Case 1: A mother gets a disability check for $10,000. She has had alcohol and other problems, so she asks her daughter to put her money in a bank account and safeguard it. Instead the daughter steals the money to pay for her own wedding. "Judge" Judy doesn't listen to any of the RELEVANT facts of the case (the money was clearly NOT a gift, there was a written agreement about the repayment of the money, the daughter CLEARLY owed her mother the money). Instead "Judge" Judy harasses the mother about being on welfare and then disability, and her alcohol problems. "Judge" Judy ignored the evidence clearly in favor of the plaintiff, and let the daughter keep the stolen money.
Case 2: Mother pays daughter's friend's cost for a trip to Hawaii (with the understanding that the friend would reimburse her). The money was not repaid, hence the lawsuit. "Judge" Judy spends a good deal of time on the (legally) irrelevant details of the daughter and her friend ending their friendship. After this, in an unusual move, "Judge" Judy, then actually LOOKS at the evidence (which clearly shows the defendant owes the money) and find for the plaintiff.
For info on just how corrupt the producers of this show are see: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/misc/judge_judy.html
Episode
Case 1: A mother gets a disability check for $10,000. She has had alcohol and other problems, so she asks her daughter to put her money in a bank account and safeguard it. Instead the daughter steals the money to pay for her own wedding. "Judge" Judy doesn't listen to any of the RELEVANT facts of the case (the money was clearly NOT a gift, there was a written agreement about the repayment of the money, the daughter CLEARLY owed her mother the money). Instead "Judge" Judy harasses the mother about being on welfare and then disability, and her alcohol problems. "Judge" Judy ignored the evidence clearly in favor of the plaintiff, and let the daughter keep the stolen money.
Case 2: Mother pays daughter's friend's cost for a trip to Hawaii (with the understanding that the friend would reimburse her). The money was not repaid, hence the lawsuit. "Judge" Judy spends a good deal of time on the (legally) irrelevant details of the daughter and her friend ending their friendship. After this, in an unusual move, "Judge" Judy, then actually LOOKS at the evidence (which clearly shows the defendant owes the money) and find for the plaintiff.
For info on just how corrupt the producers of this show are see: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/misc/judge_judy.html