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: <ViydnVIk4LHI8Yn7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com> <atropos-4ED5A2.17015908042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp> <923318157.734324397.189993.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
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 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com>,
>>   Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> 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...