How Perjury in Restraining Order Cases Is “Incentivized”

Posted on May 4, 2016



“Perjury in restraining orders is actually incentivized, not only by failing to prosecute it, but by allowing one-person hearings (ex parte) to get the orders originally, a super-low burden of proof to issue orders, no juries, a judiciary which actually gets training from feminist groups about the need for issuing orders, no rules of evidence to keep out unreliable phony stuff like hearsay, and much else. Given all this pro-perjury bias, it is a miracle when an innocent defendant wins.”

—Massachusetts attorney Greg Hession

Mr. Hession says it more authoritatively on his own blog,, but here’s what he means, elaborated point by point.

Laws concerning restraining orders, which originated in the ’70s when women complaining of domestic violence had no voice, authorize the courts to hear plaintiffs privately (ex parte) and to issue orders based on nothing more than claims that are often unsubstantiated and may be impervious to proof (or disproof). An allegation of “fear can suffice, and that’s an allegation anyone can make against anyone else (anywhere), truthfully or not, reasonably or not.

Though the justification for ex parte hearings is anachronistic (women certainly don’t lack a voice today), restraining order laws resist overdue reform. Nobody wants to rock a boat captained by politically powerful advocacy groups. (Restraining orders have besides spawned a booming cottage industry with a financial stake in maintaining the status quo.)

In the interest of economy over observation of civil rights (like due process), hearings to finalize restraining orders are both prejudiced and streamlined: no jury (albeit that consequences for allegedly violating an order are criminal), no appointment of counsel for the defendant, no guarantee of the right to cross-examine (which is fundamental to a fair adversarial system), and the extension to trial judges of broad discretionary powers (for example, to curtail a hearing to 10 minutes).

Many respondents to this blog have reported being told by a judge, “I’ve heard enough.” Some report never being afforded a chance to get a word in (and lest anyone imagine otherwise, many of these complainants are women).

Making matters worse, judges are trained by feminist advocates, who often cite tailored “social science” (that may be funded by the Justice Department), making the idea of an “independent judiciary” more than suspect. Courts, too, are issued grant monies under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and have been for 20 years. Judicial bribery is scandalous, but payouts from Uncle Sam are “in the public interest.”

Hearsay” (secondhand evidence with no reliability: “She told me he said,” for example) isn’t just admissible; it’s explicitly authorized by the law.

This is a formula for a lot of jaded, angry people. And, as the last post stresses, if those jaded, angry people express their outrage by exercising their First Amendment rights, they risk being prosecuted for that, too. (If they do it anonymously, they’re mocked as cowards and discredited as cranks and misogynists.)

This villainy persists unchecked and largely unacknowledged by the “free press” or by “rights advocacy groups.” Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is circumspect in its criticism, because it has close ties with the feminist community and has long congratulated itself for its contributions toward realizing “equality.”

A process that is not just manifestly unjust, manifestly corrupt, and manifestly indecent is lauded as an “essential protection,” including sometimes by people who’ve been victimized by it.

That’s how strongly we’ve been conditioned.

Copyright © 2016

*Or blinded.