Re: TV Judge Issues Restraining Order; Threatens Arrest Warrant

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.
...