MovieChat Forums > Judge Judy (1996) Discussion > Judge Judy's "Section 8" question (10-1...

Judge Judy's "Section 8" question (10-14)


Ahhhh....this was the case on Oct 14 of Cheryl Logan suing her former landlord Robin 'Robbie' Daniels for moving expenses, false restraining order, etc. The landlord countersued for harassment (of course).

Ms. Logan was renting a California five bedroom / 3 bathroom home from Daniels, for about $670 a month. Yep, you read that right. She moved into a 3900 sf home with "five bedrooms and three bathrooms and a big front yard and a big back yard" in which she pays $385 per month. Yep, you read that right too.

But here's what really bothered me about this case from the beginning:


Now, before Logan was asked by Judge Judy how much she paid in rent (at Daniels' home), Judge Judy asked her "Is this a Section 8 subsidized home?"

Why in the world would Judge Judy ask her that? It's not like she asks every tenant who stands in front of her for the past 20 years: "Is this a Section 8 subsidized home/apartment?"


All the woman said was she rented (for nearly 2 years) a 5 br/3 ba home from Daniels. She never said how much the rent was, nor did she say if she was employed or not, living alone or with others, etc. She did ask Logan if she was all caught up on her rent the day she left, and Logan responded yes - to which she then asked Daniels, and she responded yes (though sometimes she was a few days late).

Then JJ asked her (jumped to the conclusion) if she was a Section 8 tenant. Why?


Now before anyone says "it must have been in her sworn statement, or the landlord said it was in her statement, etc." keep in mind Judge Judy didn't reference it that way, as she has done in the past. She didn't say "According to your sworn statement, you are subsidized through section 8" or "According to Miss Daniels, this was a section 8 property..." nothing like that which would have indicated she knew the background of the property before the case started. That is how she has always done it in the past when it is indeed a Section 8 property. She always references facts in their statement.

Yet she asked Logan point-blank: "Is this a Section 8 subsidized home?" to which Logan responded 'yes'. THEN Judge Judy asked how much was her portion of the rent.

Later on, Daniels volunteered the information that Logan's rent was less in the new home because other people had moved out (that were previously living with her in Daniels' home) so her 'collective income' went down - and the government's portion went up.


"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

Pvd, what are you, CRAZY? She's been doing this for FORTY YEARS!!! She has a NOSE for the business!

But seriously, a 5 bedroom house for that rent in CA? Either it's Section 8 or something's rotten in Denmark... If it wasn't mentioned in either statement, then JJ made an educated guess. She's had YEARS of post graduate work to make that guess, lol

reply

Yes but JJ asked this question right in the beginning - before she even asked her how much her rent was each month. To me it seems wrong - dare I say a bit of racial profiling?

I mean if it was a white woman, same age, dressed in a Talbots wardrobe, diamonds, and a stylish haircut, would JJ ask her if she's in Section 8 housing before she asked the monthly rent?

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

I found that racist and out of line too.

<“Every man of courage is a man of his word.” - Pierre Corneille>

reply

Thanks! I thought it was just me.

I've seen plenty of white litigants on her show who are tenants suing landlords. Not once has JJ asked them whether or not they were in section 8 housing before they revealed their rent, and how big their living quarters were. Not once. But she asks the black woman if she's in section 8 housing before she knows her rent and how big the place is????

Really racial profiling - I'm surprised there's not more attention to this.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

Yes but JJ asked this question right in the beginning - before she even asked her how much her rent was each month.


The rent amount was already documented in the case filing, which JJ has read. People of all races live in Section 8 housing. A 5 bedroom house being rented for that little is almost without a doubt subsidized in some way. If the plaintiff was white I have no doubt that JJ would have asked the same question.

I think you're looking too hard. Not everything is racist just because the person involved is a minority.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply

(A) She already knew it was Section 8 subsidized, no doubt that was in the response paperwork filed by the defendant OR was answered when questioned by the production; (B) the cheap rent amount for a home in California that size sends up immediate red flags.

Just because she didn't say "in your statement" doesn't mean anything. And she's asked this question about Section 8 numerous times before.

While I don't always agree with JJ, in this case the question was clearly for TV, simply to make it clear that the plaintiff was not paying the full rent on their own.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think you're picking nits with this one.


I don't know about this one - I personally think you're giving JJ a lot of credit based on assumptions.

She always clarifies 'according to your statement' when she begins her questioning, and this time around she didn't. I personally won't assume it was in the statement, because for her not to mention this (or if it was edited out for some reason), this was certainly the wrong case to do it. By her not saying this, and not asking how much the rent is before she asked about "Section 8" matters a great deal in this particular case - for it looks like racial profiling, which is a hot-button issue these days.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 







reply

Two things:

(A) She already knew it was Section 8 subsidized, no doubt that was in the response paperwork filed by the defendant OR was answered when questioned by the production; (B) the cheap rent amount for a home in California that size sends up immediate red flags.

Just because she didn't say "in your statement" doesn't mean anything. And she's asked this question about Section 8 numerous times before.

While I don't always agree with JJ, in this case the question was clearly for TV, simply to make it clear that the plaintiff was not paying the full rent on their own.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think you're picking nits with this one.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply