“The restraining order law is perhaps the second most unconstitutional abomination in our legal system, after our so-called child protection (DSS) laws. The restraining order process is designed to allow an order to be issued very easily, and to be appealed, stopped, or vacated only with the utmost difficulty….
“The motives for this law are legion. First, it makes the Commonwealth a bunch of money by allowing it to leverage massive Federal grants. It makes feminist victim groups a lot of money by providing millions in state and federal grants to stop ‘domestic violence.’ It makes lawyers and court personnel a lot money as they administer the Godzilla-sized system they have built to deal with these orders. It makes police a lot of money, as they are able to leverage huge grants for arrests of violators. It makes mental health professionals a lot of money dealing with the mandatory therapy always required in these situations. It makes thousands of social workers a lot of money providing social services for all the families that the law destroys. It makes dozens of men’s batterers programs a lot of money providing anger management treatment ordered by courts in these proceedings.”
The aggregation of money is not only the dirty little secret behind the perpetuation of constitutionally insupportable restraining order laws that are a firmly rooted institution in this country and in many others across the globe; money is also what ensures that very few mainstream public figures ever voice dissenting views on the legitimacy and justice of restraining orders.
Lawyers and judges I’ve talked to readily own their disenchantment with restraining order policy and don’t hesitate to acknowledge its malodor. It’s very rare, though, to find a quotation in print from an officer of the court that says as much. Job security is as important to them as it is to the next guy, and restraining orders are a political hot potato, because the feminist lobby is a powerful one and one that’s not distinguished for its temperateness or receptiveness to compromise or criticism.
I’m not employed as an investigative journalist. I’m a would-be kids’ humorist who earns his crust as a manual laborer and sometime editor of student essays and flier copy. My available research tools are a beater laptop and Google.
What a casual search engine query returned to me in terms of numbers and government rhetoric that substantiate the arguments made in this post’s epigraph is this (the complete report, from which the excerpts below are drawn, is here—emphases in these excerpts are added):
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program
Number: 16.590
Agency: Department of Justice
Office: Violence Against Women Office
Program Information
Authorization:
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Title I, Section 102, Public Law 109-162; Violence Against Women Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386; Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 3796hh, as amended.
Objectives:
To encourage States, Indian tribal governments, State and local courts (including juvenile courts), tribal courts, and units of local government to treat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as serious violations of criminal law.
Types of Assistance:
PROJECT GRANTS
Uses and Use Restrictions:
Grants may be used for the following statutory program purposes: (1) To implement proarrest programs and policies in police departments, including policies for protection order violations. (2) To develop policies, educational programs, protection order registries, and training in police departments to improve tracking of cases involving domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Policies, educational programs, protection order registries, and training described in this paragraph shall incorporate confidentiality, and privacy protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. (3) To centralize and coordinate police enforcement, prosecution, or judicial responsibility for domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking cases in teams or units of police officers, prosecutors, parole and probation officers, or judges. (4) To coordinate computer tracking systems to ensure communication between police, prosecutors, parole and probation officers, and both criminal and family courts. (5) To strengthen legal advocacy service programs for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, including strengthening assistance to such victims in immigration matters. (6) To educate judges in criminal and civil courts (including juvenile courts) about domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and to improve judicial handling of such cases. (7) To provide technical assistance and computer and other equipment to police departments, prosecutors, courts, and tribal jurisdictions to facilitate the widespread enforcement of protection orders, including interstate enforcement, enforcement between States and tribal jurisdictions, and enforcement between tribal jurisdictions. (8) To develop or strengthen policies and training for police, prosecutors, and the judiciary in recognizing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of domestic violence and sexual assault against older individuals (as defined in section 3002 of this title) and individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 12102(2) of this title). (9) To develop State, tribal, territorial, or local policies, procedures, and protocols for preventing dual arrests and prosecutions in cases of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and to develop effective methods for identifying the pattern and history of abuse that indicates which party is the actual perpetrator of abuse. (10) To plan, develop and establish comprehensive victim service and support centers, such as family justice centers, designed to bring together victim advocates from non-profit, non-governmental victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys, chaplains, legal advocates, representatives from community-based organizations and other relevant public or private agencies or organizations into one centralized location, in order to improve safety, access to services, and confidentiality for victims and families. Although funds may be used to support the colocation of project partners under this paragraph, funds may not support construction or major renovation expenses or activities that fall outside of the scope of the other statutory purpose areas. (11) To develop and implement policies and training for police, prosecutors, probation and parole officers, and the judiciary in recognizing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of sexual assault, with an emphasis on recognizing the threat to the community for repeat crime perpetration by such individuals. (12) To develop, enhance, and maintain protection order registries. (13) To develop human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing programs for sexual assault perpetrators and notification and counseling protocols.
Applicant Eligibility:
Grants are available to States, Indian tribal governments, units of local government, and State, tribal, territorial, and local courts.
Beneficiary Eligibility:
Beneficiaries include criminal and tribal justice practitioners, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking victim advocates, and other service providers who respond to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Credentials/Documentation:
According to 42 U.S.C. § 3796hh(c), to be eligible to receive funding through this Program, applicants must:
(1) certify that their laws or official policies–
(A) encourage or mandate arrests of domestic violence offenders based on probable cause that an offense has been committed; and
(B) encourage or mandate arrest of domestic violence offenders who violate the terms of a valid and outstanding protection order;
(2) demonstrate that their laws, policies, or practices and their training programs
discourage dual arrests of offender and victim;
(3) certify that their laws, policies, or practices prohibit issuance of mutual restraining orders of protection except in cases where both spouses file a claim and the court makes detailed findings of fact indicating that both spouses acted primarily as aggressors and that neither spouse acted primarily in self-defense; and
(4) certify that their laws, policies, and practices do not require, in connection with the prosecution of any misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, or in connection with the filing, issuance, registration, or service of a protection order, or a petition for a protection order, to protect a victim of sexual assault, domestic violence, or stalking, that the victim bear the costs associated with the filing of criminal charges against the offender, or the costs associated with the filing, issuance, registration, or service of a warrant, protection order, petition for a protection order, or witness subpoena, whether issued inside or outside the State, Tribal or local jurisdiction; and
(5) certify that their laws, policies, or practices ensure that—
(A) no law enforcement officer, prosecuting officer or other government official shall ask or require an adult, youth, or child victim of a sex offense as defined under Federal, Tribal, State, Territorial, or local law to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth telling device as a condition for proceeding with the investigation of such an offense; and
(B) the refusal of a victim to submit to an examination described in subparagraph (A) shall not prevent the investigation of the offense.
Range and Average of Financial Assistance:
Range: $176,735–$1,167,713
Average: $571,816.
That’s a pretty fair lump of dough, and what it’s for—among other things as you’ll notice if you read between the lines—is to “educate” our police officers and judges about what their priorities should be.
Note that eligibility requirements for receiving grants through this program include (1) the prohibition of counter-injunctions, that is, restraining orders counter-filed by people who have had restraining orders issued against them; (2) the issuance of restraining orders at no cost to their applicants; and (3) the acceptance of plaintiffs’ allegations on faith. Note, also, that one of the objectives of this program is to promote the establishment of registries that make the names of restraining order recipients conveniently available to the general public.
The legitimacy of these grants (“grants” having a more benevolent resonance to it than “inducements”) goes largely uncontested, because who’s going to say they’re “for” crimes against women and children?
The rhetorical design of all things related to the administration of restraining orders and the laws that authorize them is ingenious and, on its surface, unimpeachable.
By everyone, that is, except the victims of a process that is as manifestly and multifariously crooked as a papier-mâché flagpole.
Paying authorities and the judiciary to assume a preferential disposition toward restraining order applicants completely undermines the principles of impartiality and fair and equal treatment that our system of laws was established upon.
It isn’t cash this process needs. It’s change.
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2014
I thought I was alone. Is my story unique? I’m tired.
http://www.gofundme.com/VictimToSurvivor
LikeLike
Moderator
September 17, 2014
I put up a post about your fundraiser, Tammi. If you can bear to do it, I’d recommend you personalize your fundraiser with some pictures of your son—or (even better) you and your son—rather than the memes. This will make a more sympathetic impression and humanize your plea for help.
Did your husband petition restraining orders against you (besides all the other stuff)?
Below is a response to a man who was hoping to raise a lot of money in a short time to fund a legal defense recently. I never talked with him directly, and his fundraiser tragically disappeared within a week or so ($0.00 last I checked). Some of the response (which I’ve abbreviated) won’t be relevant to your case, but some of it will.
With these thoughts in mind, you might retool your petition copy as time allows. Think about what to put first. Attention spans are short, so emphasize what’s most dramatic.
Network as much as you can with your busy schedule. Make connections. There are a lot of forums about narcissistic personality disorder and other personality disorders. Those, forums about abuses of CPS, forums for moms (CafeMom.com and CircleOfMoms.com are a couple), etc. would be good candidates (especially the forums for moms). Those you make personal connections with may have firsthand advice for you, may help you spread the word, or may know others who can help.
Focus on the female. Women network; men don’t. (This, ironically, is why legal abuses are realized so easily in the first place—female outrage registers and provokes response, so judicial standards drop even as legislation sprouts sharper teeth.)
You’ve given yourself a good window to realize your hopes. Just appreciate that even people who sympathize with you are scared, uncertain, and often surviving day to day themselves. Branch out from sites about legal abuses, because the legally abused who read them are mostly no better off than you are. They mainly lurk.
Click links in the bibliography in the right-hand margin, and leave comments or emails for the authors and hosts of any sites that might be understanding.
Good luck. I wish the best for you and your son.
LikeLike
Tammi West
September 17, 2014
Thanks so much but, we are STILL in this so, need to be protected. Can’t show faces. If him or his mom finds and sees it, my son will get hell.
LikeLike
Moderator
September 17, 2014
You’re using a fake name? It’s a lot easier, of course, to find a name on the Internet than a photo.
LikeLike
Tammi West
September 17, 2014
OK, so, safer to use a fake name and real picture? That’s a great suggestion that I hadn’t thought of.
LikeLike
Anonymous
September 17, 2014
This was such a thoughtful response. I just got to see your email and that you posted for me. Thank you so much. I’m just scared, being in the middle of the case, he will find it, or his mom. Is that an irrational fear and I should bite the bullet? I will, anything for my son, but they are TRYING to catch me do anything wrong. I’m under a microscope. Further, great point about forum and audience. I will take all of this to heart and check into those sites you recommended. The other person’s campaign; were you going to paste some verbiage for reference? Thank you again so sincerely!
LikeLike
Moderator
September 18, 2014
You’re welcome. (Any typos in the copy I put up, incidentally, I’ll smooth out over the next couple days.)
Sorry, I tried to submit this response yesterday, but my battery faded. Your fear is totally rational. I’ve been sued, and others who’ve talked about their ordeals publically also report being the targets of further prosecutions. It’s very easy to represent the actions of someone who’s already been represented as a harasser or stalker or abuser as merely continuing a “reign of terror.” Such claims go over without a hitch. One man I’ve corresponded with has been summoned to court around 30 times. He’s a retiree with a bad back and three toy poodles who likes to watch birds. Read Larry’s story if you get a chance.
You’re right to be concerned. You may have to calculate risks v. costs as your court date nears, though. You’ll have to gauge how effectively you can raise money with minimal exposure. As I’ve told a couple others who’ve tried this, it’s really tough. There isn’t a cohesive “underground network” or anything like that. Those who grumble about how easily civil (and some criminal) procedures are abused come from a number of camps (fathers who’ve been denied a role in their kids’ lives, those falsely accused of domestic violence or even rape, anti-feminists, men’s rights activists, etc.), and none of them is subsidized significantly.
The best sources of aid are those who know you. That makes it harder, because you feel the need to repay people you know. Again, though, you may just have to bite the bullet considering what’s at stake. Someone who loves you is the one who’s going to cheer for you the loudest, tell all her friends, and maintain an interest.
The man I mentioned to you before was a young gay man who was hurt and talked about a former lover on social media to ventilate his pain. My clear impression was that he was mistreated and wasn’t a danger—and “danger” is the pretext for restraining orders—but his being a victim of abuse of process would be discounted by most people, and he was trying to gain aid very quickly (to the tune of thousands) without exposing himself. This is next to impossible.
(When you’ve had a damning finger pointed out you, been visited by cops and sent menacing documents from the court, etc., you become pretty photophobic. Aversion to attention is natural, but it’s deadly when you’re trying to appeal to strangers.)
I used the Internet to raise money for a surgery for my dog and only succeeded in petitioning about $1,000, mostly from people I know (and that took many months). Since the economy tanked, people’s discretionary spending is circumspect. Also, I’m pretty much a solitary by disposition. Gregarious people with broad social circles fare best at this. As a nurse, you’re probably somewhere in the middle because of the demands of your job.
All I can say to allay your fears is that so long as you’re telling the truth and not using your ex-husband’s name, the grounds for a libel suit would be pretty thin. The only thing on your petition that a judge would find inflammatory is your calling your ex-ohusband a sociopath. If you wanted to distance yourself from this, you could simply state the facts…then give a clinician’s definition of what a “narcissist” or “narcissistic sociopath” is. You would make a connection implicit rather than explicit.
This would probably protect you from claims of harassment. In other words, you’d have to tone down anything that could be called “harassing” or “defamatory.” Feelings are fine. Facts are fine. Labels are dicey.
(Many likely wouldn’t recognize this, but I write every day and am chronically exhausted. I know what a taxing effort what you’ve already done must have been and that the last thing you want to hear is that you might consider revising! Hang in there.)
Appreciate, too, Tammi, that a name is a lot easier to find on the Internet than an image. If you’re using your real name, anyone’s finding your petition would be an simple matter. So unless you’re using an alias, the cat may already be out of the bag.
It seems counterintuitive, but the more open you are, the more honest you’re perceived to be. Most who’ve been injured by the state are leery of publicity. Trying to talk back while keeping a low profile actually makes them seem suspicious, and that’s of course how they’re represented by defenders of crooked processes (who can themselves speak out loudly and parade with signs, because their “side” has social approval). It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
(Heroic) people who do use their names publically like Dr. Tara Palmatier, Dr. Paul Elam, attorney Gregory Hession, and blogger Karen Straughan are the targets of criticism, hate mail, and online gossip—and there’s no recovering privacy once you’ve been “outed.”
I don’t think anyone would direct abuse at you. I just mention this to show you how these injustices persist. If people are silent, no one does anything. If people speak up, they risk censure in online forums and even in the “legit” press (which, like the court, thinks a “civil tone” should be maintained—never mind that that’s a tall order when your life has been mangled). Cohesion among “renegades” is almost impossible, so individuals are easily picked off. And if those individuals are actual victims of state process, they can be derailed using that process over again.
Plus no one’s super eager to champion anyone else, because everyone who’s looked this madness in the face is a little mad him- or herself. And chiming in in defense of someone who’s just an online presence hazards your own credibility if it turns out that online presence is a fraud.
No wonder then that most people lurk and seethe…while the band plays on.
I want you to succeed, obviously. Just stay active, because you can get demoralized really quickly if you just click “reload” every day expecting donations to miraculously materialize.
If you can pick up some extra hours at the clinic without losing your sanity, do, because you may find fundraising to be a part-time job itself!
LikeLike
Anonymous
September 17, 2014
Correction, I see, that was a response you had sent to someone who had a similarly structured campaign that wasn’t so successful. Thank you for that!
LikeLike
Moderator
September 17, 2014
The other petitioner only had a fundraiser up for a week or so and was expecting strangers to respond with cash. It doesn’t happen. There has to be some kind of identification, which means you need to cultivate connections, get people who know you to speak for you as character witnesses, etc.
LikeLike
Cam
June 9, 2013
Just found this site, trying to find ways to sue my ex GF who basically made me lose everything, im STILL basically homeless from 2 years ago, cant get a job, credit ruined,i still have all the papers somehow, she didnt even sign the papers her dad did… and i had proof of all of this. worst part? the judge didnt care i had proof and told me i was obsessed and needed to get over myself, so i was forced out of MY apt I paid for and lost everything. Of you want the full story to post including documents and everything feel free to shoot me an email. as well as any advice you might have.
LikeLike
Moderator
June 10, 2013
The restraining order process is a model of dramatic irony and oxymoronic tail-chasing. Restraining orders are supposed to empower women by treating them like children. If a woman says, “Eek!” the paternal court is there to hand her a restraining order. If the man says the restraining order destroyed his entire life, the paternal court says, “Aw, suck it up.” The conceit underlying all of this is that everyone’s treated equally, that the court is impartial, yadda, yadda. On top of this, the court will treat self-represented litigants like idiots and discount anything they have to say. SO! If you hope to sue, you’re really going to need an attorney. You could think about small claims court, I guess, but there’s a very definite ceiling on how much you could sue for in that venue. I sympathize with you absolutely and hope you can pull out of the tailspin.
LikeLike
Anonymous
June 9, 2013
I’ve researched the issue a bit more. I do not believe it is appropriate to say that a false light claim may be brought against an individual who made false allegations in court, as I’ve read there is immunity for things said in court. However, an individual could file for abuse of process and/or malicious prosecution. Nonetheless, the elements of each civil claim would need to be proven. Sure, lying against the liar can be an effective defense, especially if the civil discovery process was not undertaken, because the burdern of proof is on the petitioner.
Nonetheless, in reference to this blog entry of yours, it still costs money to bring malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and fraud claims against an individual. Furthermore, an individual could attempt to bring a barratry claim against the individual who filed. However, in response to this blog entry, it will generally cost money to find an attorney who specializes in these fields. Yet if an individual suffered significant emotional distress, as I did, from a restraining order with false allegations that are but an attempt to attack the respondent, there becomes fair grounds to sue at least for abuse of process.
I believe finding false allegations (rather than a different interpretation by the petitioner of events) gives probable cause that the petitioner generated the restraining order process with malicious intent. Another area of concern is noticing that besides there being a different interpretation of events, there is a level of deceit and one-sidedness that seems almost deliberate. Again, another ground for probable cause that the restraining order case was enacted for malicious reasons.
Nonetheless, I still think it costs an individual money to get an attorney in order to bring various tort and civil wrong lawsuits against the individual who filed a false restraining order.
I think there is little honorable about false restraining orders. Furthermore, I believe there should be strong discrimination against individuals who file false restraining orders. I’ve read multiple times that people say that individuals who file false restraining orders should be protected, as to not deter them from the courts. However, a system of punishment should be allowed so that individuals do not take malicious actions against their fellow man but to cause emotional distress. Yes, the court experience causes emotional distress. But an individual who files false allegations more than likely holds the malicious and specific intent to cause emotional distress to the respondent.
Money becomes very important in prosecuting the individuals, which is only unfortunate as the judges do not often take enough effort themselves to prosecute those who commit fraudulent misrepresentations and perjury.
LikeLike
Moderator
June 9, 2013
Every litigation is expensive in a multiplicity of ways, monetarily not least of all.
This post isn’t about the costs of courtroom battles so much as the reason that ones concerning restraining orders are so commonplace. The restraining order has created a cottage industry whose members either feed at the federal trough or on the pain and controversy the restraining order’s uses and abuses generate: counselors/therapists, lawyers, courts and their staff, shelters, social workers, feminist advocates, police departments, etc. Perpetuation of the status quo is of political and financial advantage to hundreds of thousands or millions of people.
The restraining order is its own ecosystem.
LikeLike
Anonymous
June 1, 2013
There are definitely problems with the restraining order process. However, in my experience, one of the best things you can do is write up the emotional and physical abuses that the individual who had placed a restraining order on you had caused to you. File it as soon as possible. I think the reason that this is so important is because it’s an issue of equality. I have an ex-girlfriend who held a grudge against me, which is why she had filed against me. I did not immediately file back against her. The reason for that is because I believed that a therapeutic and humanitarian approach could be achieved. What I had failed to realize, however, is that filing right back at the person can show the person his or her moral and legal hypocricy in order to push forward the idea that equality should be of concern. If someone files against you, file right against them.
This actually does a couple of things, besides show the petitioenr who filed against you the arrogance of his or her ways. It shows the petitioner that you’re not playing around, that you don’t think it is funny, and that you’re willing to put the petitioner on edge for his or her criminal and civil acts and civil torts toward you. It also shows the courts that you’re not willing to settle for idea of someone having a restraining order against you, and it eats up the courts resources, which may have a future influence of them developing stricter guidelines as to what they particular acts that they should allow to be granted proceedings and grant a restraining order.
I think one of the things I’ve been looking at as of late, however, is reconsideration of the false allegatios aspect that comes with restraining orders. If an individual makes a false allegation against someone in court, in a court document, which is a public document, that individual is capable of filing for a false tort claim against the individual who has filed for a restraining order. Sure, the whole restraining order might not be false, but if there is at least one false allegation of a criminal or civil action (such as a criminal act or civil tort), then a false light lawsuit can be brought against a petitioner.
Personally, I have a Chicago sense of law, whereby legal scare tactics and legal forms of intimidation should be used to have the person let go of the restraining order that is being so sought.
LikeLike
Moderator
June 3, 2013
I was a student of the humanities, so I wish I could disagree with you. You’re right, though. Following the “high road” respecting this process leads a person to a broken rope bridge over a chasm that drops straight down to perdition. The truth is that lying to defend yourself against a liar in this process is probably the most effective defense. Maybe the only one. Restraining orders license abuse, and there’s nothing honorable about the process. Every aspect of it is derogatory to our best expectations of one another.
LikeLike