“Hacked”: A Word Used by False Accusers That’s Code for CRAZY

Posted on March 16, 2016


This post introduces the fauna and flora of false accusation: spiders and nuts. Spiders are subtle, and their webs are hard to see. Nuts…aren’t subtle at all.

Marty Grist, Martha Grist, Marty Tackitt-Grist, Martha Tackitt-Grist, nuts

Restraining orders can be issued based on nothing but an inarticulate claim of “fear,” so willful deception of the authorities and courts is easily perpetrated by fraudulent petitioners’ use of vague claims like “he won’t stop calling me,” “her emails are disturbing and aggressive, “[s/he] threatened me, “I’m afraid”—that kind of thing. The more emotion-based lies are, the less they can be exposed. The worst accusers can be called is histrionic.

Good liars manipulate facts; they spin, like spiders. They’re plausible. They have social skills and endeavor to get their audiences to “relate” to them. They want approval, and getting it is part of the kick, as it is for any con artist.

Nuts, however, make up any lunacy they want, and they may not even know they’re making it up. The restraining order process is so deplorably automated that crazy works.

This is a code word for crazy that shouldn’t work: “hacked.”

If someone claims her neighbor, for example, has remotely “hacked” her email account, “hacked into” her phone, or “hacked” her computer, she’s crazy.

I regularly talk to and correspond with a man who’s been accused of “hacking” in a court of law (and, no, he’s not a retired NSA agent). He was last summoned before a judge to respond to criminal allegations of “cyberstalking.” He’s in his 70s and has three toy poodles (which I’ve been scolded for suggesting is in any way unmanly). He says when his accuser trotted out her claims of “hacking,” the judge rolled his eyes.

That’s cute, but what the judge should have done was immediately dismiss the case and have the bailiff escort the prosecuting witness to the door—if not the loony bin. Then he should have turned the prosecuting attorneys over his knee.

Instead, the judge indulgently listened to the woman’s teary testimony about how her security had been breached and how she’d had to get a new computer because her old one had been infiltrated, etc.

The same woman, a school teacher, had previously reported to 20/20 that some confidential calls to important “state” agencies had been eavesdropped upon (this is also code for crazy) and made reference to her video surveillance camera (also code for crazy).

The judge eventually gave her a tongue-lashing and vacated her allegations…but they had just been the latest of dozens (over years), and her other actions (including a restraining order, which inaugurated and licensed her reign of terror) were not vacated retroactively.

If nuts are treated this tolerantly by the justice system, is it any wonder that frauds by spiders are so effective?

Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The categories spiders and nuts aren’t hard-and-fast; eight-legged head cases aren’t unheard of among freaks of nature. I’ve known more than one. For some excellent fictional representations, see the novels of Gillian Flynn.