Articles Blog

Judge Faith – Cell Phone Stalker; Man Overboard (Season 1: Episode #118)

Judge Faith – Cell Phone Stalker; Man Overboard (Season 1: Episode #118)


ANNOUNCER: TODAY ON “JUDGE FAITH,” THESE TWO WERE FRIENDS, BUT THEN A DROPPED CALL… RACHEL: NEITHER OF US HAD A GOOD GRIP ON THE PHONE. THE PHONE FELL. ANNOUNCER: HER PHONE WAS BUSTED, AND SHE WAS TRYING TO COLLECT. VERONIQUE: AND I SAY, “IF YOU “DON’T RESPOND BACK TO ME, “I’M GONNA HAVE TO GO AND TALK TO YOU FACE TO FACE.” JUDGE: YOU AGREED AT SOME POINT TO PAY HER FOR THE PHONE. IF BOTH OF YOU WOULD HAVE HANDLED IT IN AN ADULT-LIKE MANNER, WE WOULDN’T BE HERE TODAY. ANNOUNCER: AND LATER… THEY BOTH BOUGHT THE SAME BOAT, BUT WHO GOT THE DEEP END OF THE DEAL? TREVOR: GUY CAME UP, SAID HE HAD THE BOAT. SAW THE PINK SLIP. CHECKED THE DMV. CHECKED THE REGISTRATION. PAID HIM THE CASH FOR THE BOAT. ANNOUNCER: JUDGE FAITH WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHO THE REAL OWNER IS. ERIK: I GAVE HIM THE CASH. I SIGNED A BILL OF SALE, A PINK SLIP. JUDGE: SO YOU COME BACK FROM VACATION, AND THE BOAT IS GONE? ERIK: YES. ANNOUNCER: FAITH JENKINS, HER DISTINGUISHED LEGAL CAREER BEGAN WHEN SHE GRADUATED FIRST IN HER LAW-SCHOOL CLASS. SHE QUICKLY BECAME A TOUGH NEW YORK CITY PROSECUTOR AND THEN A PREEMINENT LEGAL ANALYST ON CABLE NEWS, AND NOW SHE’S THE JUDGE IN HER OWN COURTROOM. HER CASES ARE REAL, AND HER RULINGS ARE FINAL. SHE IS “JUDGE FAITH.” PLAINTIFF VERONIQUE LOUISSAINT CLAIMS HER CELL PHONE WAS DROPPED AND DAMAGED BY THE DEFENDANT. SHE IS SUING FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE AND EMOTIONAL STRESS. DEFENDANT RACHEL MARZELLI SAYS THAT THEY WERE BOTH DRUNK WHEN THE PHONE WAS DROPPED, AND IT WAS NOT HER FAULT. SHE’S COUNTERSUING FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. BARBARA: REMAIN SEATED AND COME TO ORDER. COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. THE HONORABLE JUDGE FAITH JENKINS PRESIDING. [THEME MUSIC PLAYING] YOUR HONOR, THIS CASE IS LOUISSAINT VERSUS MARZELLI. JUDGE: THANK YOU, BARBARA. VERONIQUE LOUISSAINT? VERONIQUE: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: YOU ARE SUING THE DEFENDANT, RACHEL MARZELLI? RACHEL: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: FOR $3,550, THE COST OF A DAMAGED CELL PHONE AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS? VERONIQUE: YES. JUDGE: AND YOU ARE COUNTERSUING, MA’AM, FOR $1,000 FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER AND HARASSMENT? RACHEL: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: OK. I’LL START WITH YOU, MS. LOUISSAINT. TELL ME HOW YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT AND WHAT HAPPENED HERE. VERONIQUE: OK. SO I MET THE DEFENDANT, UM… TWO YEARS AGO THROUGH A MUTUAL FRIEND, AND ON AUGUST 25th, WE WENT TO A DRAKE CONCERT. I SAW ONE OF MY FRIENDS FROM BACK HOME, AND I GAVE THE DEFENDANT A PHONE TO TAKE AN INSTAGRAM PICTURE OF ME. AT THAT MOMENT, SHE DROPPED IT. JUDGE: WELL, SHE DIDN’T DO IT ON PURPOSE, THOUGH? VERONIQUE: SHE DIDN’T DO IT MALICIOUSLY. JUDGE: OK. WHY DON’T YOU TELL ME YOUR VERSION OF HOW THIS ALL HAPPENED? RACHEL: ALL RIGHT. I WILL TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR. SO, UM…WE ALL MET UP, LIKE SHE SAID. WE WENT TO THE CONCERT. EVERYTHING WAS GREAT. WE WERE TAILGATING. IT WAS ACTUALLY OUR FRIEND’S 21st BIRTHDAY, SO OBVIOUSLY WE WERE DRINKING, YOU KNOW, HAVING A GOOD TIME. WE WENT INTO THE CONCERT, AND WE WENT INTO THE BATHROOM. SHE SAID, “RACHEL, CAN YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF ME AND MY FRIEND?” SHE WENT TO HAND ME HER PHONE. I WENT TO GRAB IT. NEITHER OF US HAD A GOOD GRIP ON THE PHONE. THE PHONE FELL. JUDGE: TO REPLACE THE PHONE IS $150, AND YOU’RE SUING FOR $550 FOR CELL PHONE REPLACEMENT? WHERE’S THE $550 COME IN? VERONIQUE: IT’S BECAUSE I WAS PLANNING TO SELL IT. THAT’S THE ORIGINAL COST OF MY PHONE. JUDGE: SO YOU GOT A PHONE THAT YOU WERE PLANNING TO SELL? VERONIQUE: YES, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA BUY ANOTHER PHONE BECAUSE I DIDN’T LIKE– JUDGE: SELL TO WHO? VERONIQUE: ON AMAZON AND e-BAY. JUDGE: SO YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER THE NEXT DAY. WHAT HAPPENS? VERONIQUE: SO SHE’S LIKE, “YEAH, I’LL GIVE YOU THE… “I’LL GIVE YOU THE MONEY. “I’LL GET IN CONTACT WITH THE MUTUAL FRIEND.” AND I SAY, “OK. THAT’S FINE.” RACHEL: THAT IS NOT TRUE, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: DID YOU AGREE TO PAY? RACHEL: I NEVER AGREED. I SAID, “IF AND WHEN I RECEIVE “THE MONEY, I WILL TRY TO GIVE IT TO YOU.” VERONIQUE: “I’M AT WORK. I CAN’T CALL YOU. I…” LIKE… JUDGE: OK. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE, MA’AM? I CAN READ IT. BARBARA, WOULD YOU HAND THAT TO ME, PLEASE? SHE HAS TEXT MESSAGES I’M GOING TO READ. SO WHAT DID YOU SAY? RACHEL: I’M A FULL-TIME COLLEGE STUDENT. JUST SHELLING OUT $150, I DIDN’T HAVE IT. SO I DID–I REALLY DID FEEL BAD. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO I SAID, “IF I GET THE MONEY, I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU.” JUDGE: YOU SAID, “I’LL HAVE THE $100 BY SUNDAY.” I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE AGREEING TO PAY HER FOR THE PHONE. RACHEL: BUT ORIGINALLY IT WAS IF AND WHEN I HAD THE MONEY. JUDGE: OK. I’M JUST–I’M JUST ASKING YOU ABOUT THESE MESSAGES. VERONIQUE: I HAVE– JUDGE: MA’AM. MA’AM, STOP. VERONIQUE: OK. JUDGE: I’M ASKING YOU ABOUT THESE MESSAGES THAT YOU WROTE. YOU SAY, “I HAVE $50 I CAN GIVE” YOUR MUTUAL FRIEND NOW TO GIVE TO HER. RACHEL: YES. JUDGE: AND THEN YOU SAY, “THAT’S WHAT I HAVE. I’LL HAVE THE $100 BY SUNDAY.” SO IT’S VERY CLEAR FROM THESE MESSAGES, AT SOME POINT, YOU AGREED YOU’RE GOING TO PAY HER FOR THE PHONE. RACHEL: BECAUSE I FELT BAD, BUT IT WAS ON AN IF-AND-WHEN BASIS. JUDGE: STOP. STOP. YOU AGREED AT SOME POINT TO PAY HER FOR THE PHONE. WHY DO YOU THINK SHE OWES YOU? BECAUSE SHE DROPPED IT? VERONIQUE: IF I DROPPED SOMETHING OR BROKE SOME… SOMEONE’S PROPERTY, I WOULD TAKE IT UPON MYSELF TO EITHER A, HELP THEM FIND A REPLACEMENT; B, HELP THEM PAY FOR IT, OR GIVE A PORTION TO HELP REIMBURSE THAT. AT THIS POINT, FRIDAY CAME, AND SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GONNA GIVE ME THE MONEY THAT THURSDAY, AND I SAY, “OK, YOU KNOW WHAT? “IF YOU DON’T RESPOND BACK “TO ME, I’M GONNA HAVE TO GO “AND TALK TO YOU FACE TO FACE, “BECAUSE WE CAN’T… CLEARLY CAN’T HANDLE THIS.” JUDGE: SO WHAT’S GOING ON? RACHEL: SHE CAME TO MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. JUDGE: WHAT CITY DO YOU WORK IN? RACHEL: WAREHAM, MASSACHUSETTS. VERONIQUE: YOU DROVE TO HER JOB FROM WHERE YOU WERE? HOW MANY HOURS WAS THAT? VERONIQUE: WHICH IS TWO. JUDGE: YOU SIT IN HER SECTION, AND YOU HAVE DINNER? VERONIQUE: YES, I DID. JUDGE: HOW MUCH WAS DINNER? VERONIQUE: AROUND… I WANT TO SAY 70, BUT IT WAS SPLIT BY TWO. JUDGE: YOU HAVE A $70 DINNER WITH YOUR FRIEND BECAUSE YOU’RE TRYING TO COLLECT MONEY FOR A $150 PHONE YOU’RE GONNA BUY? VERONIQUE: I DID. JUDGE: YOU DRIVE TWO HOURS BACK HOME. VERONIQUE: I DO. JUDGE: YOU DON’T GET YOUR MONEY THAT NIGHT. YOU DON’T GET TO TALK TO HER. WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT? VERONIQUE: AT THIS POINT, I MESSAGE HER, LETTING HER KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS SITUATION HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. JUDGE: WHAT DO YOU SAY HAPPENS AFTER SHE LEAVES YOUR JOB, HAVING DINNER? RACHEL: SHE LEAVES MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. SHE ACTUALLY SENDS ME A MESSAGE. IT’S A SCREEN SHOT OF COURT DOCUMENTATION, AND IT SAYS, “GET READY…” PARDON MY LANGUAGE, “GET READY TO PAY ME $600, DUMBASS,” AND I SAID, “HONESTLY, VERO, GOODBYE. “I DON’T WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU.” AND THEN SHE SAYS, “BYE, HO. I’M DONE RESPONDING TO YOU.” I ACTUALLY HAVE THAT PRINTED OUT IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THAT. JUDGE: BARBARA, YOU CAN HAND THAT TO ME. WAS THAT THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD FROM HER? RACHEL: YES. JUDGE: AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ACTUALLY GOT A WRITE-UP FROM YOUR JOB. WHAT HAPPENED? RACHEL: YES. SHE ACTUALLY SENT THE COURT DOCUMENTATION TO MY JOB, WHICH IS EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL. I TAKE PRIDE IN MY JOB. JUDGE: WHO’D YOU SEND THE COURT DOCUMENTATION TO? VERONIQUE: UM, HER, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, I WAS LOOKING, UM… JUDGE: IT WAS ADDRESSED TO YOU? RACHEL: IT WAS ADDRESSED TO ME, BUT IT WAS SENT TO MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. SO HAVING COURT DOCUMENTATION SERVED TO ME AT MY JOB– JUDGE: OK. LET ME SEE THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS SENT TO YOU. VERONIQUE: IF SHE HAD RESPONDED FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS ALL COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, AND IT WASN’T THAT BIG OF A SITUATION FOR HER TO PROLONG A PROCESS. LIKE, THAT’S RIDICULOUS, IN MY OPINION. VERONIQUE: I THINK YOU’RE A LITTLE RIDICULOUS. [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE] RACHEL: THANK YOU. JUDGE: BECAUSE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. ANNOUNCER: COMING UP, JUDGE FAITH UPS THE PRESSURE. JUDGE: I SEE TEXT MESSAGES WHERE YOU DID PROMISE TO PAY. RACHEL: OK. ANNOUNCER: AND LATER, WHO DOES THIS BOAT REALLY BELONG TO? TREVOR: YOU CAN’T BUY A BOAT IF IT’S OWNED BY TWO PEOPLE IF YOU HAVE A BILL OF SALE ONLY WRITTEN BY ONE. ERIK: WELCOME TO LA-LA LAND. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF VERONIQUE LOUISSAINT CLAIMS THE DEFENDANT BROKE HER CELL PHONE AND PROMISED TO PAY FOR IT BUT NEVER DID. DEFENDANT RACHEL MARZELLI SAYS THE PLAINTIFF THREATENED HER BUT SHE DOESN’T OWE ANY MONEY. JUDGE: THE NIGHT YOU LEAVE THE RESTAURANT, THE NEXT DAY WHAT HAPPENS ON SOCIAL MEDIA? VERONIQUE: SHE CLAIMED THAT I’VE HURT HER AND RISKED HER JOB. WHY IS IT THAT IF I SO THREATENED YOU AND MADE YOU SO SCARED, WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME ON TWITTER THE NEXT DAY? RACHEL: I ACTUALLY WENT ON TWITTER TO BLOCK YOU. JUDGE: SO DID YOU FOLLOW HER ON TWITTER THE NEXT DAY? RACHEL: I HAD FOLLOWED HER ON TWITTER. I WENT ON HER PAGE TO FOLLOW HER. I DON’T KNOW– LIKE, iPODS AND iPADS, WHERE YOU, LIKE, TOUCH STUFF– JUDGE: I KNOW HOW IT WORKS. RACHEL: YOU CAN’T UNFOLLOW PEOPLE BY ACCIDENT. I TRIED TO BLOCK YOU, AND I BLOCKED YOU. YOU’RE IN MY BLOCK LIST. JUDGE: WHAT DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF? VERONIQUE: I DO, BECAUSE IT SAYS THE DATE AND TIME. RACHEL: YES, AND THEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, I BLOCKED YOU. JUDGE: SO DID YOU FOLLOW HER THAT DAY? RACHEL: ACCIDENTALLY. I WENT TO BLOCK HER. VERONIQUE: SHE DIDN’T KNOW I HAD A TWITTER. SO YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO LOOK FOR ME. JUDGE: MA’AM, YOU DROVE TWO HOURS TO HER JOB TO LOOK FOR HER. ALL SHE DID WAS LOG ON HER PHONE AND GO ON TWITTER. [APPLAUSE] OK. EVERYTHING YOU DESCRIBED, THAT’S YOUR COUNTERCLAIM FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER? RACHEL: I ACTUALLY WAS WRITTEN UP AT MY JOB FOR THE COURT DOCUMENTATION BEING SENT THERE. JUDGE: SHE SENT YOU AN ENVELOPE IN THE MAIL. NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT. IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU– RACHEL: YES, BY MY MANAGER AT WORK. SO I WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN UP. I HAVE THE WRITE-UP SLIP SAYING THAT COURT DOCUMENTATIONS BEING SENT TO THE EMPLOYER IS EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL. IF THIS CONTINUES, THE EMPLOYEE WILL BE TERMINATED. VERONIQUE: IF YOU HANDLED THE SITUATION IN AN ADULT-LIKE MANNER, WE WOULD HAVE NOT HAD TO DO THIS. JUDGE: NO, IF BOTH OF YOU WOULD HAVE HANDLED IT IN AN ADULT-LIKE MANNER, WE WOULDN’T BE HERE TODAY. VERONIQUE: WE WOULDN’T. JUDGE: ALL RIGHT. LET ME TELL YOU THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE. WHEN YOU FILE A LAWSUIT FOR DAMAGES TO YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY IN A CASE LIKE THIS INVOLVING A CELL PHONE, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT SHE WAS SOMEHOW NEGLIGENT, THAT SHE OWED A DUTY OF CARE AND SHE BREACHED THAT DUTY OF CARE. YOU HAND YOUR PHONE TO YOUR FRIEND, AND SHE DROPS IT. STUFF HAPPENS. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. BY YOUR TESTIMONY, BY HER TESTIMONY, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. ON YOUR COUNTERCLAIM FOR HARASSMENT AND DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, I’M NOT AWARDING YOU ANYTHING, BECAUSE I SEE TEXT MESSAGES WHERE YOU DID PROMISE TO PAY. RACHEL: OK. JUDGE: AND SHE KEPT FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR PROMISES TO PAY. FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU GOT REALLY ANGRY THAT SHE WAS IGNORING YOU AND THAT SHE WASN’T GIVING YOU YOUR MONEY, AND YOU TOOK ALL THE STEPS AND EVEN FILED A $50 LAWSUIT. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS? YOU BRING IT ALL ON YOURSELF. YOUR CASE IS DISMISSED. YOU HAVEN’T PROVEN NEGLIGENCE. JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IS FOR THE DEFENDANT. [GAVEL BANGS] [APPLAUSE] ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF TREVOR SIMMS CLAIMS THAT HE BOUGHT A SAILBOAT FROM A FRIEND AND SOON AFTER THE DEFENDANT SHOWED UP CLAIMING THE BOAT WAS HIS. HE’S SUING FOR $19,000, THE VALUE OF THE BOAT AND ITS CLEANING. DEFENDANT ERIK VIGOUROUX SAYS THE BOAT BELONGS TO HIM. HE IS COUNTERSUING FOR BOAT REPAIR COSTS, LOST WAGES, AND STOLEN SCUBA GEAR. HE IS ACCOMPANIED IN COURT TODAY BY HIS FRIEND AND WITNESS, EDWARDO FIGUEROA. JUDGE: TREVOR SIMMS? TREVOR: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: YOU ARE SUING THE DEFENDANT ERIK VIGOUROUX? ERIK: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: FOR $19,000, THE VALUE OF A STOLEN SAILBOAT? TREVOR: THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: YOU ARE COUNTERSUING, SIR, FOR $9,500 FOR BOAT REPAIR COSTS, LOST WAGES, AND STOLEN SCUBA GEAR? ERIK: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: AND YOU BOTH UNDERSTAND THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM IN MY COURTROOM IS $5,000? TREVOR: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM READING YOUR PAPERS, YOU HAVE POSSESSION OF THE BOAT? ERIK: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO. TREVOR: BUT YOU SAY THAT LEGALLY THE BOAT BELONGS TO YOU? TREVOR: THAT IS CORRECT. JUDGE: OK. SO WHY DON’T WE JUST START FROM THE BEGINNING AND YOU TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED. TREVOR: OK. SO BASICALLY, I WAS AT A PARK WALKING MY DOG, AND THE GUY CAME UP AND SAID– I KNEW HIM. WE TALKED. HE SAID HE HAD THE BOAT. SO I WENT AND LOOKED AT THE BOAT. I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN BUYING IT. SO WE LOOKED AT THE BOAT, SAW THE PINK SLIP, CHECKED THE DMV, CHECKED THE REGISTRATION. IT WAS REGISTERED TO TWO PEOPLE WHO I WAS SPEAKING WITH. SO THEN I…YEAH, PAID HIM THE CASH FOR THE BOAT. JUDGE: HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY HIM? TREVOR: $2,000. GOT A SLIP FOR THE BOAT. THE DAY I GOT THE SLIP FOR THE BOAT, THE DEFENDANT, ALONG WITH A DETECTIVE, SHOWED UP AND CLAIMING THAT THEY HAD ALREADY PURCHASED THE BOAT. JUDGE: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY YOU GOT A SLIP FOR THE BOAT? TREVOR: A SPACE TO STORE IT. JUDGE: WHAT DO YOU SAY HAPPENED? ERIK: UM, WELL, NOW THAT ALADDIN IS DONE SPINNING HIS STORY ABOUT A FAIRYTALE AND A MAGIC CARPET RIDE, WE’RE GONNA START WITH SOME FACTS, YOUR HONOR. THE FACT IS IS HE STOLE MY BOAT. [APPLAUSE] HE KNOWS HE STOLE MY BOAT. I BOUGHT THE BOAT FROM AN INDIVIDUAL. AT THAT TIME, HE SAID HE HAD ANOTHER BUYER, WHICH WAS THIS INDIVIDUAL HERE. BUT THAT INDIVIDUAL DIDN’T HAVE A SLIP READY. TREVOR: THAT’S NOT CORRECT. ERIK: I WAS QUIET WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, SO… JUDGE: HOLD ON A SECOND, SIR. ERIK: THE SLIP WASN’T READY. HE DIDN’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUY THE BOAT. THE SHERIFFS WERE CONFISCATING THAT BOAT THE NEXT DAY. JUDGE: WHAT WAS THE REASON THE SHERIFFS WERE CONFISCATING THE BOAT? ERIK: THEY HAD MOVED THE BOAT ALREADY, AND THEY DIDN’T HAVE A SLIP FOR IT. IT HAD BEEN IN A 24-HOUR SLIP FOR A WEEK. THE SHERIFFS TOLD HIM, “ON THURSDAY, WE’RE TAKING YOUR BOAT.” JUDGE: NOW, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GUY THAT YOU SAY YOU GAVE $2,000 TO FOR THE BOAT, RIGHT? TREVOR: THERE WERE TWO– THERE WERE TWO OWNERS. JUDGE: I UNDERSTAND THAT. ONE IS A MALE, ONE’S A FEMALE, RIGHT? TREVOR: EXACTLY. YEAH. JUDGE: YOU SPOKE TO THE GUY. ERIK: YEAH. JUDGE: AND THAT’S THE SAME INDIVIDUAL THAT YOU SPOKE TO. CORRECT? TREVOR: CORRECT. JUDGE: OK. GO AHEAD. ERIK: SO I TELL HIM I’LL GIVE HIM $1,500, I WILL MOVE THE BOAT TODAY, OR WE CAN WAIT TILL TOMORROW, AND I’LL BUY IT FROM THE SHERIFFS. HE SAID, “NO, I’M GONNA GO AHEAD AND SELL IT TO YOU TODAY.” I GAVE HIM THE CASH. I SIGNED A BILL OF SALE, A PINK SLIP. I THEN TOOK AND MOVED THE BOAT– JUDGE: DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THOSE THINGS WITH YOU? ERIK: I HAVE A POLICE REPORT WHICH STATES THAT THEY DO HAVE COPIES OF IT, BECAUSE I GAVE THEM TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THEY USED IT AS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. JUDGE: OK. OK. SO… I’LL LOOK AT THAT IN A SECOND. SO HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOU GIVE HIM? ERIK: I GIVE HIM $1,500 CASH. UM…THE NEXT DAY I COME BY, I PICK UP THE BOAT, AND I MOVE IT TO MY SLIP. I THEN TOOK A COUPLE WEEKS, WENT ON VACATION TO TEXAS. I CAME BACK FROM TEXAS. I COME TO MY SLIP. MY BOAT’S GONE. JUDGE: OK. SO, SIR, DID YOU GET THE BOAT FROM HIS SLIP? TREVOR: YES. I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS HIS SLIP. JUDGE: YOU THOUGHT THAT IT WAS THE PERSON WHO SOLD YOU THE BOAT? YOU THOUGHT IT WAS THEIR SLIP? TREVOR: THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD A FRIEND WHO WAS STORING THE BOAT IN THAT SLIP AT THAT MOMENT. JUDGE: SO YOU COME BACK FROM VACATION? ERIK: YES. TO MY SLIP. TREVOR: TO YOUR SLIP, AND THE BOAT IS GONE. WHAT DO YOU DO? ERIK: AT THAT TIME, I, UM…CONTACTED THE PERSON I HAD BOUGHT THE SAILBOAT FROM ON THE PHONE. I DIDN’T TELL THEM I HAD THE POLICE THERE. I PUT THEM ON SPEAKER PHONE. HE STARTED SAYING, “OH, I DON’T KNOW WHERE YOUR BOAT IS,” AND THEN HE STARTED SAYING, “OH, WELL, MAYBE I KNOW WHERE YOUR BOAT IS,” AND THEN HE CONTINUED TO GO, “OK. I DO KNOW WHERE YOUR BOAT IS.” BUT HE’S NOT GONNA TELL ME WHERE IT IS OR WHO HAS THE BOAT. AND THEN THE POLICE GOT ON LINE, AND THEY SAID, “HEY, THIS IS THE SHERIFF. “YOU NEED TO TELL US WHERE THIS BOAT IS.” HE SAID, “WELL, I DON’T BELIEVE YOU’RE THE SHERIFF,” AND, UM… STARTED YELLING AT THE COPS AND THEN HUNG UP THE PHONE. SO HE BASICALLY TOLD THE COPS TO THEIR FACE THAT, “YES, I DID JUST COME BY AND GET THIS BOAT.” ANNOUNCER: COMING UP, JUDGE FAITH EXAMINES SOME COMPELLING EVIDENCE. JUDGE: THE POLICE INVESTIGATED THIS FOR A WEEK, AND IF YOU HAD A CASE AGAINST HIM, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THEIR INVESTIGATION. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF TREVOR SIMMS SAYS HE BOUGHT A SAILBOAT ALONG WITH THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION. DEFENDANT ERIK VIGOUROUX CLAIMS THAT THE SAILBOAT WAS HIS AND THE PLAINTIFF STOLE IT FROM HIM. JUDGE: DO YOU LOOK FOR THE BOAT? DID YOU FIND IT? WHAT HAPPENED? ERIK: I TOOK A… I BORROWED A SMALL BOAT FROM A FRIEND NEXT-DOOR, AND WE WENT SLIP TO SLIP TO SLIP TO SLIP TO SLIP UNTIL WE FOUND MY BOAT 4 DAYS LATER SHOVED BACK IN A LITTLE CORNER, HIDDEN WITH THE NAME PAINTED OVER. JUDGE: DID YOU PAINT OVER THE NAME ON THE BOAT? TREVOR: NO. NO, YOUR HONOR. ERIK: THAT’S FUNNY, BECAUSE IT SAYS RIGHT HERE IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE POLICE THAT YOU SAID YOU DID DO THAT. TREVOR: I SANDED. I SANDED. I SANDED THE BOAT. [LAUGHTER] I DID NOT PAINT IT. JUDGE: YOU SANDED THE NAME OFF OF THE BOAT? TREVOR: I SANDED A COUPLE SPOTS THAT NEEDED… ERIK: LIKE THE ENTIRE NAME. [LAUGHTER] TREVOR: THE NAME WAS NOT A FULL NAME. IT HAD A COUPLE OF LETTERS HERE AND A COUPLE LETTERS THERE. ERIK: ACTUALLY, YOUR HONOR, SEE THIS PHOTOGRAPH? “INTRIGUE” ACROSS THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE BOAT. SO HE DECIDED NOT TO SAND THESE OTHER BAD PARTS, OR, LIKE, FIX ANY OF THIS STUFF. JUST THE NAME. JUDGE: LET’S LOOK AT THAT ON THE FLAT-SCREEN. ERIK: AND THEN IF YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE POLICE REPORT, IT SHOWS THAT WHERE HE SAYS HE SANDED THE NAME– JUDGE: THAT’S THE NAME OF THE BOAT–INTRIGUE? ERIK: YES, MA’AM. JUDGE: AND THAT WAS SANDED? YOU SANDED THAT OFF, SIR? TREVOR: NO, IT WAS NOT… IT DID NOT HAVE THAT MANY LETTERS ON THERE WHEN I RECEIVED IT. ERIK: THAT PICTURE IS, LIKE, 4– THAT PICTURE IS, LIKE, 4 DAYS BEFORE HE TOOK THE BOAT. JUDGE: YOU RECOGNIZE THIS BOAT TO BE YOURS? ERIK: YEAH, I RECOGNIZE THE BOAT. JUDGE: YOU’RE WITH THE POLICE AT THAT POINT? ERIK: UM…NO. I WAS WITH– JUDGE: YOU CALLED THE POLICE? ERIK: I WAS WITH EDDIE HERE, AND THEN ONCE WE SAW THE BOAT, I THEN CONTACTED THE POLICE. TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, BY THE RIGHT BOOK IN ORDER AND EVERYTHING ELSE. JUDGE: AND DID YOU SEE HIM AT THAT POINT? ERIK: WELL, THE FUNNY THING IS IS, BEING HE SEEMS HE DOESN’T KNOW ME, HE WALKED RIGHT UP TO ME ON THE DOCK AND GOES, “HI. YOU MUST BE ERIK. “I FIGURED YOU’D BE LOOKING FOR THIS BOAT.” JUDGE: DID YOU DO THAT? TREVOR: NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. JUDGE: WERE YOU THERE? EDWARDO: I WAS THERE, YES. JUDGE: STEP UP, PLEASE. WHAT’S YOUR NAME? EDWARDO: MY NAME IS EDWARDO FIGUEROA. JUDGE: AND YOU WERE WITH MR. VIGOUROUX WHEN HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE BOAT? EDWARDO: YES, I WAS. JUDGE: AND WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT DID YOU WITNESS WHEN YOU CAME ACROSS THE BOAT AND THE PLAINTIFF? EDWARDO: WHEN WE FOUND THE BOAT, AFTER WE FOUND IT, HE IMMEDIATELY CAME TO THE DOCK AND SAID, “YOU MUST BE ERIK.” HE ALREADY KNEW WHO ERIK WAS. SO HE PROBABLY HAD A… YOU KNOW, AN IDEA OF WHO… IT BELONGED TO HIM. JUDGE: OK. THANK YOU. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT. AFTER THAT, WHAT’S THE CONVERSATION AT THAT MOMENT? ERIK: AFTER THAT, THERE’S A LOT OF MY STUFF ON THE BOAT. SO NOT ONLY DID HE STEAL MY BOAT, HE STOLE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN TOOLS, PERSONAL EFFECTS, MY COMPUTERS, EVERYTHING ON BOARD THIS BOAT. JUDGE: ACCORDING TO THE POLICE REPORT, THEY DID A ONE-WEEK INVESTIGATION. THEY INTERVIEWED A NUMBER OF WITNESSES, TOOK A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS, INCLUDING STATEMENTS FROM THE TWO OF YOU, AND THEY DECIDED THAT HE WAS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE BOAT. TREVOR: YOU CAN’T BUY A BOAT IF IT’S OWNED BY TWO PEOPLE IF YOU HAVE A BILL OF SALE ONLY WRITTEN BY ONE. ERIK: WELCOME TO LA-LA LAND. THOSE PEOPLE WERE MARRIED, YOUR HONOR. JUST SO YOU KNOW. TREVOR: THAT IS NOT TRUE. JUDGE: HERE’S WHERE YOU ARE TODAY–YOU PAID SOMEONE $2,000 FOR A BOAT YOU DON’T HAVE. TREVOR: I UNDERSTAND. JUDGE: WHY ARE YOU BRINGING THIS MAN TO COURT AND NOT THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK YOUR $2,000? TREVOR: THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY IN COURT. THERE’S A SEPARATE CASE AGAINST THEM. JUDGE: CLEARLY, THEY DOUBLE-SOLD IT. THAT’S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE SUING HIM. TREVOR: I’M DISPUTING THE OWNERSHIP. JUDGE: OK. WELL, THEN YOU HAVE TO DISPUTE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE LEGALLY THEY HAVE DEEMED THAT HE IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE BOAT. WHAT IS YOUR COUNTERCLAIM ABOUT, SIR? ERIK: WHEN THEY TOOK THE BOAT, YOUR HONOR–LIKE, I LIKED HOW HE SAID, “OH, THE KEYS “WERE IN THE IGNITION, AND THE BOAT WAS OPEN”– BUT HE BROKE ALL MY HATCHES TO LEGALLY BUY THIS BOAT FROM ME. UM, I HAD TO HAVE MY BOAT RE-KEYED BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO RETURN THE KEYS. JUDGE: THE POLICE INVESTIGATED THIS FOR A WEEK. DID THEY MAKE ANY DETERMINATION THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN BREAKING AND STEALING PROPERTY FROM THE BOAT? YES OR NO, SIR? ERIK: I’M GONNA GO WITH A NO. JUDGE: OK. IF YOU HAD A CASE AGAINST HIM FOR STOLEN PROPERTY OR FOR DAMAGING YOUR BOAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THEIR INVESTIGATION. MR. SIMMS. TREVOR: YES, YOUR HONOR? JUDGE: YOU ARE A VICTIM IN THIS CASE AS WELL. IF THE TWO PEOPLE WERE HERE IN COURT TODAY WHO SOLD YOU THE BOAT FOR $2,000, MY VERDICT WOULD BE FOR YOU AGAINST THEM. TREVOR: CORRECT. THANKS. JUDGE: BUT THOSE PEOPLE AREN’T HERE TODAY. YOU BROUGHT MR. VIGOUROUX INTO COURT TODAY, AND WHAT I’M TELLING YOU IS YOU’RE SUING THE WRONG PERSON. ERIK: HIM AND THE GUY WHO BOUGHT THE BOAT, THEY’RE BUDDIES. THIS IS A SCAM. HE KNEW THIS GUY BEFOREHAND. JUDGE: ARE YOU FRIENDS WITH THE PERSON YOU PURCHASED THE BOAT FROM, SIR? ERIK: UH…UH…UH… TREVOR: YEAH. ERIK: THERE YOU GO. [LAUGHTER] TREVOR: YEAH. ANNOUNCER: AND NOW JUDGE FAITH RULES. JUDGE: ON YOUR COUNTERCLAIM, SIR, ZERO. YOU HAVEN’T MET YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HE’S RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE DAMAGES OR THAT HE ACTUALLY STOLE THE ITEMS. ON YOUR CLAIM AGAINST HIM, ZERO. YOU ARE SUING THE WRONG PERSON. YOU NEED TO SUE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU GAVE THE $2,000 TO. IF IT’S YOUR FRIEND, THAT’S UNFORTUNATE IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DO IT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK, YOU NEED TO HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS. JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT. TREVOR: SURE. ERIK: HA HA! [APPLAUSE] IDIOT. ANNOUNCER: IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAS A DISPUTE, DON’T TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. LET JUDGE FAITH RULE ON IT FOR YOU. TO SUBMIT YOUR CASE, GO TO JUDGEFAITH.COM AND TELL US YOUR STORY. SEE YOU IN COURT.

100 thoughts on “Judge Faith – Cell Phone Stalker; Man Overboard (Season 1: Episode #118)”

  1. Those two chicks were Petty!. Both cute girls but come on a lost friendship for a damaged phone… so stupid. I think the red head should’ve paid though I mean the girl with black hair clearly got petty and did too much but only because the girl said she would pay and reneged. The boat case made me laugh the plaintiff is definitely a scam artist imo. Judge faith is also beautiful!! Natural beauty.

  2. seems like a lot of cases are partly I sued the wrong person(party). Or even you may have a mental limitation to answer the questions asked even to lie.
    -🤐😥

  3. The first video the lady should have gave the woman the money back for the cell phone. But once she started dodging her you know I don't blame the lady for going up to her job at the same time she need to cause a scene at her work

  4. I love that she keeps shutting down the mouthy entitled brat. Grow up little whiny girl. Learn to be respectful in the least.. especially to a judge

  5. This is ridiculous damn shame, the defendant walking in thou 🙌🙌🙌 very pretty you definitely don’t need a friend like the plaintiff , i hope you learn ….

  6. First case is wrong….. Burden of proof.. The defendant promised to pay!!!! REGARDLESS OF HER DRIVING AND EATING WTF😂😂😂😂

  7. I love you so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so much much really I do💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋

  8. I'm all for having unique names and having your own identity but I also believe in a name that has meaning. What is Veronique? What the heck does it mean and why is it happening??

  9. Ok the first case is ridiculous it's a $150 phone why are you being rude as fuck towards her, and making her get write ups at work over that? and you literally hear her say she a college student so you could had at lease waited and see if she actually do it. Since things could had come up in her life before she could paid you. Jesus I want to feel bad for her but I think she crazy and rude as hell I have no sympathy for that especially since she still was being nice after you call her a hoe and a dumbass.

  10. 4:21 This is why Brits refer to women as Birds. it is Not a compliment. 1 Starts talking then the other talks over her and all you hear are both women bitching over eachother and it sounds like a flock of loud mouthed birds . If Not for the Judge controlling them neither woman would shut up and let the other speak and actually be heard .

  11. He should’ve gotten some money back for damages to the boat because he admitted that he sanded the name off

  12. I so disagree with the first case. This is sending a wrong message, if it's a accident, deal with it. This world is so messed up because of cases like these that get thrown out just because it was a accident.

  13. This is why you protect your phone . My ex friend had her phone on the table and another girl at the table spilled MY drink on her phone . My ex friend calls me the next day about it . I was like I knew this ish was going to happen but I have nothing to do with that I did not spill the drink even tho it was mine , goodbye .

  14. Life happens and not everything in life is a lawsuit. The first plaintiff is handling this situation like a child, they both need to grow up.

  15. I think the first case was a mistrial. The friend should have paid definitely. If I was the plaintiff, I would never gave said that the defendant accidentally dropped it. I would have said that she was malicious and purposely dropped it. I would have said she was jealous.

  16. So is it like if you hit someone with your car, since it was an "accident" you don't have to pay?! I mean, regardless if the item was small or expensive, destroying something whether it is accidental or not should have someone being liable for it.

  17. Case1: this girl is so dramatic, you burned more gas and energy than the cost of that phone was most likely worth and for what? She wanted to make a profit and get some attention but she didnt deserve either shes the real “dumbass” in this situation

  18. If I was the judge that last man who's in possession of the boat would be silenced, sent out or handcuffed, extremely bad mannered. It is incredibly how the audience is applauding him.

  19. This is the first time I think Judge Faith was wrong. The defendant with his boat stolen should’ve won his counterclaim for his stolen items. If he had items on the boat and the boat was stolen…..then so were his items

  20. Judge is wrong on the first case. If she promised to pay she should honour the promise. If she is her friend it would be the decent thing to do. Whether the girl drove 2 hrs and ate dinner with the defendant is irrelevant.

  21. Soooo nobody realized the bailiff can't read??? First case she announced the plaintiff as "Louis Saint" her name is Louissant.

  22. Can't even wrap my head around this. Your friend mistakenly dropped your 📱 and you ask her to pay for it? And drove two hours to her place of work to collect 150$ and ended up sharing a 70$ dollar meal with her, while waiting for 150$? this is beyond stupid!!

  23. geeze the defendant on the boat case was an butt head! the plaintiff got screwed so you feel it necessary to be a 2 year old and make faces and wahoo noises.. grow up!!!!

  24. So petty !! They both need to grow the heck up !!It was a phone, it was an accident, Geez!!
    As for the boat, I don't understand why he would sue the defendant when he was a victim too.

  25. Case 1 accident or not still the fault of the one dropping it, period! I am quite disappointed with judge faith on this regardless how disrespectful the plaintiff were. If the defendant actually follow through and pay then she wouldn’t be called those names in therefore she lied and I don’t respect liars regardless of their excuse! She isn’t innocent and she is a liar. She is an adult, grow up and be responsible and follow through what you promised! I’m so annoyed that some cases aren’t judged rightfully by judge faith

  26. In the. First case I don't think it was necessary to go to her job an eat dinner an all that but honestly it would have never gotten that far had she did what she promised I'm her text

  27. Good ruling. 1st case: You handed her your phone, she didn't asked you for it. She was only trying to help. You are too too bowl face

  28. 2nd case:

    Hope the defendant sues the plaintiff's "friend" for damaging his locks and stealing his stuff – it's the only way they could have resold the boat.

    It's true that both of them could have been scammed and the plaintiff just moved it nearby for convenience to start work on it.

    Or it could be that the plaintiff was in on the scam and hid the boat. Just seems dumb to keep the boat ANYWHERE nearby if you stole it, but there are a lot of dumb people out there.

    He is sueing the boats actual owner after all – NOT the person he paid.

  29. The first case is so petty. It was an accident! But the plaintiff drove two hours and had a $70 dinner all in an attempt to get $150 for a cell phone… Why would you even want to waste your time and money like that over a cell phone? Grow up.

  30. The judge literally contradicts herself all the time I've heard her say in other cases I understand it was an accident but you have to pay or accidents happen all the time but somebody has to pay

  31. It was an accident she didn't break it maliciously, for that she doesn't owe although morally it would be donating I'd help pay some for if it were an accident I was involved with. Her harassment at this girls job was wrong, that would make me say no to her suit for that reason alone.

  32. That's a cheap ass B she drove Two hours for one hundred and fifty dollars and spend seventy dollars that is very smart.

  33. Judge faith is the most personal TV judge I have ever seen. I feel like I’m in a real courtroom when I watch her.

  34. Wait wait are these real cases or just Episode of drama,, how come everybody just accept and smiling out ,, na lie there will be fighting outside

  35. The defendant in the second case is an idiot who can not control himself. It's sad the younger plaintiff was about to act like an adult in court and the older defendant had to sling accusations around.

  36. sounds like the guy who sold the sailboat sold it twice and pocketed the money. hope he went to jail for something due to this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *