Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 144

Thread: Ken Scalir to appear on Judge Judy on January 18, 2018

  1. #61
    Platinum GrenadaRoger's Avatar
    Reputation
    448
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,635
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly View Post

    just did a quick dvr search, the local first-run Judge Judy show on 1/18 has 2 cases. One is about a dude who was arrested after a 125mph drunk driving thing that involves his GF, so I think we can safely say the Scalir case is the other one, described as such:

    When a rent-control tenant goes up against a large property owner and loses, he seeks damages from his illegal tenant.

    I could see Ken on either side of this one, but guessing tenant-side.
    Correct.

    The description is actually wrong, though. Ken went against a large property owner and WON.

    Background:

    Ken has been a rent control tenant in Los Angeles since 1995.

    He added an unofficial roommate in September 2015. The building management was aware of this guy, and in fact made contact with him during repairs, and never once demanded he officially be added to the lease. By Los Angeles city law, that makes the guy an official tenant after 60 days or being known to the landlord.

    When the building was for sale in May 2017 (20 months after this guy moved in), they decided to try dirty tricks to evict Ken, so as to increase the building's value. Ken's unit would fetch $2100 on the open market, but currently only pays $1100, so that's $12,000 per year difference in rent!

    They claimed they had no idea of this roommate (LIE), gave him a backdated three day notice (so as to make it look like he already refused to get rid of the roommate), and filed for eviction.

    Through both my guidance and a good attorney, Ken beat the eviction case.

    However, his cocksucker freeloader roommate started refusing to pay rent during the eviction proceedings, yet refused to move out. The guy stayed there for months rent-free, not understanding that Ken would be responsible for the rent whether he won or lost the eviction case! (When you're being evicted, you are temporarily not required to pay rent, but it accumulates and you have to pay it when the case is over, even if you lose.)

    The building eventually evicted this roommate, but Ken stayed (this was the result of the eviction case).

    Ken sued the roommate for the back rent -- $2500, for the months of May, June, July, August, and September 2017 ($500 each).

    Judge Judy contacted them and offered to take the case instead, and both accepted.

    I will not reveal what happened. You can watch on the 18th.
    re: People's Court/Judge Judy > the losing party doesn't have to pay---the show makes the payment for the loser--just give them a good story/interesting theater: its a good method to collect from a dead beat.
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  2. #62
    Silver snowtracks's Avatar
    Reputation
    153
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    501
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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....

    Druff this is a clear case that you should of been there!
    Scalir was Judge Judy's Red Headed Step Child.
    Judge Judy didn't listen to any of Scalir's Defense.


    Clear Case of Druff but Fair.

    Do you Agree with Me if you where there the out come would of been different.

  3. #63
    Platinum herbertstemple's Avatar
    Reputation
    282
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,195
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Felt sorry Ken. Judge Judy is a bitch & she let him have it a few times. He stood his ground but he was over matched. The other guy could hardly put a sentence together. She wouldn't let go that Ken had no proof that he had a legal roommate. Not sure what that has to do with the roommate not paying his share of the rent.

  4. #64
    Bronze
    Reputation
    56
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    412
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Did they both wear gray shirts because the show instructed them not to wear white or black, which doesn't photograph as well on TV?

    Also, it was tough to watch Judy not let Ken talk.

  5. #65
    PFA Emeritus Crowe Diddly's Avatar
    Reputation
    1954
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,682
    Load Metric
    65705076
    most interesting part of the show, in the Boston area at least, was when the network broke in with a SPECIAL REPORT!! It was Devin McCourty's press conference, and they were asking him about Tom Brady's hand. Only cut in for like 5-8 minutes or something, was back before the decision.

  6. #66
    Platinum GrenadaRoger's Avatar
    Reputation
    448
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,635
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    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.
    would have made a great PFA gif
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  7. #67
    How Could You? WillieMcFML's Avatar
    Reputation
    1049
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,928
    Load Metric
    65705076
    couple questions, druff:

    what is up with eric? he doesn't seem all there

    is he an alcoholic, a transient??

    and why the hell would ken give up the bedroom in his own god damn apartment, just to sleep on the couch?
    Last edited by WillieMcFML; 01-18-2018 at 10:00 PM.

  8. #68
    Bronze KidPresentable's Avatar
    Reputation
    35
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    146
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by WillieMcFML View Post
    couple questions, druff:

    what is up with eric? he doesn't seem all there

    is he an alcoholic, a transient??

    and why the hell would ken give up with the bedroom in his own god damn apartment, just to sleep on the couch?
    He went over it on radio yesterday. Short summary: Eric was a former drug addict that is on disability. Probably either had some pre-existing issue and/or the drugs fucked him up. Basically because of the situation with it being a one-bedroom apartment and Ken being a messy person, he kind of had to offer prospective roommates the bedroom.

     
    Comments
      
      WillieMcFML: gracias

  9. #69
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by simpdog View Post
    Druff is this a real case or fabricated to get him more tv time and maybe a small appearance fee
    100% real

    Eric isn't all there and is on disability. He suffers from some sort of mental illness, and is paranoid.

    He also was once a drug addict and it probably fried his brain.

    I tried to reason with him in the past and he was completely irrational.

     
    Comments
      
      Mintjewlips: Kinda like pfa
      
      WillieMcFML: eric's prolly killed someone before

  10. #70
    Diamond
    Reputation
    690
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6,030
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Unless youre fucking each other, 2 people in a 1 bedroom is unliveable.

  11. #71
    Platinum
    Reputation
    2185
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,577
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by BetCheckBet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Brittney Griner's Clit View Post
    I got to watch 1 minutes of it. He didnt even tuck in his shirt is that real? And is the other guy retarded. Pretty sure not tucking in shirt is a strike against Ken and I'm pretty sure suing a retarded person is another strike against him.
    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...
    If the shirt does not fit, you must acquit
    When faced with a difficult decision, ask yourself "What would Micon do?", then do the opposite.

    PFA Rookie of the Year Awards
    2012: The Templar (unknown)
    2013: Jasep $5000+
    2015: Micon's gofundme legal defense $3k begging for 100k:
    2018: 4Dragons
    2019: Dutch Boyd: Mike Postle
    2020: Covid19
    2021: SMIFlorida and some sort of shit coins for $50k
    2022: BDubs leaks chums club info
    2023: 22nd Feb 4th Dec Youtube channels removed
    2024: Dustin Morgan wins Chrissy's $1000 contest

  12. #72
    Bronze
    Reputation
    35
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    352
    Load Metric
    65705076
    video is down, another link?

  13. #73
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65705076
    yeah i get it, good tv but if you want to laugh just direct the populace to
    anything U.S. Gov.gov and it's every bit as good
    nothing is funnier than you're current administration
    idiot

    oh wait, I'm from a different country and rely on suspect news sources

    what a fat stupid joke and you only fool yourself you
    fat stupid autistic sheep

    did I say fat stupid.....yeah I did
    that's you stupid
    put down the doritos bag fatty

  14. #74
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by Erin Micunt View Post
    video is down, another link?
    Look at BeerAndPoker's post, he provided a google drive link in the spoiler.

  15. #75
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65705076
    fuck how long have you used Scalir as a laughing point?

    Sure there's a lot there but you could laugh at a hundred things more deserving
    Call yourself a friend. You're a user.

     
    Comments
      
      snowtracks: troll

  16. #76
    Bronze
    Reputation
    35
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    352
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Erin Micunt View Post
    video is down, another link?
    Look at BeerAndPoker's post, he provided a google drive link in the spoiler.
    Got it thanks

  17. #77
    Platinum GrenadaRoger's Avatar
    Reputation
    448
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,635
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by herbertstemple View Post
    Felt sorry Ken. Judge Judy is a bitch & she let him have it a few times. He stood his ground but he was over matched. The other guy could hardly put a sentence together. She wouldn't let go that Ken had no proof that he had a legal roommate. Not sure what that has to do with the roommate not paying his share of the rent.
    Illegal contracts are unenforceable by the courts....thus if the tenant was not legal, the contract to sublet was not legal, and Scalir can not use the courts to enforce payment...Judge Judy spent a large percentage of the court time bemoaning Scalir's violating the law vis a vis the landlord while expecting his subtenant to be made to comply...she insisted on seeing proof that the sub-tenant was legal...and in her opinion, the decision the Scalir could not be evicted if he paid the back rent due the landlord at the proper rate did not make the subcontract a legal contract. That alone was enough to decide the case against Scalir..
    re: the issue of non-payment rent, the judge figured if Scalir had not won the eviction matter, he would not have paid any back rent---Scalir's paying the back rent was merely a condition of his being able to restore his ability to have a rent controlled apartment--the same option of pay back rent or leave would have been available to the sub-tenant, he chose to leave.

    Judge Judy's experience was in family law both as a lawyer and judge, then later as a criminal judge--in the state of New York....thus she may not be familiar with Los Angeles rent control rules and California Landlord/Renter's law---but one would think the research staff of the show would have found the proper laws and application
    Last edited by GrenadaRoger; 01-18-2018 at 11:52 PM.
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  18. #78
    Albuquerque's #1 Attorney Alvin Finklestein's Avatar
    Reputation
    26
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    35
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Sorry, but this is mostly incorrect.

    Back rent is just about always awarded to the landlord in eviction cases -- except in the case where the landlord loses the eviction case AND the building was ruled uninhabitable during the period in question. (Habitability was not a part of this case, so this did not apply, anyway.)

    So, win or lose the eviction case, Ken was going to owe the back rent. His payment of it was NOT a condition to stay as a rent-controlled tenant. It was going to be ruled he would owe the rent either way, simply because he chose to keep living there while eviction proceedings were taking place over those several months (and the landlord, by law, could NOT accept rent during that time.)

    For that reason, the responsibility for the back rent is shared by the tenants of the unit, the same way responsibility for the rent would exist if there were no eviction. In this case, if it was long established that Ken's roommate Eric was paying $500 per month to live there, then Eric would be expected to continue paying that $500 while eviction proceedings were taking place.

    Whether Eric owed the $500 each month on the spot, or whether he could hold it until Ken had to pay the back rent himself, is questionable. It depends upon whether Eric is considered Ken's subtenant or simply a regular tenant of the building. However, either way, Eric owed the back rent ($500 per month) once the eviction was over. That was without question.

    What of the fact that Ken did not add Eric as an official roommate? Could that make their "contract" with one another invalid?

    Yes and no.

    Eric would have the right to break it at any time and leave. For example, upon the eviction being filed, Eric could stand up and leave with zero notice, and provided he paid pro-rated rent up until his final day of tenancy, he would be in the clear.

    However, this situation did NOT entitle Eric to plant himself there for five months and live rent-free. If Eric no longer liked the situation there (the threat of eviction), he could have terminated the tenancy immediately, but he could not simply choose to stay and live for free.

    The entire situation between Ken and the building should have been ignored, because it was irrelevant. Eric was paying $500/month to live in the bedroom of Ken's apartment. Eric continued to live in that bedroom for five months after having already been there for 20 months prior (and paying for them), but suddenly decided he no longer had to pay to do so. That is not legal under any circumstances.

    Furthermore, as the eviction case was dismissed, there was no legal wrondoing on Ken's part against the building. The building took him to court alleging wrongdoing, the case was dismissed, and that was that. Judy was not supposed to use a case ruled in Ken's favor AGAINST him by assuming the guilt that he already disproved. That's a huge no-no in judicial circles.

    If I were Judge Judy, the following conversation would have occurred:

    Judge: Eric, did you have an agreement to pay $500 per month with Mr. Scalir to live in the bedroom of his apartment?

    Eric: Yes.

    Judge: Did you pay that $500 over a long period of time?

    Eric: Yes.

    Judge: Did you live in that bedroom from May 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017?

    Eric: Yes.

    Judge: Did you pay to live in that bedroom during that time?

    Eric: No, but there was an eviction going on, and...

    Judge: That is irrelevant. You had an agreement to pay $500 for every month you lived there, and you lived there five months without paying for it. Period. One more question. Did Mr. Scalir do anything to prevent you from leaving at any point during those five months you lived there?

    Eric: No, but I had nowhere else to go.

    Judge: That's not Ken's problem. You lived there 5 months and didn't pay the agreed-upon rent. Judgment is for the Plaintiff for $2500.


     
    Comments
      
      KidPresentable:

  19. #79
    Albuquerque's #1 Attorney Alvin Finklestein's Avatar
    Reputation
    26
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    35
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Regarding the legal basis of Judy's ruling, there really was not one. She attempted to frame it as an unenforceable illegal contract, but that's not really what was going on here. As noted in the previous post, a subtenant cannot simply deem his tenancy "illegal" and then decide he has a right to live there for free. That is not legal in any of the 50 states.

    Judy took a dislike to Ken and his situation because she felt he was attempting a sneaky play regarding the eviction. Because Ken did not pay the back rent until AFTER the eviction was ruled in his favor, Judy erroneously concluded that Ken was simply going to abandon the building upon losing, without paying that back rent. Given that Eric lost the eviction case and was indeed removed from the unit, Judy felt that Ken was applying a double standard.

    She believed that Ken deemed it fine for himself not to pay rent if he lost the eviction case, but expected Eric to pay that same back rent either way.

    However, this entire premise completely fails -- even morally -- due to the fact that Ken was prohibited from paying rent during the eviction proceedings. Therefore, her conclusion that he intentionally avoided paying rent during eviction proceedings was fallacious. There was no way for him to pay rent.

    Ken, however, erred by not bringing a copy of the money order he used to pay for May's rent, which was subsequently returned to him. This might have satisfied Judy that he actually was trying to pay rent, and perhaps things would have gone differently. However, this was sheer ignorance on Judy's part to believe that California landlords accept rent during eviction proceedings. They absolutely cannot.

    I am personally very disappointed in the legal research team working for Judy. This was a very simple premise of eviction which Judy flubbed royally, and she also completely flubbed the application of a prior (and very related) adjudicated case. Rather than applying Ken's victory in the eviction case in his favor, she used it against him and treated him as if he had lost.

    Judge Judy would deserve to be removed from the bench if she were a real judge at this point.

     
    Comments
      
      KidPresentable:

  20. #80
    Gold Salty_Aus's Avatar
    Reputation
    283
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    1,691
    Load Metric
    65705076
    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin Finklestein View Post
    Regarding the legal basis of Judy's ruling, there really was not one. She attempted to frame it as an unenforceable illegal contract, but that's not really what was going on here. As noted in the previous post, a subtenant cannot simply deem his tenancy "illegal" and then decide he has a right to live there for free. That is not legal in any of the 50 states.

    Judy took a dislike to Ken and his situation because she felt he was attempting a sneaky play regarding the eviction. Because Ken did not pay the back rent until AFTER the eviction was ruled in his favor, Judy erroneously concluded that Ken was simply going to abandon the building upon losing, without paying that back rent. Given that Eric lost the eviction case and was indeed removed from the unit, Judy felt that Ken was applying a double standard.

    She believed that Ken deemed it fine for himself not to pay rent if he lost the eviction case, but expected Eric to pay that same back rent either way.

    However, this entire premise completely fails -- even morally -- due to the fact that Ken was prohibited from paying rent during the eviction proceedings. Therefore, her conclusion that he intentionally avoided paying rent during eviction proceedings was fallacious. There was no way for him to pay rent.

    Ken, however, erred by not bringing a copy of the money order he used to pay for May's rent, which was subsequently returned to him. This might have satisfied Judy that he actually was trying to pay rent, and perhaps things would have gone differently. However, this was sheer ignorance on Judy's part to believe that California landlords accept rent during eviction proceedings. They absolutely cannot.

    I am personally very disappointed in the legal research team working for Judy. This was a very simple premise of eviction which Judy flubbed royally, and she also completely flubbed the application of a prior (and very related) adjudicated case. Rather than applying Ken's victory in the eviction case in his favor, she used it against him and treated him as if he had lost.

    Judge Judy would deserve to be removed from the bench if she were a real judge at this point.
    Are you sure about the fact he couldn't pay rent?
    I think this only applies to someone who is being evicted for not paying rent.

    "if you attempt to pay all the past-due rent demanded after the three-day period expires, the landlord can either file a lawsuit to evict you or accept the rent payment. If the landlord accepts the rent, the landlord waives (gives up) the right to evict you based on late payment of rent."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-07-2017, 03:31 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 02:30 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 02:56 AM
  4. Judge Judy highest paid T.V. performer
    By son of lockman in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 05:58 AM
  5. Taking a break until MID January
    By RobbieBensonFan in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-16-2012, 04:09 AM