The defendant told me the judge would dismiss my testimony. I’m the judge hearing this case.

“I don’t know exactly. Dozens.”

“And in those dozens of cases how many times have you lost?”

Krauss’s face hardened.

“That’s not relevant.”

Jennifer pressed.

“Please answer the question. How many times have you lost a housing court case?”

“Not often.”

“How many times?”

“Maybe twice.”

“Twice in dozens of cases?”

“And based on that track record you felt confident telling someone that you didn’t need to address complaints because judges would side with you; is that accurate?”

Krauss didn’t answer. Jennifer let the silence sit, then she asked one more question.

“Mr. Krauss did you know that the person you made those statements to was Judge Michael Davidson?”

Krauss’s eyes flicked to me.

“No I didn’t know.”

“If you had known would you have made different statements?”

“I would have been more careful with my words.”

“But not with your actions? Not with actually fixing the heat or the elevator or the rat problem? Just with your words?”

Allan objected again but I overruled him. Krauss was dismissed and walked back to his table looking shaken.

The afternoon continued with more testimony. A building inspector who’d done a walkthrough testified about multiple code violations.

A heating contractor testified that the furnace repairs could have been completed in days not months if the property company had prioritized them. By 4:00 p.m. Jennifer rested the defense case.

Allan then presented his side, calling Karen Yates who testified that she’d relied on Krauss’s advice about building maintenance, that she wasn’t aware of the extent of the problems, and that she’d authorized funds for repairs as soon as she learned the full situation. She came across as genuinely concerned but detached from day-to-day operations.

Allan called a different contractor who testified that furnace repairs in old buildings were complex and time-consuming. He called an accountant who showed that the property was barely profitable and major repairs were difficult to afford.

His case wasn’t weak; it just didn’t address the fundamental issue: whether intentionally or through negligence the property company had failed to provide habitable conditions. We finished testimony at 5:30 p.m..

I announced I would issue a ruling on Monday morning and court was adjourned.

Justice Served

After everyone left I sat in my chambers reviewing my notes. Katherine was right that this was ethically complicated but Krauss had made one critical mistake: he’d said his contemptuous words to a judge.

That gave me personal knowledge that his pattern of neglect wasn’t just incompetence; it was a calculation based on a cynical understanding of system weaknesses. Monday morning I issued my ruling.

First I denied the motion for recusal. I wrote a detailed opinion explaining that while I had personal knowledge of some issues that knowledge made me more qualified not less qualified to evaluate the evidence.

I noted that both parties had been fully informed of my connection and had the opportunity to request a change of venue or appeal. I acknowledged the risk of an appeal based on bias and explained why I believed the facts supported my decision regardless.

Then I ruled on the merits. I found in favor of the tenants on every material claim.

I ordered Riverside Properties to complete all repairs within 30 days. I ordered them to provide rent abatements to tenants for the months they’d lived without adequate heat and ordered them to pay the tenants legal fees.

And I did something unusual: I issued specific findings about Victor Krauss’s conduct. I wrote that Krauss had demonstrated systematic disregard for tenant welfare and housing code compliance.

I wrote that his statements to me revealed a pattern of relying on system inefficiencies rather than meeting his legal obligations and that his confidence in avoiding consequences had enabled years of neglect. I referred my findings to the city housing authority and recommended they investigate whether Krauss should maintain his property manager license.

I sent copies to the state attorney general’s office for review. Alan Whitmore filed an appeal the next day as I’d expected.

The appeal argued judicial bias and improper consideration of evidence not formally introduced. It took 8 months for the appellate court to rule.

During that time the property company was required to make the repairs under bond. The heat was fixed within two weeks, the elevator within a month; they brought in exterminators and replaced plumbing.

My mother called me after the heat was restored.

“Michael I didn’t know you were the judge. Mr. Krauss looked terrified when he realized. Everyone in the building is talking about it.”

I asked if she was okay with what I’d done, if she felt I’d overstepped.

“You helped us.”

“She said simply, for the first time someone in authority actually helped us.”

The appellate court decision came down on a Thursday. They affirmed my ruling in full.

The opinion acknowledged the unusual circumstances but found that my disclosure had been sufficient and that the facts supported my findings regardless of any personal knowledge. They noted that Krauss’s own testimony had established the pattern of neglect.

They specifically cited his admission that he’d been confident judges would side with him. The appellate judges wrote that such confidence in system bias was precisely the attitude that required judicial correction.

Victor Krauss lost his property manager license 3 months later after the housing authority investigation found multiple violations across several properties. He’d been running the same playbook at six different buildings: elderly tenants, neglected maintenance, and intimidation tactics; the patterns were identical.

Criminal charges weren’t filed but his career in property management was over. The buildings were sold to a new owner who brought in professional management.

Alan Whitmore never spoke to me again outside of professional necessity. I understood I’d put him in an impossible position with a client who’d created his own disaster.

Five years later I’m still a judge and I still get letters occasionally from former Riverside Towers tenants. They thank me for seeing them as people rather than case numbers, for understanding that justice sometimes requires judges to make difficult choices about their role in the system.

I never regretted staying on that case though I’m not certain I’d make the same choice again in different circumstances. What I learned was that Victor Krauss had been half-right: the system often did favor landlords over tenants not because of corruption but because of structural advantages in resources and legal representation.

But he was wrong about one critical thing: judges when presented with clear evidence of systematic abuse would act. We just needed to see beyond the professional presentations and documentation to the reality underneath and sometimes that required personal knowledge most judges didn’t have.