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

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?

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.

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?

Jan K. wrote:

> But what was it?

From the description, it was a "Judge Judy" style show?

On 4/26/2024 2:50 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jan K. wrote:
>
>> But what was it?
>
> From the description, it was a "Judge Judy" style show?
>

I fired a radar down the hole this was in, and no reflections
of the pulses seem to come back.

https://www.sfweekly.com/marketplace/judge-porter-newest-top-judge-show-online/article_66ff0892-ccfb-11ee-932f-e71f993b9442.html

Conclusion ? "Scientists are baffled"

Paul

Paul wrote:

> https://www.sfweekly.com/

"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 06:55:53 +0200, "Jan K."
<janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> 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?

On 4/26/2024 8:00 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> https://www.sfweekly.com/
>
> "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"
>

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZnPM1BfK/sfweekly.jpg

Paul

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:38:53 -0400, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 4/26/2024 8:00 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.sfweekly.com/
>>
>> "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"
>>
>
> [Picture]
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/ZnPM1BfK/sfweekly.jpg
>
> Paul

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>
>
>Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>
>Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
>a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
unlimited internet.

Decades ago, before an international trip, I bought my first laptop and
the night before I was to leave, I was trying to load it. I had dial-up
or dsl. Of course I could copy everything to a usb drive, if they
existed then, but I found I could connect to some neighbor's wifi and it
made things go much faster. I know he didn't have to pay extra.

By the time I got home, iirc, he had a password on it. I was very
lucky.

On 4/26/2024 8:58 AM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>> of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>
>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.
>
> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
> unlimited internet.
>
> Decades ago, before an international trip, I bought my first laptop and
> the night before I was to leave, I was trying to load it. I had dial-up
> or dsl. Of course I could copy everything to a usb drive, if they
> existed then, but I found I could connect to some neighbor's wifi and it
> made things go much faster. I know he didn't have to pay extra.
>
> By the time I got home, iirc, he had a password on it. I was very
> lucky.
>

Any "unlimited" Internet is actually limited. Any time the transit bandwidth
you're using, is more than the value of the account monthly billing, you're
going to "receive a letter" about your "excess usage". For example, on some
Internet here, the limit used to be 400GB a month. The "Unlimited" account now
might be like 1TB -- it just does not state it that way.

A picture hosting site, may have rented server space for a reasonably fee.
It may have included an "unlimited" service. Well, when the server ran up
a $30,000.00 bill for the ISP, the ISP just sent the $30K invoice
straight to the customer, just like that. So much for "unlimited". The site had
to add advertising to their offering, to cover off charges.

It turns out "water is wet" and "gravity is a thing".

If a deal is too good to believe, you're going to find out what
the deal really was, soon enough. Any time the Internet charge starts
to exceed the monthly billing, you've painted a target on yourself.
A "nice" ISP might send you a friendly warning not to do that, almost
immediately. But some are quite happy to have you step in pooh and
"get a bill at the end of the month". Imagine the shocked look on
your face, if you open a letter and it says "you owe us thirty thousand".
That would spoil your whole day. I don't think there are enough
quarters under sofa cushions to cover that.

Paul

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>> of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>
>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.
>
> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
> unlimited internet.

Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for
and had no right to use it.

Chris wrote:
> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>>> of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>>
>>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
>>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.
>>
>> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
>> unlimited internet.
>
> Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for
> and had no right to use it.
>
>

My ISP (BT, in the UK) has hotspots all over the place. These are simply
other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
channel on a standard SSID.
They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.

It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not
knowing how.

My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
with massive downloads.

Ed

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:22:34 -0000 (UTC),
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>>> of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>>
>>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
>>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.
>>
>> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
>> unlimited internet.
>
>Irrelevant to the case.

It's irrelevant to the court case, but it's not irrelevant to the point
I was making!. ;-)

>The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for
>and had no right to use it.
>

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:00:14 +0100, Ed Cryer
<ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

>Chris wrote:
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>>>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>>>> of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>>>
>>>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
>>>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.
>>>
>>> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
>>> unlimited internet.
>>
>> Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for
>> and had no right to use it.
>>
>>
>
>My ISP (BT, in the UK)

Does no one speak in words anymore!

> has hotspots all over the place. These are simply
>other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
>channel on a standard SSID.
>They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.
>
>It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not
>knowing how.
>
>My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
>some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
>with massive downloads.
>
>Ed

Here, Xfinity (Comcast) has something like that. It's mostly for their
own customers and I forget how it is for others. I have a tendency to
go on out of town trips without taking the address of where I'm going,
and 10 or 20 years ago I drove to Pennsylvania and had to find some
hotspot like that to look up where the hamfest was. It must have been
before smartphones.

This past March, I was away for a week and in a parking lot at Walmart
in Florida and I had time to use my computer for the first time, and
before I had turned on hotspot on my phone, the laptop downloaded my
email using an unlocked xfinity hotspot (even though I still don't have
that). When I turned on my hotspot I could see that it worked at 3x
the speed or more. Walmart lets people park over night, even in
campers. This lot had about 100 cars there all night, in a lot that
held 800 or 1000. Some must have been workers working inside the store,
but at least a couple, plus me, were sleeping in their car. I don't
know who the other cars belonged to.

On 2024-04-26 2:00 p.m., Ed Cryer wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>>>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>>>> of Florida is in the background.   So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>>>
>>>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to
>>>> that, if
>>>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck.  Read the contract.
>>>
>>> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
>>> unlimited internet.
>>
>> Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't
>> pay for
>> and had no right to use it.
>>
>>
>
> My ISP (BT, in the UK) has hotspots all over the place. These are simply
> other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
> channel on a standard SSID.
> They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.
>
> It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not
> knowing how.
>
> My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
> some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
> with massive downloads.
>
> Ed

For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
should keep them open so that anyone can use them.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 4/26/2024 3:38 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
> unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
> should keep them open so that anyone can use them.

Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one. (Dirty Harry)

--
Stand With Israel!

On 26/04/2024 21:38, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
> unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
> should keep them open so that anyone can use them.
>

Link please here where he said this crap. Did he say wireless service should
be free at he point of inception? IOW ISP should give it away free of
charge , never mind their huge investment in infrastructure. Chinese
communism under chairman Mao gave away everything free but also workers
had to work for free to get those freebies.

Chris,

> Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay
> for and had no right to use it.

I hope you noticed he took a double-pronged attack approach :

He claims he's allowed to use whatever enters his home*.
Well, it stopped coming thru the wall, so there is nothing he could use
anymore. Case closed.

* I would like to see him claim so with his gas, water and electricity. :-)

But the second part is that he somehow seems to demand "payment" for the
"loud music" he claims he was subjected to. I've not seen anything about
his audacity of that after-the-fact demand.

I also have not seen the judge tell the guy to pay for all his time (years?)
of leeching.

And no, I don't enjoy watching court cases (on youtube or otherwise).
Sorry.

By the way, if you like stories like that - people claiming all kinds rights
from others - you might enjoy https://notalwaysright.com/ . A warning
though : there are also a lot of "feel good" stories in there. You can just
skip them ofcourse. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2024-04-26 6:36 p.m., Jack wrote:
> On 26/04/2024 21:38, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
>> unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
>> should keep them open so that anyone can use them.
>>
>
> Link please here where he said this crap. Did he say wireless service should
> be free at he point of inception? IOW ISP should give it away free of
> charge , never mind their huge investment in infrastructure. Chinese
> communism under chairman Mao gave away everything free but also workers
> had to work for free to get those freebies.

<https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2295/why-did-richard-stallman-recommend-not-to-use-passwords>

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 26/04/2024 19:00, Ed Cryer wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
>>>> Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
>>>> of Florida is in the background.   So I'm sure they use Florida laws.
>>>>
>>>> Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to
>>>> that, if
>>>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck.  Read the contract.
>>>
>>> I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
>>> unlimited internet.
>>
>> Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't
>> pay for
>> and had no right to use it.
>>
>>
>
> My ISP (BT, in the UK) has hotspots all over the place. These are simply
> other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
> channel on a standard SSID.
> They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.
>
> It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not
> knowing how.
>
> My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
> some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
> with massive downloads.

That does exist and is included as a benefit of the package you're on
whether that's BT or otherwise.

Totally different to the legal (sic) case here. The neighbour was not
paying for anything.

On 26/04/2024 06:15, Judge Porter wrote:
> 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
>

It is not done to use the wifi of a neighbor. Ofcourse she protected her
wifi with a password.
And if he have problems with his neighbors music, he should complain
about that.

Fokke