FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS MOBILE HOME PARK DISPUTE GETS HEATED!
A Flag Dispute Leads to Vandalism Claims
Imagine a quiet mobile home park.
Now imagine a flag flying upside down.
This is the scene that brings a plaintiff and defendant before Judge Judy.
The Plaintiff Seeks Damages for Car Vandalism
The plaintiff lives in the front of the park.
He has been there for seven years.
He claims the defendant vandalized his home.
This vandalism allegedly damaged his car.
He is seeking $500 for his deductible.
The Defendant Denies Everything and Counterclaims
The defendant has lived in the park for 15 years.
He denies any vandalism.
He says he owes nothing.
He has a counterclaim.
He claims harassment and false accusations.
The Upside-Down Flag and a Witness Account
The incident happened on January 20th.
The plaintiff's partner, Charles, was home.
A witness, Karras Kochke, was visiting Charles.
She used to live in the park.
She moved out a year and a half ago.
She testified about what she saw.
She saw the defendant, Raymond, pull up in his golf cart.
She heard him speak to Charles.
She heard him say, "If you don't turn down that flag, put it the other way, that flagpole will come down."
The plaintiff confirmed they had an American flag.
It was flying upside down.
This was a sign of distress.
The plaintiff explained why.
Charles was hit by another resident's golf cart around January 14th.
The police were called about the golf cart incident.
No arrests were made.
It was deemed an accident.
The upside-down flag was a protest.
It indicated distress.
The Defendant's Offense and His Version of Events
The defendant stated the upside-down flag offended him greatly.
He explained his understanding of the US flag code.
He said the flag should only be flown upside down for maritime distress or military surrender.
He confirmed he told Charles about his distress.
He denied the witness's account of his words.
He said he asked Charles, "Do you realize your flag is hanging incorrectly upside down?"
He added, "And I said, would you please correct it?"
He had seen the flag upside down before.
This was maybe three or four days before January 20th.
This was his first time speaking to Charles about it.
He doesn't go into that area of the park every day.
He has friends living nearby.
His friends were not involved in the golf cart incident.
He identified Stephen as the person in the golf cart incident.
He knows Stephen well from the park.
They are not "visiting type people."
Stephen or his wife visited him once in the last six months.
The mobile home park has 300-400 units.
The Flagpole Is Cut Down
The plaintiff described finding the flagpole cut down.
This happened on January 26th.
It was around 5:00-5:20 AM.
There had been a thunderstorm that morning.
The flag was cut down.
It was lying on a steel fence.
The plaintiff had pictures of it.
He called the police immediately.
The flagpole was cut down.
It fell and hit his car.
This damaged his car.
He did not see who cut down the flagpole.
The Police Report and Judge Judy's Scrutiny
The plaintiff presented the police report.
Judge Judy noted the plaintiff acknowledged to the police that others were unhappy with the flag.
The plaintiff clarified that the defendant, Raymond, made that assumption.
He said he did not make that assumption.
Judge Judy read from the police report.
It stated, "Kowalski said that he was not sure who cut down the pole, but stated that one neighbor in the park had been more angered by the flag than others.
And he believed it may have been him."
Judge Judy stated that flying the American flag upside down as a protest is a First Amendment right.
However, she noted it would likely upset many people.
The plaintiff confirmed two people spoke to him about the flag.
He said he doesn't know many people in the park.
This is due to his work schedule.
The defendant's full last name was confirmed as Sespanowski.
Judge Judy Believes the Witness
Judge Judy told Mr. Sespanowski she believed the witness.
She believed the witness heard him say, "take down that flag and fly it right, or the pole will come down."
Judge Judy stated that the defendant expressed his dislike.
But this is not enough proof in court.
Many others were also dissatisfied with the flag.
Judge Judy acknowledged the plaintiff's right to suspect the defendant.
She also acknowledged his right to go to the police.
The Defendant's Counterclaim and Internet Posts
The defendant brought up his counterclaim.
He mentioned internet postings.
These posts had pictures of him and his wife.
They had crosses on their heads.
The posts stated, "we're done."
Judge Judy asked to see the internet posts.
The defendant stated Charles posted the objectionable content.
Judge Judy stated the plaintiff cannot be sued for something someone else did.
The defendant stated he can't be sued for something he didn't do.
The Verdict
Judge Judy dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.
He could not prove the defendant cut down the flagpole.
Judge Judy dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.
He sued the wrong person.
Charles, not the plaintiff, posted the content.
Judge Judy explained that the person who posted the objectionable pictures is protected by the First Amendment.
However, the defendant could sue that person directly.
Watch the Full Judge Judy Case Below
This case shows how neighbor disputes can escalate.
See Judge Judy's reaction to the flag code debate.
Scroll down.
Press play.
FULL VIDEO
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tDBhlapvzI
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gomKbM5vG_k
