I watched today's "Judge Alex" case with the other crazy people residing in this facility with me. I had been warned by someone from the east coast who had already watched today's case that there was at least one litigant in the "not quite sane enough to run loose" category. That, fellow citizens, was an understatement. The plaintif, a self-proclaimed "Warrior for God," epitomized the degree to which the Venn diagram circles of religious zealots and bona fide insane people overlap. I'd map it out for you were it not for the fact that I'm not allowed to have any illustrations in my blog.
The plaintiff had a church in her home. I've known of people who held church services in their homes. To be perfectly honest, I've always thought the concept itself was bizarre, and have considered the people I know who engaged in such practices to be more than a smidgen odd, religious worship style and location notwithstanding. This lady, however, didn't just hold worship services in her home. she set up an actual church, complete with pews, an altar, and other requisite trappings. She brought photos of her home church along with her to court. Even though the church in the plaintiff's home had absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, morbid curiosity must have gotten the better of Judge Ferrer. He agreed to look at the photos when the plaintiff offered them. Judge Ferrer asked the plaintif how many members her church had. t/he grand total is [drum roll] /././././././././././././././ FIVE! I've never heard of a church with jusy five members. Even the Branch Davidians in their prime outnumbered this group. The lady never gave the name of her church. It probably had one of those "Lamb's Blood Bride of Christ the Redeemer and Holy Ghost Covenant Pentecostal Epiphany Harvest Worship Center" sorts of names.
Judge Alex couldn't spend much time on the church because he had to address the actual case, which was about a thirteen-year-old washing machine and drier. The plaintiff paid seventy-five dollars for these appliances but was unable to pick them up by the time the defendants moved out. The defendants sold the items a second time. Why they felt justified in doing so is another great mystery. It's bestm in general, not to try to get inside the minds of judge Alex's litigants. Most of them have minds that do not work in the ways your mind or mind does, and trying to understand the nonexistent logic is an exercise in futility.
The plaintiff prevailed, but not for the one-thousand-plus dollars or so for which she was suing. God only knows, if God even knows, just why the plaintiff thought she was entitled to a thousand dollars when she had paid just seventy-five dollars for the appliance combo. She explained that it had something to do with extracting revenge on behalf of her congregation of five, but the exact reasoning was about as coherent as one of Brian David Mitchell's rants.