In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 06:55:53 +0200, "Jan K."
Post by Jan K.While living next to his neighbor, Jennifer Everett, for the last few
years, Rick Conners has been using her wifi without her knowledge. After
Ms. Everett protected her wifi access with a password, Mr. Conners has
been demanding that she return his access to her internet. After denying
his request, Mr. Conners decided to sue her and claims that since he is
subjected to her loud music, he should be allowed to access her wifi
because after all, the signal much like the music bleeds through the
walls and into his residence.
http://youtu.be/0LMEL6_b15o
So I made the mistake of watching it. From start to finish.
Two people were at their respective podiums.
A girl, perhaps the plaintiff and a man, the likely defendant.
There was a judge. But no jury. No lawyers. No court clerk.
But there was a court guard of sorts. And maybe even spectators.
But what was it?
It was binding arbitration. AFAIK every state permits this, probably
with variations. In some states for decade. The parties agree to give
the court the some or all of the same powers as a government court. In
some places there are religious courts that are given these powers by
the parties. Generally they go by the laws of the state they live in,
but the parties can agree to a different set of laws unless such laws
are against "public policy". That's rare to non-existent, but the
Branch Dividians probably couldn't be approved to use their rules for
arbitration.
It takes some of the burden off the government courts/.
It's not mediation, which only provides advice by a neutral party.
Court stenographers are expensive. And often a waste of money when
appeals are not permitted, as is usually the case in small claims. And
even govermnent courts now often only have audio or video recordings.
Post by Jan K.The judge ruled in the lady's favor and against the man which surprises
nobody but then the judge issued a "restraining order" against the man.
In this state, the judge must have the power to issue restraining orders
or he wouldn't do it. The judges are usually lawyers, often with a
history as judges in government courts.
I think at first they said what state they were in, but I guess to
maximize the TV audience, some don't know.
The People's Court has been on tv for 30+ years, is in NYS and
originally just had parties from NYS, mostly NYC. But I think they
look for cases out of the ordinary, weirdo cases, like the one you
found, and now they take parties from outside the state. Originally,
the first judge, Wapner, would actually cite the statute number and read
the statute on which he based his decision, a NYS statute. After he
left the show, later ones don't do that.
There are at least 10 of these shows on tv, maybe 20 (I'd never heard of
this one.) . Cheap to produce because I don't think there are any
rehearsals. They are no scripts, no lines to learn, because they are
real litigants. Saves a lot of time. I don't know who pays for
transportation and hotel. By comparisons, AIUI, those appearing on game
shows in California have to pay for that stuff themselves.
Judge Maybelline, Judge Judy (annoys me, but popular), 2 others named
after the judge, People's Court (which is the best one.), Divorce Court,
I ttink there is Paternity Court (where the advantage is, I'm sure, that
the tv show pays for the DNA testing, which I suspect is expensive.
Sometimes the guy wants to be the father and sometimes he wants not to
be.) The one you point to. Judge Judy's husband used to have his own
show.
Most cases would otherwise be in small claims court, where no lawyers
are required (except for corporations, that don't really exist and can
only speak through a lawyer. At least that was the rule at first but
iiuc law suits became a way to almost extort the corporation, sometiems
a small family business, which would have to pay a lawyer for half a day
or more at hundred dollars an hour so it was cheaper to settle. Now
aiui in most states very small corporations don not need a lawyer in
small claims court and certainly not in TV courts. BTW, most people on
Usenet are old enough to know this but small claims courts didn't exist
until the 60's or 70's. I think people just sucked it up.
I don't think any of these shows deal with child custody, but mostly
money.
Post by Jan K.Huh?
A restraining order is a legally binding enforced boundary, is it not?
The court doesn't seem to be a legal court but more of a reality show.
How can that restraining order possibly be legally binding?
