Were Nurses Defamed during an Election? | Part 4

>> Judge Judy: They’re right. You had no right to send out that document, based upon the fact that there was supporting documentation that’s reasonable, easily explainable, and doesn’t show any fraud, and if you have one other item to show me that you think is fraudulent, ’cause this one is not — if you have one item that you believe you can conclusively prove to me was fraudulent that they collected money from, I’ll hear you. I don’t want to hear anybody else. You sent out the document. >> Your Honor, the thing is we’re not trying to imply

that they were stealing money. We just wanted the members to question the amounts that were being sent out. >> Judge Judy: Sorry about that. That’s an innuendo. That’s what I would read if I got this in the mail. It had stars all over it with their names on it. That’s the conclusion that I would draw, and I would draw the conclusion that somebody with the kind of credentials that you are showing had done at least some modicum of due diligence in order to suggest that the plaintiffs were somehow involved in shady practices, and you didn’t.

That’s what — What would an ordinary person getting that in the mail think? And if an ordinary person getting your flyer would say, “Well, this guy, who says that he is far more qualified than the current administration and this

is why he’s more qualified and this is why he’s more of a protector” — “No financial reports provided to explain these expenses. These are examples of questionable spending by Ericka and Gerard Tcheumani.” That’s what a reasonable person would say. “These people are very smart. Look at all these people. They must have gone into these accounts, and

there was no supporting affidavits.” And you didn’t. >> Your Honor, may I present a piece of evidence? >> Judge Judy: I’d like to see what you did to support this. >> The action? >> Judge Judy: No, to support this. Did you do any investigation at all? No, I’m not talking to you. I’m not talking to you, you, or you. His name’s on the document. >> So, the referral bonus — they’re in increments of $100. Some of those checks — they don’t even out to $100. They’re odd amounts, and that’s why we brought those up. >>

Judge Judy: I gave you an opportunity to show me an example of what you consider fraudulent taking of money that you’ve verified, ’cause you have a lot that you’ve questioned. One that you’ve verified. I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to him. >> It makes total sense that the $100 ones are for the bonus that they get for referring new members, but it’s the ones that don’t equal that, and that’s what we wanted people to question. And he gave people the opportunity… >> Judge Judy: I’m asking you — I’m asking you what you did. Did

you, sir, speak to the old accountant? Just — That’s either a “yes” or a “no.” Did you? >> The treasurer at the time was actually Eugenia. >> Judge Judy: Which one? >> Eugenia. >> I’m Eugenia, but — >> Judge Judy: Just a second. Did anybody speak to the accountant — that lady right there who gave me all this backup information? Raise your hand if anybody spoke to her. No. Okay. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. We’re done. >> Thank you, Your Honor. >> Byrd: Parties are excused. You may step out. >> Announcer:

“Judge Judy”