Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.22.MISMATCH!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 23:53:47 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: TV Judge Issues Restraining Order; Threatens Arrest Warrant
References: <ViydnVIk4LHI8Yn7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20240408193545.00004b52@example.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:01:59 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-4ED5A2.17015908042024@kd014101080069.ppp-bb.dion.ne.jp>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RJBCJYwlDmnau4IMpI77YseeSuMxXLv5jGZsnZXdmS86eJaFCOaeuOdVtepUFZ6/HO6KI7qgkZZtsTh!0tyuQJP+0/lzSQLFgphUcG+9u+YVDcWjvHHzV+v3NZeMABP648Pv+6EpbO8/15bsletg62Su9cmW!J7yKEnKlTdGIkjdOis1Ng90=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6877
X-Received-Bytes: 6750
X-Original-Bytes: 6550

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.

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.

> 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 ;-)