Sunday, December 12, 2010

Out of the Inbox - Rebuttal to defense of couple on The People's Court - Wigging out on a customer 

Sent in by a Chaptzem reader

There has been some controversy regarding a Frum couple that appeared on a nationally televised episode of The People’s Court. The couple came off clearly looking like frauds, liars and thieves on the show. The judge and the many thousands that have watched the video clip have come to this conclusion as well. However there are some people that won’t acknowledge the obvious even when it hits them in the face.

Below are some half-baked points written up by these gullible folk that somehow are supposed to portray the wig couple as having been misunderstood and unfairly judged. Unfortunately with even some mild scrutiny all of these points fall away.

Here are their points with the bracketed numbers and the rebuttals beneath them.

1] The main impetus of the judge was that this wig she was examining looked like a short wig.
The wig that was ruined was not, repeat not a short wig. It is a long wig. If you look carefully you will see that it is a long wig. It looks like a short wig b/c it's all knotted up, but it is not short.

This point is untrue and is being used as a tactic to confuse the reader.

At no point did the judge indicate that she thought the damaged wig was a short wig. In fact quite the opposite is true. The judge was being led to believe by the plaintiffs that the damaged wig was a long human haired wig, which it most definitely was not. The length of the wig had absolutely no bearing on the judges decision to deem the couple frauds and dismiss the case. The fact that the wig in evidence was different from the one on the receipt was why the judge dismissed the case.

2] The wig maker charged $3000 in total including highlighting, streaking and cutting for ruined wig. The wig heidi was later purchased from georgi as a replacement for the ruined wig.

This makes absolutely no sense.

a) Georgie does not sell Revlon wigs

b) There is no way one can pay $3000 for a Revlon wig no matter how much cutting, coloring or streaking is made. A Revlon wig just does not go for that kind of money.

c) Georgie does not sell Revlon wigs

4] The judge called both Georgie companies. She first called the first number and b/c the office was closed her call was fwd'ed to a woman named Sylvia from company #1 and the judge asertained that Heidi did pay $3000 for a long wig. The judge asked for the receipt number. Sylvia answered that the office was closed. The judge then called the other Georgie company #2 (there was a divorce involved here). The other company said that they do not manufacture that type of wig.

This is by far the most creative and utterly nonsensical point.

Why would the judge call ‘both’ Georgie companies? Believe it or not, the judge was not born yesterday. There was a phone number on the receipt and the judge had no reason to call any other number. If this mysterious woman named ‘Sylvia’ was able to confirm the $3000 purchase from memory why was locating the original receipt necessary.

Furthermore, if the judge truly spoke to ‘Sylvia’ from Georgie who informed her that they were closed why would the judge try calling anyone else afterwards?

Here are some points from the actual People’s Court video that shine a clear light of guilt on this couple.

1) The couple brought absolutely no evidence at all with them. They came to court to prove a case, evidence is usually obligatory for the plaintiff.

2) The couple claimed to have gone to three wig makers who deemed the wig unsavable but could not produce even one document stating this. Is it possible this is because the wig that was washed was a cheap Revlon synthetic wig.

3) When confronted as liars there was absolutely no denial. The only excuse offered was that Georgi was in Paris. This excuse makes no sense. Georgi is a company not a person. If ‘Mrs. Georgi’ is in Paris it seems pretty obvious that business doesn’t come to a screeching halt. Obviously a receipt for a wig can be verified by any counterperson at Georgi’s.

The bottom line is this couple appeared on national television with, according to the judge, the premeditated plan to defraud an honest cleaner.

It seems quite obvious that the wig in question was a synthetic wig that was almost dead already. Probably as a quasi last ditch experiment ‘Heidi’ figured she would have the cleaners wash the wig and see what came of it. Probably after seeing the mess it became and realizing that she had a fairly recent receipt for a brand new human hair wig she tried pulling a switcheroo, attempting to suck three grand out of this cleaner. Fortunately the judge realized and made the right call.

The people defending this couple are sadly extremely gullible and are probably the same people that believe child abuse does not exist in our community. This ‘schtick’ that this couple pulled is by far the most blatant and publicized case of Chillul Hashem possibly ever in our history. This couple truly has what to be ashamed of.

Not so Simple
We have no choice; We have to teach our kids that Toas Akum is Mutter, that Hashovas Aveido or Pro'oin Halvo'osoi, or Hashovas Pikdoinoi or Shor Shenogach es Shoiroi do not pertain to an Einoi Yehudi. They only pertain to Akum when it happens to be in a circumstance of Chillul Hashem.
We also must Exclude them when we are being Mispalel for the sick.
So, where should our children draw the line?


Your rebuttals can be easily rebutted. I don't understand why you felt the need to write a whole article explaining why you are the next sherlock holmes. Who made you the judge to determine whether they are telling the truth? You don't even know the facts of the case. This brief clip from the show was clearly edited and you are seeing only what the producers want you to see.

Your "brilliant" deductions about what makes sense and what doesn't, about what the judge meant and why the couple said something or did not say something aren't any more accurate or believeable than any of the other theories floating around out there.

Especially the point that show a "clear light of guilt" in your words. Since when does not bringing evidence make you guilty? How do you know there was no denial? It is not so clear to me and to others who are likely the ones thinking "clearly" in this instance.

What is true, is that there are potential explanations why the couple did/said what they did/said and that should be enough for us to be dan lkaf zchus. As with the story in the gemara about the wealthy businessman who claimed he could not pay his worker. Although it seemed beyond all reason that he didn't have a few coins to pay is worker, in the end it turned out that the unimaginable - all his wealth was tied up in other obligations - was actually true. I wonder how you would have come up with brilliant explanations of why this wealthy man could not be telling the truth - because, in your words, it "doesn't make sense." Yet it was true.

The bottom line is that you took all this time to write up a "rebuttal" that has no basis in fact and in doing so not only wasted your time, but mine as well.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Chaptzem! Blog