Intelligence is hard to define but I think the biggest component is a healthy curiosity for everything. If topic is related to your job this counts as double. Seeing judges not having a grasp of basic knowledge related to the Internet, when there are so many resources they can get information is inexcusable.

Judges basically rely on the trial lawyers to do all the research and package up all the information needed. Being able to detect BS in a description of the inner working of the internet or an ISP probably requires more background reading than that.

But at least some of the blame probably goes to the lawyers involved.

This sounds like the basis of a good argument for switching to an inquisitorial legal system (instead of an adversarial one). I find it unfortunate that a defendant has to be aware of and actively pursue every option for defense, and that "fact" within a courtroom differs from "fact" outside the courtroom. This is especially troubling because of the highly asymmetrical nature of the legal encounters the average person may have in his or her lifetime (e.g. corporation vs. person, government vs. person).

It's quite possible she got some useless lawyer representing her through legal aide. So a) they may not be smart enough to think about questioning the absurdity of the $200k b) they may not even care.