The Judy-Verse: Judge Judy/Judy Justice/Tribunal Justice

[Jason73]

I'm going to keep an eye out for red-headed guy over the next few days and see if I can spot him.

I wonder what seasons are airing over there compared to what's airing over here? The episode I'm watching now says season 23 and 2018 for the airdate, if that's accurate.

Off the back of this I've done some more searches and found this article on 10 fake things about the series. Most are probably screamingly obvious, while others confirm suspicions I've felt from watching.

I came across that article when I was searching for info about the audience. It's always a let down at first (I felt the same way when I found out all the staged/fake things in the HGTV shows I love to watch) but then in the end I guess low brow entertainment is low brow entertainment.

Perhaps I'd need to see if I can watch the episode to make some sense of it.

I watched the clip of the episode linked in the article after reading the article and it seemed so obviously fake that Judge Judy had to have believed it was fake and humored her production staff to get an interesting case. The litigants are practically smirking the entire time.

 

[Jason73]

I just tuned in to an episode of Tribunal Justice and this episode was filed in the city I live in. It's a two parter too. I've seen multiple cases from the two neighboring communities where I live and also from the city where I grew up, on classic Judge Judy. Judge Judy litigants are exactly the kind of people who you would find plenty of in the city I live. They never fail to make me cringe.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I wonder what seasons are airing over there compared to what's airing over here? The episode I'm watching now says season 23 and 2018 for the airdate, if that's accurate.

With the aim of scrolling to the TV guide to find out, I just briefly turned on the TV and the Judge Judy opening credits were playing (at 5am!!). According to the information, it's an episode from Season 15, which would place it around 2010. However, the early evening episodes I've been watching while pottering about in the kitchen seem to be from Season 20, so we're not that far apart.

It's always a let down at first (I felt the same way when I found out all the staged/fake things in the HGTV shows I love to watch) but then in the end I guess low brow entertainment is low brow entertainment.

Very true.

I watched the clip of the episode linked in the article after reading the article and it seemed so obviously fake that Judge Judy had to have believed it was fake and humored her production staff to get an interesting case. The litigants are practically smirking the entire time.

Oh dear. In that case I'll save myself the bother of seeking it out and stick to the episodes where I can suspend disbelief and convince myself it's all for real.

 

[Jason73]

I've been making my way through Tribunal Justice. It's an interesting enough twist on courtroom shows to hold my interest. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the peek into the deliberation process is the best aspect of this show. I do find with three judges, the poor litigants sometimes barely get the chance to present their cases, especially in the episodes where the judges seem to have decided ahead of time they don't like one or both of the litigants and are intent on grandstanding rather than listening.

I keep going back and forth between Tanya and Patricia, as to who is my favorite. I think most of the time it's Patricia because she amuses me, but I find Tanya's insights and points of view during deliberation interesting quite frequently.

I'd like to know how much deliberation and planning the three judges do together prior to the episode being filmed.

A side note: There was a handsome, long haired guy in the audience (to the far right behind the defendant) that I enjoyed keeping an eye on during episodes. He mostly seemed bored with everything. But he hasn't been around for a while now. (I'm up to episode 64.)

 

[Mel O'Drama]

especially in the episodes where the judges seem to have decided ahead of time they don't like one or both of the litigants and are intent on grandstanding rather than listening.

This always makes for an interesting (and entertaining) dynamic.

I wonder if it also ties in with this:

I'd like to know how much deliberation and planning the three judges do together prior to the episode being filmed.

Like Judge Judy, I often get the sense from the direction of the questioning that they know key facts that the rest of us don't which has some bearing on the outcome. Invariably, it seems Tanya and Patricia soften them up and then throw them to Adam who whips out some damning piece of paperwork he's tracked down from somewhere obscure.

I keep going back and forth between Tanya and Patricia, as to who is my favorite. I think most of the time it's Patricia because she amuses me, but I find Tanya's insights and points of view during deliberation interesting quite frequently.

I'd really struggle to pick a favourite. I enjoy all three in different ways.

There was a handsome, long haired guy in the audience (to the far right behind the defendant) that I enjoyed keeping an eye on during episodes. He mostly seemed bored with everything. But he hasn't been around for a while now.

Is he the one who had a bit of a James Dean look? If so I think he might be in some later episodes (perhaps with a haircut). But I might be completely off-track.

(I'm up to episode 64.)

Last night I had a bit of a fright when I scrolled to the first unwatched episode (#107) and realised there was only one more available after this. Considering there's a new one every weekday and I've been watching two or three most evenings, it looks like I'll be mixing it up with more Judge Judy from now on.



Incidentally, I've just spotted that it's been renewed for Season Two, so that's good news.

 

[Jason73]

I'd really struggle to pick a favourite. I enjoy all three in different ways.

It's taken me a lot of episodes to warm up to Adam. I don't mind him too much now but for quite a while I didn't like him at all.

Is he the one who had a bit of a James Dean look? If so I think he might be in some later episodes (perhaps with a haircut). But I might be completely off-track.

I think I've noticed that guy recently. He was near the middle of the audience in a big, puffy jacket. I think that's a different guy than the one in the earlier episodes.

Last night I had a bit of a fright when I scrolled to the first unwatched episode (#107) and realised there was only one more available after this.

I haven't scrolled ahead to see how many episodes are left. I keep expecting Prime to tell me I'm out of episodes. There are so many! I'm on episode 82 so at least I have a good 20+ episodes left.

I've enjoyed how much more comfortable the three judges have gotten with each other over the course of the episodes. There's a lot more laughing and joking during deliberations as the season progresses. I wonder if any of them knew each other prior to the show?

What do you think is the point of the second bailiff? In all the episodes I've watched I think she's done exactly one thing--walked over to a plaintiff to tell them to calm down. Maybe Byrd was tired that day.

 

[Jason73]

Oh, I just googled and learned Tanya and Patricia worked together on a different court show.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

It's taken me a lot of episodes to warm up to Adam. I don't mind him too much now but for quite a while I didn't like him at all.

Yeah. Those first impressions can really make or break viewing enjoyment. Do you know what it was about him you found off-putting?

It took quite some episodes for Adam to click with me but, from the sound of it, probably for quite different reasons. To me, he initially seemed more reserved than Patricia and Tanya. If was only when he let fly at someone who'd annoyed him (for lying or weaponising the legal system, probably) that he became a standout.

I keep expecting Prime to tell me I'm out of episodes. There are so many! I'm on episode 82 so at least I have a good 20+ episodes left.

I think there are 5 new episodes each week through to the end of this month, so hopefully you'll be OK for a while yet.

I've enjoyed how much more comfortable the three judges have gotten with each other over the course of the episodes. There's a lot more laughing and joking during deliberations as the season progresses.

A couple of days ago I was thinking it might be interesting to go back and watch an early episode or two and see if I notice a difference, especially since I had no sense of attachment at that point and didn't know any of the judges, so was watching from a different vantage point.

In my initial uncertainty, I said to my partner to carry on watching without me, so I did miss a few early episodes until I gave it another shot. Perhaps I'll revisit these at season's end.

What do you think is the point of the second bailiff? In all the episodes I've watched I think she's done exactly one thing--walked over to a plaintiff to tell them to calm down. Maybe Byrd was tired that day

Ha. Yes, she's not had any moments to shine yet. Even poor Whitney had more screen-time on Judy Justice.

A few days ago I suddenly noticed towards the end of an episode that she wasn't present. Then I found myself wondering if she'd been absent for other episodes. Of course, it made no difference so there was no way of knowing.

I just googled and learned Tanya and Patricia worked together on a different court show

Now you mention this I remember reading this when initially looking for info on the new show as it began. Then I forgot all about it. If this is available to watch I'd be interested in checking it out.

 

[Jason73]

I think I've just witnessed the greatest episode of Tribunal Justice to date: episode 85, From Big Brother to Broken Lease. First of all Cassandra finally gets her big moment to shine . . . as a Rottweiler expert witness. You can see her seize that moment and see the frustrating months of standing silent pour out of her. In addition to that, the interplay between the judges and the litigants was extremely entertaining. I kept being surprised by how much the litigants were talking back to the judges and how tolerant and patient the judges were with it. At one point Byrd was just holding his head in his hands and shaking his head. Also, James Dean and his puffy jacket were back in the audience. (But there's still no sign of the scruffy long haired guy. Maybe he booked something and I'll see him in an episode of Days of Our Lives soon.) It was definitely the most fun episode up to this point for me. One thing for me that I always find interesting is when the judges seem to be reading a litigant differently than I do. The defendant in that case was giving me slick snake vibes but they seemed charmed by him.

Do you know what it was about him you found off-putting?

I found him arrogant and he also came across as less genuine and more like he was playing to the cameras and putting on a performance than the two ladies. Now, knowing the ladies have previous court show experience, I wonder if I was just noting that he was less polished in front of the cameras compared to his co-stars.

A couple of days ago I was thinking it might be interesting to go back and watch an early episode or two and see if I notice a difference, especially since I had no sense of attachment at that point and didn't know any of the judges, so was watching from a different vantage point.

In my initial uncertainty, I said to my partner to carry on watching without me, so I did miss a few early episodes until I gave it another shot. Perhaps I'll revisit these at season's end.

Yes! I hope you do that! I think it would be interesting to hear if you notice differences in the judges in the earlier episodes or if it's more a case of we the viewer taking a handful of episodes to get used to the judges.

A few days ago I suddenly noticed towards the end of an episode that she wasn't present. Then I found myself wondering if she'd been absent for other episodes. Of course, it made no difference so there was no way of knowing.

I missed that missing Cassandra moment. One end of episode anomaly that I noted a few weeks ago: typically when the case ends the judges immediately get up and exit but in this particular episode Adam got up and walked over to Patricia's chair and leaned down to say something to her. I was very curious what he had to say to her that couldn't wait five seconds until they exited the stage.

If this is available to watch I'd be interested in checking it out.

I remember now watching an episode or two of Hot Bench and I think I remember Patricia on it. I have a recollection of it seeming very low budget and staged but I could be remembering wrong. Whatever I thought of it, I clearly didn't like it enough to stick with it.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Cassandra finally gets her big moment to shine . . . as a Rottweiler expert witness. You can see her seize that moment and see the frustrating months of standing silent pour out of her.

One thing for me that I always find interesting is when the judges seem to be reading a litigant differently than I do.

Yes. It's another thing that makes me wonder what information they have ahead of filming.

I wonder if I was just noting that he was less polished in front of the cameras compared to his co-stars.

Could be. Perhaps this is why it took some episodes for him to click with me as well. Tanya and Patricia were probably more fully-formed in terms of screen presence/persona, while Adam may have still been adjusting.

I think it would be interesting to hear if you notice differences in the judges in the earlier episodes or if it's more a case of we the viewer taking a handful of episodes to get used to the judges.

If I end up doing this, I'll definitely drop by and let you know what I find.

I missed that missing Cassandra moment.

You may not have reached it yet. It's one I've watched within the last week, so towards the tail end of episodes.

typically when the case ends the judges immediately get up and exit but in this particular episode Adam got up and walked over to Patricia's chair and leaned down to say something to her. I was very curious what he had to say to her that couldn't wait five seconds until they exited the stage.

That does sound intriguing. Ok a similar note, I've spotted Adam chatting to Cassandra once or twice, just before Byrd starts to do his "court is now in session" spiel. Both of them were smiling so it was clearly admirable and probably informal.

I remember now watching an episode or two of Hot Bench and I think I remember Patricia on it. I have a recollection of it seeming very low budget and staged but I could be remembering wrong. Whatever I thought of it, I clearly didn't like it enough to stick with it.

That's probably quite telling about the quality so if I do check it out I'll make sure my expectations are fairly low.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Season Three of Judy Justice is underway on O'Dramavision.

In an act of serendipity, I randomly took a peek on Prime mid-week to see if there were any new episodes... only to find the first episodes of Season Three had become available just a day or two before.

It's more of the same, which is no bad thing. The biggest difference I've spotted is Sarah's new look. Out are the dark turtlenecks with the chain on top. In their place is a dazzling white suit.

Last night I watched an episode in which Judy poo-pooed a young woman's claim of Post Traumatic Stress and Depression, telling her that it's expected to be depressed considering she is twenty years old with and a husband in prison and four kids (including a five year old!) dispersed among various family members.

it might be interesting to go back and watch an early episode or two and see if I notice a difference, especially since I had no sense of attachment at that point and didn't know any of the judges, so was watching from a different vantage point.

In my initial uncertainty, I said to my partner to carry on watching without me, so I did miss a few early episodes until I gave it another shot. Perhaps I'll revisit these at season's end.

Yes! I hope you do that! I think it would be interesting to hear if you notice differences in the judges in the earlier episodes or if it's more a case of we the viewer taking a handful of episodes to get used to the judges.

I forgot to say but I actually did this a month or two ago. It flowed well, and I enjoyed the early episodes as consistently as the latter so I'd say it's definitely a case of the viewer taking a while to get used to the judges rather than the judges tweaking things as they went along.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

People are no doubt going to have opinions on the spinoff series featuring Judy's family members.

The family business continues to expand.

Season Three of Judy Justice has featured law clerk Alexei Mentzer occasionally standing in for Judy's granddaughter Sarah... and it turns out Alexei is Judy's step-grandson whose father (Judy's son-in-law) is to feature in the upcoming Judy-produced series Justice On Trial. Alexei said very little in his first couple of episodes, but spent much time gazing reverently at his step-grandmother.

These same episodes saw Kevin absent, which gave us the first crossover with Tribunal Justice when Cassandra filled in. And because she's not supporting Byrd here, Cassandra was even elevated to a speaking part.

Both Cassandra and Alexei gain "special guest-star" type credit after the main titles for these episodes. The announcer filling us in on the situation reminded me of those Peyton Place episodes where Connie switched heads for a while and got a similar announcement, while the half-heartedly tacked on extra credit evoked ones returnees were given in the Conundrum episode of Dallas.

I wonder why Sarah and Kevin have both taken some episodes out at the same time. If it were just Sarah I might have thought she was off taking exams or something like that. But with both off at the same time the logical assumption seems to be illness, such as Covid.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Meanwhile, back in the original Judge Judy series, I've just watched an episode in which a man sued a former friend for a dental bill after he was punched. He claimed the altercation took place in July but, when asked for a dental bill, produced one from December - almost six months later.

Judy told him she would need to see a bill from immediately afterwards to show that his damaged teeth were caused by the incident in July. The man said he had not attended because he'd waited until his next routine appointment. The back and forth between Judy and the plaintiff became increasingly heated until she volubly snapped at him:

JULY!

I'm not lying.

I don't know who laughed harder: the extras in the audience, Byrd or Judy herself.

Incidentally, this episode featured one of most twee and unnecessary acts of censorship I've ever seen when the defendant claimed the plaintiff had sworn at his wife. When Judy asked what was said, the defendant's wife said she had been told:

Go to hell, you effing bee.

The above sentence is verbatim, so - unless the plaintiff was Ned Flanders - the witness was presumably self-censoring. All the same, on the airing I watched the words "hell", "effing" and "bee" were muted each time one of them was mentioned. I don't know if this to do with the network airing the repeat in the UK, but since it's True Crime which features annoyingly lengthy trailers for programmes about murder and forensic investigations at the start and finish of each episode I'm guessing the muting is more likely to be a legacy from its original US production.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Having flown through Season Three of Judy Justice and a zillion Judge Judy repeats, Season Two of Tribunal Justice is well underway on O'Dramavision.

The Vintage Boutique Wars two-parter was a case that got my blood pressure up for its echoes of Heard vs. Depp, in which a woman claimed the former lover bringing her to court (for giving him nothing after throwing him out of the business in which he had invested, reneging on her agreement to pay him US$10,000) was a controlling, abusive narcissist who made her fear for her life. Despite all her attempts to look timid and small next to this large, bearded man, it was him who appeared genuinely overwhelmed, while she had an answer for everything.

And of course, she had the frivolous and unwarranted restraining order in place for leverage (a photo was shown of her giving the finger at him as she was on her way to get it without him having any idea.

Most compelling about this case was seeing the gender divide among the three professionals. He was hauled over the coals by Patricia in particular, who called him a "narcissist" and an "abuser".

Adam's body language throughout was fascinating... especially once they'd retired to reach their verdict. There was such an energy to him, with his knee bouncing and the pen being moved round in his hand. He was plainly frustrated that he could see through the woman's manipulations while others couldn't. Voices were raised between him and Patricia, and there was very heated debate.

She goes to court, and she tells the court "I want an order that prohibits him from talking to me about anything except the child. The judge, only seeing her, says "Boy, you look like you're really scared. Right? The judge doesn't know about the threats she made in the prior text messages. Judge doesn't know about her giving the finger on the way to court that day...

She says, "the offer is ten thousand". That's her statement. "And we can move on with our lives". But then, when the thing fell apart 'cause her mom left, instead of saying to him, "Listen, you know, I've got a problem with my money. My mom left. I can't do it", what does she do? She goes to the domestic violence restraining order court and she makes material omissions and misrepresentations to get something that she knew if she were honest, the judge never would've given her. That to me is absolutely outrageous, but more importantly it is completely supported and corroborated by everything that we have. If we do not give him back every cent of that ten thousand dollars, in my opinion, it is an unjust result.

I am not giving him a penny. I'm telling you that right now.

Tanya's level headedness came through in this episode. She mediates wonderfully with warmth and humour, ensuring any bad feeling is minimal. She was also torn between arguments, and - because she wanted to take some time alone to reflect - this was the first episode in which we returned for the verdict without knowing which way it would go.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

New Judyverse episodes are appearing left, right and centre, which is mostly a good thing.

The Fourth Season of Judy Justice is well underway in the O'Drama house. I'm 28 episodes in, with the season again totalling 120 episodes which will drop through the remainder of this year. It's business as usual, though Sarah seems more vocal and forthright than in previous seasons.

Meanwhile, Tribunal Justice began airing its Third Season this week, leaving a dilemma about which series to watch, and how. I think I'll watch Judy Justice either until I catch up with dropped episodes, or hit the halfway mark of the season (whichever comes first). Then there'll be a large block of Tribunal to watch.

It's a rare luxury to have too many new Judyverse episodes to watch. The usual problem is running out of new episodes and, up until last month we'd been watching whatever Judge Judy episode happened to be playing. The various series generally serve as a digestif, with an episode or two after dinner (sometimes watched while eating if I'm feeling slobbish).

Last year, yet another series was added to the franchise: Justice On Trial. At twice the length of Judy/Tribunal episodes, it felt an attempt to take things in a different, less formulaic direction, revisiting real old cases as they would have been tried, which includes reenactments of the "crimes". Going somewhat deeper than the other courtroom series, I can see how some would find this appealing. It wasn't for me, though. I found it too heavy (one of the episodes I watched showed someone being buried alive) and also very dry. And even though I'm sure much of the other series are for show, this one being up front about these being old cases just gave a sense of pointlessness to watching.

Also, fun as it was to see what is essentially a huge crossover between Judy/Tribunal, with the key players from both series appearing in JOT, because the series wasn't for me, I came away feeling it was a waste of resources, when I'd have rathered they invested their time in covering frivolous cases about bad weaves or vindictive exes keeping property that didn't belong to them or fender benders for which each claimed the other responsible. Lose the simplicity and things become too convoluted and messy. Sometimes, there's a reason why a formula is so very successful, which is why I'm glad both Judy and Tribunal are keeping that old magic alive.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Since I'd almost caught up with the Judy Justice drops, I decided to stop at S4E40 (a third of the way through the season) and switch to Tribunal Justice.

The third Tribunal Justice episode has started strong. Since both cases were dismissed, they also serve as a reminder that a satisfying outcome isn't dependent on an award.

The first episode had them giving hell to someone bringing a case who, it transpired had been drink driving without insurance and registration (if I were to believe these courtroom series, I would believe that a third of America drives without a licence. How can people even continue getting away with this in the 21st Century?)

The second episode was a complete winner. A female bringing a case against her ex-boyfriend, ostensibly for the return of a bike she claimed was a gift to her son. They very quickly saw through the fact that she was a deranged stalker and tore her case to shreds (ironic, since that was what the boyfriend had told her would happen, and she used that phrasing to attempt to get a temporary restraining order). It seems courts so frequently skew towards outcomes that are unfavourable - and often punitive - to men, and it's such a welcome breath of fresh air to see these three unanimously give malicious creatures like this a hard time.

To give an idea of how unhinged this woman was, she had even befriended the mother of the ex-boyfriend's children, who very soon after attempted to change the terms of their custody agreement. Typically, she also turned out to be the violent one, confronting him in public and getting in his face with threats. They were just disappointed he wasn't countersuing for harassment.

Two moments that made me laugh and almost cheer: When the woman was talking emotionally, voice breaking as she spoke about her son crying at the loss of his bike when riding the new one she'd bought him, Patricia said "Oh, please!" then went on to point out that this was all about seeing her ex boyfriend. Before they retired to make their (quick) decision, Adam commented to the man that he believed the bike had been bought for the woman's son "But that's OK".