Restraining Order filed against David Letterman

Mephisto said:
Think about it this way - a person you don't even know files a restraining order against you, then ends up dead under mysterious circumstances; when the police find the restraining order, what would be THEIR next logical step?
Click to expand...

Arrest OJ?
 
Ed said:
Denmark, a true perfect place.
Click to expand...

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha!!!

Seriously, I should have guessed by the name. But... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Wait... I'm from Iceland. I can't say ◊◊◊◊◊... :(

--- G.
 
CFLarsen said:
Can I see something in writing on this?
Click to expand...

For starters, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_order (Are they ever going to get hyperlinks fixed?)

The gist is that a restraining order is intended to freeze the situation until the court has time to examine things and come up with a more permanent and reasoned solution.

Now, the usual caveats apply in the US, in that exact provisions may vary from state to state.

For anything more specific, you're going to have to wait until after the holiday (which means Tuesday, in most of the US). I have to go to the courthouse to file a new will sometime before New Year's, so I'll probably check into it then.
 
Mephisto said:
I collect Japanese and Filipino knives and swords, and my gun collection is extensive enough that should I start claiming that anyone is sending me signals through the television, I hope someone logically admits this behavior is "out of the ordinary" and starts questioning any legal actions I might take.
Click to expand...

Does this woman have a weapons collection?

We don't know this ladies background...
Click to expand...

Precisely! You appear to be constructing a scenario based on virtually no evidence. The only thing we presently appear to know is that she has some rather odd ideas. If you are arguing that having odd ideas is, in itself, a physical threat, then you are going to have to be more convincing.

Is it good policy to simply believe that someone isn't a danger to themselves or others simply because they haven't been "checked out" by a competent authority?
Click to expand...

It certainly conforms to the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Would you rather the default position be that you are presumed incompetent until proven otherwise? Remember, the default position applies to yourself, as well.

I never said the woman should be locked up, but I fully believe that anyone taking legal action against a TV personality under these circumstances should be "investigated" a little more fully.
Click to expand...

In principle, I agree. However, what if, instead of stalking Letterman, this woman wore a brown shirt and swastika, and insisted the Holocaust never happened? Would you also want to refuse her access to the legal system until she'd passed a psychological exam? I think you could say that, in such a scenario, her ideas and claims would be not only distasteful and loony, but could plausibly predict illegal behavior.

Certainly there are mentally-ill people who are no threat to anyone, but in an instance like this - I would like to believe the judge competent enough to delve into this ladies' life a little more to determine the depth of her delusions.
Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understand the purpose of a restraining order. See my earlier reply to Claus.

ETA Here's one other thought. Suppose, just suppose, that the only thing keeping this woman from actually doing something is that her energies are diverted by the legal process. Take the legal process away from her and she'll seek another avenue of getting Dave's attention.
 
Last edited:
You can bet if this woman had taken out a restraining order on Dubya - she would have a lot more to worry about than just odd behavior. Rest assured that no consideration at all would be given to her odd request and if she isn't paranoid already, she would certainly become so after the S.S. (Secret Service) descended on her life.

It's true there are very different threat levels in these occurances, but the stigma (of a restraining order) still applies. For the record, I've been the victim of a stalker once. It was a very young lady I had employed as a manager in a hospital - she seemed sweet, but a little odd at first. I ended up having to move, change my phone number, etc. She ended being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and sadly later took her own life.

Again, I'm thinking of the helpless victim here, I am just thankful she didn't drag my name across legal channels before coming to her untimely demise - it would have left me emotionally responsible. It's too bad the law leaves such a door opened unquestioned.
 
Beady said:
So, you don't know.
Click to expand...
Don't know, don't care. If the order was refused for any hypothetical reason it would be appealed against. Assuming the woman still has some money, or a lawyer some exposure to gain. If it has no practical effect, why not just grant it and be done? Apart from a few pages on a JREF Forum of course.

If this were a case that might actually lead to a change in the law it would be a different matter. I don't think it is.
 
Morrison's Lament said:
Where exactly do you live, CFLarsen? You can get a restraining order easier than a prescription for codeine most places I've been. You just show up, ask for it, try not to have any violent outbursts while filling out the paperwork and there ya go.

Doesn't mean anything, though, for reasons stated above. Getting it enforced is a matter of dealing with the police and they certainly won't put up with any "he's winking through the TV!" nonsense.

Restraining orders in Iceland tend to involve impoverished alcoholics and drug users involved in some kind of protracted dispute that escalates into threats or vandalism. In effect the authorities are breaking up the fight.

--- G.
Click to expand...

I live in Denmark.
 
Eh, yeah. I know, now :)

That's bad news, actually. That means Kim Larsen will be free to continue singing his filthy lyrics about me and my mother :(

"Midt om Natten" indeed. Filth! :(

--- G.
 
Ed said:
True. I've done it.

The problem is getting the order enforced.

These things are called "Temporary Restraining Orders". Easy to get. To make them permanent you need to have proof. I suspect that this order will not become permanent.

BTW, I suspect that the cost would be >500 <1500 USD so don't look for an order on yourself anytime soon.
Click to expand...
It depends on the jurisdiction. In some areas, a temporary restraining order is available for $50-$100.
 
luchog said:
It depends on the jurisdiction. In some areas, a temporary restraining order is available for $50-$100.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you would settle for one of those. Remember what my father told to me "Son" he said, "a restraining order is like a suit of fine clothes, cut to form, the best materials, perfectly constructed. People will notice".

It is worth a few dollars more for the finest.
 
Beady said:
The gist is that a restraining order is intended to freeze the situation until the court has time to examine things and come up with a more permanent and reasoned solution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Restraining orders don't just apply to personal contact; they can be used to prevent an employer from firing you while you get a legal or civil case together. They can be used to prevent a bank from foreclosing on your house, to prevent a bill collector from calling you, or to prevent Walmart from building across the street. But the restraining order is only temporary - the situation is far from resolved.

When a case is brought to a judge, temporary restraining orders are typically granted, as long as the consequences of the order are not far-reaching. This is because, when deciding to grant one, a judge often has no way of knowing how legitimately fearful or upset the complainant is, so the judge doesn't focus so much on whether the order is absolutely necessary as whether there's a compelling reason to not grant the order. For example, the restraining order barring Walmart from constructing a new store would be very carefully considered by the judge, because the construction delay could cost Walmart thousands of dollars.

The restraining order we're discussing has no such broad effects - it causes no one any inconvenience. So of course it's granted.

Meanwhile, when Letterman's lawyers appealed and provided reason that the order shouldn't be granted, it was reversed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom