[announcer] Previously on Tribunal Justice.
There is no control
that you would allow her to have over anything in her life.
That's not the case. I was giving.
He harassed me about everything.
I don't recall that.
"She had a boyfriend come over. She slept with somebody.
She didn't do this. I was following her."
The behavior of a narcissistic egomaniac, self-righteous sociopath.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Chico, California.
Is it not a bit reasonable to think that as her partner,
as someone who loved her, that some of this was just about love?
[Christian] Yeah. Of course there's love in it. We share...
[Judge Acker] So it would be fair to say...
Our child is my priority.
And it would be fair to say that when you went into this venture with her,
some of it, at least, was premised on the fact
that you thought you were building a family.
It wasn't so much like,
- "I need 50% of the profit." - Some of it is.
It is "We're trying to do something as a family."
- [Christian] Yes. I... - I understand
you have a witness here, sir.
- I do. - What does your witness have to offer?
Our witness, uh, did business with Ms. Walters previously
when she set up an outdoor marketplace.
So her previous business partner has knowledge of her business dealings.
- [Judge Acker] So this is your witness? - Yes.
[Judge Acker] Let's have the witness, please.
State your name for the record.
Tatiana Allen.
Ms. Allen, in what capacity do you know Ms. Walters?
[Tatiana] It was an actual outdoor market,
and then she was to get 20% to do
basically, like social media and Instagram.
So she was to get 20% of the business.
The two of you were in this together.
What happened?
Uh, basically, she wanted more
and, um, it evolved into a, um, really awkward situation
where she had been into a couple of fights with different vendors,
'cause she was smoking weed in the parking lot during the event.
- How did your business end? - [Tatiana] Yeah.
How did this business relationship between the two of you end?
Uh, she said-- because, uh, I wouldn't let her
kind of control the things she wanted to control,
she said she had to walk away.
She kind of just left me with a lot of loose ends
and she had taken money from some of the vendors.
- Um, I had to walk away from... - So she walked away from the business?
- [Tatiana] Yes. - [Judge Acker] Uh, thank you.
I don't know if my colleagues have questions.
[Judge DiMango] I do have a question.
How long before she opened up Late Bloomer did that occur?
I don't know, a couple of months after she...
[Judge DiMango] After she left that business
and then she did the Late Bloomer.
Now, you mentioned that she owed money to people.
Do you have personal knowledge of that or did they tell you that she owes money?
Uh, I have personal knowledge
because I had to actually pay those people back out of my own pocket.
So, personal knowledge in that sense. Yes.
No, I paid everything.
- Uh, no, that's not true. [chuckles] - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
Can I ask a question of the witness?
- Of course, you can. - Yes.
Ms. Allen, when you say that the defendant,
she was some type of a 20%...
- Yes. Yes. - ... partner or something?
[Judge Levy] Did you sign a lease for that space?
Yeah. I signed a lease. I had...
[Judge Levy] She didn't commit herself to that lease.
Did she obtain insurance for that space?
No.
[Judge Levy] Did she advertise your space?
No. We had the--
basically, the market had its own Instagram.
[Judge Levy] Right. Exactly. That's my point.
Because she wasn't a partner of yours.
- Right? - [Tatiana] No.
[Judge Levy] Unlike what the plaintiff here did,
he paid those things.
Are you aware of that?
[Tatiana] That--yes. That is correct.
And it's very familiar in the sense of,
you know, her utilizing her resources
and getting what she can from people,
and then kind of interjecting her own self
and then putting another person kind of on the sideline.
So what you're saying is that is based upon your personal knowledge
how she operates?
- Yes. And as you... - [Judge Levy] Thank you.
I appreciated what you said about swords versus shields,
- 'cause I do really feel as though... - Why, thank you.
... she leans into her femininity,
and that she's a mother, and she has a small child.
And she has--she has called me personally.
I have text messages where she calls me an abuser,
tells me that she's gonna report me to Catalyst
because I was, like, talking to Christian at one point.
- Wait. Time out. Time out, time out. - Um...
- Time out, time out, time out, time out. - [Christian] Uh-hmm.
- This is getting a little so operatic. - [Christian] Uh-hmm.
Are you saying that you had personal experience with her
in which she threatened you
- to report you unless you agreed... - Yes.
- to financial terms... - [Tatiana] She did.
... that she was dictating?
- Yeah? - Yes.
[Judge Levy] That's what I thought. Thank you. I got it.
[Judge DiMango] I have some questions.
What was she saying, was that all true?
So, she rented to me a room,
which I started my first shop,
my first physical brick-and-mortar shop.
And, um, she was having trouble paying her rent and her PG&E bill.
So, she was looking for people to rent out her space.
She didn't add me to the lease...
[Judge DiMango] And you weren't involved romantically with her
- that she shouldn't wanna do... - No. Absolutely not. [chuckles]
... anything for you, you know, in that way?
- [Sasha] Um... - But you did a lot of things
- out of love, as you said, correct? - Uh-hmm. Absolutely.
And you did it because that's what partners do with one another.
By the way, who has custody of your child?
[Christian] We both do. And by the way,
I watched our son every single Saturday for a year.
- [Judge DiMango] Her son. You said that. - Our son.
- [Judge DiMango] I wrote it down. - Our son.
No, no, but that's not what you said before...
- [Christian] Our son. - ... 'cause I wrote it down.
- [Christian] Also her son. - I thought it was very...
- She has a son as well. - [Judge DiMango] Well, her son
- is how you called it. - Her son and my son.
[Judge DiMango] Which I find troubling for a man
- who says "I want family." - She has two sons.
[Judge DiMango] One voice.
Because I have also done domestic violence cases...
- [Christian] Yeah. - ... for more years than
- I'm gonna wanna brag about. - She's punching me.
- I am not punching her. - But, I am gonna tell you
that I cannot let this go without bringing out the fact
- that to me, in my experience... - Uh-hmm. Yes.
... this was a relationship riddled with abuse.
- Yes, for both sides. - [Judge DiMango] And not only that,
I have a letter from you
to show that this woman, who finally could get on her own feet,
wanted to get you out of her life
- as fast as she could. - [Christian] Uh-hmm.
- And this is a letter from you. - [Christian] Uh-hmm.
- March 26th. - [Christian] Uh-hmm.
[Judge DiMango] "When I came to the shop and found you there with a man,"
- 'cause she said you kept going there... - [Christian] Uh-huh.
- ... "it triggered me. - [Christian] Absolutely.
[Judge DiMango] I see patterns that I have caused in our relationship
that have hurt you and made you feel unsafe...
- [Christian] Uh-huh. - ... fearful, and trapped."
- That's me acknowledging her feelings. - [Judge DiMango] This is you.
This is you, the abuser talking.
[Christian] That's me acknowledging her feeling.
[Judge DiMango] "Furthermore, I treated you like someone
who had to be managed, taking away your freedom.
As a result, you have lost sleep, been stressed out,
- and uncertain about your future... - Uh-huh.
... in life and business."
She testified to all of this.
She wants you out of her life.
That's what the $10,000 is for.
- This is you. - [Christian] Yup.
I don't have any other questions. I think that you spoke for yourself.
Congratulations on that letter.
That shows real insight.
It shows growth.
It shows self-awareness that you recognize that you have problems.
That's what I saw when I read that letter.
But you know what?
When that letter was written,
you had already snuck off to court
to get an ex parte secret temporary restraining order.
- Absolutely. - [Judge Levy] Yes, you did.
- By the way, the witness... - [indistinct]
... who we had on a moment ago, who said to all of us under oath
that she had the same problems with you,
as the plaintiff had with you--
why would she lie?
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
- You are so afraid of him. - [Judge DiMango] Yeah, because...
You're putting your finger up.
"Ha. I'm about to screw, blue, and tattoo you."
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Christian Kepler is suing ex-girlfriend,
Sasha Walters, for almost $10,000.
Christian claims he wants compensation
for being cut out of the business they co-founded.
Sasha maintains they were never business partners.
Her ex is always trying to control her,
and she wants nothing to do with him.
The witness who we had on a moment ago, who said to all of us under oath
that she had the same problems with you,
as the plaintiff had with you--
why would she lie?
I don't know.
[Judge Levy] You don't know. That's exactly right.
Sir, you submitted as exhibit 14 pics
that the defendant posted on social media
on her way to the domestic violence restraining order hearing.
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] Do you remember that?
[Christian] I do.
[Judge Levy] Is that you giving the middle finger?
- To him, yes. - [Christian] Correct.
[Judge Levy] This can't be.
You're giving the middle finger to the man
that you are so afraid of.
Through my private story on Instagram because...
[Judge Levy] You are so afraid of him.
You're putting your finger up.
"Ha. I'm going to get an ex parte order.
I'm getting you kicked off this lease.
You don't even know about it.
I'm about to screw, blue, and tattoo you."
Right there. That's how afraid you were.
- When you went to court... - [Sasha] I was afraid.
[Judge Levy] ... and spoke to that judge, ex parte,
did you tell him that you posted these? No.
Did you tell the judge that you had previously agreed
to pay him $10,000 for his contribution?
Did you tell him that?
- No. He didn't ask. - [Judge Levy] No? You did not.
The way it goes is this. You went there to get something, right?
- You went to that court to get something. - Peace of mind.
[Judge Levy] What you wanted was an order
excluding him from the business that he started,
- that he was on the lease for. - [Sasha] Just from the building.
- From the building. - [Judge Levy] Right?
Because he was showing up there, inappropriate hours.
He was showing up there. It was his business.
- That's what I'm saying. - [Sasha] To yell at...
[Judge Levy] You were willing to pay him $10,000 to get him off the lease.
Yes, 'cause he wouldn't leave me alone.
- By the way, Tatiana... - Yes.
... the witness that we just spoke,
you had a conversation with her about the defendant, right?
I have.
Might not have been the best move in hindsight.
- [Christian] Uh-hmm. - But you told the defendant
that you had spoken to her former business partner, right?
That's what got me kicked out of the house.
- [laughs] Yeah. - [Christian] Yeah.
- Yeah, it did. - [Christian] Yeah.
What did she tell you when you told her that?
Um, she said that I spoke to her enemy and then--and then I had to leave.
- I had to move out. - [Judge Levy] You spoke to her enemy.
- [Christian] Yeah. - I think I'm done.
- Thank you. - [Christian] Thank you. Thank you.
- [Judge Acker] For Mr. Kepler... - Uh-hmm.
... how much do you say the business is worth?
Forty thousand.
Forty thousand. What's your basis for that valuation?
She posted that she makes $2,000 per week, um, as supposed to...
[Judge Acker] I didn't see that documentation.
- No. It's assumption. - [Judge Acker] So you're assuming
- a valuation of $40,000? - Yes.
Valuation, when you're valuing a business...
- [Christian] All right. - ... you don't just look at
how much money you put in.
- [Christian] Well, I have her... - You look at what the debts are...
- [Christian] Yes. - ... of the business.
- You look at what the profits are. - That's the 20% margin.
- But do we have evidence of a 20% margin? - [Christian] No, I don't.
Do we have evidence of what the debt is on the business?
Um, no. That--that's been withheld for me at this point. Yeah.
Judge, we're gonna retire to deliberate.
- Thank you both. - [Christian] Thank you.
[Byrd] Court now stands in recess.
This case will be recalled. Parties are excused.
[dramatic musical sting]
There's so much to unpack.
Let me sort of tell you where I am writ large.
It's his burden to prove the existence of a partnership.
And he has done something in my view to prove that.
He is on the lease. He did take out these media buys.
He's on the insurance.
I do think that those are things that are consistent with his position,
that he intended to be a partner of some sort.
If you're a partner,
then you don't necessarily get your money back.
Some of that money goes to expenses. It goes to overhead.
You may be rolling it back into the business.
There's no evidence as to that.
That's why valuation was important to me.
And secondly, if he just wants his money back,
then he's not a partner. It was a loan.
And it was a loan with some expectation
that she was gonna pay something back, which maybe she was.
Now, do I think they had a meeting of the minds as to 50%?
Absolutely not.
My problem is, I don't know what that amount is.
He's lacking evidence about what matters, at least to me.
And I'm not suggesting that she's entirely innocent either.
I think that there's a lot of drama there,
and for me, just not enough evidence on which to hang my hat.
I'm inclined to dismiss
because I don't know how to value this business,
if he is in fact a partner,
which means that you don't just get to pull out and take every dime,
you know, when the partnership's over.
But I'm sure one or both of you prove me wrong.
So if I hear you correctly on two grounds,
you would find that he has not met his burden,
and that's where I would stand.
I stand, first of all, in that he might have done things
with the intent of hoping that he would get a percentage or whatever.
But I really think he was giving her things to sell.
She was selling them. She was giving him the money back.
With regard to the partnership aspect,
there is no evidence that they outlined any terms or agreements.
A lot of this is clouded by the relationship aspect of it,
because people react differently.
They do different things for people when they are in love or they are involved
or what they think they're in love, helping, painting, doing things as a team
for the benefit of the family,
but not necessarily a mutual partnership in that.
I think that letter spoke for itself.
He is somebody who's a very controlling man.
But the bottom line is, on the law, I feel that he did not make his case.
Why in the world would someone commit themselves to a three-year lease,
tens of thousands of dollars of rent
if she flakes out and leaves?
He's in a relationship with her
and he's been abusing her for two and a half years.
Where's she going? She's not going anywhere according to what he sees.
Pat. Pat, listen. Don't say that he's been abusing her for years,
'cause you know what no one testified to?
No one testified to a prior police report of abuse.
No one testified to a prior domestic violence order.
She says that she filed and she never produced them.
So to assume that he is some violent guy
- just because she says it... - No, he's controlling.
- It's different than violent. - It...
- And he wrote the letter himself. - It doesn't make--listen.
He's a--he was a manipulating, controlling person,
which is a form of abuse and he was stalking her.
[laughing] Listen. Listen, at this point, that letter confirmed it to me.
He knows, it's over. It's absolutely done.
We gotta wind down this business that we had together.
The reason the valuation means nothing
is because he gave up any future earnings of that business,
completely, that he would otherwise be entitled to.
We have the video.
She's discussing with him how much he's gonna get,
when he's gonna get it, why he's being unreasonable,
all of those things that she's talking to him about.
- I'm not saying he's not also... - But you make a lot of assumptions.
So let me ask you. What's the assumption?
- Why would she want him out? - No. No.
- You missed the point, Pat. - No, I didn't miss it.
- Pat, the point is this. - And here's the mark.
She goes to court and she tells the court,
I want an order that prohibits him from talking to me
about anything except the child.
The judge, only seeing her says,
"Yeah, boy, you look like you're really scared."
Right? The judge doesn't know about the prior threats
she made him in text messages.
Judge doesn't know about her giving the finger on the way to court that day.
- [Judge DiMango] No, she--you know what? - Hold on. Hold...
She was trying to tell you. That was on her private Facebook.
- That it was... - [Judge Levy] Who cares? Pat...
Because you're making it sound like she's not afraid of him,
- but she's telling her friends... - Pat, Pat, Pat, Pat.
- ... basically. - The--Pat, Pat, the point is,
he's done absolutely everything that he could possibly do
besides having a written partnership agreement
with the person he plans on spending the rest of his life with,
and the rest of his life in business with.
He does everything humanly possible
to demonstrate that he's doing it in a partnership capacity.
The text messages, he specifically says we're 50/50 partners.
Not one, in all of them,
does she say we're not 50/50 partners.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
If we do not give him back every cent of that $10,000, it is an unjust result.
I am not giving him a penny. I'm telling you right now.
To state the obvious.
Wouldn't it have been nice if they just had an agreement? [chuckles]
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
What's your analysis of his right to recovery?
Is it because as a partner he's entitled to these funds back
or is it because he's entitled to refunded?
Of course it's unjust-- it's unjust enrichment for her
to take all the fruits of his labors for this partnership.
Forget about 50%, forget about 20%.
He put all of that sweat equity into making the repairs,
all of that, which she does not dispute.
And all he's saying is just, "Give me my money back, and I'm gone."
He pulled out of that by telling her, you know what?
Now that you haven't shown up, and that's in the text messages,
now, I don't want only $10,000.
Now I'm gonna sit here and, for days, go over everything I have
to get out--all about control.
That's what he was about.
And I don't see an agreement, regardless of whatever
his personal relationship is with her.
- I don't see an agreement. - I think both of them are messy.
So let's put the messiness aside.
What was instructive about the last video we saw
is that it suggested to me
that there was an intention to pay him something.
$10,000 was a settlement offer.
- [Judge Levy] That she made. - That they discussed.
- [Judge Levy] No, no, no. - It's hard to tell from that...
- [Judge Acker] I don't know who... - ... who did what first?
... who made the first overture.
She says the offer is $10,000.
That's her statement.
And we can move on with our lives.
But then when the thing fell apart, 'cause her mom left,
instead of saying to him, "Listen, you know I got a problem with my money.
My mom left. I can't do it." What did she do?
She goes to the domestic violence restraining order court
and she makes material omissions
and misrepresentations to get something that she knew,
if she were honest, the judge never would've given her.
That, to me, is absolutely outrageous,
but more importantly, it is completely supported
and corroborated by everything that we have.
If we do not give him back every cent of that $10,000,
in my opinion, it is an unjust result.
I am not giving him a penny. I'm telling you right now.
So, you can be unjust if you want, but the bottom line here is,
I don't know what preceded this.
I know that he's asking for money, saying nothing to do with the partnership.
Based on those messages, whatever offer was out there was withdrawn
by either or one of them and there was nothing out there.
It was a clean slate.
So we're now no longer considering enforcing her agreement.
What about Adam's theory that just as a matter of unjust enrichment,
he put this money in, he's kicked out of the business--
doesn't he get the money back or some portion of it?
Well, I am not putting a price on the things that he did
- as he admitted out of his love... - He did it for love.
... or whatever.
So for me, I'm clean-- I'm clear he's getting nothing.
You're at zero, you're at ten.
Um, to state the obvious,
wouldn't it have been nice if they just had an agreement? [chuckles]
Oh, my.
Um, I think I need to think it through a little bit more.
I need a moment.
Are you leaving the bench?
[laughter]
Uh, I'll decide shortly.
I'm gonna think about it.
[dramatic musical sting]
[Byrd] Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
- Thank you, Byrd. - Uh-hmm.
[Judge Acker] We have deliberated. We've reached a verdict.
Our verdict is not unanimous.
I don't believe you were a partner to her.
You did not have a 50% stake in the business.
And Judge DiMango joins me in that.
And Judge Levy thinks it's kind of irrelevant
whether or not you had a 50% stake and you had a 50% stake.
I don't think you were partners.
I don't think there was a meeting of the minds as to that.
But there's another way of approaching this case,
which is one of unjust enrichment.
And that's where Judge Levy convinced me,
because Judge DiMango is a very strong and vigorous dissent from our verdict.
She thinks you're entitled to nothing and that everything that you did
by and on behalf of the business was for the purpose of the family.
- And you admitted to some of that. - Uh-hmm.
I was almost gonna join her and she and I were about to be the majority.
But I'll tell you where Judge Levy convinced me.
It's because of your continuing exposure to liability on the lease
and other business debts.
You can't simply say, "You're not my partner. Get out.
You sign the lease and now you got nothing."
That's just not fair, because you could skip out of town
and then the landlord sues both of you.
So it's on that very narrow theory that Judge Levy and I are announcing,
sir, you have prevailed and met your burden in this case,
and we are going to award you the $9,999 and 99 cents.
- [Christian] Thank you. - [Judge Acker] Good luck to you both,
- especially to your kid. - [Christian] Thank you.
[Byrd] This case is now concluded.
Parties are excused. You may step out.
He's a narcissistic abuser, and I couldn't deal with it anymore.
The truth is not being told by her.
He was, like, circling me constantly, just overwhelming me and it broke me down.
It's sad 'cause, uh, there have definitely been issues on both sides.
I hope he finds love and, like, can enjoy the rest of his life.
I wish her the best of success and I hope she gets the help she needs.
It's a bummer that he's just such an unhappy person.
I came out victorious, and I'm happy about that.
[announcer] Got family drama?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]