Restraining Order Fraud and the Disintegration of Morals

Posted on July 20, 2014


It’s estimated that two to three million restraining orders are issued each year. It’s also estimated that a significant number of them, if not a majority, are based on fraud (i.e., lies intended to mislead). It’s further the case that lying in court is ignored. To quote Texas attorneys Beth E. Maultsby and Kathryn Flowers Samler, for instance: “Lying (perjury) is rarely acknowledged or punished.”

Judges are authorized to approve restraining orders in spite of evident lies by petitioners, because the honesty of plaintiffs isn’t the standard according to which rulings are to be formed.

Consider that if millions of people (counting both false accusers and the falsely accused) are every year having it impressed upon them by judges that lying is not only okay but profitable, then social ethics is taking a pretty significant hit—and at a pretty significant rate.

Our courts are actively eroding it, no matter whether by design or not.

(Model Penal Code § 250, introductory note (1980): “Offenses in this category affect a large number of defendants, involve a great proportion of public activity, and powerfully influence the view of public justice held by millions of people.”)

Judges, who don’t let those who stand before them forget that what they say is very important, every minute contradict and devalue the moral principles that they’re supposed to represent and uphold by not only tolerating lying but rewarding it (and thereby encouraging it).

When truth and honesty are discounted, all moral principles are cheapened.

Putting a positive face on this by defending a corrupt process as a social good, finally, is a fraud on everyone.

Copyright © 2014