Restraining Order filed against David Letterman

BobK

Muse
B
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Messages
939
Forbes
A state judge granted a temporary restraining order to Colleen Nestler, who alleged in a request filed last Thursday that Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" since May 1994.
Click to expand...
Nestler's application for a restraining order was accompanied by a six-page typed letter in which she said Letterman used code words, gestures and "eye expressions" to convey his desires for her.

She wrote that she began sending Letterman "thoughts of love" after his show began in 1993, and that he responded in code words and gestures, asking her to come East.

She said he asked her to be his wife during a televised "teaser" for his show by saying, "Marry me, Oprah." Her letter said Oprah was the first of many code names for her, and that the coded vocabulary increased and changed with time.
Click to expand...
How has our legal system become so bereft of common sense that this judge could even consider a restraining order?
 
BobK said:
Forbes


How has our legal system become so bereft of common sense that this judge could even consider a restraining order?
Click to expand...

Our lawyer told us that restraining orders are mainly intended to make a person feel good; they have no real legal purpose other than to furnish a possible legal avenue in the case of unwanted contact where the law would otherwise not apply. Since Letterman is highly unlikely to initiate (verifiable) contact with this woman, the restraining order will never be invoked.
 
What if she says he continues to think of her, and won't release her from his mental harassment and hammering?

The court shouldn't be spending time on this kind of frivolity.
 
BobK said:
Forbes


How has our legal system become so bereft of common sense that this judge could even consider a restraining order?
Click to expand...

Salma Hayak is doing the same thing to me - she uses code words and gestures to signal to me that she wants me in her movies. I am at my wits ends deciding how to deal with this. I guess when you're really, really attractive you just have to deal with stalkers.
 
billydkid said:
Salma Hayak is doing the same thing to me - she uses code words and gestures to signal to me that she wants me in her movies. I am at my wits ends deciding how to deal with this. I guess when you're really, really attractive you just have to deal with stalkers.
Click to expand...

And you have no idea how much Angelina Jolie and Sandra Bullock want me. They are clearly sending me signals that they want a 3-way with me on silken sheets; but it's an open 3-way, because they want to touch each other, too.
 
Beady said:
Our lawyer told us that restraining orders are mainly intended to make a person feel good; they have no real legal purpose other than to furnish a possible legal avenue in the case of unwanted contact where the law would otherwise not apply. Since Letterman is highly unlikely to initiate (verifiable) contact with this woman, the restraining order will never be invoked.
Click to expand...

But that's not the point; the point is that the judge is helping this woman's delusions. And, as somebody says, what if he continued to wink at her through her TV? Do they arrest him?
 
Skeptic said:
But that's not the point; the point is that the judge is helping this woman's delusions.
Click to expand...

Has this woman been pronounced delusional/whatever by competent authority? You're probably going to answer to the effect that it's obvious, and non-sensical to think otherwise. Is that truly how you want the courts to operate, according to public perception? Or do you want them to wait for opinions to be rendered by competent authority before pronouncing this woman delusional? Has this woman proven to be a danger to herself or others, to the extent that summary action can be taken?
 
Beady said:
Has this woman been pronounced delusional/whatever by competent authority? You're probably going to answer to the effect that it's obvious, and non-sensical to think otherwise. Is that truly how you want the courts to operate, according to public perception? Or do you want them to wait for opinions to be rendered by competent authority before pronouncing this woman delusional? Has this woman proven to be a danger to herself or others, to the extent that summary action can be taken?
Click to expand...

I think it's ironic that this should happen to Letterman who has been the subject of a serious and determined stalker before.

I still think the judge is wrong in adding to her delusions - and while the restraining order might placate her temporarily, there is nothing to prove that this woman can't or won't become dangerous in the future. Many stalkers are also delusional and many of them can turn violent when the object of their delusions turns them away.

Catering to the fantasies of the mentally ill is NOT the judge's job and I believe he's setting a dangerous legal precedent here - what if, enraged by Letterman's continued advances (in spite of the restraining order), this woman becomes a vigilante?

There is a big difference between helping a mentally-ill person swat at the imaginary flies in his room and filing a legal document blaming those flies on another living person. This judge stands to lose all credibility if this woman hurts someone and her personal records reveal that a judge not only ignored a possible warning sign, but intentionally threw gasoline on her fire.

P.S. This reminds me a lot of the joke about the man who complained that his wife was "crazy" because she believes she's a chicken. When asked why he didn't have her committed, he said, "I would, but I need the eggs."
 
billydkid said:
Salma Hayak is doing the same thing to me - she uses code words and gestures to signal to me that she wants me in her movies. I am at my wits ends deciding how to deal with this. I guess when you're really, really attractive you just have to deal with stalkers.
Click to expand...
Hey....she's does that to me too! I can't believe she's cheating on me... :mad:

It is amazing that even one single minute of court time was devoted to this temporary restraining order for Colleen Nestler. IMO by allowing such a frivilous claim to even be heard in a court of law shows that the judge is either A) insane or B) incompetent.
 
zenith-nadir said:
Hey....she's does that to me too! I can't believe she's cheating on me... :mad:

It is amazing that even one single minute of court time was devoted to this temporary restraining order for Colleen Nestler. IMO by allowing such a frivilous claim to even be heard in a court of law shows that the judge is either A) insane or B) incompetent.
Click to expand...

. . . or C) he needs the eggs!
 
Mephisto said:
I still think the judge is wrong in adding to her delusions - and while the restraining order might placate her temporarily, there is nothing to prove that this woman can't or won't become dangerous in the future. ."
Click to expand...

What is there to prove, to use your word, that *you* won't become dangerous in the future? If speculation and possibility are valid grounds for putting someone in a straightjacket...

On a personal level, I don't disagree with you. The problem is that the law that is applied to this woman also applies to you and me. If we can say "This woman is loony," and have her locked up, what is to stop the same thing from happening to us? If you want to put her in the loony bin (or whatever), you must first prove, probably via the opinion of competent authority, that she does, in fact, belong there. Hence my question: Has this woman been shown by competent authority to be delusional or otherwise incompetent? Or has she merely displayed odd behavior? Has she made any threats, or has she just been a (rather severe) pest?

If not, and if she has displayed no behavior which might warrant summary action, then she is for the moment presumed competent and has full access to the legal system. As I understand it, anyone can obtain a protection order against anyone else, for any reason or for no specific reason. What, precisely, has she done that would warrant restricting her access to the courts?

Many stalkers are also delusional and many of them can turn violent when the object of their delusions turns them away.
Click to expand...

True. How do you know, however, that this woman is one of these?
 
Beady said:
I said "verifiable."

And upon what *legal* grounds are you going to deny the woman's request?
Click to expand...
Appealable ones, whatever they might be. Time and money wasted, unless we want to put a monetary value on the chances of a delusional getting through Letterman's security - which he can well afford, and will have anyway, like ICBM's, you know, just in case. Letterman's problem isn't this kind of drongo, it's the fiercely intelligent head-cases who give lawyers a wide berth.
 
Has this woman been pronounced delusional/whatever by competent authority?

I do not think one needs to wait for "competent medical authority" to delcare that Mr. Letterman is not actually sending secret threats to this woman through the TV set.
 
This is insane, on so many levels.

When such a restraining order is issued, it's because the judge thinks there is a real threat behind it: That Letterman is actually sending out secret messages to mind-control other people.

If I were Letterman, I'd sue the judge.

If this woman "happens" to be in NY, then it is Letterman who has to move out of the way. If the restraining order is upheld, I can foresee that people would take out restraining orders to prevent their mother-in-law to visit them. Or a pain-in-the-ass neighbor who can't stay in his home. I foresee chaos...

This story is described in Danish media like this:

"You don't know if you should laugh or cry". "Raving mad woman". "Only in America!". "USA is often described as the land of opportunity, but is also very much the land of absurdity. From time to time, you can only shake your head in disbelief over what goes on over there."

Can you blame us, at least this time, for laughing at you and not with you?
 
CFLarsen said:
When such a restraining order is issued, it's because the judge thinks there is a real threat behind it...
Click to expand...

Not here; anyone can get a restraining order against anyone else at any time for any/no reason. I could go to the courthouse right now (well, actually, I'd have to wait until after Christmas, now), and get a restraining order against *you*. Forget the odds against us ever being in the same place at the same time; forget the fact that (so far as I know) we've never so much as flamed each other. The only question, if they even think to ask it is, whether at the time of seeking the order I am a responsible adult.

Hence the question I keep asking, and which no one seems to be answering: Is this woman a (legally) responsible adult? If she is, then she has the right to seek and get a restraining order against Letterman, you, me, or the rest of the world. If not, then her guardians have the right.

Now, however, in order to get the restraining order actually enforced, she's going to have to offer credible evidence that Letterman is approaching her in whatever manner. If that ever happens, and the judge agrees, I will join everyone else here in wondering what His Honor is smoking.

Until then, though, we've heard the last of the restraining order; it exists, but has no effect whatsoever (until triggered, and we're pretty much agreed on whether that's going to happen). The complaint that it wastes court time and money is largely invalid, since it was probably issued via standard office procedure in perhaps five minutes, and was paid for by the woman (much as you would apply for a marriage license or passport).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom