No, this isn’t satire, and Joseph Heller, author of Catch-22, didn’t coin the phrase “indefinite temporary.” It’s a capsular commentary on the state of our courts, however, that actual judges can actually use a phrase like this in actual rulings that affect actual people.
That these judges can actually get away with it says a lot about the state of our press, too.
The injunctive process is rife with oxymorons. Among this writer’s favorites is “speedy justice” (a phrase used by his own most recent judge to excuse carelessness). Restraining order courts are home to findings like “vegetarian stalker” and “handicapped batterer.” Trials in this arena operate in a vacuum (as law professor and former ACLU staff attorney Aaron Caplan observes); there is no oversight or accountability, and “meritorious” grounds for appeal are few, so judgments seldom receive scrutiny by the higher courts at all, and published rulings are scant. (Appellate courts don’t rehear cases; they only rule on the conduct of judges. Patent absurdities and abject fraud may be winked at…and legally.)
This post concerns a New Jersey family court ruling in the case of Kelleher v. Galindo. The case is 13 years old. That’s how asleep at the wheel our popular press is.
Follow the link to the case above, and the first sentence you’ll see in the ruling is this: “No appearance by Plaintiff. No appearance by Defendant.” That’s right, no one actually appeared in court, but a restraining order was issued anyway…an “indefinite temporary” one.
The plaintiff in the case petitioned nine restraining orders against the defendant between the years of 1996 and 2002, and in each and every instance, the order was dismissed, in most cases because “plaintiff [the person who petitioned the order] failed to appear at the hearing”; in a couple of cases, because she requested a dismissal.
The reasoning of the latest judge’s ruling runs thus (emphases added) and should be heard in the voice of a character from Alice in Wonderland:
This court has no doubt that if it were to grant plaintiff’s request to dismiss this most recent TRO [temporary restraining order], it would not be very long before plaintiff was back in the Cherry Hill Municipal Court seeking a tenth TRO against defendant.
[…]
It is this court’s opinion that, despite plaintiff’s telephonic request to dismiss this most recent TRO, the plaintiff’s past history of obtaining eight TROs against defendant in a five year period, all of which were dismissed prior to an FRO hearing [final restraining order hearing], along with six prior contempt charges filed against defendant based upon plaintiff’s allegation of violations of those TROs, all of which were likewise dismissed prior to an adjudication, justifies this court’s denial of plaintiff’s request to dismiss the TRO and instead justifies the issuance of an indefinite TRO.
There was no determined basis for an order and no basis for a ruling (in the absence of the litigants in the case). “Therefore” the judge, Michael J. Kassel, ruled that the latest temporary order be indefinitely sustained.
In the interest of economy, that is, the court determined itself justified in issuing an order contrary to the plaintiff’s express wishes and without any trial at all.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*The judge’s legal contortionism is illuminating. Because the judge couldn’t “justify” entering a “final ruling” in the absence of the parties but plainly wanted to, he circumvented the rules of civil procedure and made a “temporary” order permanent (instead of, for example, sanctioning the petitioner of the nine orders for “squandering judicial and law enforcement resources and diverting attention from urgent and meritorious domestic violence matters”). This provides other judges with a precedent to cite to justify violating other defendants’ due process rights, limited as they already are in this process.
Moderator
November 13, 2015
This reminds me of the case of a North Carolina man who was imprisoned for a year and then freed. He left prison stripped of everything: home, property, children, money. Because he was never convicted of anything, he can’t recover anything from the state for false imprisonment.
http://restrainingorderabuse.com/2015/04/24/the-nightmare-neil-shelton-has-lived-for-three-years-and-is-still-living-a-fathers-story-of-restraining-order-abuse/
Consigning people to legal limbo allows the state to abuse them without accountability.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
November 12, 2015
I can safely say that Bruce just elevated the level of discussion with that post. That was very well-written and I learned something new. Having spoken & interview Bruce, I can tell everyone he is intelligent, articulate, and analytical. These are all good qualities in contributing to an online discussion.
LikeLike
Anne Copeland
November 12, 2015
Hi Todd and others, I don’t know if I mentioned that I am not only a senior in age, but in my degree program (my second degree) in criminal justice. What I am learning right now is about the corrections system, and it is just totally horrifying. People were sent to prison for ridiculous terms for the most ridiculous reasons. Our justice system on all levels is more insane than the insane people who come up with the TROs, and the judges are way out of control in sentencing.
Thank you for the great post, and I enjoy reading Matthew S. Chan’s posts too. Both of you are very articulate about this and I think reading about other people’s challenges with these things also helped me to come out of hiding. I guess the best thing I can think of to compare it to is for a child to be sexually abused. They think they are the only one who has ever had that happen to them, and they are so hurt and confused and feeling so abandoned by the people who are supposed to be protecting then, but then one day they meet someone else or perhaps a number of people who also have been through it, and so it is helpful to know we are not freaks.
And for me, moving it up a few levels to constitutional law took the personality out of it, and made it so that for me at least, those people are so inconsequential. They are nothing in my life. Yes, I still have severe PTSD, and nightmares and occasional panic attacks and depression, but overall, I am able to get out again, to focus on my studies and even make A’s because I can put some passion into the discussions and research papers I wrote for my classes online.
I have not had many responses to my petitition, but I think it is because so many folks are so ashamed and afraid, they just can’t even put their names on something that stands up to it. It is really damaging on so many levels, but we just have to keep trying to realize that we are not alone in this Nazi-like behavior of others. That is exactly what it is, if we want to call a spade a spade where the government is actually encouraging such behavior by bad laws, bad judges, and people who are only too willing to sell their souls to the devil to hurt others. Thank you for your good service. I think people cannot hope to move forward until they realize they are not alone. There is always another one of us, and someone else always has it even worse than we do. I would like to be like the good witch in that movie who disappears the bad witch, making her smaller and smaller until she disappears.
LikeLike
Moderator
November 12, 2015
Your Facebook friends might support your petition, Anne, and there are various California-based pages on Facebook about procedural abuses where you might find others who relate and sympathize.
LikeLike
Moderator
November 12, 2015
Here are site views for 2014 and 2015 (YTD):
To harness collective interest, though, Anne, you’ll have to appeal to people in person, including those who are strangers to these kinds of abuses.
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
November 11, 2015
Speaking of insane “indefinite” temporary restraining orders, here is a Camden, NJ case of Bruce Aristeo that I have been writing about and reporting.
http://defiantly.net/jody-raines-unbelievable-indefinite-temporary-restraining-order-against-bruce-aristeo/
See what happens to a man in Camden, NJ when there is a violation of the crazy TRO from an image-conscious, politically-connected woman.
http://defiantly.net/insane-camden-county-new-jersey-arrest-warrant-for-an-indefinite-temporary-restraining-order-violation/
And after getting that arrest warrant, he sits in jail for 7-months and gets a grand jury indictment against him.
http://defiantly.net/the-greatly-unjust-grand-jury-indictment-of-bruce-aristeo-by-camden-county-nj/
And when he is finally released from jail, he can’t even talk ABOUT her PETS!
http://defiantly.net/communicating-with-jody-raines-pets-or-mutual-friends-can-get-bruce-aristeo-arrested-again/
This is seriously off-the-rails stuff!
LikeLike
Moderator
November 12, 2015
Here are the final rulings against me. They’re just reiterations. The judge had determined what his ruling would be moments after the case crossed his desk in March.
Regarding Bruce: The case cited in this post was the “precedent” (see clipping in footnote, which is hyperlinked).
LikeLike
Moderator
November 12, 2015
For third-party readers: The order of the court quoted above is what’s called a “prior restraint,” and it’s unconstitutional.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/24/you-are-also-ordered-not-to-post-any-further-information-about-the-plaintiff/
LikeLike
Matthew S. Chan
November 12, 2015
The order that was placed upon Todd was two pages long! 80% of the text is very problematic. People can see my what I think is problematic on Todd’s final order here:
http://defiantly.net/tiffany-bredfelts-free-speech-suppression-prior-restraint-court-order-against-todd-greene/
LikeLike
Moderator
November 12, 2015
The “settlement conference” the judge ordered in May 2013 (to occur in September 2013), at which he was supposed to elucidate his fiats, was vacated.
The judge backed out.
LikeLike