Another week, another batch of crazy court cases on “Judged by Matt Walsh.” Episode 4 did not disappoint as it brought audiences two real cases of perceived injustices, this time in the form of stalkers and influencers. Buckle up, because this is going to be a bumpy ride.
First up, Nigel King sued his ex-girlfriend for $4,000 following a bad breakup.
Walsh established that the couple met in the hospital where King worked after Perez initially came in as a patient. After disclosing that she had the flu when they met, Walsh wondered aloud what about her “feverish, sweaty state” King found “so appealing.”
The plaintiff went on to describe how Perez started visiting the hospital all the time after her initial visit, leading co-workers to warn him that he may have a “stalker.”
King said Perez “pretended she was sick” and would also “linger in the hallways.” Shortly after, King said the two bumped into each other at a bar, which Walsh implied was clearly a setup. He questioned King on why he chose to become romantically involved with a suspected stalker.
“What is a red flag if stalking isn’t a red flag?” Judge Walsh asked. “Does she need to be in the process of murdering you before you say, ‘Oh, this is a little bit troubling. I don’t want that.’”
King explained how he “hooked up” with Perez one time and then cut off contact with her. Then an anonymous person called the hospital to tell his manager that “sexual activity” had happened in the parking lot in an apparent attempt to get him fired. The plaintiff next showed Judge Walsh photos of his car after it was vandalized. He said Perez admitted to vandalizing the car.
Walsh’s first question for the defendant was, “Do you often go to hospitals looking to pick up men? Is that what a hospital is to you, like a singles club?”
WATCH EPISODE 4 OF ‘JUDGED BY MATT WALSH’ ON DAILYWIRE+
The judge got Perez to admit that she was stalking King. The defendant said she was “triggered” when King stopped responding to her text messages.
Walsh asked the defendant what she hoped to accomplish with her retaliation. “Clearly he’s not interested. So my question is, do you think you’ll convince him to be interested by making compelling arguments through text message?” he asked.
Perez explained how they continued hooking up and then presenting evidence of their continued relationship by showing the judge text messages between them. “Wow, you have an interesting way of cutting off contact with people,” Walsh told King.
Following deliberation, Walsh laid down the law.
“You know, they say that people do crazy things when they’re in love, but I’ve found that it’s more accurate to say that people do crazy things when they’re crazy,” he began. “Love has really nothing to do with it. Your behavior through this whole ordeal is, of course, utterly indefensible.”
He told King that while it should be an open and shut case, his decision to remain involved with Perez was a mistake.
“You know, there are something like 4 billion women in the world,” Walsh told the plaintiff. “And even if only a tiny fraction of them would be available to you, it still leaves you enough options that there’s no good reason for you to still have any contact with a woman who has gone out of her way repeatedly to make your life as difficult as you possibly can. I always wonder how it is that men end up with women like this.”
Watch the full episode to find out how Judge Walsh ruled on the dispute.
The next case was all about influencers. Plaintiff Elo Copeland describes herself as a “content creator” who made a video with the defendant, Kaylan Striggles, after meeting him at a content creator meetup.
“Don’t take this the wrong way, but I would rather be thrown into a vat of acid than go to a content creator meet up and be surrounded by content creators,” Judge Walsh noted before letting her continue.
Copeland went on to claim that the pair collaborated on the video, she acted in it and did improv, and it received 19,000 views. But the defendant didn’t give her any of the money he earned after posting it on social media.
The plaintiff said Striggles had paid her $25 to $50 for past videos with fewer views, but said she’s now seeking $1,000 because this video was their most viewed collaboration yet. Copeland said the video had been posted a year prior.
Judge Walsh confirmed that no formal financial agreement was made before making this video.
Addressing Striggles, Walsh said, “According to Ms. Copeland, you are nothing but a low rent thief. Which, if true, would mean that you are just like 99% of people who call themselves content creators.”
The defendant insisted that as a content creator, he gets “millions of views.”
Striggles said he made $1,700 on the video in question, which Walsh immediately questions and calls a “gross overestimation.” He responded by procuring the receipt from Meta.
After deliberating, Walsh handed down his judgment.
Addressing Ms. Copeland, he said, “Let me explain a basic concept to you. If you want someone to pay you for the work you perform for them, you need to bring that up beforehand, not days after the work has already been completed. So what you generally do is you say, ‘This is how much I’d like to be paid for this work that I’m going to do.’”
Tune in next time for more real-life cases of petty arguments and fair judgment with the continuation of “JUDGED by Matt Walsh.”
New episodes drop weekly on Tuesdays, exclusively on DailyWire+.
