Judy said there may be more to it that you or I know.
I don't believe that Judy's behaviour is intolerable. People too often think the law doesn't apply to them. The woman is/was a scammer. If she was let off lightly she'd go back and do it again and again, and her children will grow up believing that that sort of behaviour is OK. In the UK we have a real problem with pathetic sentences that serve only to make the offender look 'cool' in front of their peers, they don't act as a deterrent or a real punishment at all. I'm all for coming down more harshly on people who think the law doesn't apply to them or take small print to extremes. $5000? Bravo, I say.

If there was more to it and this is a PUBLIC TV BROADCASTING then its Judge Judy's responsability to make it clear. Threatening to take kids away based on apparently nothing is ridiculous.

5000USD fine? I'm all for it. Hell, that blonde woman should go to jail as far as I'm concerned. She's a thief, and deserves no better. It's Judge Judy's behavior that I find ridiculous and if this is how you people think justice is served then my friends, I pity you, and the world you all live in.