I had my day
in court today. Well it wasn't really a court it was just a small and
windowless room in a Singaporean Administration building. There was no judge or
jury either. The matter was presided over by a little bloke about the same age
as me. He was sitting at a desk in a suit and tie. I was hoping for guys in
wigs and stenographers recording transcripts. I had envisioned making
impassioned pleas to citizens who had been called up for jury duty just to hear
my case. I had prepared both my opening and closing statements that were full
of rhetoric and colorful language. So sitting down across the table from a
little bloke with spectacles and a ball point pen was a bit
disappointing.
To say the
least.
The court that
my matter was heard in is a part of the Singaporean Subordinate Judicial
process. These courts were developed as a tribunal system to resolve small
claims or disputes. They are not courts though. They are just small windowless
offices.
The word
'tribunal' has it's origins in the thirteenth century and was derived from the
Latin word Tribunus. A Tribunus in ancient Rome was literally the
'leader of the tribe'. These leaders were empowered under Roman law to
settle disputes between different parties.
Their word was
final.
The Tribunus
in my legal matter with was a Singaporean chap named Arthur. My combatants were
a legal firm I shall refer to as ABC. Their representative in my matter was a
young Singaporean lady named Suzy. She seemed very nervous when I met her in
Arthur's office and she also appeared to be quite vague about the nuances of my
case. Her handshake was insipid when I introduced myself and she was nursing a
very thin manila folder with only a few pieces of paper inside. These scant few
documents seemed to be the sum of the case against me.
ABC are a
fairly large legal firm here in Singapore and they were representing one of the
big telecommunications companies who have been annoying me for more than a year
now. I won't refer to ABC by name as I have found them to be a tenacious bunch
of fuckers who have the potential to endeavor to take further action against me
simply because they can. I rate lawyers and the legal profession at about the
same level I rate used car salesmen – which is not very highly. In my previous
experience with the legal fraternity I have found them to be much over-valued
and not particularly bright. I think that professionals who bill their clients
in five minute blocks tend to serve themselves more than they serve justice.
I have
previously described some detail of this fiasco in an article called
"Justice". I went to court today seeking justice.
I went to
clear my name.
Despite the
advice of my best mate Berty in the US I chose to represent myself in the
matter with the telecommunications company. Berty has had much more experience
than me in legal and court matters and he strongly recommended that I employed
counsel to act in my defense. I told Berty that it was a simple and
straightforward case of mistaken identity and I felt quite comfortable in
representing myself.
The matter
involved a debt recovery action for the sum of $1123.37. The telecommunications
company alleged that I owed them this amount for an unpaid mobile telephone
bill. The debt is not mine.
It never was.
I have never
had a mobile telephone with this particular company and I established very
early on in the piece that the phone and the debt belonged to a man named
Charles Peters. The telecommunications company in fact confirmed this to me
quite some time ago but I somehow got lost in the machine. It eventually ended
up with a debt collection company and then with the ABC lawyers. In the end I
simply couldn't be bothered explaining the situation over and over again to
different people so I thought I would bring it to a head by letting it go to
court.
Charles Peters
was not in attendance at the court proceedings. I was hoping to call him as a
witness but I had been unable to locate him. I don't think that the ABC law
firm had even tried to find him. They thought he was me.
This was the
root of the whole problem.
The
proceedings commenced when I opened the door to Arthur's office. As I have
mentioned earlier his office was tiny and windowless. Suzy from ABC was already
inside and seated and both she and Arthur stood when I entered and we all shook
hands. I told them that I hoped that I hadn't kept them waiting for very long and
that I was a little disappointed that the proceedings were not being heard in a
proper court of law with a jury and wigs and a stenographer. Arthur looked
impassive at my comments and Suzy looked like she was about to cry.
I could smell
her fear.
I asked Arthur
whether I should refer to him as 'Your Honour' and he told me that I should
just call him Arthur. I told him that if he didn't mind I would like to call
him "Your Honour" anyway. I told him that I had spent some time
preparing some fairly wicked opening and closing statements in my defense and
it seemed only proper in a legal situation. He told me that he didn't mind and
he actually seemed a little chuffed. I could see Suzy's hands shaking a little
as she fumbled with her manila folder. She could tell that I had struck a chord
with our arbitrator and I felt that I already had her on the back foot.
The term 'on
the back foot' has it's origins in cricket. It relates to a batsman who is
forced to take a step backwards because the ball that has been bowled to him is
so fast and ferocious it literally forces them into a defensive retreating
position.
There was a
bit of an awkward silence at the commencement of proceedings so I took the bull
by the horns and told Arthur I would like to make my opening statement. He
nodded his consent. Suzy looked terrified and she continued to fumble with her
manila folder.
I made a
pretense of looking at my notes and told Arthur with no small amount of
dramatic flair that I had been a victim of a prolonged attack of harassment by
Suzy's client for more than a year. I told him that despite my repeated claims
of innocence of the debt I felt that the Telecommunications company had
persisted in a campaign of threats and terror against me. I told Arthur that I
was here today to not only seek justice for myself but to also send a message
to this corporation that little people like me should not and could not be
harangued.
I told Arthur
that I felt my name had been besmirched.
Arthur gave a
small chuckle in retort and he calmly told me that he only had the authority to
determine whether I should pay the debt or not. He asked Suzy if she had a copy
of the original contract for the mobile phone in question and with trembling
hands she removed a document from her folder and handed it to him. Arthur
adjusted the glasses on the bridge of his nose and perused the document
closely. After a minute or so he asked me if my name was Charles Peters and I
told him it was not. He then reeled off an eight digit Identification number
and asked me if that was my Employment Pass number.
I again told
him that it was not.
Arthur then
asked me if I could show him my Employment Pass card. All foreign workers such
as myself are issued with such a card. They are emblazoned with our photograph
on one side and our right thumbprint on the reverse. We are given unique
identity numbers. I pulled my Employment Pass out of my wallet and handed it
over. After only a quick glance Arthur handed the Pass back and told Suzy that
she had the wrong man.
He told me
that the case against me was dismissed and that I was free to go.
As I rose to
my feet triumphantly I asked Arthur whether he could apply punitive damages
against the Telecommunications Company that had wrongfully erred me. He
smilingly told me that he had no such authority but asked - out of pure
interest he said - what amount I thought would be appropriate. When I suggested
a figure of one hundred million dollars he laughed out loud.
So did
I.
Suzy did
not.
Arthur told me
that I could lodge a claim for costs if I had incurred any in this matter. I
told him that my bus fare from the office was about eighty cents but I hadn't
kept the receipt. Arthur told me that I could collect a claim form for this
expense from the front office if I wanted to. I told him that it wouldn't be
necessary and that I felt that justice had been served today. I told Arthur
that I thought that eighty cents seemed like a fair price for justice in this
instance.
I shook hands
goodbye with both Arthur and Suzy. Arthur seemed quite pleased with the
proceedings and I certainly was.
Not so poor
Suzy.
She
just looked miserable.
No comments :
Post a Comment