Judge Judy Rails Against False Accusers
May 17th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"It's so infuriating to me because there are women who worked very hard for decades to create a system where domestic violence is serious business and people respond to it in a serious way, and when women use it as a weapon not a shield it's offensive."--Judge Judy
Many activists have emailed me about a recent incident on Judge Judy where Judy criticizes a female litigant for "manipulating the [domestic violence] system" against her former fiancée, the father of her child.
We've often discussed the widespread problem of women making false claims of domestic violence as custody maneuvers against innocent fathers. Yet as much as I planned on watching gleefully as Judge Judy ripped into a false accuser, I wind up disappointed in her.
Judge Judy may well be right that the woman is lying, but she never gave the woman a chance to present the evidence to back up her claim that her fiancée had physically abused her. The way Judge Judy berates the woman and cuts her off reminds me of the way many fathers report that judges treat them.
The woman litigant is certainly no angel, and I'm very skeptical about her DV claim since she was the one who went over to her ex's at 4 in the morning to confront him. She may have also been doing a maneuver with the timing of the restraining order hearing, though it's unclear what really happened. Regardless, she should have at least been listened to and allowed to present her case.
The video can be seen at Part I and Part II. Thanks to RADAR for picking up on the incident.
"));
19 queries. 0.368 seconds.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
@Glenn...
Judge Judy may well be right that the woman is lying, but she never gave the woman a chance to present the evidence to back up her claim that her fiancée had physically abused her. The way Judge Judy berates the woman and cuts her off reminds me of the way many fathers report that judges treat them.
I'm not going to bother with the videos. I've seen this "Judge" Judy on our television and am most unimpressed. She struck me as being a rude, obnoxious pig. I'm glad I'm not the only one who dislikes this sort of behaviour on the part of individuals weilding power.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Judge Judy is at best a sensationalist and at worse bi-polar. Either way this makes her one of the least suited people to be a judge.
b
May 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Best.....................Show ............. Ever !!!!!!!
May 17th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Gwallan ...... i read a few years ago, she does she the case well in advance , its the only way this can work its the only reason i enjoyed it this time.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
"It's so infuriating to me because there are women who worked very hard for decades to create a system where domestic violence is serious business and people respond to it in a serious way and when women use it as a weapon not a shield it's offensive."--Judge Judy"
MCA say's...this about sums up my opinion!!
May 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Judge Judy isn't a judge, she's a former judge. These "syndi-court" shows aren't courts, they're just designed to look like what people think courts should look like. None of the verdicts are real, if the plantiff wins the judgement is paid by the company that produces the show. That's why you'll never see property transfor, or other specific preformance awards, abitration lacks the real authority to produce such orders.
May 17th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
oh the media will just says its just one or two women
May 17th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
"It's so infuriating to me because there are women who worked very hard for decades to create a system where domestic violence is serious business and people respond to it in a serious way and when women use it as a weapon not a shield it's offensive."--Judge Judy
So true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 17th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
isn't this show 12 minutes or so for 2 cases over 30 minutes? I don't think it's like regular court where you submit evidence, unless you bring photos or a witness, or a brief statement or something. My guess is if this was a legitimate claim they would have looked at it, weeded it out away from the show and recommended regular trial court for the lady or something. I'm not a lawyer or TV produceer, but it just seems like common sense.
May 18th, 2009 at 3:00 am
"While the cases on Judge Judy are actual small claims court cases, the show is not a court of law, but rather an arbitration, and all parties must sign contracts agreeing to arbitration under Sheindlin."
From Wiki.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Judge Judy is a show (not a real court), she acts like a bully because that's what the people want to see... apparently!?
Regardless, I am very glad that the word about women abusing the DV system is getting out into the MSM.
May 18th, 2009 at 5:06 am
"I've seen this "Judge" Judy on our television and am most unimpressed. She struck me as being a rude, obnoxious pig"
To tell tthe truth, Judge Wapner on the Peoples' Court was the only respectable guy I've ever seen on one of these shows, at least here in the U.S.
Unfortunately he left quite a while back and the de-volution began. The lady that replaced his a dumbo but at least she's not as sensationalistic as the later ones...all the way down to "Judge Hatchett" and the other bottom feeder,I don't know his name but I saw a commercial where he was givig someone a blast of sh**
May 18th, 2009 at 5:07 am
the blow should say "the lady who replaced Wapner is a dumbo"
May 18th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I have always Judge Judy to be sickening, sensationalistic demagogue, ever since I heard that she wanted to deliberately give IV drug users AIDS infected needles. Even here, where I am inclined to agree with her position on the issue of women using false accusations to get their way in court, it seems like she handled it all wrong. Her treating this woman unfairly does not cancel out the massive injustice done to men by this country's court system - it only adds to it. But then bullies rarely advance the cause of justice even when they are on the right side. Frankly Gwallan's description of her as "a rude, obnoxious pig," is a nice way of putting it.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Unfortunately he left quite a while back and the de-volution began. The lady that replaced his a dumbo but at least she's not as sensationalistic as the later ones...all the way down to "Judge Hatchett" and the other bottom feeder,I don't know his name but I saw a commercial where he was givig someone a blast of sh**
You might be thinking of Judge Mathis.
Shows like this show us the real dark side of becoming a judge, the authority to bully people who can't argue back because they might get tossed in jail. And speaking of bad talk shows has anyone ever seen that show with that Steve guy from the old Jerry Spinger Show? (He's not a judge but he comes to mind when you speak of incopetent talk shows) His show is basically a one hour b!tch fest in which he boosts his own ego by belittling other people.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:22 am
On a side note, I often wonder how these television shows so quickly find cases to promote. One time, I was almost involved in a small claims matter and within one or two weeks, I was DELUGED with mail invitations to almost every single one of these shows to sign-up to have it heard on television.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Judge Judy is awesome. She gets to the point without letting people make up ridiculous lies and half-truths.
She could teach a lot of judges how to be a real judge as she hammers the person that is wrong whether it be a man or a woman.
She has a great BS radar and uses common sense.
As you can see with this case, she doesn't back someone just because she is female.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I stopped watching Judge Judy a while back now. From what I've seen, she has a strong tendency to simply side with whoever she feels sympathetic to regardless of whether they have the law on their side or not. Definitely not a good person to be a judge.
It's a bit like sitting in Grandma's morality court!
May 18th, 2009 at 9:46 am
A case in point: I saw an episode of Judge Judy years back where the family of a deceased elderly woman were suing two men who supposedly took advantage of her. The elderly woman had spent a lot of money on these two men, in return for them providing company for her and taking her out to places and so forth.
Judge Judy ruled that the men should have to pay back the amounts for some of the things she deemed were extravagant or excessive. It is no doubt true that these men were taking advantage of this woman, but legally there was no case to answer. It was her money, and no-one forced her to spend it on them. Being a freeloader is not against the law.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Glenn is right on the mark.
The worst mistake we can make when talking about domestic violence or rape -- or false accusations of either -- is the same mistake our radical feminist sisters have institutionalized as a way of looking at the world: assuming guilt without due process of law. And depriving a litigant of the opportunity to have his or her say is a deprivation of due process.
If there is one thing this movement must preach -- if there is one thing that must set us apart from the gender-feminist/sexual-assault-industrial complex -- it's that when it comes to justice, we must remove the gender lenses and replace them with the blindfold worn by the iconic statue of Lady Justice.
Mostly when it comes to rape, domestic violence and false allegations, the gender lenses are unfairly worn to persecute males. We mustn't lower ourselves to their level by rejoicing when the tables are turned on a woman.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I appreciate false accusers being publicly called out but I go to great lengths not to watch television much more so mind programming like this judge judy.
Television distorts our perceptions and leads us into wrong assumptions about life, society and ourselves.
That paid infomercials like judge judy exist actually contribute to the false assumptions which lead to false accusations and other behaviors.
The military would call this a false flag event.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:59 am
The Judge Judy show is entertainment, not justice.
So the judge confronted a women who false accusation against a man of a crime. I did not see the show, so what punishment did Ms Judy deliver for payment of the crime? Shame for lying or did the woman do time in jail or did the woman receive the same punishment the accuser would have received?
May 18th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Pierce:
Mostly when it comes to rape, domestic violence and false allegations, the gender lenses are unfairly worn to persecute males. We mustn't lower ourselves to their level by rejoicing when the tables are turned on a woman.
Hear hear. The justice system could use a lot of help in this regard. You have cops going into DV situations being trained to arrest the one "that is more likely to be a threat" rather asses actual damage/injuries. Lawyers who flat out tell men that they don't stand much of a fair chance if they report DV injuries caused by women. Judges who rule based on gender and not the events in question. Counseling centers that only deal with men who are abusers. Pamplets and reading material that specifically genderize abusers as "him, he" and victims as "she, her". And to top it off you have women who are fully aware of these things (even getting advice on how to pull off dirty tactics) and won't think twice about taking advantage of them.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am
""and when women use it as a weapon not a shield it's offensive."
Yeah except that only focuses on rape victims and not only falsely accused person, who is a victim too and should be the primary source of sympathy and outrage, not the secondary source.
But I'm still glad the issue was exposed on the show. I also saw Judge Judy once say:
"Thew awe deadbeat fawthas, and thew awe deadbeat muthas, AND NEITHER OF DEM AWE BETTA THAN THE OTHA!!!!!
May 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Why are we defending a woman confronted by a entertainment judge? Isn't that what women's groups do, and I will add that women's groups do it better than men's groups.
May 18th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
"Why are we defending a woman confronted by a entertainment judge? Isn't that what women's groups do, and I will add that women's groups do it better than men's groups."
Why? Because defending what is right is blind to gender.
Because we don't want to stoop to their level of becoming a lobby that advocates unfair positions merely because they benefit some the members of our gender.
Because defending what is just is what good men have always done.
And I disagree that women's groups "do it better." They do it blindly, not better. They base their decisions as to what's worth defending solely on gender. That standard is indefensible by any reasonable measure.
May 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Why are we defending a woman confronted by a entertainment judge? Isn't that what women's groups do, and I will add that women's groups do it better than men's groups.
I'll believe they do it better when the comes that they would defend _________ confronted by an entertainment judge. My point being you should be able to fill that blank with a human of ANY description and it still rings just as true. As it stands women's advocate groups have to see what is in that blank space before deciding whether or not to help becase depending on what the person is they may help, assume they don't need help because they are ______, or maybe even think they deserve it because they are ______.
May 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I'm all for hearing both sides of the story. But perhaps Judge Judy is simply fed up with the whole false accusations business. She probably sees a lot of this going on in her line of work. Sure it's not right but that's life. Just like the police, I think Judge Judy may be battle weary.
May 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Not a fan of the show, or it's copycats. How you can convince people to be on it is beyond me. But I assume (yes I know assumptions are bad) that the judge does not only have 12 minutes to review the case, but probably has reviewed various evidences before hand, but the 12 minutes are the highlights, or lowlights of the cases.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Judge Judy reads statements about the cases before the people ever walk in to the courtroom. Many times she will call people out, because what they are saying now in front of the cameras is different from the previous written statements they provided for the show.
With this girl, does it make sense that she would go over at 3:00am and kick in his door if he was a physically abusive guy? It wouldn't make sense to kick in a regular persons door but someone who is physically abusive?
And then she files a protection order 5 days after she kicks in his door!
Then she says "he lost me and his son." Why does he have to lose his son? Because she is the woman scorned and she will now ounish him by not letting him see his son.
This is a story we are all familiar with.
She could have let this woman talk. She could have let this woman give her I'm the victim-punish him speech. But she saw right through it. What this woman was trying to say was making no sense.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
wow i was impressed with judge judy and I agreew ith her 100%. My mother is a huge feminist. She had to bust her asst o support me and my brother and worked her butt off to try and work as hard as the men around her in a male dominated sector. She would also gets mad as hell when she hears about women abusing the system and using it as a weapon because like most things that are abused, if it's abused too much it will be taken away and at the heart of those systems they are Meant to be a good thing.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Nobody has dared mention the false rape accusation made by a MAN who claimed he was abducted and raped by two other men. How come? Doesn't this count?
May 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Sorry, GG, but can you link me to the article about it? I can't find it online for the billions of "ZOMG!!! woman raped by man!!!!" articles.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
GG, it counts. Unprovoked violence is never acceptable in a civilized society.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
And neither are false accusations. . .man I need to hit the coffee.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Judy is show boating. All bark and no bite. Big deal she confronted a liar in front of the cameras. Give Judy another $10 million a year.
My divorce judge did the same thing to my wife as he signed yet another court order curtailing my parental rights.
I doubt there will be a drop in false accusations by women in courts. Great act Judy.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:30 am
"Nobody has dared mention the false rape accusation made by a MAN who claimed he was abducted and raped by two other men. How come? Doesn't this count?"
Sure it does. So does the Lithuanian midget in Tahiti who accused a field mouse of sodomizing him on a golf course. Happens all the time.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:39 am
"And I disagree that women's groups "[defend women] better." They do it blindly, not better. "
Actually they do it hysterically, and trample on everyone else's rights in the process. They even get legislation created based on individual cases, don't they sometimes?
In the long run they will start to look like asses even to the 'woman in the street'.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:41 am
im still waitiung to see this " rape case" and to see if its that bad that it meets certin peoples criteria of false rape accusations ..
May 19th, 2009 at 8:03 am
"Nobody has dared mention the false rape accusation made by a MAN who claimed he was abducted and raped by two other men. How come? Doesn't this count?"
Um, I wrote about it on my website one week ago: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/05/males-false-rape-claim-underscores-that.html
Do you not think I was fair and balanced?
May 19th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Pierce , great call with that shows the balance , I will be curious if he is charged and if charged, how is he punished for this crime.
May 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Yes, Judge Judy sensationalizes her cases. And yes, she plays the tyrant in her courtroom because that's what brings in viewers. But that doesn't necessarily make her wrong in her decisions. In spite of all the bluster and fury, I've found that overall, I agree with her much more than I disagree.
The bottom line is that this woman got exactly what she deserved. Those who watch Judge Judy regularly know that her BS filter is rather finely tuned, given her long experience on the bench. She has ZERO tolerance for anyone who tries to put one over on her, and will stomp all over anyone who tries it. This woman was clearly doing that, and she didn't help herself one bit by referring to the place as "my apartment" when she clearly no longer lived there, and wasn't on the lease. SHE was the one who kicked in the door at 4AM and then filed for an abuse order, an all-too-common tactic by which a woman will attempt to justify her violence. I wouldn't expect the judge to have much tolerance for that kind of thing, and it's to her credit that she did the un-PC thing and threw the book at the woman.
The woman's shock at being treated like that in court stemmed not from her innocence, but from the full expectation that she would be treated with kid gloves, that her actions were of no consequence, and that her accusations would simply be believed on their face. That is, after all, what usually happens in court. The difference here is that when men are treated like that, it's because the woman's accusations are taken at face value and his defense is totally disregarded. In this case, her accusations were examined in light of actual evidence, and his defense was actually listened to, and was seen to correspond to documented fact.
That the judge didn't allow the woman to continue to defend herself was related far more to her having already proven herself dishonest. After all, if most of what she has already said has been a lie, how can one expect that what's to come will be the truth? I do not see that as unfair to the woman -- unlike a man in a normal court, she would have been listened to if she hadn't been so dishonest up to that point.
That should, however, be a lesson for men when they go to court: Be totally honest, even if it appears to hurt your case, because you'll hurt it worse if you're caught in a lie. You don't have to volunteer negative information, but if asked, answer honestly. As a man, understand that the judge is going to assume that you're lying. Just don't give him reason to be convinced of it, because that will only make it easier for him to fleece you.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Georgia Girl Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Nobody has dared mention the false rape accusation made by a MAN who claimed he was abducted and raped by two other men. How come? Doesn't this count?
The CRUX of problem here isn't how "many" women nor how "many" men commit false allegations of sexual assault or domestic violence. Nor, how many "percentage wise" are false, et al... but....rather...
The CRUX of the problem is the current SYSTEM which allows for a false allegation to be made with such ease... On a mere allegation and simply signing a piece of paper...off the authorities go arresting people, only AFTER the arrests does it come to light that the entire situation was a hoax or false allegation. That is what needs to be changed...
What needs to happen is a 7 day wait... First an investigation should be required and then and only then AFTER a due investigation into these allegations with enough evidence should an arrest warrant be sought and the individuals civil liberties taken from them and arrested. This will also give tempers time to calm down and if a man or woman usually a woman making the false allegation comes to her senses no harm is done, no arrests have been made yet...
Why is this SO difficult for anyone here to understand this?. Do you all not have any common sense at all.. The way the police departments deal with these situations is not even done in a professional manner in my opinion. Running out arresting people on just an allegation, without proof and an investigation being performed FIRST...please...
May 20th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Yes, her allegations are shaky, but I agree with Glenn on this one. She was not listened to. All people who go to court should at least be heard and she was not. Trust me, I know how it feels.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:15 am
The way the police departments deal with these situations is not even done in a professional manner in my opinion. Running out arresting people on just an allegation, without proof and an investigation being performed FIRST...please...
That's what happens when an issue becomes a hot topic. Politicians want to look good for reelection, judges want to look good for when they run for political office, lawyers want to look good for when they try for the judge's bench, cops want to look good so they can get a promotion, and all of them want to look like they are "tough on crime". This is why when your house is broken into and you name a suspect they are questioned and investigated before arrest unlike rape. Unlike many other crimes rape suspects are arrested first then investigated with the intent of proving him guilty instead of the intent of finding the truth and letting it set him free or condemning him.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
[...] 22, 2009 by fearlessfathers This Judge Judy's case was on a recent Glenn Sacks' posting. A 22 year-old man, Adrian Welsh, was suing his ex-girl friend, Ashley Brawthen, for destruction [...]
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Good, I'm glad someone is finally standing up the these false accusers. Judge Judy should give a few lessons to the Long Beach Court DV Judge Deborah B. Andrews. She hasn't quite figured out that Men as well as women have figured out that going through her courtroom is a sure way to get REVENGE. Anyone and I mean ANYONE can fake domestic violence in her court, you don't even need proof, just get a naive cop to believe you and he'll do all the lying for you. This place is a prehistoric wasteland for anyone unfortunate enough to be caught up in it. Andrews is unlawful, bias, rude to attorneys and always on the side of cops and prosecutors. No proof is needed to get revenge. She'll throw you in jail for a false accusation of sending email that you didn't even send. And the prosecutor Sharon Panian, the lead DV prosecutor, she lies to this judge, withholds any evidence that would otherwise have the case thrown out. There is no limit to what this woman will do to get her way. Your government NOT at work!