Any time I become immersed in court proceedings, whether it be the corruption trials of local school board or city council officials, or the wranglings of lawyers arguing over allegations that former United States president Donald Trump paid “hush money” to an actress to cover up an extramarital affair so that it would not have an adversely affect on his 2016 presidential campaign I become wistful.
If only all of our disagreements could be handled in a similar manner, why we’d be a happier and more civil society.
I realize the cost of retaining legal counsel to represent us in every day disagreements and arguments but I’ve tried to employ some of the practices I’ve observed in the courtroom to my own conflict resolution.
For example, in a 2010 case it was my contention that the opposing party was not engaing in an equitable distribution of goods and that I was being detrimentally affected.
Can I have some blankets?
You have some blanket…
I have part of a sheet.
I’m freezing.
I am, too.
You steal all the blankets every night.
No I don’t.
Yes, you do!
If I did then why are you wrapped up in all of the blankets and I have this sheet?
Stop yelling at me!
I’m not yelling, I’m cold.
Fine, take all the blankets. I’ll freeze to death. Will you be happy then?
Wisely, I did not respond to that line of questioning.
Now, had we followed simple courtroom procedure and stuck to the presentation of facts rather than the mischaracterization of my character (that of a thief who steals blankets) and my motives (manslaughter in service of keeping all the blankets for my personal gain) a third party—an Artificial Intelligence arbiter perhaps—could have determined the fair distribution of blanket during different seasons and everyone would be satisfied if not happy.
Instead I was left with dressing in extra layers in the winter and soaked with sweat in the summer because I “wanted all the blankets.”
No justice, no sleep.
