I knew someone who years ago was approached to be on The Peoples Court. He'd sold a bread maker to a woman at a garage sale, and even though it was sold 'as is' she decided it didn't work like she'd anticipated so sued him in small claims court for the $25 she paid for it plus several hundreds more for emotional distress. Apparently those TV shows have scouts who monitor court filings around the country looking for unusual cases and thought they could make this into an entertaining segment. They invited this guy to fly to New York City and present his side of the story to Judge Wapner. He wasn't interested, just gave the woman her money back.

Nowadays, these courtroom shows: Divorce Court, Judge Mathis, America's Court, The Peoples Court, etc. have proliferated, and even that weird Nancy Grace has jumped on the bandwagon, so the ratings must be very good.

Not that this has improved the quality of the advertising, it's still ambulance chasing attorneys and vocational schools that 'guarantee' placement in non-existent jobs to perpetual students searching for a high-paying low effort position in the medical or criminal justice fields.

And now the viewers are invited to call in and voice their opinions about the case or various issues, and oh, by the way, receive some wonderful offers.

I used to watch those shows in the afternoon as background entertainment while I worked on needlework projects or cooked dinner. But I've been put off lately because I decided the real people who might be willing to appear on those various fake court programs have become so disgusting looking, foul mouthed, and otherwise unable to present themselves, the shows are hiring actors to portray the litigating parties in what may or may not be real life court cases.

I came to this conclusion because lately I've noticed the plaintiffs and defendants seem to be generally more attractive: well-spoken rather than profane, fit and well-groomed as opposed to being fat unkempt slobs, not obviously high on drugs or alcohol, have all their teeth, not sporting those skunk hair or neon dye jobs, and not dressing like bottom of the barrel floozies and pants-on-the-ground fools.

I think if viewers wanted to watch their ugly selves, friends, or relatives on TV in the afternoon they'd go look in the mirror or watch Jerry Springer, so the producers of these courtroom shows decided to clean it up. At first I thought the shows were recruiting a better class of litigants, but there's something fishy about it, something that doesn't quite ring true.

Here's why I think the courtroom shows use paid actors:

1. They are moderately good-looking, not movie-star quality, but character actor quality. And appropriately dressed with no body piercing or facial tattoos.

2. They tell their tale of marital or non-marital or extra-marital woe with a touch of humor and comedic timing. The stories are just a little bit too entertaining to be believable.

3. The emotional outbursts and inability to observe courtroom etiquette seem to be orchestrated for entertainment value and don't get in the way of the story or punch lines delivered by the judges.

4. The litigants are able to talk in complete sentences without profanity.

5. They show respect for the judges and are able to shut up and listen.

6. The litigants have some dignity left at the end of the case.

Take a peek at the new crop sometime and see if you agree something has changed, and these are not real people.

Me, I've been listening to BBC radio or watching Netflix online instead of turning on the television.