Restraining Order Rulings Aren’t about Justice but about Justification, and Lies to the Court Only Work because Judges Also Lie

Posted on December 25, 2015


What this post predicts in its postscript occurred exactly a year after its publication.—Editor, 2018

Here’s a formula for fraud:

  1. You lavish police departments with hefty federal grants to urge their officers to steer complainants of abuse to the courthouse to apply for restraining orders.
  2. You have legislation in place that rewards impulsive or malicious accusation with quickie ex parte rulings from judges.
  3. You instruct judges how they should form those and subsequent rulings and threaten to withdraw funding from states whose courts don’t play ball and comply with federal dictates (see VAWA).
  4. You give this farce a gloss of credibility by requiring that the accused be granted the opportunity to be heard in their defense.
  5. You ensure that the appellate process is also cursory and that the accused have no further recourse to the law to expose what may be false allegations.
  6. With rhetoric and obfuscation, you further ensure that journalistic investigation and criticism are minimal and that the public is kept in the dark.

Accusers are encouraged to beef up their claims to justify themselves to the court and appear duly afraid (and that’s the ones who aren’t outright lying). Judges, whose motives have been coerced, are encouraged to skew their findings (in hearings that may span all of 10 minutes) to meet social and political expectations and justify their intrusions into the lives of the accused (intrusions that deprive the accused of rights and property), as well as to justify themselves to other judges and the public should their performance come under scrutiny.

Other judges who weigh in on accusations that may spawn multiple prosecutions or appeals are encouraged to skew their findings for the same motives and to preserve the veneer of judicial propriety. They are justified in this course by the original ruling or rulings in a case, which may have been formed in moments.

Frauds may start with hyped or false claims from plaintiffs, but that isn’t where they stop.

Copyright © 2015

*The writer of this post was sued for harassment and libel in 2013 (based on his writing about false accusations against him that began seven years prior). To justify the court’s ruling against me, the judge asserted on record that statements of mine on this site were “false.” The judge didn’t say what statements were false, because he didn’t have to. No statements were false. The judge took liberties with the truth. Based on his characterization, I could be sued again. (The next judge would just cite the former judge’s statement as fact.) This conduct isn’t extraordinary; it’s how things are done (and how the court guarantees things stay done).