Posted on 01/18/2006 7:12:19 PM PST by WatchYourself
A Santa Fe, New Mexico judge recently granted a temporary restraining order against TV talk show host David Letterman for a woman who alleges that Letterman—who works in New York City and whom she has never met--has mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts. According to Colleen Nestler, Letterman has caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade, and has used code words and gestures during his broadcasts to show her that he wanted to marry her and train her as his co-host.
The woman, who also claims that Letterman and fellow celebrities Regis Philbin and Kelsey Grammer have been conspiring against her, requested that Letterman stay away from her, not “think” of her, and “release [her] from his mental harassment and hammering."
Letterman’s attorneys were able to get the order dropped, and the judge--who apparently never thought to suggest to Nestler that she use the “off” button on her TV--has made good fodder for gossip columns and news of the bizarre. However, the case also demonstrates a much larger though rarely discussed problem—it is far too easy to get a restraining order based on a false allegation.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
The "mental harrassment" is still the greatest line... ever.
Paging George Noory, paging George Noory, please pick up the white courtesy phone. We have a live one.
Letterman IS mental harassment. If I was the judge I would have granted it to her and anyones else that wanted it.
This is a problem with the adversarial legal system in general.
The judge must base his rulings on the evidence before the court. If there is only one witness, and he says trees grow on the moon, then the judge must rule that trees grow on the moon, even though his personal opinion may be to the contrary.
That's why defendants should answer the summons.
Why is this not surprising?
Its sad, even for a piehole like Letterman, that he has to spend any money defending himself against silliness like this.
This moron of a judge should be recalled, impeached or drawn and quartered.
If, during this dimwits brainfart, David Letterman had attempted to purchase a firearm he would have been violating a federal law. I can't even imagine the hullabalu that would have ensued.
Now that I think of it further, there was a famous case that well illustrates my case.
Some emigre dissident, who had been treated roughly by the Soviets, won a large judgement in a New York court.
The Soviet Union protested that as a sovereign nation, they were not subject to such a judgement. But the judge ruled that because they had failed to show up in court, and state they were a sovereign country and could not be sued, the judgement stood.
Amazing... this could render all TV celebs "restrained" to Hollywood. Quick, sign up and file your order today.
Why? He decided the case in accordance with the law and the evidence before him. The whole problem is that no defence was presented, so only the plaintiff's pleading was before the court.
"I've been harassed myself by Ruth Ginsburg."
ME TOO! CLASS ACTION!
There's some College Republican who wants to try Letterman for treason. I don't know the details, but I remember reading about it.
The evidence before him was that he had a nut before him. If he missed that he needs to find a job with a lot less responsibility.
It's not apparent who needs therapy more ... the woman or the judge?
There was no evidence before the court that the plaintiff was a nut.
Of course she is a nut, but it is the job of the defendant's attorney to point that out. Since the defendant didn't answer the summons, no such evidence was brought before the court.
And how did this brilliant judge expect to enforce such an order, when it's all a product of a sick mind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.