Originally Posted by
GrenadaRoger
The US has an Adversarial Legal System
Courts & Judges are not obligated to find truth/facts---it is up to the contesting parties to present evidence and cite law (statue or case) to the court/judge who will weigh all the items presented to reach a decision--the court/judge may add to the presented information by doing its own fact finding/legal research, but the court is not obligated to do that.
I listened radio show again, and paid particular attention to Judge Judie's questioning Scalir re: rent payment refused by the landlord...Judge Judy said "I may be wrong, prove it to me" & "show me"...So Scalir had the opportunity to show that he could not make payment: but he failed---the court was not obligated to investigate/establish that point of evidence for Scalir (adversarial legal system).
last trick of this hand?
Have you ever tried citing law to a small claims court judge? Other than shouting, "Fuck you and your whore mom who created you", there's no surer way to lose a small claims case.
Small claims judge HATE being told the law by non-attorneys -- even if the person is right.
Judge Judy telling Ken "show me / prove it to me" regarding a basic California law is not fair. What was Ken supposed to do? Foresee her odd line of questioning? Whip out a laptop and search the internet to prove the law to her?
It's not surprising that Ken didn't bring proof of attempting to pay the May rent because:
1) This case was NOT about Ken's eviction, but rather his roommate's refusal to pay rent! Ken couldn't have foreseen that Judy would essentially retry the eviction case.
2) It is incredibly standard that landlords don't take your rent during eviction cases in California.
3) The eviction was never about nonpayment of rent, so Ken wouldn't have had any reason to prove he tried to pay it in May. He DID bring proof that he paid the entire 4-month back rent from May-August,.