There’s no point in trying to fight the law when Judge Walsh is on the bench because the law always wins.
This week’s episode of “JUDGED by Matt Walsh” reminded everyone of that lesson brilliantly. The Daily Wire podcast host, best-selling children’s author, and theocratic fascist handed down two wise, fair judgments in cases dealing with Tinder lies and family ties – or lack thereof.
First, a woman’s boyfriend stood accused of destroying her apartment after finding another man inside. Kristine Singh was seeking $5,000 in damages for her ruined property. The heavily tattooed defendant Greg Long insisted his actions were justified in light of the situation.
“He broke into my apartment and broke everything,” Singh said of her boyfriend. “Should I start from the beginning?”
Judge Walsh replies, “Usually the best place to start is the beginning, I’ve found.”
“So, I had just gotten out of surgery,” the plaintiff explained. “Greg picked me up and then took me to my apartment, and one of my girlfriends and her boyfriend came over, and my girlfriend ended up getting, like, super drunk.”
Singh continued, “And Greg wasn’t helping at all with the things that I needed, like ordering me food or just taking care of somebody when they’re sick. So I kicked everyone out and I invited over another one of my friends, and they came over and helped me take out the trash, do the dishes, and clean my apartment, and essentially just cater to me while I was healing from my surgery.”
She said she met this friend on Tinder.
Judge Walsh confirmed the details of the plaintiff’s story. “[Greg] was not fulfilling his job as a nurse on the first night. And you fired him?” he said.
“Yes, I did,” Singh replied.
“So you invite this other gentleman over, who is just a friend, that you met on that friend meeting site called Tinder,” Walsh said.
“This is a normal thing that people do,” the judge added after discovering these events took place in the wee hours of the morning. “They invite people who are just friends over that they met on Tinder at 2 a.m.”
The plaintiff said her Tinder friend spent the night in her bed but was fully clothed and sleeping on top of the covers. She admitted she was naked but wearing a robe. She awoke to hear the defendant using the keypad to enter her apartment. Once he gained entry and found the other man there, she claimed he smashed her laptop and items in her living room and kitchen, plus tried to take money from her dresser.
Singh said the police arrived at her apartment and could not find Long, who had fled the scene. She was then granted a five-day restraining order.
Long then had a chance to tell his side of the story.
He claimed he did help Singh following her surgery but not to her liking, which prompted her friends to suggest he leave because he was upsetting her. Long said he returned the next morning expecting to see the friends passed out in the living room, but instead discovered the plaintiff in bed with another man, which he said prompted him to react in anger.
“My mind starts racing through, like, I had just given her, like, two months rent for her just so she doesn’t have to work because she just had the surgery,” he told the judge. “And I started thinking, I’ve also supported this girl all the time. So my first thought was, I wanna get my money back. So that’s when I went to grab the cash. And when the cash wasn’t there, I was like, all right, I’m going to get it back somehow. So I started breaking things.”
Long continued, “Not the most logical thing to do. She starts calling the cops. I figure it’s probably my time to leave. That’s about the whole thing.”
Ultimately, Judge Walsh handed down the verdict with a heaping dose of hard truth. He told Miss Singh that while her case was “airtight,” he was forced to also consider how she lost her “victim status” by choosing to remain in a relationship with a man prone to violent outbursts.
Tune in to episode 7 to hear the rest of the verdict.
Up next, Judge Walsh made a ruling in the case of an angry veteran who accused his brother-in-law of breaking a prized display piece that sat on his mantel.
Plaintiff Raymond Bentley jumped right into explaining his complaint. “I think somebody really, really disrespected me,” he told Judge Walsh. “I’m an Army veteran. Served my 20 years. I have acquired some things that I’m really proud of. One of them is a home, a wife, a child. In that home, I had a fireplace. There was a special place for me.”
He continued, “I had a spot that I wanted to put my flag on after I retired. I came back from a little visit, a little trip, and that flag was broken. It was on the ground. Nobody knows who did it. I have a belief that this gentleman did it. I don’t think my wife would have done it or my daughter, and I’m kind of upset about that.”
Bentley went on to explain how he believes the defendant, Treondus Castillo, intentionally broke the flag display case because he wanted his mother’s urn in that spot. He explained how the urn was there originally but he replaced it with the flag.
The plaintiff said he preferred to keep the urn outside to “scare away” crows and crooks.
“Why is the mantel so important to you?” Judge Walsh asked.
“Just military indoctrination as you serve,” Bentley replied. “And years and years, and you hear your predecessors say, yeah, I got a spot on my mantel. I got a spot on my mantel. That makes you say, you know what? I got a spot on my mantel, too. It’s just an earned right.”
Judge Walsh next turned his attention to the defendant.
“Okay, Mr. Castillo,” he said. “I’ve been trained in the art of lie detection. I’ve watched, at this point, three YouTube videos about it. I know the signs. Did you break the flag case?”
“No, I did not,” the defendant said, removing his glasses and looking the judge in the eyes. Walsh got out an oversized magnifying glass for a closer look as the courtroom erupted in laughter.
Castillo went on to describe his relationship with the plaintiff at the judge’s request. “It’s ridiculous,” he said. “We were good friends. He was cool at one point, but now it’s just ridiculous. He’s constantly looking for little things to nitpick and argue about. And so on and so forth. It’s tiresome.”
Judge Walsh observed that he had no idea mantels were such a big deal in military culture or in general. “I’ve never talked about a mantel,” he said. “All of the time I’ve spent talking about a mantel in my life has been right now.”
When the judge asked Castillo for his theory on who broke the flag case, he deferred. “There’s a couple of different possibilities,” the defendant said. “I’m not going to be the one to point fingers.”
“So you’re not going to point fingers at your sister, but you’re pointing fingers at your sister?” Walsh asked, inspiring Castillo to reply, “Well, I’m just kind of opening the door.”
Judge Walsh asked the bailiff’s thoughts, to which he replied he wasn’t sure what a mantel was.
Finally, it was time for Judge Walsh to deliberate and return a verdict. Tune in to episode 7 of “JUDGED by Matt Walsh” to find out if any damages are awarded and if the bailiff ever figured out what a mantel is.
Be sure to keep checking back every week for exciting new cases, premiering Tuesdays exclusively on DailyWire+.