Faith in Our Media-Driven Legal System
While visiting my friend Caroline the other night, a reality-court program came on which made me really start to worry about how some people decide to handle their legal affairs.
And keep in mind that I wanted to accept the invitation I received to be on Judge Judy a couple years ago.
The show, hosted and augmented by the legal genius that is Kato Kaelin, was called "Eye For An Eye." This is a courtroom show where people go to settle disputes in front of a meek, soft-spoken, skinny guy with the nameplate "Extreme Akim" (he does wear a judge's robe, if that helps at all). During the breaks, Kato Kaelin interviews people on the street about their views on the trial, while also providing his very own insights into the matter under consideration.
...yes, THAT Kato Kaelin....the one who couldn't verify if O.J. Simpson was at home or not when Nicole Brown-Simpson was murdered....he is now providing insights (or trying to anyhow) for legal disputes.
This particular episode focused on a divorcing couple who were fighting over who gets custody of their parrot. Each litigant brought an expert witness: the plaintiff brought her friend from the strip-club to testify that the defendant is a pervert who once stole her underwear; the defendant brought the pet store owner to testify that he purchases food for the bird.
During one of the breaks, as the Honorable Akim (or is it "the Honorable Extreme?") debated the matter, Kato interviewed people on the street to get their perspectives. One person commented that they should cut the bird and give each litigant half, to which Kato replied "Wow, don't go to Thanksgiving dinner at this guy's house!" Sure, because this guy might....ummm...cut the turkey......(side note: how come Kato Kaelin is still on TV, but I am not?)
In the end, the Honorable Akim (or "the Honorable Extreme") decided that the key issue at hand was not who put more time or money into the bird, but rather who loves the bird more. Therefore, he decreed that each litigant should go eat some live worms (despite the fact that parrots, to my knowledge, do not eat worms). Whomsoever loved the bird the most would be the one to eat the most live worms. Both the woman and man ate 27 live worms, one-by-one, but the woman was somehow disqualified because she forgot the rules and drank some water.
However, the man, even though he ate more than two-dozen live earthworms to win custody, gave the woman the parrot anyway.
When I pointed out how silly the premise for this show was, my friend pointed out that, if sued, I would probably be willing to eat dog food to keep custody of my dog. She apparently skipped the assumption that I would ever put myself into a situation where "hey, you have to eat dog food to keep your dog" would be a likely outcome.
Although it does make its own gravy.....
And keep in mind that I wanted to accept the invitation I received to be on Judge Judy a couple years ago.
The show, hosted and augmented by the legal genius that is Kato Kaelin, was called "Eye For An Eye." This is a courtroom show where people go to settle disputes in front of a meek, soft-spoken, skinny guy with the nameplate "Extreme Akim" (he does wear a judge's robe, if that helps at all). During the breaks, Kato Kaelin interviews people on the street about their views on the trial, while also providing his very own insights into the matter under consideration.
...yes, THAT Kato Kaelin....the one who couldn't verify if O.J. Simpson was at home or not when Nicole Brown-Simpson was murdered....he is now providing insights (or trying to anyhow) for legal disputes.
This particular episode focused on a divorcing couple who were fighting over who gets custody of their parrot. Each litigant brought an expert witness: the plaintiff brought her friend from the strip-club to testify that the defendant is a pervert who once stole her underwear; the defendant brought the pet store owner to testify that he purchases food for the bird.
During one of the breaks, as the Honorable Akim (or is it "the Honorable Extreme?") debated the matter, Kato interviewed people on the street to get their perspectives. One person commented that they should cut the bird and give each litigant half, to which Kato replied "Wow, don't go to Thanksgiving dinner at this guy's house!" Sure, because this guy might....ummm...cut the turkey......(side note: how come Kato Kaelin is still on TV, but I am not?)
In the end, the Honorable Akim (or "the Honorable Extreme") decided that the key issue at hand was not who put more time or money into the bird, but rather who loves the bird more. Therefore, he decreed that each litigant should go eat some live worms (despite the fact that parrots, to my knowledge, do not eat worms). Whomsoever loved the bird the most would be the one to eat the most live worms. Both the woman and man ate 27 live worms, one-by-one, but the woman was somehow disqualified because she forgot the rules and drank some water.
However, the man, even though he ate more than two-dozen live earthworms to win custody, gave the woman the parrot anyway.
When I pointed out how silly the premise for this show was, my friend pointed out that, if sued, I would probably be willing to eat dog food to keep custody of my dog. She apparently skipped the assumption that I would ever put myself into a situation where "hey, you have to eat dog food to keep your dog" would be a likely outcome.
Although it does make its own gravy.....
posted by CMA @ 5:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home