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.

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.

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.

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.

On 4/8/2024 6:14 PM, BTR1701 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

This sounds like standard TV courtroom practice. The capital (as it
were) penalty is the cancelled -- albeit substantial -- remuneration.

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.

It's radio. There's no privacy. About time she put a passcode on there.

>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.

>Except this is a TV judge.

Then why did they carry out the death warrant he issued on the previous
episode?

>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.

>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.

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. 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 ;-)

--
Rhino

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 ;-)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000 BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>:

>>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!

A Class D felony for use of an unencrypted radio signal? I don't think
so.

>. . .

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:01:59 -0700
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.
>
> 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.

So things were awful with Judge Judy and have only taken a sharp
downhill turn since then? I'm glad I don't watch this nonsense then!

> > 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 ;-)

--
Rhino

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:17:25 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000 BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >>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!
>
> A Class D felony for use of an unencrypted radio signal? I don't think
> so.
>
> >. . .
Assuming he actually was a police officer and not just a poser, I
figured he'd know better than me.

Besides, I might be misremembering that it was Class D; it was 20 years
ago after all. Or maybe he said Class D misdemeanour.

Are these "classes" of felonies consistent across all the states or
would a Class D in California be completely different from a Class D in
Illinois?

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:17:25 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000 BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>:

>>>>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!

>>A Class D felony for use of an unencrypted radio signal? I don't think
>>so.

>>>. . .

>Assuming he actually was a police officer and not just a poser, I
>figured he'd know better than me.

There's no crime! There are laws against breaking into computer
networks, but if there are no accounts and no passwords, there's no
crime! It's a radio signal. It's in your home.

>Besides, I might be misremembering that it was Class D; it was 20 years
>ago after all. Or maybe he said Class D misdemeanour.

>Are these "classes" of felonies consistent across all the states or
>would a Class D in California be completely different from a Class D in
>Illinois?

I have no clue.

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.

>> 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 ;-)
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:17:25 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
> ><ahk@chinet.com>:
> >>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000 BTR1701
> >>><no_email@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >>>>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!
>
> >>A Class D felony for use of an unencrypted radio signal? I don't
> >>think so.
>
> >>>. . .
>
> >Assuming he actually was a police officer and not just a poser, I
> >figured he'd know better than me.
>
> There's no crime! There are laws against breaking into computer
> networks, but if there are no accounts and no passwords, there's no
> crime! It's a radio signal. It's in your home.
>
Are you being ironic/sarcastic right now or do you actually believe
that to be true? It sounds like you're saying that the defense offered
by the fake defendant in the fake trial that BTR posted at the start of
the thread is legit.

Having said that, I can't see any actual flaw in the legal reasoning of
what you're saying. No one can charge you for radio or TV signals
received over-the-air - at least in Canada and the US - although they
certainly charge a pretty penny for cable, satellite or SiriusXM.

> >Besides, I might be misremembering that it was Class D; it was 20
> >years ago after all. Or maybe he said Class D misdemeanour.
>
> >Are these "classes" of felonies consistent across all the states or
> >would a Class D in California be completely different from a Class D
> >in Illinois?
>
> I have no clue.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>Tue, 9 Apr 2024 02:12:56 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:17:25 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
>>><ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:14:45 +0000 BTR1701
>>>>><no_email@invalid.invalid>:

>>>>>>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!

>>>>A Class D felony for use of an unencrypted radio signal? I don't
>>>>think so.

>>>>>. . .

>>>Assuming he actually was a police officer and not just a poser, I
>>>figured he'd know better than me.

>>There's no crime! There are laws against breaking into computer
>>networks, but if there are no accounts and no passwords, there's no
>>crime! It's a radio signal. It's in your home.

>Are you being ironic/sarcastic right now or do you actually believe
>that to be true?

It is the nature of using the electromagnetic spectrum for communication
and signalling. It goes everywhere. The radio signal is literally being
broadcast. Furthermore, this is a method of two-way communication, which
means one is allowed to signal back.

It cannot work as intended if these things were disallowed.

The restriction in law is using someone else's username and password
or other credentials to access a network one does not have permission to use.

Your subscriber, purporting to be a police officer, was wrong. He
offered an unencrypted signal. There is no violation of law if others
use it. There might be a scenario in which is signal is stronger than
other signals, which means equipment making use of the signal would be
likely to grab that one as the preferred signal anyway.

>It sounds like you're saying that the defense offered by the fake
>defendant in the fake trial that BTR posted at the start of the thread
>is legit.

Defendant? He was the plaintiff. He's entitled to use the radio signal
if unencrypted but he is NOT entitled to use it once she encrypted it. I
won't agree that he had been "leeching" off her unencrypted signal
earlier, because that is simply the nature of radio communication.

Comcast wants me to make their xfinitywifi network available for others
to use, which is unencrypted (and that's how their mobile phone service
works). It's their equipment (which I lease) but my electricity. I keep
it turned off. If I turned it on, then there's nothing illegal about
other people within signalling distance using it. It wouldn't count
against my bandwidth restriction and it doesn't give others access to my
LAN, supposedly.

>Having said that, I can't see any actual flaw in the legal reasoning of
>what you're saying. No one can charge you for radio or TV signals
>received over-the-air - at least in Canada and the US - although they
>certainly charge a pretty penny for cable, satellite or SiriusXM.

Exactly.

>>>. . .

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...

moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> 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...
>
>
>

Interesting point. I wonder if you could even say that now.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 4/8/24 5:14 PM, BTR1701 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Is this to keep from having to talk about Trump then? What a long way
to go to show you have no balls.

trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/24 5:14 PM, BTR1701 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Is this to keep from having to talk about Trump then? What a long way
> to go to show you have no balls.

Yea, heaven forfend I talk about a TV show in a TV newsgroup instead of all
the off-topic bullshit that you're obsessed with, Hutt, you diseased
man-cow.

On 4/11/24 4:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>> On 4/8/24 5:14 PM, BTR1701 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Is this to keep from having to talk about Trump then? What a long way
>> to go to show you have no balls.
>
> Yea, heaven forfend I talk about a TV show in a TV newsgroup instead of all
> the off-topic bullshit that you're obsessed with, Hutt, you diseased
> man-cow.

You were talking about a "TV show" and the legal matter you were whining
and bitching about wasn't the main focus? That's just lying because you
are a motherfucking stupid lying asshole. How do you manage to keep
pegging the meter with the stupidest shit anyone has ever heard?

In article <2GYRN.624273$Ama9.377695@fx12.iad>, gmsingh@email.com wrote:
> On 4/8/24 5:14 PM, BTR1701 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Is this to keep from having to talk about Trump then? What a long way
>to go to show you have no balls.

That's kinda funny, coming from someone who obessess over being teabagged by
President Trump!

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 4/11/24 5:26 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 4/11/24 4:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/8/24 5:14 PM, BTR1701 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Is this to keep from having to talk about Trump then?  What a long way
>>> to go to show you have no balls.
>>
>> Yea, heaven forfend I talk about a TV show in a TV newsgroup instead
>> of all
>> the off-topic bullshit that you're obsessed with, Hutt, you diseased
>> man-cow.
>
>
> You were talking about a "TV show" and the legal matter you were whining
> and bitching about wasn't the main focus?  That's just lying because you
> are a motherfucking stupid lying asshole.  How do you manage to keep
> pegging the meter with the stupidest shit anyone has ever heard?

Response from OKT: <crickets> That was a bit predictable.