Are you in the audience Druff?
Are you in the audience Druff?
Why would he want to get out of a rent control situation?Originally Posted by tgull
TRUMP 2024!
My understanding is that there is not typically an income limitation on rent controlled units, it's more about when the building was constructed, occupancy, the type of building, etc. rather than income. There are low-income housing programs that do have income limits, but that's not necessarily the same thing.Why would he want to get out of a rent control situation?
Wow wow wow... the cut on the shirt makes it look like it was meant to be untucked. Now granted the distortion from his disproportioned midsection may be throwing off my judgement and hiding the length of his shirt tails. but even if this is true, it's possible his midsection may be too large to tuck properly anyways.
Much safer decision to go untucked here...
You don;t want to. It's a huge problem in social housing which contributes to limited affordable housing. Once people become successful they still live in rent control for decades. There are literally families making 100k living in them. And I say this as someone who supports them.Why would he want to get out of a rent control situation?
Disappointed Druff wasnt standing next to Ken wearing a PFA Tshirt, helping him argue his case as a mental health advocate. Judys diatribe would have been epic.
If so my response to that would be to not where a shit meant to be untucked to court. Maybe I'm outdated and old fashioned when it comes to this but I've always been made to believe that was disrespectful. If you want to where it that way in any social situation I wouldn't find it strange but it looks weird in court. And if it looks weird to me it most definitely looks weird to a 70 year old woman deciding your fate.Wow wow wow... the cut on the shirt makes it look like it was meant to be untucked. Now granted the distortion from his disproportioned midsection may be throwing off my judgement and hiding the length of his shirt tails. but even if this is true, it's possible his midsection may be too large to tuck properly anyways.
Much safer decision to go untucked here...
Edit: ok this is a tv show not court but why even bother with a collar if you are gonna wear it that way? I guess I got hated on enough throughout my life about going untucked where it finally got to me and I've turned old I guess.
And if you are a person that wants to wear a collar and hates the way you look tucked in for whatever reason than find yourself a suit jacket. Literally the chezpest most ill fitting suit jacket of all time would be a better choice than showing up to court with a cape. Also maybe it's not as bad as I thought I only got to see one minute of the video. Hopefully someone posts the new youtube.
Last edited by Brittney Griner's Clit; 01-18-2018 at 04:30 PM.
The link I posted people should be able to stream from their mobile just fine I tried it out on android basic browser and it worked. It is the same player youtube uses just once these type of programs hit the youtube database even if you make them unlisted they have so many ways to detect the copyrights and remove them quickly.
what a fucking dumpster fire that was
i have no idea how judge judy makes as much as she does, it was painful to watch
My girlfriend refused to watch it in full because Judge Judy was so grating and unfair to Ken.
But most shocking about this whole situation is the fact that she was completely ignorant regarding standard eviction proceedings in California (where she lives).
She claimed that he "refused to pay rent" in May. He claimed that the landlord can't accept rent during the eviction proceedings, and that they refused to take his May rent and returned it to him.
She told him that he had no proof of this, and that "every landlord would take the rent" during the eviction proceedings.
In California, once an eviction is filed, you cannot collect any rent or it terminates the entire eviction. In fact, some clever tenants use this trick against inexperienced landlords to kill eviction proceedings and force the landlord to start over (or in some cases, such as unpaid rent, being unable to file again).
The fact that she raked Ken over the coals for "not paying rent" when it's required for the landlord not to accept it is... well, amazing.
I had no idea she was that ignorant of the law.
Watching this whole thing was like watching Ken try to reason with a crotchety, senile old woman whose mind was made up before any words were spoken.
Here's a discussion of the acceptance of rent after an eviction thing: http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano-...ction-process/
If it was some place like South Dakota it's acceptable for her to have to look up the law but you think she would know in the state where she lives and is practicing "tv law".
Can you get Ken back on radio next week or ask him of what they showed how much was edited out?
My girlfriend refused to watch it in full because Judge Judy was so grating and unfair to Ken.
But most shocking about this whole situation is the fact that she was completely ignorant regarding standard eviction proceedings in California (where she lives).
She claimed that he "refused to pay rent" in May. He claimed that the landlord can't accept rent during the eviction proceedings, and that they refused to take his May rent and returned it to him.
She told him that he had no proof of this, and that "every landlord would take the rent" during the eviction proceedings.
In California, once an eviction is filed, you cannot collect any rent or it terminates the entire eviction. In fact, some clever tenants use this trick against inexperienced landlords to kill eviction proceedings and force the landlord to start over (or in some cases, such as unpaid rent, being unable to file again).
The fact that she raked Ken over the coals for "not paying rent" when it's required for the landlord not to accept it is... well, amazing.
I had no idea she was that ignorant of the law.
Watching this whole thing was like watching Ken try to reason with a crotchety, senile old woman whose mind was made up before any words were spoken.
You should have called up ole Judy and asked if you could represent Ken under your stage name Alvin Finklestein. If it was sweeps week she'd be sure to accept especially considering she was going to be dealing with a retarded person and a Ken. You could have really given her the business... but not so good that you heard the dreaded "Cut" and all your good points were lost on the cutting room floor.
But seriously were you there? Or would you even be allowed to be there in the audience?
Edit: I'm the same as your girlfriend in that regard though, it's extremely uncomfortable for me to try to watch, even without me knowing Ken.
Last edited by Brittney Griner's Clit; 01-18-2018 at 06:10 PM.
This was a train wreck. If druff was there it would of been a totally different outcome.! Judge Judy had no clue of California Land Lord/ Tenant Law.
I gave Ken some guidance beforehand regarding what to say.
To his credit, while he was a little too passive, he generally did a good job getting these points out, and he explained them clearly.
Judge Judy was acting as if she were the attorney of Ken's building, rather than an impartial judge.
The perplexing thing is the fact that this wasn't even about the building, AND Ken already won the eviction case!
The courts RULED IN KEN'S FAVOR on the eviction matter, so therefore she should have accepted that as fact (that's how courts work), and not twisted the situation into something it wasn't.
Furthermore, even if Ken had lost the eviction, he would still have owed the back rent. The roommate continued to live there and refused to leave, so he also should have owed half the back rent, which Ken proved she paid.
I think she was also trying to make the point that Ken was freerolling the building by only paying the back rent once he won the eviction, so therefore the roommate was also doing the same thing, and that Ken only paid because he was the one staying.
But that's bullshit, because the building COULD NOT ACCEPT THE RENT during those months, but Ken would still owe it no matter what.
Ken kept repeating that the guy lived there for free for 5 months, which was the meat of the case, but Judy ignored it and just kept ranting about how he was scamming the building -- something Ken already proved in real court wasn't true.
In summary....
Also, I wasn't in the audience.
I was on a cruise when this was taped in early November.
Strangely, this entire saga both started and ended while I was on a cruise. Ken added this Eric guy as a roommate without telling me while I was on a cruise in September 2015, and then this episode was taped when I was on a different cruise in November 2017. I only take one cruise for one week per year, so it was a coincidence.
They actually wanted me there as a witness, but honestly I wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Judge Judy would have rudely asked me 1 or 2 questions, and if I tried to say anything else, she would have yelled over me to shut up. If I tried to yell back over her, I would have been kicked out.
Man I never knew judge judy was such an ignorant cunt
Clearly Judge Judy is a landlord of some sort as she thinks it is perfectly fine to get rid of long standing tenants to increase a buildings value. Ken paid the rent. The other guy did not. Apparently it is ok to live rent free. And what was with the edit at the end of the show? I want to work hard and be rewarded for my work? What the $&@“ does that mean?
Of course. She’s an old jew broad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
