Supreme Justice with Judge Karen

So I just watched a show in which she ruled in favor of the defendant in back to back cases. The first case the caterer broke the customers dining table and it would cost $250 to fix but the customer also signed a contract to pay $650 for the food which was served and enjoyed. The caterer sued for the $650, which he was denied and in turn made to pay $250. In reality and actual justice the defendant should have paid $400, not the $650 sued for. He won $250 plus a free dinner for 40 guests. Stupid.

The second one she allowed a lady that killed a man's trained falcon, which a golf course hired to rid them of problem ducks, to go without being held responsible for the man's $10000 loss and business loss. The lady said at the end, "I'll take a duck over a falcon any day." So stupid. Not even the point. She killed a majestic bird because she felt it was horrific that a bird was killing a bird. So the judge basically agreed that it's legit to kill a bird to show that it's wrong for a bird to kill a bird.

You never see real judge shows totally dismissing the original legitimate claim in favor of absurd defense, but here you see it back to back and it just pisses you off enough for a person,me, who doesn't write show reviews, ever, to get online, sign up for an account, and go through the trouble to make people aware so as not to waste their own time on watching this quack judgery*.

Total bullshit People.

*my awesomely created word that should be included in the next edition of Websters.

Today I finally decided to stop watching her. She continually listens to someone explaining something and then when she is ready to rule, she exclaims that she doesn't understand. It is usually something that everyone has heard of in today's society, but she seems to live in a box. Then yesterday she criticized one parent for not bringing her child to testify because then she, Judge Karen, didn't know for sure what happened. The next case brought her child in order to testify and she rolled her eyes and acted like that was terrible parenting to bring the child! She almost never rules. No one ever gets justice. She always finds a reason to pass and dismiss the case for stupid reasons. I would never in a million years go to her for any justice. Some say it is all fake. I don't know if it is or not, but she looks mighty stupid no matter how real it is.

I've never understood the "my courtroom" attitude, condescension and disdain some/most of these tv judges exhibit...as though their job is a favor to the litigant. I don't generally take issue with her rulings; I DO find her to be rude, dramatic, condescending, patronizing.. I can go on. The courtroom is dramatic itself without the extras...maybe it's necessary for ratings, but Mathis is even MORE dramatic, entertaining and loads more respectful doing it. You leave with your dignity in tact .. unless you try to play him. Then you leave in pieces. Sis can learn from a brotha. I think she's the one who says purpose of court is to make you whole or restore you to wholeness or some such. You don't do that awarding damages but damaging individuals in the process.

This show makes me sick. Almost every decision she makes is SO WRONG. I'm not sure how the contestants are compensated but if the show pays the money sued for no wonder she hardly ever rules for the plaintive or dismisses both sides. She acts like she's stupid, interrupts to much, doesn't use common sense and asks for impossible "proof" when common sense should prevail. Don't ever go to her if you want justice! Awful, awful awful. If you loan someone money and it's obvious it's a loan she won't rule for you because she calls you stupid for the loan. I just can't watch it anymore and will not watch the advertisements or trust them because of how bad she is.

I am so upset over Judge Karen's decision today. She chose to teach the

plaintiff a lesson because she loaned the defendant $4000 after only 3

dates to purchase a car and he was to repay on payday.....Judge said

the plaintiff needed to learn a lesson..... first off this was a "verbal" contract and the defendant paid her $1000 (which proves he knew it

wasn't a gift)..... I understand why the judge wanted her to "learn"

not to loan a boyfriend money but what lesson did it teach him? Judge

should've just went by the evidence not her place to "teach" a

lesson......