Justice with Judge Mablean

Horrible actors, horrible cases. Just really really bad. It's a wonder this show even made it to tv.

I used to watch her all the time and respected her as a judge but now she treats people like dirt she used to show respect but now I have trouble watching her as she treats people like judge Judy who I also refuse to watch because she treats people like dirt, she needs to go back to the way she used to be. She barks at people and doesn't even give them a chance. She is getting just like judge Judy and not listen to what people have to say, Some people don't even get a chance to speak. So take notes from your earlier shows.

Go back to being the kind person you used to be. Then I will return as a viewer

You are dead wrong to judge this couple. This child is not a lesbian, her parents are. You are wrong. You judged the couple just like sister francis telling a child to go to hell. These popes and fathers have been raping boys for over a hundred years. I don't watch you but caught this one. I couldn't even wait to hear your verdict.

I watched today's show, S4/Ep51, Drive by DUI, on February 6, 2019. I believe Judge Mablean, ruled this case wrong! The defendant hit the plaintiff's vehicle, which resulted in it being totaled. The plaintiff vehicle is said to have a Bluebook value of $4,800, and repairs were over $6,000. The plaintiff was awarded the $6,000, to fix the car! WHAT? WHAT! and WHAT was that , that I heard ? I was yelling at Judge Mablean thru the TV . She made me angry , because she is so wrong on this, judgement . She may not have liked the defendant, because I don't think the defendant really cared. That is no reason to make a judgment like that, because that is NOT the law! The plaintiff should be made whole, they should not get a bonanza. Because the car was totaled and the Blue Book value is less than the repairs, that is what the plaintiff should get. This will make her hole! Amen. I do not know why Judge Mablean ruled the way that she did, I'm so angry, because of the power that she has and yet she is wrong!

Example for the Judge ... Let's say.... I have a pair of pants that were ruined by you. I take you to court because you didn't want to pay me the $200 that my seamstress said that it would take to repair the pants. Yet, you said that you could buy these pants from the boutique for $50! How much do you think I should be awarded?! Don't forget now, you have proof that the exact same pants can be purchased for $50 (blue book value, 😉), and I have a seamstress who says that it will take $200 to repair the pants. What should I be rewarded?

This could be a spoiler if you have not seen her 2014 cases. Stop reading if you haven't seen this episode and want to see it again if they run it. It has been on TV at least twice so far. I just saw the most horrendous case and ruling from this terrible judge. A young woman had religious beliefs that made her want to save sex for marriage. She told her boyfriend and they dated for 6 months and he said he "understood." Then he wanted to take her to Paris. He bought her lingerie and thought he could talk her into sex. When she said "no" again, he left her that night with half of a round-trip ticket, very little money so she couldn't stay in Paris or exchange her ticket for a different day flight to get home early. She took him to court to get the money back from the ticket exchange. She was very hurt and in tears. Judge Mablean first shouted at her to give details on what the girl WOULD let the boyfriend do. She and the boy repeatedly said, "Everything but sex." That wasn't good enough. She kept shouting and insisting that the girl should spell it out. And then asked her if this was how she "teased" the man. The young woman looked defeated and said. "sure." Mablean kept up questions about teasing the boy. Apparently in her mind, letting a man pet you or do other things is "teasing" him even if you have a prior understanding of no sex before marriage. So the Judge ruled against the girl who was left high and dry because she apparently deserved it for leading the guy on. I was appalled. Is this really what we want our young women to learn? As a women, you cannot date or engage in any physical contact unless you are willing to finish it and let the man have sex with you. Otherwise you are just teasing him. We apparently aren't allowed to have that choice. You either don't let the guy touch you (or maybe you just aren't allowed to set boundaries--but he can so he doesn't get frustrated) unless you are ready to have sex. In other words, the guys can have what they want. And what would she have ruled if he had forced himself on her? That she deserved it because she led him on? There are thousands of young woman out there who can love and have a man caress her but not have sex with her and they can have a lovely relationship and often leads up to marriage. It used to be that way for just about everyone. But now, idiots like this judge tell the men they deserve to have the sex they want because above all else, the men shouldn't be frustrated. Judge Mablean should be fired and muzzled so she doesn't hurt our young women any more than she has already.