Slashdot Mirror

At least, it does offer "some" legitimacy.

Judge Judy threw a case out once because both parties had colluded to try to avoid paying taxes, by marking the value of a car as $1 on the title of ownership, despite contrary proof that the transaction had been for several thousand dollars.

Then she said something like:

Taxes pay for this court. Taxes pay my salary. If you choose to make a contract that goes outside the law, don't expect the justice system to support that contract when something goes wrong. The same goes for drug dealers who have a drug deal go bad, or someone who knowingly buys stolen property.

Just imagine if a judge who doesn't like bitcoins, or just doesn't understand them, had said something similar about bitcoins. That would have set a precedent and that would have been a PR-nightmare for bitcoins. In a way, I also think it helped that the Federal US Marshalls repossessed bitcoins from the Silk Road a while back and resold them for 89 million dollars. By reselling bitcoins for its own benefit, the government made it an asset that you could more legitimately purchase and sell. After all, if you can legally buy this asset from the government at an auction, this means legitimate corporations can also buy and sell such assets, not just shady startups or shady people or potential terrorists.

On a side-note: It's not really true that taxes pay Judge Judy's salary, since she's making 47 millions this year for only 52 days of work. All that money comes from TV ads, not taxes. She's mostly an entertainer, not a normal judge, but her main point still remains regarding non-TV judges, most of those other judges get paid through taxes.

Judge Judy is a nasty Jewish woman who plays a judge on TV.

The fact she is jewish is relevant somehow?

Probably as relevant as any of the other descriptors in the sentence.

Judge Judy is a nasty.

^^ FTFY

Judge Judy is a nasty Jewish woman who plays a judge on TV.

The fact she is jewish is relevant somehow?

To you, evidently.

Dave

Judge Judy is a nasty Jewish woman who plays a judge on TV.

• Try to sidetrack the case in traffic court by claiming IBM jaywalked in front of the bankruptcy court?
• File a motion to move everything to small claims court since by the end of this all they'll likely have less than $2,000 in their pocket?
• Risk moving the whole thing in front of Judge Judy and hope to confuse her?

"engaging in a pattern of rude, impatient and undignified treatment of self-represented litigants in the courtroom. This included inappropriately interrupting them, addressing them in an angry or condescending or demeaning tone of voice, and threatening to rule against them if they interrupted or annoyed her."

It really is Judge Judy!!!

Was anyone else offended/confused that Ars Technica writes an article with Judge James Ware in it yet puts a picture up of Judge Judy?

I'm not an idiot, you know.

It's almost like they're saying, "You don't know what a judge looks like, so we're going to give you the only image you can conceive a judge having."

Everyone believes they have rights because they're never violated.

Of course it happens.

Um, i've lost my belief in rights!

The concept of "rights" sounds good because it's never tested.

Court is for poster children.

Not every court gets a poster, some actually do test rights.

It's very easy to show an individual how little right they have to anything.

Aren't SCO and RIAA single entities? (Albeit representing a lot of money.. er, artists.)

As for truely mano-e-mano rights given justice, watch Judge Judy.

I believe only the minor or his parents can end a contract signed in this way. IANAL, but I watch a lot of Judge Judy.