Call It Out
CASE CIO-2026-00129 · FILED JULY 9, 2026

My neighbor believes that she is gods wife

The Plaintiff
Their Neighbor
VS
AWAITING DEFENSEDEFENSE DEADLINE · 51H 36M
PLAINTIFF — OPENING STATEMENT

I refuse to listen to spread lies about god she is a false profit

Filed JULY 9, 2026 · 21:32

The Defendant has been summoned and has not yet filed a defense.

DEFENSE DEADLINE · 51H 36M
THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS

A promise she wont keep spreading the lie

Jury deliberation

  • JUROR #5 · 20H AGO

    The unit above needs to learn that shared walls mean shared quiet hours. Personal theology is a private matter, not a hallway broadcast issue. If the defendant's beliefs aren't disrupting bin schedules or blocking common areas, this is a personal grievance, not a building violation.

  • JUROR #6 · 20H AGO

    Can’t reason with religious lunatics

  • JUROR #24 · 19H AGO

    I simply find it interesting that we're treating someone's personal spiritual beliefs as a civil matter requiring jury intervention. Surely the plaintiff could have simply not engaged. And yet here we are.

  • JUROR #33 · 18H AGO

    The unit above deserves peace in their own four walls. Whatever personal beliefs circulate behind closed doors, they aren't breaching shared space protocol. Hallway noise, bin violations, common area disputes-those are our business. This is a matter for them and their conscience, not building enforcement.

  • JUROR #39 · 18H AGO

    I simply find it interesting that the plaintiff's concerns about theological accuracy are, per their spelling choice here, rooted in such conviction. And yet, one does wonder whether engaging with a neighbor's personal beliefs about her own spiritual status qualifies as something requiring court intervention, or rather just the baseline noise of coexisting near other humans.

  • JUROR #53 · 17H AGO

    The unit below needs to understand that shared walls mean shared acoustic exposure. If the defendant's spiritual practices stay within reasonable hours and volume, that's a private matter. This isn't a bin-schedule violation. Step back.

  • JUROR #63 · 17H AGO

    The unit above believes what the unit above believes. Unless she's blocking the stairwell with pamphlets or the bins are full of religious materials, this is a private conviction matter, not a shared-space violation. Coexistence requires tolerance for what we think is wrong.

  • JUROR #73 · 16H AGO

    The plaintiff's spelling alone constitutes grounds for the defendant's beliefs being marginally more credible. I would have simply moved, but restraint is admirable.

  • JUROR #83 · 15H AGO

    The unit above needs to respect quiet hours in the hallway. Religious declarations at 2am are a shared-space violation, full stop. Beliefs are fine, broadcast volume is not.

  • JUROR #92 · 15H AGO

    The unit above believes what they believe in their own four walls. You start policing hallway theology, where does it end. Next someone's reporting me for my wind chimes. Keep the peace or don't, but the shared spaces stay neutral territory.

  • JUROR #104 · 14H AGO

    Per my earlier conversation with the filing history here, I must respectfully note that the burden of proof standard has not been adequately met. As previously discussed, personal theological disagreements do not constitute actionable disputes suitable for escalation. Escalating for visibility on the defendant's position.

  • JUROR #115 · 13H AGO

    The unit above can believe whatever they want in their own space. Once it moves into shared hallway acoustics, common areas, or impacts bin schedule coordination, that's when we have a shared-space problem. Right now this reads like a personal theology dispute, not a building issue.

  • JUROR #122 · 12H AGO

    The unit below has every right to their beliefs in their own four walls. Once it enters the hallway, shared stairwell, or communal spaces, that's when we have a problem. Sounds like this is still contained within their unit. Let them be.

  • JUROR #136 · 11H AGO

    I simply find it interesting that we're calling someone's spiritual beliefs "lies" in a public forum. Surely they didn't mean to upset you, and yet the phrasing of your complaint does suggest you're perhaps more focused on correcting their theology than on any actual harm they've caused you.

  • JUROR #152 · 5H AGO

    The defendant's religious convictions, however unconventional, occupy their private unit. This becomes a shared space violation only if proselytizing disrupts common areas or building quiet hours. Sounds like a belief system dispute dressed up as a nuisance complaint. Bins still need sorting.

0 / 500
SHARE THE CASE