Ebay Scammer gets her due!

[morf]

Uhhhh....what? You disagree with something I (didn't) say, then when I tell you I didn't say it you say what I didn't say, that you disagreed with, is a fact?? You're tying yourself up in knots. Oh, and a wether is a castrated goat

You're arguing for arguing's sake. I'm not tying myself in knots, I'm arguing with the idea that we both agree that judge judy has no legal powers and a retired judge. If you dont agree to that then stop replying to my posts and google her. We'll keep at it once you get your facts straight.

Yep, people do it every day. Plus it doesn't take much reading to see that she's not terribly remorseful...watch it again, perhaps it just takes you longer than the rest of us. Perhaps that's why your so far off base with all your 'arguments' (which seem to have dropped to just mocking everybody else's rebuttals of what you said earlier).

Oh they do it everyday thats for sure, but how correct are they about it? I can watch it again it wont change a thing. She does not look one bit remorseful in the video, I didnt say she did. Just because people dont look a certain way doesnt on national TV doesnt mean they arent just stupidly proud and stubborn and dont want to look like fools.

Jesus christ! She didn't tell her they would!! She told her that she might be investigated! What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

And she shouldnt have told her such a thing is what I'm arguing about the last 3 pages. You still havent understood that yet you keep throwing the same crap at me. grasp the argument's topic before you keep going please

 

[morf]

J. Judy's OPINION was that a case might be opened, not that she might lose her kids. She had every right to say a caseworker would be interested in tubby's situation. Not just because it is absolutely true, but because it's a STINKING TV SHOW NOT A REAL COURT. Judy can say/decide whatever the hell she wants, and base it on exactly ZERO legal precedent if she so choses.


When you guys realize how much energy/typing/quoting you've wasted on this nonsense you will be embarrassed.


If not, you should be.


For those defending the scammer, you are missing the single glaring legal point at stake here.

If the intent was to defraud, then it IS fraud. The attorney general has 8 other cases pending because:

INTENDING TO DEFRAUD IS STILL FRAUD EVEN IF YOU WORD IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WELL TO FOOL PEOPLE.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

caveat emptor is NOT a legal protection brainiac.

Noone is defending the scammer here. Just wanted to, once again, get that out of the way.

Judge Judy, as a RETIRED JUDGE who REPRESENTS fairness and justice to the people watching the show, SHOULD NOT HAVE made her opinion public and stayed impartial on the topic of the kids. That's my opinion, discuss it all you want, argue all you want about it, put words in my mouth like those two above do, it wont change anything

 

[bigfatbass]

So you are saying, and let me get this straight and not put words in your mouth, that JJ should NOT have voiced her opinion that child services would be interested in tubby's situation?

Not only is it absolutely true that child services might be VERY interested in this waste of breath's household, to say that Judy should not have voiced her opinion on a show that is based solely around her voicing her opinion means one thing and one thing only:

How are you missing that the show is all about doing exactly what she did? To quote myself, since you obviously aren't reading and understanding this:

It's a...TV show. Judy can say/decide whatever the hell she wants, and base it on exactly ZERO legal precedent if she so choses.

The TV SHOW Judge Judy is TV SHOW based on the personality of Judge Judy. The whole reason it is on tv is her voicing her opinions on the cases, otherwise it would just be called "dopes/scum go to night court". Instead the show is called Judge Judy because she gets to say much more (read: anything she wants) than she would in a real court.

I still remain stunned you don't get that the entire purpose of the show is Judy speaking her mind.

 

[ModulusFan]

I didn't read all of this, the pure idiocy in some of the posts wouldn't allow me to.

As for some of the geniuses here, look up the word INTENT. Doesn't matter if there was something in the fine print. The sole intent was to scam people of out their money, therefore it is a crime.

Interstate fraud (which it WAS) is a felony, which is a very good reason for family services to investigate the home. Do *ANY* of you actually believe she is reporting income tax on her scamming auctions? Please.

For those of you who feel the decision was wrong, please refrain from doing ANY business with me, okay?

Also, the way these shows work.....the maximum amount allowed in this states small claims court is $5000. That is the total amount paid to the parties for their appearances, which is split up by the ruling on who gets how much. Therefore, the defendant in this case got zero...other than an expense paid trip. The down side is, the defendant is no longer liable for the $400 plus she STOLE from the plantiff, the liability is covered in the judgement. I hope there is a tax, and child services investigation, both are warranted.

On a side not, the plantiffs daughter was smokin' hot.

 

[Trevorus]

...On a side not, the plantiffs daughter was smokin' hot.

I agree on all points...

 

[morf]

So you are saying, and let me get this straight and not put words in your mouth, that JJ should NOT have voiced her opinion that child services would be interested in tubby's situation?

Not only is it absolutely true that child services might be VERY interested in this waste of breath's household, to say that Judy should not have voiced her opinion on a show that is based solely around her voicing her opinion means one thing and one thing only:

How are you missing that the show is all about doing exactly what she did? To quote myself, since you obviously aren't reading and understanding this:


The TV SHOW Judge Judy is TV SHOW based on the personality of Judge Judy. The whole reason it is on tv is her voicing her opinions on the cases, otherwise it would just be called "dopes/scum go to night court". Instead the show is called Judge Judy because she gets to say much more (read: anything she wants) than she would in a real court.

I still remain stunned you don't get that the entire purpose of the show is Judy speaking her mind.

Wow. I can't begin to think of a reply to this kind of hate post.

Wait, maybe there is one: Go screw yourself.

I'm out of this thread, get a law book, read your constitution.

 

[Musiclogic]

In the United States, misrepresentation of an item for sale is considered "Fraud" and is illegal. No matter what the specifics or story created, the misrepresentation(weight being the highlighted point in this video) is where in the Fraud is committed(not knowing anymore info from the ad that could also be purported as fraudulent) along with Slander and defamation of character, thus this ruling was just.

Makes you wonder who did what in the "Gene pool" to create snapperheads like this.....LOL

 

[ModulusFan]

Wow. I can't begin to think of a reply to this kind of hate post.

Wait, maybe there is one: Go screw yourself.

I'm out of this thread, get a law book, read your constitution.

Hey Morf, read my post regarding intent.

FWIW, I am regarded an expert in my field by the courts, perform evaluations, and write court testimony for a living. I also appear in civil court as an expert witness as well.

You're right though, a kiddie with no credentials in another continent would know better than us All legal bs aside.....where is your guys morality to begin with?

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Crikey,,, you guys are still at it??? [Benny Hill Theme Song playing]

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

Crikey,,, you guys are still at it??? [Benny Hill Theme Song playing]

Combating ignorance is a never-ending, often futile, yet worthwhile effort.

 

[bigfatbass]

I'm sorry to call it like it is. For you to go on for pages repeatedly asserting that Judge Judy should not have spoken her opinion, in spite of the fact that speaking her opinion is the entire purpose of the show, is either moronic, or insane.

Now run off and have a little sniffle if you must, but if you are going to be so cocksure in a ridiculous point, don't act surprised that someone ridiculed you.



There is no hatred, only a well deserved dope slap. See Dave smiling at you? Try not leaning into it so hard and it wont sting so much.

 

[morf]

Nothing's stinging buddy, sorry to ruin your happy day

I just dont see what the point discussing this with you any further will bring. You just dont get what I'm saying.

 

[Basshole]

Invalid Link Removed

The 4th paragraph describes the details regarding the awards.

 

[Komakino]

You're arguing for arguing's sake. I'm not tying myself in knots, I'm arguing with the idea that we both agree that judge judy has no legal powers and a retired judge. If you dont agree to that then stop replying to my posts and google her. We'll keep at it once you get your facts straight.



Oh they do it everyday thats for sure, but how correct are they about it? I can watch it again it wont change a thing. She does not look one bit remorseful in the video, I didnt say she did. Just because people dont look a certain way doesnt on national TV doesnt mean they arent just stupidly proud and stubborn and dont want to look like fools.



And she shouldnt have told her such a thing is what I'm arguing about the last 3 pages. You still havent understood that yet you keep throwing the same crap at me. grasp the argument's topic before you keep going please

I give up. Clearly you're a moron. I am totally aware of what JJ is, I have googled her. Why is it wrong for her to tell her that she might be investigate by child services if there's a chance she might be investigated by child services (if that's what they do in the US? ). She may have no legal power, but if something illegal is going on, or there's a risk of harm to children don't you think someone with legal power might investigate??

You're right, I don't understand what you're talking about because despite it being spelled out clearly be numerous members of this thread, you still keep stubbornly repeating the same thing that has repeatedly been refuted. You still don't seem to understand what Judge Judy actually is.

This is where I leave. My tolerance for idiots is low, I'm amazed I've hung on this long. Fortunately it looks like there are others in the thread who will continue (probably until they're blue in the face) to try to make you grasp what is going on. They won't succeed.

 

[morf]

Why dont you go read your constitution? You're a dumbass. All you can resort to is personal insults before each of your arguments and telling me how wrong I am with no discussion of the topic.

You're not worth anyone's time, all three of you. You have no clue what democracy is or means, and it is SAD to see that some people today have absolutely no idea what justice means, or how hard it was to get there.

I really hope your viewpoints and ignorant ideas come back at you one day so you may see for yourself how truly pathetic and ignorant you all are.

I'm done

 

[bigfatbass]

So how many times is it you are done with this now? Someday YOU will realize that in this case you are wearing your ignorance like a face tattoo.


How can you STILL not get that the entire show is based around Judy voicing her opinion in any way she sees fit?

She could have said 3 headed dogs will come to her house and eat her tomato plants and it would have been no more wrong for her to say than the child services comment...

WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Good grief, whine about the name calling if you like, but you are a either a complete idiot, or you are intentionally acting like one to bait an argument.

What on earth does the constitution or democracy have to do with small claims court?

You have not refuted ANY of the posts calling you wrong, only whined about name calling and said "you just don't understand".

Understand what? That you are completely incapable of admitting you are WRONG.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...wrong wrong, wrong, wrong!
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]


Why is it so hard for you to grasp that you are wrong about this point? Really! Wrong! Imagine that! WRONG! We are NOT just disagreeing with an arguable point here. There is a clear-cut right/wrong and you are definitely WRONG. That is NOT an opinion, it is a FACT. Period. You are wrong. Really!

Now deal with it, junior.

Read my sig a few times, that might help.

 

[morf]

I understand just fine what the show is based on. Doesnt mean I should agree with it. If you didnt understand that, maybe Dr Cox should teach you a lesson or two about stupidity.

I can, and do, admit i'm wrong. Only here, we're arguing a difference of opinions. There is no wrong, no right, we have different ideas.

And you're a moron for not realizing it.

 

[morf]

What on earth does the constitution or democracy have to do with small claims court?

I especially love having someone calling me the idiot and saying this. LOL. Thanks for making my day.

 

[bigfatbass]

You are still missing it. There IS a right and wrong in this case, not differing opinions on an undefinable commodity. Judge Judy can't be wrong, it's her rules, but YOU obviously can.

You still have not provided a single valid reason to support your side, only obscure allusions to your lack of knowledge of our constitution, in that it has exactly zero bearing on Judge Judy's small claims "court".

And since you are so smart you must know the definition of insanity....

 

[morf]

See I live in the real world, and in the real world, somebody on TV CAN be wrong.