December 27, 2005

"I know this sounds crazy. I was crazy to have listened to him in the beginning."

David Letterman's lawyers have succeeded in quashing a restraining order that was granted to a woman who made patently psycho allegations against him.
"I appealed to the court for a restraining order to keep this man away from me, but now that's been denied me," she said. "He has access to me. He can actually come for me or send people. He has many accomplices. I know this sounds crazy. I was crazy to have listened to him in the beginning."


jeff said...

Well, she's got one thing right - she's crazy.

Eli Blake said...

One has to question why this order was granted in the first place. She claimed that he talked to her 'through his program.' His code name for her was 'Oprah.' So (she figured) everytime he mentioned Ms. Winfrey on his show it was her. And she also claimed that Regis was also 'talking to her' through his show.

There was a way to avoid this 'TV harrassment.'

She could change the channel (I suspect Jay Leno is grateful that she did not).

lindsey said...

This woman must have gone batshit whenever Dave did the Uma-Oprah schtick. I wonder if she thought Dave was having a hard time deciding between her and Uma? Uma's lucky she wasn't targeted.

vbspurs said...

Quoting CNN article:

She alleged in a request filed December 15 that Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" since May 1994.

It's odd, but I was vaguely reminded of:

That infamous situation, where a viewer claimed she went into epileptic fits whenever she saw Mary Hart on Entertainment Tonight.

As for this situation..."reverse stalking", eh?

Learn something new everyday.


vbspurs said...

This woman must have gone batshit whenever Dave did the Uma-Oprah schtick.

In fairness, Lindsey, she wasn't the only one.


vbspurs said...

Serious question to all on Althouse:

Would you exchange your comfortable anonymity, for boundless modern-day fame, if stalkers and would-be kidnappers was part of the prize?

My honest answer is:

I don't know. My first impulse is to say yes.

My second, when I see the stalkerazzi, etc. is no way.


Freeman Hunt said...

Wow, that quote of hers is kind of awesome in its authenticity. I don't think that's one you could make up.

My answer to Victoria's serious question: Is boundless fame really desirable? I would classify that as one of my greatest fears. I think I would hate it even without the stalkers and would-be kidnappers.

Pogo said...

In Cintra Wilson's book, "A Massive Swelling: Celebrity Re-Examined As a Grotesque, Crippling Disease and Other Cultural Revelations", she discusses the horrific effects of fame, above and beyond the mere inconveniences of stalkers. Quite, funny, really.

The clue to fame and riches here is between the lines in the Letterman story. Better than being a celebrity is to be the attorney for the rich and famous. Many of the same parties, brushes with fame, money. And precious anonymity, too.

Eli Blake said...


That is a good question. And you don't even have to look that far.

I have a blog (not nearly so well read as Ann's).

But I once had some loser who wanted to argue with me personally about something I wrote track me down just to do that.

But he wasn't a stalker. A stalker is close to what happened to a friend of mine from cyberspace, who had a blog and recently had a guy who had posted on her blog track her down and contact her. Then when she told him he was out of line he really started flipping out and told her she needed God and all kinds of stuff. Luckily she is up and running again at a different URL. But her experience is instructive:

The 'good bye' post she wrote explaining why she was ending her blog is here:

Michael Farris said...

I'm not real clear on why he'd want to fight the restraining order. Some crazy person wants you to stay away from them, what's the problem?
There are probably byzantine legal aspects that make it wise to fight it .... or maybe he really is coming for her to join his army of the undead?

Ann Althouse said...

Michael: It really does hurt him for a number of reasons. For one thing, it hurts his reputation if it can be said that a woman got a restraining order against him. People don't necessarily know the whole story. Also, he might be accused of violating it, with criminal consequences. These could be false allegation or even true (how does he know where she it in order to keep X distance from her?) There can also be restrictions about gun ownership that would apply to him.

Day by Day said...

Ahhh... David Letterman...

My thought is she probably fantasized about him so much that he became her passion. She wanted him to know her so bad that she dreamed up that every time "oprah" was mentioned that he was secretly wanting/talking to her. (Hey, being a Letterman fan... that isn't so bad of an idea. Maybe I'll try that next time he mentions Martha Stewart... that'll be my code name. He does like Martha Stewart ya know!)

In all seriousness, it is a shame and a little scary. "Stalking" is never right no matter what stature it is. But in no way do I think that Letterman was doing any sort of stalking.

Eli... I consider you my blogging buddy as well. Shutting down GOTB was something I did at the time due to the crazy "stalker" guy. Everyone knew who he was. I have since been contacted by 2 bloggers who said he has done the same to them but they ignored him. (One actually being a guy). I have to admit I went to check on this guy’s blog... he has closed it down. I think enough people knew who he was (I never mentioned his name on my post...but did let people know who he was if they contacted me) maybe that scared him. He still continues to frequent GOTB even though I am not posting there (I can tell by my site meter... his IP address)

Eli did a great post on cyber stalkers here!

Troy said...

There needs to be a judicial inquiry into the judge who granted this order.

Dave's stalkers make the big gestures. The last one broke into his home multiple times over a period of years and then committed suicide by Burlington Northern.

Michael Farris said...

"It really does hurt him for a number of reasons."

Okay, I'd assumed also it could leave him open to some sort of harassment lawsuit.

It really sucks that a crazy person with an agenda can drag someone into court and/or legal fees. It also lowers my opinion of the original judge and makes them seem much more irresponsible. I'd assumed it was humoring a crazy person, now it looks like plain stupidity/gross incompetence.

XWL said...

First paragraph of CNN piece linked, "Judge Daniel Sanchez on Tuesday granted a request by lawyers for Letterman, host of CBS' "Late Show," to quash the temporary restraining order that he earlier granted to Colleen Nestler."

That probably makes him (Judge Sanchez) look more incompetent that he didn't throw this out of court immediately.

The negative attention and the pressure of real lawyers on Letterman's side, plus the total lack of merit on the other, lead to this reversal.

But there shouldn't have been anything to reverse in the first place.