7/19/2015 | Share this article: View CommentsBy Carl S ~
After viewing many "Judge Judy" TV programs, I started to write down some of the things she repeats in her court room. These are helpful in separating fact from ﬁction in ordinary circumstances, whenever we search for what is true versus what is claimed to be true. I have heard viewers who say they don't agree with her ﬁnal judgements, and from those who think she was rude or disrespectful to the defendant or plaintiff, but on the other hand, such viewers often believe those who tell them nonsense with smiles on their faces. Judge Judy is not there to catch ﬂies with honey. And with over 20 years of hearings, she has a tremendous amount of experience accumulated in telling truth from the fabricated.
|Judge Judy Sheindlin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
In no special order, here are some quotes from Judge Judy:
"Show me the proof." Without proof, your claims are just that- claims. We have no way of knowing otherwise, no matter how strongly you feel about what you believe. Those supporting you, such as family, friends, or community, may believe as you do, but they believe without proof.
"I have trouble with your story. It doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, it's not true." Consider that the defendant or plaintiff, sworn under oath to tell the truth, tells the judge just one thing that is the opposite of what that person claimed in a sworn statement preceding the trial. After being caught in that lie, any further statements are considered questionable. (In everyday life, some do lie repeatedly, and get away with it because those around them have been taught not to question them.)
"Maybe you made up your story in your mind before you came here and are repeating it back to the judge, and you think the judge will accept it. Get that out of your mind right now." Here again, the judge is not to be conned; she's heard too many excuses and stories from others in your situation, and is already ahead of you. The judge is here to do what is right for the ones who can show evidence they're in the right.
"I don't believe you for one minute.” You've told me such convoluted things that don't make sense in the end, that don't logically add up, that I can't trust you to tell the truth. In fact, you've probably told yourself them to the point that you've come to believe your own lies. To the close observer, these things are obvious.
"Don't tell me what he thought/believed/knew. You don't know that." This implies knowing the person's state of mind. Implications are not facts. One of my favorites, this is used to claim there was an understood consent by the other person. "He knew" is a way to make another responsible for what’s been done to him. Since the cases involve responsibility, each side claims the other is responsible. (Some defendants even say, "I don't feel I'm responsible," with sincere honesty. There is no way to decide without evidence pro or con the claims.
"Without proof, it doesn't exist." Before every trial, plaintiffs and defendants are told in writing, to bring any records, any written agreements, e-mails, writings, etc., to support their claims. Time after time they show up without them. They expect the judges to "take my word for it." They want sympathy and justice, for real or alleged wrongs, as if no other side matters than their own. But without proof, all that’s left are allegations.
"Don't tell me what he (or she) said. That's hearsay." You don't and I don't know if what you claim that person said is true (beneﬁt of a doubt, you might have misheard), and without that person being here, we have no way of ﬁnding out.
"I don't care what you believe; it's the truth." Sometimes the defendant will say, "I don’t believe/feel I owe him the money," or "I believe he damaged my car, even though I or a witness did not see him do it." In everyday society, we are told that a person's beliefs are the same as truth. But, without evidence, all we have is personal bias.
Religions ﬂourish on deceit and exploitation of the trusting. This courtroom has many important lessons. One. Allegations are not evidence. Two. Another's motives are conjecture, until proven otherwise. Three. Just because someone believer something doesn't make it true. Four. Without evidence, all you have are feelings and hearsay. Five. Allegation is not the same as fact. Six. Claims for recompense/justice result from expectations of repayment, which grow out of hopeful but misplaced trust in others. But expectations are not guarantees. Verbal promises, to paraphrase Casey Stengel, "are not worth the paper they're not printed on."
Now you know why I threw out my bible after so many years. Like Judge Judy, I respect evidence, truth, facts, and honesty, and abhor deceit, twisting the truth, irresponsibility and conning others. Religions ﬂourish on deceit and exploitation of the trusting. Thousands of years of religions’ claims have failed to bring proof supporting those claims. The gods "exist" solely in the minds of those who believe in them, their words and the words of their spokesmen, alleged to be said by them, again, are without proof. The worlds of religions are traditions of hearsay and mythology, each entwined with the other.
I threw out the whole book; after editing out the junk and b.s. there weren't any pages left worth keeping. I decided not to deal with apologists who twist their minds up because they insist a book “cannot possibly be wrong," while the evidence clearly shows it is. I won't waste any more of my time trying to reason with those who are indifferent to facts. I will keep supporting those who care about facts, while aiming to get the reality-deniers to eventually think.
Judge Judy does her best to render fair outcomes. Consider her judgement in contrast to the apologists’ which is: "If you only accept that this guy died so you won't have to pay the price for your irresponsibility, and you'll worship him for the rest of your life, I'll let you off the hook. Otherwise, you can go to hell.