Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 11:45:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: TV Judge Issues Restraining Order; Threatens Arrest Warrant Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com> <923318157.734324397.189993.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: <923318157.734324397.189993.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 114 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:45:35 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 6694 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c4a724e264a96e$2$3553870$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7071 On 4/8/2024 11:04 PM, anim8rfsk wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> In article <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com>, >> Rhino wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000 >>> BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>>> This case is amazing at all levels. >>>> >>>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0LMEL6_b15o >>>> >>>> First, we have a guy suing his neighbor because she >>>> password-protected her wi-fi signal, which he had been leeching off >>>> for free, claiming he's entitled to it because the wi-fi waves are in >>>> the air which belongs to everyone. >>>> >>> When I was doing DSL support, I once took a call from a guy who needed >>> help configuring his new router. That was a very routine call but when >>> we got to the part of setting a password, he said he didn't want to >>> encrypt his signal. I warned him that he was opening himself up to >>> neighbours stealing his WiFi and that stealing WiFi was a felony in >>> some jurisdictions. He said he already knew that because he was a >>> police officer and that it was a class D felony (I think that's the >>> specific class he cited) in his state, which I believe was >>> California. I finished helping him configure his router without >>> encrypting the signal. I think he was the ONLY customer I ever had that >>> wanted his signal unencrypted in nearly 4 years! >>> >>> As for this notion that your neighbour's WiFi should be free: >>> poppycock! The neighbour whose WiFi you're using is paying his Internet >>> provider for his service and there's a pretty good chance that he can >>> go over his quota of bandwidth because you're using a good chunk of it, >>> he'll be paying more. And if he happens to doing something illegal, >>> like downloading child porn, the police are going to show up at YOUR >>> door, not his! >>> >>>> Then we have a judge who, in rightly ruling against the guy, also >>>> decides to issue a restraining order against him from contacting his >>>> neighbor and/or harassing her and warns him that if he violates the >>>> order, he (the judge) will issue a warrant and have the police pick >>>> him up and bring him back to court for further proceedings. >>>> >>> Even that might be reasonable if he's actually harassing the neighbour >>> who is piggybacking off his WiFi. >>> >>>> Except this is a TV judge. He's not a real judge and this is not a >>>> real courtroom. It's a TV set. The only power this judge has is to >>>> decide the monetary split the two parties agreed to in order to >>>> appear on the show. He can't issue retraining orders and he sure as >>>> hell can't issue warrants and have the police arrest anyone. >>>> >>> And that's where the wheels fall off this whole thing. Is ANYTHING in >>> this anecdote real? Did someone actually steal WiFi? Did the crime go >>> to a real court? Obviously, the judge isn't real. >>> >>>> Apparently he never actually was a judge in his prior life, either. >>>> His only previous claim to fame was as an actor playing a police >>>> captain in a YouTube show called SOUL SNACK. >>> >>> My mother used to watch Judge Judy regularly and I remember watching >>> with her a couple of times. If I recall correctly, she was a real judge >>> and the disclaimer in every episode insisted that these were real cases >>> with real defendants and plaintiffs. >> >> Yes, they're real cases. The producers go to the real small claims >> courts and find people who are willing to drop their case in real court >> and come on the show and have the TV judge decide their case. The TV >> show is essentially equivalent to binding arbitration. The show provides >> a pot of money and they sign a contract agreeing to take whatever >> portion of that money the judge decides to apportion out as his/her >> 'verdict' as settlement for their claims. >> >> So if the pot is $5000 and the judge decides the plaintiff proved her >> case and her damages were $2000, then she gets the $2000 and the >> plaintiff and defendant split the remaining $3000. So the plaintiff will >> walk away $3500 and the defendant will get $1500 even though he lost the >> case. >> >> But the thing is, the TV judges aren't bound by the actual law even >> though they pretend they're following it. Judge Judy is the absolute >> worst in that regard. She basically decides who she likes more (usually >> based on which party kisses her ass the most), and then rules in their >> favor, regardless of the actual legal principles involved. >> >> I remember one episode where the defendant, who admittedly was a bit of >> a pompous ass, had actually researched the law and brought citations to >> both statute and case law that backed up his position and Judy said she >> didn't care and didn't even want to see them. She called him arrogant >> and condescending and then ruled in favor of the plaintiff. >> > > I once saw Judi call both the defendant and the plaintiff liars, and said > their stories weren’t true, and made up a completely new third story out of > whole cloth and decided on that > > >> Back in the day of the original PEOPLE'S COURT with Judge Wapner, he >> actually took the job seriously and tried to behave as if he was an >> actual judge, in an actual court, and ruled accordingly. Now it's just a >> circus of low-intellect idiots, parading in front of 'judges' who are >> nothing but narcissists looking to have their egos stroked on TV. >> > > I went saw Wapner get mad at a guy because he said the plaintiff “Jewed him > down“ on the price, and he read the guy the riot act, and said that it > wouldn’t affect his ruling, and then he ruled for the plaintiff, and gave > the plaintiff every dollar there was in the kitty, so that defendant > couldn’t get anything. > ... Bygone days, I guess, when such language wasn't bleeped...