XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com   
      
   In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 06:55:53 +0200, "Jan K."   
    wrote:   
      
   >W Fri, 26 Apr 2024 04:15:00 +0000, Judge Porter napisal:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> https://youtu.be/0LMEL6_b15o?si=Nar2iGKyXpm4Zf8V   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   >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?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)