Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rhino Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: TV Judge Issues Restraining Order; Threatens Arrest Warrant Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:53:19 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 117 Message-ID: <20240408215319.000070ae@example.com> References: <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 01:53:22 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8dc3e0ce04a1002bec981d701157c322"; logging-data="4033657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/LuELmL1jxHyb+nq4c0x1kttae05/NEs=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:EMq+SePUoCvvbF/gGhGDASMG1Jk= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-w64-mingw32) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240408-6, 4/8/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 7122 On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:01:59 -0700 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. > > 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. So things were awful with Judge Judy and have only taken a sharp downhill turn since then? I'm glad I don't watch this nonsense then! > > It sounds like case you're > > mentioning is one that has very little connection to reality. I > > suppose it was made for people who just want to see "judges" scold > > people for their actions without giving the proverbial rat's ass > > for whether the case is real or the TV judgement reflected what > > happened in a real courtroom. I'd stay away from any show like that > > but maybe that's just me ;-) -- Rhino