It has been a decade ago when I was so enamored by live small claims court on TV here in the U.S. I suspect that they are the original reality shows ever. Ever since I have watched my first show, I could not get to miss a single one. A decade after, which is the present time, I'm still at it. What makes it so interesting, I ask myself. Perhaps it is the narrative of the plaintiff and the defendant that gets to me. They are excellent narratives and excellent unwritten scripts. I'm not a scriptwriter but I do know that there is a certain strategy of screenplays/stage plays that tells an incident in two or more ways until the truth on what really happened is realized at the end of the movie/play. Unwittingly, this is also the style in live TV small claims courts. Judge Judy Shiendlin would ask the plaintiff on the circumstances of her suing the defendants and then this is followed by a completely different version of the same event by the defendant. Then, before you know it, your appetite is whet by the question 'who is telling the truth'. Then the judge would barrage each one with a series of direct and cross extermination questions and in a matter of minutes you would know who is telling the truth and who is lying.
By frequently watching the programs, you would not only be entertained, you would also know more of the American culture, of the laws and regulation that you never knew before, and lessons to be learned as if it were a self-help book. Of course, money is almost always the only remedy in a civil battle such as the small claims court. But in the numerous times I've watched Judge Judy, Judge Alex, Judge Joe Brown, I have come to the conclusion that a good number of the cases are legal battles between former lovers, former espouses, former best friends, tenants and landlords, roommates and house mates. But above all former lovers/espouses. They usually sue their partners for loans which did not have any written agreements which the defendant would claim as gifts. The TV viewers, if they ever want to learn anything from this seemingly useless shows (my sister thought they are not real people but only actors), they should try to integrate the various cases on how the judge resolved them. For example, if the quarrel is between former lovers, the judge would like to know whether there is a pattern of gift giving from one to the other. But the most damning thing is if the defendant has given some initial payments, then it was understood that it was not a gift.The whole show is very informative. The judge would explain, for example, what is the proper disposal of things left by a tenant who just left without a word or without paying the remainder of the rent, or circumstances where the tenant could throw away a lease agreement due to inadequate attention paid by the owner on his/her apartment. On a personal level, it was very helpful to my sister who has been here for more than a decade but does not have enough knowledge of some laws and policies since she does not have time for TV. Of course I was the one who did all the watching and learning, and I shared with her some of the things I learned.
No comments:
Post a Comment