“My brother was [the] victim of [domestic violence], but he was the one [who] got arrested, because he didn’t report it, and she called the police saying that she was the victim.”
“I have been accused of domestic violence. When my wife was arrested for credit fraud, I told her I wanted a divorce. She said she wasn’t letting me go. So she called the police and said I hit her so I was arrested. I’m so confused.”
—E-petition respondents
I’ve been monitoring the online petition, “Stop False Allegations of Domestic Violence,” since I came across it almost three years ago. The comments above were topmost when I looked at it Sunday evening.
The motives of the frauds they describe are essentially the same: cover-up. Plaintiffs’ blaming their victims for their own misconduct is a common motive for frauds on the police and courts, which typically stem from or involve restraining order abuse.
Dr. Tara Palmatier, on her website Shrink4Men.com, has written extensively about domestic violence committed by women, as well as about female abusers’ filing false allegations against their victims to compound the injury and garner attention. It’s neither my intention nor my interest to alienate female victims of restraining order abuse or to discount the horrors of their own ordeals with this observation, but women like attention (and, sure, men are hardly indifferent to it). This observation isn’t made gratuitously, either. Attention-seeking is a basic motive for the fraudulent abuse of restraining orders, which may derail or destroy defendants’ lives and which may be awarded based on nothing more substantial that hysterical hot air.
Playing the victim is a very potent form of passive aggression when the audience includes authorities and judges. Validation from these audience members is particularly gratifying to the egos of frauds, and both the police and judges have been trained to respond gallantly to the appeals of “damsels in distress.”
Besides attracting attention, bad faith abuses of civil process gratify abusers’ will to dominate and own their victims. Here you see the correspondence between the two scenarios in the epigraph. Potential threats in both cases have been defanged and subjugated to the control of the false accusers.
With their false allegations now in place, any threat to them that their victims may have posed has effectively been neutralized. Should the victim in the former case report that his wife is in fact the batterer, his allegation will be profoundly controverted by her beating him to the punch. She’s killed his credibility. If the victim in the latter case seeks a divorce, what should have been a clean break will have been made very messy by the domestic violence charge.
The most unacknowledged horror of the restraining order process is its convenient use to victimize men and women a second time even as they’re reeling from grievous or humiliating betrayals committed by their false accusers.
The reason this horror is unacknowledged is that the courts are very good at covering up, too.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
bettykrachey
March 25, 2015
Reblogged this on falseaccusers.
LikeLike
Anonymous123
January 9, 2014
Who is to say that it is not the judge who is defrauding both of the petitioner and the respondent? After all, isn’t it the judge who knows more law than either of them?
LikeLike
Anonymous123
January 9, 2014
That comment is based on my study of law in the past year along with synthesizing it with my knowledge of neuroscience. I find that I’ve come to a level where I’ve reached what the MacArthur foundation is playing with in the realm of neurolaw. The fallacy is the concept of the “reasonable person.”
Whether fraudulent or not, there is a basis for the petitioner filing, some level of motive. The long time adversarial approach may be easily compensated by the Rogerian argument. However, there are still underlying issues as to what the REAL PROBLEM is between the petitioner and the respondent, regardless of the validity of the allegations, and what kind of information and knowledge is necessary to resolve this issue.
LikeLike
Moderator
January 10, 2014
I was issued a restraining order authorized by a judge pro tem who hadn’t even read the application it was based on. A lot of judicial performance is theater. Judges do a lot of bluffing, which is a fraud of sorts. Certainly to the extent that petitioners and respondents have a reasonable expectation of judicial competence that may well be disappointed, I think judges do “defraud” those parties. I taught literary survey courses for several years. That means explaining, discussing, and responding to questions about works of poetry and fiction that may span a period of thousands of years. Obviously the amount you know about any one of them, their author, or the period s/he lived in is bound to be limited—which doesn’t mean students won’t ask (“Wasn’t his maternal grandfather’s family Catholic?”). I can spot someone who’s trying to conceal he doesn’t have an answer or doesn’t know something he knows he should with my eyes closed. And I’ve spotted this in courtrooms more than once.
All actions have motive, sure, even if it’s only reflex. To me, the REAL PROBLEM is that there may be none. The REAL PROBLEM may be that someone wants to create a real problem. Consider: If I swore out a restraining order against your mother tomorrow (someone I obviously don’t know), what would my motive be? Is this possible to do? Yes. Does it happen? Yes.
That’s the REAL PROBLEM. That this even can happen. The “underlying issues” may be that I’m evil or bonkers. Those motives are hardly subtle, but they may well elude a judge. That being the case, the hope that truly subtle motives like misperception of intentions, spite, impulsivity, etc. will ever be something a judge is taxed with “diagnosing” (and can be expected to diagnose accurately and rule on fairly) is a forlorn one. The judge meets one party for five or 10 minutes knowing nothing about either. It’s estimated that the process, crude as it is, costs taxpayers between something like $1,300 and $2,000. Imagine what an adjudication that lived up to the standards you’d like to see applied would cost.
Granted, I could file a lawsuit against your mother tomorrow, also. In that case, though, the likelihood is that the case would be dismissed for lacking qualifying grounds, I’d be out the investment of a considerable amount of time and the fees I was charged to file the lawsuit, and I’d be sanctioned and ordered to pay your mother’s costs. Messing around could cost me thousands.
By contrast, someone who files a restraining order on grounds no more legitimate is charged nothing, will be sanctioned nothing if the order is rejected, will be sanctioned nothing if it’s approved and the defendant responds to it and spends thousands to contest it and have it dismissed, and more likely than not will in fact be rewarded for the effort, even if his or her case is based on a fraud.
This is a very REAL PROBLEM: restraining order allegations may be false, a defendant may spend $2,500 to $5,000 in costs to contest those false allegations and may lose anyway, and the state will have been charged an additional $1,300 to $2,000 to fund the farce. If the restraining order is denied or quashed, another can be applied for (ad infinitum). If it’s approved, the false applicant can falsely allege to the police that the defendant violated the false restraining order. More legal costs to the defendant and to the state, a record defiled, and a life wrecked. All for sport or to indulge a spiteful whim, etc.
LikeLike