Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Is This Judge Insane?

Truth is stranger than fiction:

David Letterman has been temporarily restrained by a woman who believes that he torments her over the airwaves using a secret code.

New Mexico resident Colleen Nestler filed court documents late last week, alleging that Letterman has been using code words, gestures and “eye expressions” for more than 10 years to convey his desire to marry her and train her as his cohost.

As a result of Letterman’s alleged methods of torture, Nestler claims she has suffered from “mental cruelty” and “sleep deprivation,” and has been forced into bankruptcy.

She was granted a temporary restraining order by Santa Fe District Judge Daniel Sanchez, who signed off on her application and set a Jan. 12 court date to determine whether to make the order permanent.

In her six-page letter to the court, Nestler requested that Letterman stay at least three yards away from her and that he not “think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering.”

He granted her request? He’s as nuts as she is. How about a restraining order against him doing anything this stupid again?

Comments

  1. #1 spyder
    December 22, 2005

    Hey, this could prove valuable. We could file petitions against the secret coded symbolic memes in ID, or claim that Dembski’s incapacity to be truthful is harming so many of us. heheheeee

  2. #2 Matthew
    December 22, 2005

    Don’t trust yahoo news, this is probably an Onion story.

  3. #3 KeithB
    December 22, 2005

    I don’t think so. The WWN stories on Yahoo I have seen have been clearly labeled as such. This is from E! online.

    As far as the story goes, the Judge just said that Letterman has to stay more than 3 ft way and not send messages. That isn’t that much of a burden for Letterman.

  4. #4 KeithB
    December 22, 2005

    Here is the same story direct from E! online:
    http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18017,00.html?fdnews

  5. #5 Ed Brayton
    December 22, 2005

    KeithB wrote:

    As far as the story goes, the Judge just said that Letterman has to stay more than 3 ft way and not send messages. That isn’t that much of a burden for Letterman.

    But this whacko thinks that everything he says sends her messages:

    “Dave responded to my thoughts of love, and, on his show, in code words & obvious indications through jestures [sic] and eye expressions, he asked me to come east,” she wrote.

    Letterman upped the ante, she claimed, when he asked her to be his wife shortly before Thanksgiving in 1993.

    In a teaser for his show, Letterman jokingly said, “Marry Me, Oprah,” which Nestler rapidly deduced was a message intended for her.

    “Oprah had become my first of many code names,” she wrote. “…[A]s time passed, the code-vocabulary increased & changed, but in the beginning things like ‘C’ on baseball caps referred to me, and specific messages through songs sung by his guests, were the beginnings of what became an elaborate means of communication between he and myself.”

    How can he stop sending messages that he hasn’t been sending except in the delusions of this nutball? You don’t grant a request this idiotic, you send this woman into the loony bin.

  6. #6 KeithB
    December 22, 2005

    Well, since Dave is not sending messages, he doesn’t need to do anything.

    Maybe the judge wants to meet Dave. 8^)

    I suspect that the judge is buying time to have her observed.

  7. #7 Ed Brayton
    December 22, 2005

    KeithB wrote:

    I suspect that the judge is buying time to have her observed.

    Yeah, better keep an eye on her. She might do something crazy. What exactly is he waiting for? I’ve observed enough to know she needs help already and I’ve never met the woman!

  8. #8 KeithB
    December 22, 2005

    Having had a family member go through this, it is not that easy. They have to go voluntarily if they are not a danger to themselves or others.

    Besides, it seems that the lady never even came to court:
    “In her six-page letter to the court, Nestler requested that Letterman stay at least three yards away from her and that he not “think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering.””

    So, maybe the judge needs to do this to see her in person.

  9. #9 Raging Bee
    December 23, 2005

    Funny but sad. I suspect the judge may be humoring the lady by “ordering” Letterman to stop doing something that’s clearly impossible. The question is, what will the judge do if she comes back and says that Letterman is violating the “no messages” order?

  10. #10 Dave S.
    December 23, 2005

    Not just Dave, but apparently Regis Philbin, Kelsey Grammar and Kathy Lee Gifford know all about it. Expect them to be slapped with supeonas soon.

    Check out the documents in the case here. They really shed some light on a bizarre and troubled woman I think. This judge, I’m not sure what his excuse is.

    Colleen applies for a TRO

    Colleen makes here statement in support of TRO

    District Judge Daniel Sanchez grants TRO

    Letterman moves to quash said TRO

  11. #11 Hyperion
    December 24, 2005

    “The question is, what will the judge do if she comes back and says that Letterman is violating the “no messages” order?”

    Why, the judge would ask her to show how Mr. Letterman violated the order, or course.

    All she has to do is prove that he’s sending her telepathic mind control messages with his eyebrows. Shouldn’t be too hard.

  12. #12 raj
    December 26, 2005

    This is clearly silly, but it isn’t particularly difficult to get a TRO. Actually, the judge should have issued a TRO against the complainant forbidding her from watching Letterman’s program. That would have solved her problem. Change the channel.

    One question that I might have is whether a New Mexico court has “in personam” jurisdiction over Letterman. He appears to be a New York resident.

  13. #13 raj
    December 26, 2005

    Why, the judge would ask her to show how Mr. Letterman violated the order, or course.

    Actually, Letterman’s best course–if he bothers to respond at all–might be to counter with a claim of lack of jurisdiction, and then a suit for frivolous prosecution.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!