Lawyer Turns Tables on Judge Judy
Desilets-1
A Mission Hills attorney sued the “Judge Judy Show”, its star and
producers, for allegedly slandering him when he appeared on the syndicated
series as a witness.
Richard A. Nixon seeks $200,000 in general and special damages, plus
unspecified punitive damages and court costs, from Brad Kuhlman; Spelling
Corp.; Big Ticket Pictures Inc.; and Judy Sheindlin.
None of the defendants was available to comment on the allegations.
Nixon has practiced law for 19 years and “has enjoyed an excellent
reputation both generally and as a lawyer,” according to court documents
filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On May 28, 1998, Nixon said he appeared as a witness, not an attorney,
for Joseph Sudar to testify about a medical bill Sudar had brought to court.
During that appearance, “Judge Judy” allegedly said to Nixon: “Where did
you go to law school? This document you introduced is not evidence of any
medical bill.”
She also allegedly asked Nixon: “Where do you practice law? As an
attorney, you should know better than to introduce these documents.”
Nixon’s suit claims Judge Judy’s statement was false, because the
document was a medical bill, and defamatory because it “tended to show the
plaintiff was incompetent.”
Nixon alleges he has “suffered the loss of his reputation, shame,
mortification and hurt feelings” as a result of Judge Judy’s statements.
http://www.msnbc.com/local/knbc/171627.asp
Desilets
MSNBC is optimized for
• Microsoft Internet Explorer
• Windows Media Player • MSNBC Terms,
Conditions and Privacy © 1999
Cover | Quick News | News | Business | Sports | Local News | Technology |
Living & Travel | Health
On Air | Opinions | Weather | MSN | Comics | Find | About MSNBC | Help |
Index | Cool Tools
Jobs | Write Us | Advertising on MSNBC | Terms, Conditions, and Privacy
Desilets-1
MIRSE wrote in message <19990603024016...@ng-fm1.aol.com>...
>>Subject: Lawyer Turns Tables on Judge Judy
>>From: "Desilets-1" <Desil...@email.msn.com>
>>Date: 6/3/99 5:14 AM Mid-Atlantic Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <Oz#aHiYr#GA.330@cpmsnbbsa05>
>>
>
> A Mission Hills attorney sued the “Judge Judy Show”, its star and
>producers, for allegedly slandering him when he appeared on the syndicated
>series as a witness.
> Richard A. Nixon seeks $200,000 in general and special damages, plus
>unspecified punitive damages and court costs, from Brad Kuhlman; Spelling
>Corp.; Big Ticket Pictures Inc.; and Judy Sheindlin.
> Richard A. Nixon. The name sounds familiar. Didn't he use to be in
>politics or something? Or am I confusing him with someone else? (Joke)
>Mi...@aol.com
I did a double-take on the name, too
Desilets
MIRSE
kkramer
real court extend to TV court. This will be new law. My take? He
knew what he was getting into. Take personal responsibility, Sir.
Kramer
Desilets-1 snip
>A Mission Hills attorney sued the “Judge Judy Show”, its star and
>producers, for allegedly slandering him when he appeared on the syndicated
>series as a witness.
> Richard A. Nixon seeks $200,000 in general and special damages, plus
>unspecified punitive damages and court costs, from Brad Kuhlman; Spelling
>Corp.; Big Ticket Pictures Inc.; and Judy Sheindlin.
ma...@my-deja.com
>> "your honor, she hurt my feelings!" get the F out of here!
>> Big John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark Denman
Certainly the show has a history of Ms. Sheindlin making somewhat
caustic remarks about plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses.
Yeah, he knew what he was getting into. Why do you need a lawyer to
verify a medical bill. All you need is the bill itself. What was so
hinky about the bill that it wasn't evidence unto itself?
--
Mark Denman ~E Aho Laula~ <"wider is better">
=======================================================================
the ALARUMS-L mailing list - a chatty forum about pencil and paper RPGs
http://lists.accglobal.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=alarums&text_mode=0
t__c...@hotmail.com
During the Jenny Jones trial, I wondered if a talk show guest could
claim damages for being "ambushed," why couldn't a trial witness.
Witnesses are often ambushed, and in general are put through a heck of
a lot more than Schmitz was on the Jones TV show. I don't know if
there are any precedents for a witness suing a judge, for defamation
of character. At the beginning of each Judge Judy show, it's stated
that all the participants have agreed that the proceedings are real,
and to abide by the court rulings. If that's so, and if there isn't a
precedent for a witness suing a judge for "shaming" him, then Nixon is
going to have a tough time....
T.C.
On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:14:36 -0700, "Desilets-1"
<Desil...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>6/2/99 MSNBC News
Welldunne
>claim damages for being "ambushed," why couldn't a trial witness.
>Witnesses are often ambushed, and in general are put through a heck of
>a lot more than Schmitz was on the Jones TV show. I don't know if
>there are any precedents for a witness suing a judge, for defamation
>of character. At the beginning of each Judge Judy show, it's stated
>that all the participants have agreed that the proceedings are real,
>and to abide by the court rulings. If that's so, and if there isn't a
>precedent for a witness suing a judge for "shaming" him, then Nixon is
>going to have a tough time....
>
>T.C.
>
Aren't court proceedings exempt from libel or slander actions? Like what they
say on the floor of Congress?
kkramer
Desilets-1
Welldunne wrote in message <19990603163709...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>>if a talk show guest could
>>claim damages for being "ambushed," why couldn't a trial witness.
>>Witnesses are often ambushed, and in general are put through a heck of
>>a lot more than Schmitz was on the Jones TV show. I don't know if
>>there are any precedents for a witness suing a judge, for defamation
>>of character. At the beginning of each Judge Judy show, it's stated
>>that all the participants have agreed that the proceedings are real,
>>and to abide by the court rulings. If that's so, and if there isn't a
>>precedent for a witness suing a judge for "shaming" him, then Nixon is
>>going to have a tough time....
>>
>>T.C.
>>
>
>Aren't court proceedings exempt from libel or slander actions? Like what
they
>say on the floor of Congress?
>
complaints about judges, but from what I hear it has to be a pretty major
legal snafu for them to even investigate a complaint
Desilets
>
Slimpickins
Desilets-1 wrote:
6/2/99 MSNBC News
A Mission Hills attorney sued the “Judge Judy Show”, its star and
producers, for allegedly slandering him when he appeared on the syndicated
series as a witness.
Richard A. Nixon seeks $200,000 in general and special damages, plus
unspecified punitive damages and court costs, from Brad Kuhlman; Spelling
Corp.; Big Ticket Pictures Inc.; and Judy Sheindlin.
None of the defendants was available to comment on the allegations.
Nixon has practiced law for 19 years and “has enjoyed an excellent
reputation both generally and as a lawyer,” according to court documents
filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On May 28, 1998, Nixon said he appeared as a witness, not an attorney,
for Joseph Sudar to testify about a medical bill Sudar had brought to court.
During that appearance, “Judge Judy” allegedly said to Nixon: “Where did
you go to law school? This document you introduced is not evidence of any
medical bill.”
She also allegedly asked Nixon: “Where do you practice law? As an
attorney, you should know better than to introduce these documents.”
Nixon’s suit claims Judge Judy’s statement was false, because the
document was a medical bill, and defamatory because it “tended to show the
plaintiff was incompetent.”
Nixon alleges he has “suffered the loss of his reputation, shame,
mortification and hurt feelings” as a result of Judge Judy’s statements.
****I'm not a believer, in general, of our "sue because it feels good" society these days, however I must say that I am Glad that this man suing has said "enough" by legal measures which are set to ultimately protect our rights. Judges are not immune to this, nor should they be I personally have NEVER seen a more cankerous, downright Mean and almost always insulting "Judge" in action. I find it perplexing that she has high ratings, that are IMO, basically based on her rudeness.Desilets
I have watched the show many times and at first I thought that I liked it, and actually did, yet as time wore on, I became more and more bothered by Judge Judy's manner towards her "clients" and her never-ending, flat-out rudeness towards them. This, her put-downs, etc., went on every show that I've viewed, and I've probably seen 12 or so episodes. Granted, IMO, some of the plaintiffs have deserved a verbal tongue lashing, but after seeing this Judge demean, attack, and belittle almost Everyone, if not ALL who came in with a case before her.... it frankly turned me off, and I turned her off :-)!
Judge Judy may be extremely smart but that means nothing in my eyes! There are TONS of very smart, very educated people holding verrry professional white collar jobs everywhere....that have Major personality disorders! This woman, based on the way she conducts herself towards others is one of them, IMO. It's about time for HER justice! I hope the man suing wins the suit and wins big. *Slim
t__c...@hotmail.com
<mca...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> wrote:
>I have watched the show many times and at first I thought that I liked it, and
>actually did, yet as time wore on, I became more and more bothered by Judge
>Judy's manner towards her "clients" and her never-ending, flat-out rudeness
>towards them. This, her put-downs, etc., went on every show that I've viewed,
>and I've probably seen 12 or so episodes. Granted, IMO, some of the plaintiffs
>have deserved a verbal tongue lashing, but after seeing this Judge demean,
>attack, and belittle almost Everyone, if not ALL who came in with a case before
>her.... it frankly turned me off, and I turned her off :-)!
If you think that Judge Judy is rude, I wonder what you'd think of
Judge Lane, whose syndicated show follows hers on my local station.
His behavior is going to get him into trouble. He's especially bent
on telling any plaintiff or defendant, who claims to be taking
medication for the treatment of depression, to "throw those pills away
and just get over it."
T.C.
JoAnn
<mca...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> wrote:
I have watched the show many times and at first I thought that I liked
it, and actually did, yet as time wore on, I became more and more
bothered by Judge Judy's manner towards her "clients" and her
never-ending, flat-out rudeness towards them. This, her put-downs, etc.,
went on every show that I've viewed, and I've probably seen 12 or so
episodes. Granted, IMO, some of the plaintiffs have deserved a verbal
tongue lashing, but after seeing this Judge demean, attack, and belittle
almost Everyone, if not ALL who came in with a case before her.... it
frankly turned me off, and I turned her off :-)! T.C. wrote:
If you think that Judge Judy is rude, I wonder what you'd think of Judge
Lane, whose syndicated show follows hers on my local station. His
behavior is going to get him into trouble. He's especially bent on
telling any plaintiff or defendant, who claims to be taking medication
for the treatment of depression, to "throw those pills away and just get
over it."
T.C.
~~~I was watching Mills Lane yesterday and was appalled at him hollering
"shut-up" over several times at one the participants. Having not been in
court but 2 times I wondered upon hearing these comments if judges in
real-life courtrooms tend to throw out such terms with abandon, or is
this all for TV?
JoAnn
"Is this life we're living
all part of a great design?"
kkramer
>Everything will hinge upon the contract that he signed with the show.
>Certainly the show has a history of Ms. Sheindlin making somewhat
>caustic remarks about plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses.
:: I don't think the contract will address intentional tort issues IMHO.
I've not seen the contract that sets forth immunity defenses or privileges.
Her tortious defense should be assumption of risk. Award? $1.
>Yeah, he knew what he was getting into. Why do you need a lawyer to
>verify a medical bill. All you need is the bill itself. What was so
>hinky about the bill that it wasn't evidence unto itself?
:: Judge saw something about the document that we did not. Does it say
stupid on her forehead? Does she look like she needs help? She'll do
just fine.
Kramer
txkf...@gmail.com
> Well said, Welldunne. But, this is entertainment! It's
> quasi-legal so it
>
> will be upheld in Judy's favor but I am not sure what rationale the court
> will
>
> into.
>
>
>
> byte on
>
> her webpage. "The cases are real, the people are real, the
> rulings are final.
>
> This is her courtroom. This is Judge Judy." Oh,
> sorry. I become carried away
>
> because I LOVE HER!! This country needs a lot more JUDY.
>
>
>
> Kramer, Fan Club President
>
> <they don't keep me around here because I am gorgeous,
>
> they keep me around here because I am smart.>
>
>
>
> DONT PEE ON MY LEG AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING
>
>
>