PEOPLE’S COURT-ING DISASTER

The recent People’s Court episode featuring an Orthodox couple suing a laundry service for washing and ruining the woman’s wig has once again put Torah Jews in a negative light. In addition to the show’s regular viewers, more than 100,000 people have seen a video of the trial and decision. A short review of the facts is in order: By all accounts, the couple’s child had accidentally put a wig in the laundry bag, which was delivered to the cleaning service – whether authorized or not is disputed – that washed it, and rendered it unwearable to all but the most stylistically-challenged. The wife testified quite candidly, as a pious Jew, she wears the wig for religious reasons since she married, and that the destroyed wig was valued at $3000.00. The defendant claimed that they had been authorized to wash it – but that wasn’t the real issue.

The judge ascertained that the plaintiffs had not received any repair estimate but on their own claimed the wig as a total loss. This was a serious deficiency in the plaintiff’s burden of proof, but the judge investigated further, allegedly calling Georgie the wig company, maker of the wig in question. She discovered, much to her distress, that the receipt for $3000 applied to the beautiful wig the women was presently wearing in court, rather than to the bird’s nest the woman had submitted into evidence. In other words, the judge accused the couple of lying – of claiming the damaged wig was worth far more than it actually did – and she dismissed their case.

The couple was asked to respond, and looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights. The flabbergasted husband just lamented that “the judge called us liars,” but had no credible retort. The wife was equally dumbfounded. When, as a trial lawyer arguing cases before juries, I would impeach the credibility of witnesses for their inconsistent statements, I would always quote Mark Twain, who used to say that “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” If the couple could not think of an answer on the spot to account for the discrepancy, there is really nothing left to say. You can’t show up in court without evidence – or answers – and hope to look good. The truth is only one story; it should be fairly easy to recall.

It was a cringe-worthy moment – on national television, religious Jews were accused of telling a bald-faced lie in order to win money from struggling Hispanic businessmen. Subsequently, the couple mounted a defense in the Jewish media – that perhaps the judge had not called Georgie or had called the wrong Georgie, that they had been unsettled and frightened and did not defend themselves adequately or quickly enough. Some even suggested that they would and should sue the People’s Court.

I hope not. The question that presents is: if what they are saying is true, then why didn’t they scream when accused that “it can’t be…you’re making a terrible mistake,” much like Yehuda did when confronted with evidence of Binyamin’s guilt. He didn’t wait to investigate or to mull over a retort because he knew that Binyamin was innocent, and that something else was afoot. If they knew then what they claim to know now, they should have said it then. Post- conviction (here, post-liability) assertions carry zero weight. If you know it can’t be, then say so. It would make for great television, which is what the producers want anyway.

Unfortunately, the post-facto defense does not really matter, and once the public trial ended, the real facts and the winner/loser of the court case paled before the Chilul Hashem (“desecration of G-d’s name”) that was engendered. The actual truth or justice or whether the couple was indeed right or wrong – deserved compensation or not – are now irrelevant. “It matters not whether Chilul Hashem is intentional or unintentional (Avot 4:4);” the effect is the same. A Jew has to be extremely careful of his/her public persona, deeds and appearance because desecration of G-d’s name is a horrendous sin even if it is unintentional and inadvertent – even if it was involuntary. The impression left that religious Jews – scrupulous in their observance of the laws of modesty but cavalier (or worse) about other people’s money – is one that is difficult to dispel. And for tens of thousands of viewers, rightly or wrongly, it will never be dispelled. Chilul Hashem is not a deed; it is a result of a deed.

Certain conclusions need to be drawn. One of my most cherished colleagues suggested that our religious Jewish communal organizations should henceforth ban Orthodox Jews from appearing on reality shows. We don’t need the world to see Orthodox Jewish litigants, fashion models, apprentices, et al – it never turns out well. I agree.  All these shows feed on human venality and dysfunction, and elicit the worst facets of our character. The Talmud (Yoma 86b) states that we are obligated “to publicize the deeds of hypocrites because of the desecration of G-d’s name that is caused,” and Rashi comments that we do that because people will see their deeds, assume their righteousness, and be misled. That’s not to say that this particular couple – strangers to me – are hypocrites; it does say that we have to be very careful never to put ourselves in a position where even our appropriate actions can be misinterpreted and misunderstood, and put the Torah in a negative light.

Furthermore, it should never be satisfactory to console ourselves that “it’s just a few people, the majority of us are righteous, etc.” That trope might work for others, but it should never satisfy us. We are part of a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” to whom the Creator of the universe revealed Himself at Sinai and in the Holy Temples. No one is impressed by disclaimers, nor should we be impressed. If one wants to appear on TV, then do so to defend the Jewish people or do something positive for humanity – don’t do it for money or fame.

Rav Shlomo Aviner once wrote that it is more important to teach a young child love of humanity even before we teach that child about love of G-d. A young child cannot fully comprehend “love of G-d” anyway. Love of humanity has to come first, because whoever is personally corrupt, who grows up with a distorted character will just have his mature “love of G-d” and his advanced knowledge of Torah built on a crooked foundation. Then one can wear a yarmulke and steal – and all for a good cause. But if one loves and respects people, then it is impossible to steal from others or to harm them. If we perceive that all others are created in the image of G-d just like we are, then it becomes nearly impossible to mistreat or defraud them. Rav Kook added that when love of G-d is built on a foundation of love of humanity, then even our love of humanity will be enhanced.

We must also tread very carefully, and remind ourselves that – like Avraham of old – we are both strangers and residents in the land. We do not have to suspect that there is a Nazi lurking behind every bush to realize that exile is still exile – that history repeats itself, but never exactly the same way, for good and for not so good. To continue – with a new story seemingly every month – to put an unattractive face forward courts disaster. The Torah records the stories of our forefathers and foremothers because they taught us about the proper responses to life and its challenges, about keeping the faith even amid turmoil. When we follow their path, we are distinguished for our goodness, and when we do not, we stand out in less savory ways.

This episode – which teachers have shown to their classes in order to provoke discussion and draw conclusions – is a chilling reminder of what can happen when we become too comfortable with ourselves and do not project the possible consequences of a particular course of action. We can undo the damage – whether intentionally inflicted or not – by reinforcing to ourselves the Torah’s notions of ethical conduct to all man, not insisting on every claim we might have, and focusing on what is holy and upright. Then we will be a truly great nation, worthy of the standards that G-d has set for us.

Advertisements

4 responses to “PEOPLE’S COURT-ING DISASTER

  1. Rabbi PrusanskY:

    I read with interest about the “wig” case. At first, I was somewhat embarrassed that two of “my people” would attempt a scam such as this but in a way was glad that they were exposed. Apparently unlike you, I searched further and discovered that there are 2 Georgie companies and that the owner of the company where the wig was purchased vouched for the couple. It seems Judge Milan is more interested in sensationalism than about justice.

    Your comments please.

    • If you read carefully what I wrote, I emphasized that ultimate right and wrong doesn’t matter. A chilul Hashem caused inadvertently is also a chilul Hashem. The couple should have considered that before they went to “court” without any evidence-RSP

  2. Sorry, Rabbi Pruzansky, but with all due respect I still disagree with you. This court appears to be much like small claims court where people routinely represent themselves. This frum couple apparently went to the court without consulting with a qualified attorney. Much like small claims court, the people’s court should recognize that the parties probably do not have the same knowledge of the law as attorneys; it’s supposed to be much more casual. Besides, you think Judge Milan conducted a proper “investigation.” She has no excuse, being a lawyer and judge and obviously did not investigate nearly enough to ascertain the truth. As probably most people familiar with this case believe, the frum couple was foolish to go this court in the first place; nevertheless, once they were there they should have received due process. If the judge had been more knowledgeable about wigs, she would have known that yes a long wig put through the laundry process will look nothing like it did before. Instead, she just assumed that she knew what really happened. This is a disgrace to the legal system. Now that you know of the rebuttal given by the Georgie company that sold the wig to the frum lady in the first place, why do you still have the same opinion. Obviously, the judge made a grave mistake, causing extreme embarrassment to the plaintiffs, something which may tarnish their reputation permanently. The real issue here is whether or not the laundry service was liable for the damage. I think the judge could have found for the defendant as far as not being liable, and even many people who thought they were really guilty could live with this decision anyway. Why can’t you admit that the judge, and you, made a mistake. This is not justice, from her or from you.

    • “This is a disgrace to the legal system.”
      I think you miss my point. This is not the “legal system” – this is a television show. In the “legal system” – small claims court to which they should have gone – they would have been laughed out of court for showing up with no credible evidence. That they decided to go on television with a weak case compounds the chilul Hashem, because the appearance they left was that they were trying to rip off a poor business. You keep arguing the substance, which, by the way, all losing litigants do in every “court” system. Every losing party thinks the judge is an idiot or corrupt or both. But in the legal system, the judge’s role is not to investigate crimes or causes of action but to adjudicate between the parties based on the evidence submitted. For them to make such an accusation and to have zero evidence to sustain it was an unconscionable error, and left the stench of Chilul Hashem. That is my point, whether or not the cleaners properly or improperly washed their wig.