I just heard on the local news something like “He spoke to her through the TV screen, and now, she’s suing David Letterman.”
I can’t find anything on google. (Tried “David Letterman Lawsuit” and “Suing David Letterman.” Also tried “Lettermen” spelling just in case…)
I don’t want to watch the local news.
Somone please tell me what the blurb was about.
-FrL-
David Letterman isn’t being sued. Letterman is filing a motion to overturn a restraining order filed against him by a nut who thinks he is communicating to her with secret codewords and gestures. CNN Story.
Heh. Reminds me of that week when I thought some CNN reporter was giving me clues, with winks and gestures and cleverly placed words, about how aliens secretly ran the whole media empire and how to join them on their top-secret spaceship. But then the shrooms ran out.
Seriously, what kind of legal system do we have when a judge can’t see that lady for the obvious nutter she is? No wonder all other countries laugh at us.
The mind boggles. Why would any judge in their right mind grant this woman a restraining order in the first place?
It might have been the best way to deal with the woman for the time being (it was teporary), and it’s certainly no hardship on Letterman.
Personally, I would like to be able to go about my daily business without worrying whether I might somehow get with 3 yards of a loony I’ve never met, and wind up being fined or jailed for violating a ludicrous restraining order.
The judge in this travesty should be sanctioned.
Yikes. Even if it posed no real hardship to Letterman, I’d be a bit pretty wary of a judge who will issue a restraining order just to get an obvious nut job out of his hair.
The judge may have thought mollifying the woman would help, but it just feeds her fantasy.
In any case, dumb move. It’s not his job to play along.
It very well could be posting a hardship on Letterman. If he is innocent of the charge and reason for the restraining order, one of the things that can be denied him, is the ability to purchase a firearm (legally).
It’s one of the questions on the transfer form, and I believe one of the things the feds check for during the background check.
That might not be an issue to him, but it would certainly be an issue to me. I’d need the gun to protect myself from my wife when she found out that some woman may have a reason to need one on me! 
This version of the story had an amusing parenthetical aside:
news.google.com is your friend. 
Aren’t there also some venues where the law REQUIRES that all requests for restraining orders that include accusations of what might appear to be domestic violence be granted, and later potentially overturned on review?
You should spend more time in MPSIMS.
well, at least letterman will not be able to use a legally acquired gun on her!!!
I hope he doesn’t need it!
I’d imagine that someone who is loony enough to get a restraining order, may be just the person to go after him.
-Butler
Considering Letterman’s experience with Margaret Ray, I’d say he has more than enough reason to be cautious, including taking out a restraining order of his own.
Some info about temporary restraining orders:
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/domestic_violence/restraining_order04.htm
-FrL-
If I were Letterman, I’d also be worried that the restraining order is the first salvo in a civil lawsuit case. If she sues Letterman for ‘harassment’ or whatever bogus claim she can come up with, it’ll certainly help her if her lawyer shows the jury that the situation was so grave that a judge ‘was forced to issue a restraining order against Mr. Letterman’.
He has to fight it. And the judge was an idiot for granting it.
Please read the link provided above regarding “temporary restraining orders.”
It looks to me as though they basically mean nothing.
-FrL-