One of my favorite
past time these days is watching judge shows on TV. It seems like everybody is
suing somebody for something. So there is a wide array of cases that keep me
glued to the TV. From Judge Mathis to
Judge Judy, I am kept entertained by what I like to call the “foolishness of human judgment.” As entertaining as these shows are, there are
some judges I prefer more so than others. For instance I really like Judge Judy
because she is a “no nonsenses” kind
of judge who won’t allow the participants to turn her courtroom into a three-ring
circus. Unlike Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown seems to have difficulty maintaining
control over his courtroom and the participants are allowed to rant and rave
until he has had enough before he says something. Must be the ratings/audience which allows him to tolerate that behavior, or maybe it must be what the network
has been made to believe. Then there is Judge Greg Mathis who is beginning to
rub off on me – a little. At first I didn't really care for his show because he
came off as a bit snobbish and appeared to be wearing his accomplishment of “beating the streets” on his sleeve.
These days he has kind of mellowed out some but he too allows his participants
to rant and rave with each other until he has had enough before taking back
control by pulling the “judge” card.
He uses sly remarks to unsettle the participants, but it’s all in fun, I guess.
There’s a couple more judge shows out there that I enjoy watching, i.e., The
People’s Court, Judge Alex, America’s Court with Judge Ross, and Judge
Christina, just to name a few.
No matter who the
judge is though, one thing is consistent – the participants and what bring them
into the courtroom. It never fails to amaze me the things that people are suing
for or, for that matter, the lengths to which they will go to prove their case
or the lack thereof. A lot of the cases are trivial if not downright frivolous and
should not have even seen the inside of a courtroom. From damages to personal property to unpaid
loans, the list is endless and who they are suing is not limited either. There
are cases where mothers are suing one or more of their children, children who are
suing their parents or grandparents, friends who are suing friends, and even
sisters or brothers who are suing each other or they are suing a friend of their
sisters or brothers. It can all be quite confusing at times especially if I missed a part because I got up to go get a drink or something to snack on while the drama unfolds. I don’t stress it though because I know it will eventually make it to the rerun list and will no doubt get aired again. But if it’s a really good one I tend not to budge until the commercial comes on. Most times than not I already know how it will end. I can’t help but think that it has more to do with the
participants seeking their “15-minutes of fame” more so than it has to do with what
the suit is about. I say that because most of the cases have no merit and could
have easily been resolved if only the person in the wrong (defendant) had just
done the right thing. But it also has a lot to do with TV/network seeking to increase their ratings.
So just how much are
people willing to share for the opportunity to have their faces plastered across
hundreds of TV screens all over the country? Everything – turns out nothing is
off limit. As I mentioned before, there are literally lots of things that
people are suing for and they are willing to expose themselves to do it. Like
the lady who was being sued by her mother for a loan she made to her but somehow she feels that her molestation as a child, her feeling abandoned, and
neglected by her mother are all viable defenses for not paying back the loan. Then
there is the woman who is suing her boyfriend for loans she made to him during
the course of their relationship which started a week after she met him and two
weeks after she moved him in. Somehow she feels the need to share that he is a cheat,
a liar, and that he never loved her but only used her.
Yet she is shocked when the judge determines
that the “loans” were actually “gifts” and comes to the conclusion, based on the woman's testimony, that she
is only claiming they were loans after she found out he was cheating. By the
way, this is one of the more popular scenarios amongst all the cases. Personally
I don’t know why women put themselves in these type situations.
First off,
women have no business loaning men money especially a man she just met. If he
is not financially stable when you met him chances are he won’t be anytime
soon. In my opinion there are some basic requirements for single men who may
think they are ready for a relationship. If you don’t have the means to take
care of a woman or have nothing to offer her besides what you have swinging between
your legs then you have no business pursuing a woman. Worst case scenario she
is going to need soap to wash your smell off her if you do get the chance to
lay with her. They say “charity begins at home”. Well in my book, charity only
begins when you have racked up some relationship points, meaning you've been in
the relationship for a while. So if you should suddenly find yourself unemployed,
or financially strapped then I will have your back. But I digress, lol.
Fact is the desire to
be made whole should be the driving force behind the cases that end up in a
courtroom or be featured on a judge show. However basic human integrity should
be the driving force behind doing the right thing. If more people practiced integrity we would see a drastic reduction in the number of cases that make it
into a courtroom. 
If you borrow money from someone, regardless of the
relationship or what you think dissolves the debt, unless the person making the
loan to you decides to absolve you from paying it back, you should pay it back.
Secondly, if you borrow a big ticket item, like let’s say someone’s car. If you
smash it, break it, or otherwise damage it, then you are responsible for fixing
it. It’s that simple. The notion that it is or was an “accident” does not mitigate or absolve you of the responsibility to
make that person whole. All an “accident” does is modify your action/behavior
as being “unintentional” i.e., that you did not mean to do it on purpose,
otherwise it would be considered “premeditated”
and you would be in whole lot more trouble and subjected to be fined punitive
damages.
Finally, a lot of things people try to make a factor of the case have
nothing to do with the issues before the court. What you ate for breakfast, who
you slept with, dated, or are related to has no bearing on the case. Just
present the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts as it relates to
the case. Not only will you save yourself a whole lot of embarrassment, you
might just win your case. I’m just
saying – I got issues. What about you?)i(© Copyrights All Right Reserved
The views and opinions shared here are by the Author and are the property of Todos Escribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment