A police officer’s job is to enforce policy, not interpret it. And policy respecting allegations made pursuant to seeking a restraining order, in particular allegations made by women, is to take the truth of those allegations for granted.
Judges, on the other hand, are paid—and quite handsomely—to interpret evidence and testimony, and to apply policy based on deliberated conclusions.
So how is it so many men are railroaded through a process that may be initiated on no evidence at all, may strip them of their most valued investments and every bit of social and financial equity they’ve built in their lives—kids, home, money, property, business, and reputation—and may ensure that they’re never able to recover what they’ve been deprived of?
Feminists don’t acknowledge their political might, because that would be disadvantageous to their accumulating more of it. They continue to plead victimization and to promote skewed or bogus statistics like one in four women are prey to rapists or attempted rapists, women earn a mere fraction of what men do, girls are ignored by their teachers, and battery is the leading cause of birth defects and increases by 40% on Super Bowl Sunday.
Enterprising journalists like Ken Ringle and dissident feminist scholars Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia have long ago debunked all of these claims, yet they continue to circulate. The feminist propaganda machine hums right along. And its malign and maligning influence has been very effective.
(Besides the aforementioned feminist scholars, journalist Cathy Young and Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, have called giving attention to restraining order administration long overdue—in articles published 10 to 20 years ago.)
Judges and the judicial system proceed in matters of protection of women as father-guardians (which mainstream feminists don’t seem to find patronizing or infantilizing). The rhetoric is defendants are presumed innocent; the practice is they’re presumed guilty. Judges—more often than not male—pander to the women who come before them to beg their intervention; men are treated like police suspects.
Judges of these matters, like the women who introduce them, aren’t bound by the same ethical restrictions that obtain in other sorts of cases (especially if there are no lawyers present). A detective in the county attorney’s office I spoke with put it this way: because restraining orders grew out of a clamor to address domestic violence, judges are inclined to let their inner vigilantes off leash when a male defendant appears before them. They’re glad to have a trussed target for their frustrated wrath and to play the white knight.
The slack standards that govern restraining order administration are defended as leveling the playing field. They’re in fact engineered to level men. The judges who do the administering are predisposed by policy and propaganda to regard male defendants through jaundiced eyes and to bring the gavel down on their heads.
It’s probably very cathartic for them.
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Anonymous
July 19, 2013
There is no doubt a psychology involved to all of this. My issue is that in these hearings, what you have really are allegations and statements of fact. They may be false or they may be true. Nonetheless, you would need to examine them through their respective courts. So, what you really have in the end is a judge listening to a sob story and giving out the restraining order. As I’ve read from one website (I’ve lost it), there can be a lack of civil discovery in some restraining order cases.
The judges give out the restraining orders without much consideration. Another way to tell if someone is bullshit is if he or she does not press charges. If the individual has false allegations, then the person would be committing perjury in criminal ourt, thus generating liability for themselves to be thrown into jail. It also makes a great scare tactic to say that someone is generating false allegations of domestic violence (whereby the DV is defined by criminal and civil elements of allegations translated into their legal acts of liability), thus the person is comitting perjury.
I consider that the judges have little to lose when they prosecute someone and hand these things out. That may be true in a lot of ways. However, what bothers me the most is that the judges are playing with peoples’ hearts. I think that is an extremely dangerous thing to do. Injunctions definitely have their usage in business situations or where people are attempting to get someone else to do something. My main issue with restraining orders relates to domestic violence cases between dating couples.
The judges are tearing two people apart who once loved each other. The defendant may know that he did something stupid, but he still loves the petitioner. The petitioner, although having probable cause (well, not really, as the allegations need to be properly tested), wants the respondent away from her. The respondent considers that the petitioner is paranoid, emotionally disturbed, and irrational. The respondent considers that the petitioner has gone over the edge and made the issue bigger than it needs to be. The judge, seeing that issue betwen the respondent and the petitioner, decides to give the petitioner what the petitioner wants.
The respondent, knowing that he did wrong (say the only accusation that could really hold in a criminal court was telephone harassment) but beliving that everything was exaggerated, The respondent understands he was just being a jackass. It was a lover’s quarrel.
The respondent, attempting to understand what the hell happened, can find some people to hate. But ultimately, the respondent is going to have to hate the politicans. The politicians are the individuals who put forth the restraining order act. They were the enablers of the proceedings. The proceedings were further enabled by the judge, upon the petitioner’s request. And the petitioner was enabled because the respondent screwed up. However, the respondent did not cause the restraining order politics to exist. Those politics exist to protect people. And the politicians and judges employ them to protect people and their own asses. So, when a respondent goes into court to fight against a petitioner, the respondent is really fighting against a political machine. In knowing your enemy, you can attempt to fight back.
However, the real issue is that the judges are playing with hearts. I’ve read a lot of articles on respondent’s going to kill their girlfriends. I do not think that is the appropriate approach. One of the best things an individual can do is argue their way out of a situation. The problem that bothers me, however, is that the political machine doesn’t give you a jury or an attorney. So, in a lot of ways, the government takes away the respondent’s “baby.”
That becomes an extremely cruel process, because various allegations of abuse are occurring. However, they are but allegations yet to be tested by their respective courts. However, many respondents typically hold their own positions in life, their own jobs, and their social duties. Many of these positions and social responsibilities have little to nothing to do with law and government, so the individuals become incapable of defending themselves against the allegations. Even then, the statements in the petition are but… untested allegations. Simply arguing the elements, civil and/or criminal, and discussing their lack of testability in the restraining order process shows that the hearing becomes little more than a sob story. As such, the judge simply grants the restraining order, because the petitioner wants it. Also, however, is that the judge wants to cover his/her ass. The judges are supposed to be impartial, but the Truth (as I consider) of the matter is that statements of fact end up being allegations or just statements of fact. So, the judge really just has a restraining order left to give out. And the judge does this because the petitioner wants it and to cover his or her own ass.
And when they’re covering their asses, they’re thinking about those who will criticize them if the respondent fucks it up again.
LikeLike