- Accusers are presumed to be truthful, so it falls to the accused to prove they’re innocent. Accusers are charged nothing to file a complaint, which requires only a few moments of time, and face no risk of prosecution if the complaint is false. Preliminary rulings are formed in backroom meetings between judges and accusers alone.
- If an accuser is represented by a lawyer, who is an “officer of the court,” the presumption that whatever is alleged is trustworthy doubles, because lawyers are honest, scrupulous, and would never represent a false claimant to turn a buck.
- Accusations may be filed in any jurisdiction in the country, and answering accusations made in a county or state other than the one s/he resides in requires that the accused appear in that county or state, possibly within days. If s/he fails to appear, a default judgment against him or her will be entered (possibly signifying, for example, that s/he’s a stalker or child molester).
- Once a ruling is formed, whether by default or in what may be a 10-minute hearing, it’s final and immune from collateral attack. Allegations are deemed “decided” (res judicata) and may not be controverted in a further prosecution, even if it can be plainly shown that they were criminally perjured.
- A judge is entitled to rule according to what s/he “deems best,” irrespective of the truth, is insulated him- or herself from prosecution, and may award to an accuser sole use of a residence and vehicle, permanent custody of children and pets, a monthly stipend, and complete remuneration of attorney fees (to be paid by the accused).
- This is deemed equitable and just, and further warrants the permanent entry of the accused’s name in state and federal police registries and, in cases, a publicly accessible database.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
Rivkah Hirtshberger
October 26, 2015
I used to believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser but no more. My “accuser” IS still mentally ill and within a matter of days, told me he was deeply in love with me and that he wanted me to stay away from him.Yes he is certifiable but he still won both the ex parte decision and during the hearing in which i was not allowed to make my case, given maybe four or three minutes in which I was dumbfounded by the allegations later that he gave none of which made ANY sense given nature of our relationship( he told me many times that he was deeply ‘in love’ with me for example) he made an abrupt about face and told me to stay away from him that I was obsessed by him) which made no sense given the fact that he had been over to my house every night for over half a year. So I disagree with you in that fact…the fact here, seems to be, that the judge granting the decision is not on your side if you are the accused in some situations and is on the accuser’s situation in others and that the plain and simple fact is that these decisions are arbitrary and influenced as the owner of this site has said in the past by something as simple as he or she is late for dinner. Given the egregious nature of this kind of ruling, in which the RO wreaks havoc on lives..it is imperative that there by some proof of the accusations. ROA’s need to be equitable for everyone so as in mental health laws in which some persons are unjustifiably prevented from accessing help for their loved ones’ records as in hippa laws, there seems to be a system in American jurisprudence in which the accused and the accusers are equitably ruled against. Something has to give soon people and it cannot happen to soon for me..
LikeLike
zan56
October 26, 2015
Yes. HIPAA wreaks havoc in family law cases, those involving only the family and those involving state protective services. But what all three of these posts highlight is that these legal processes leave far too crucial decisions in the hands of a single judge, in abbreviated hearings, where many have to represent themselves, where the judge often short circuits due process for both parties, and where evidence and witnesses are anathema due to family court caseloads and family court judges’ desires to be appeal-proof. Nonetheless, the accuser is *supposed* to have a burden to meet, eventually, at a permanent hearing. Not generally at an initial hearing, because we hope to prevent violence in families, which is still high on the list statistically for severe injury and death. Didn’t work to protect me, often puts abused people in greater risk, and is unfortunately used strategically in high conflict cases as a litigation strategy by unethical spouses (thus putting people who are actually in danger at greater risk, because jaded family court judges assume that this is generally what they hear at RFA hearings, which is not statistically valid).
LikeLike
Moderator
October 28, 2015
Know, too, that that “single judge” may not even be a college graduate, let alone have a law degree. My state has “JPs” (justices of the peace), and they’re just petty politicians. They run for office and are given some “judicial training.” That’s it. The guys determining people’s fates may really only be properly qualified to officiate at civil weddings. Restraining orders can even be issued by judges pro tem (i.e., seasonal help).
LikeLike
zan56
October 26, 2015
So let me give you the flip side of this equation. You say that the accuser is assumed to be telling the truth. In fact, the burden of proof is on the person requesting protection. RFAs are not just handed out without basis. Unfortunately, perjury is rampant and unpunished in family court, and it is ordinarily just two people testifying two different ‘truths.’ Be aware that a person suffering from a mental disorder often believes that what they are saying is 100% true. I am a survivor, who, because it was no longer the case that I believed my abuser was going to kill me (the standard for granting an RFA in my state), just terrorize me, gaslight me, track me daily, call my work, the kids school, trying to create more legal accusations against me, found no recourse to stop that behavior in the form of a restraining order or any other legal protection. As a result, her behavior became even bolder, and she subsequently went to court, lied without any evidence or witnesses, and took custody of our children. So now they have been at risk and suffering from living most of the time in the midst of her mental illness, and she has removed them from counseling and medical support. As you say, “Allegations are deemed “decided” (res judicata) and may not be controverted in a further prosecution, even if it can be plainly shown that they were criminally perjured.” But in this case those allegations were made by the abuser, and believed, which is very, very common, and children are in custody of the abuser. Multiple studies since the 90s have shown that this is a common outcome, but courts have not reformed, and thus abusers are able to use the legal system as one of the remaining mechanisms of abuse after the survivor has left.
LikeLike
Moderator
October 28, 2015
You’re right. It is common. Dr. Tara Palmatier, adapting a phrase by another psychologist, calls this DARVO (“Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender”). The attraction of high-conflict people to court process is also well-documented.
Principle and practice in court are different things. The principle is only a canonized blurb (like no one will be discriminated against based on sex). The de facto (actual) burden of proof is on whoever the judge wants it to be, and priorities have been conditioned. The judge may even pronounce that the burden is on the plaintiff, but these are just words. Judges lie, too, and they’re hardly immune to prejudice, especially when presiding over a procedure based on prejudice in which they know they’re supposed to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accuser.
Most restraining order defendants walk into a hearing having already been judged to be “probably” guilty.
Injunctions aren’t handed out without an alleged basis. There’s always a narrative of some sort. The narrative is seldom important, however, if a persuasive complaint of “fear” accompanies it. And the narrative can be as false as the complaint of fear is. If a woman says she’s afraid of a man, she’s to be shown sympathy, the facts be damned. That’s been drilled into judges’ heads from the get-go.
(Fear, too, may be real but falsely represented. It may be fear the accused person will leave the accuser, fear the accused person will demand a debt be repaid, fear the accused person will expose a wrong committed by the accuser, etc. These are all motives for false accusation.)
Crazy people may really see a tiger instead of an umbrella stand. Their brains see a tiger. For people with personality disorders, it may be more like feeling what they’re saying is the truth—or the most urgent and important truth. That’s been my experience. It’s not that they don’t know the truth; it’s that they reject it and favor their own version. I totally agree with you that some will not see the truth; it isn’t real to them. (High-functioning sociopaths are an exception. They’re very self-conscious and may lie very self-consciously albeit with perfect aplomb. They, too, may be emotionally motivated, but they don’t fool themselves; it’s performance art.) In my experience, a narcissist, if presented with contradictory facts will see s/he’s lying; a borderline will simply get angry and reject whatever “fact” disagrees with what s/he prefers to believe. Either will exonerate him- or herself by blaming the other guy. When truths are about how either made someone else feel, that argument (which can’t be proved) will be flatly contradicted.
I’ve been in court with a textbook narcissist. She knew what she was saying wasn’t factually true and when contradicted with evidence, she got nervous. You may be right, though, that some may become so invested in their lies that they “become” true to them. This is probably the difference between having a conscience and not having one; it’s all or nothing (black and white). Certainly I think it’s true that they lie impulsively or compulsively.
A principle the court does strictly follow (in civil matters) is economy. It doesn’t want its prior decisions to be “reassessed,” because this could be endless: The accused says the accuser lied and sues the accuser, then the accuser says the accused lied and sues the accused, then the accused says the accuser lied again and sues the accuser, and on and on. (That’s why no one can sue for perjury.)
Economy, however, is unjust when trials are minutes long (or rulings are entered by default because it was impossible for the defendant to appear in Wyoming in six days after being handed a sheaf of papers by a cop). It’s unjust because there’s little (or no) opportunity to expose lies. This is hard enough during a proper trial with an impartial judge, and usually requires skillful cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, which may be forbidden in a quickie “protective order” trial.
Defendants are railroaded and shunted onto a sidetrack to wither (and if they complain, they may be issued another injunction to shut them up, and if they complain anyway, they may be tossed in jail). Journalists don’t perceive this, because they don’t understand the process beyond what they’ve been told, and they’ve been told that anyone who says the process is crooked is a “woman-hater.”
LikeLike