Consider the following allegations:
“She has repeatedly exposed herself to me.”
“She told me on multiple occasions that if I wouldn’t have sex with her again she would tell the police I raped her.”
“She has stalked me since I met her. I’ve kept a dated log of all of the instances when she appeared someplace where I was. I’ve told her to leave me alone but she won’t. She says I’m her ‘destiny.’”
“She grabbed my crotch. When I pushed her hand away and ran, she laughed and called me a ‘pussy.’”
“I loaned her money. She told me if I asked for it back one more time, she and a friend of hers would hurt me. She bragged that they had killed someone before.”
“She has sent me panties covered with blood, urine, and feces. I threw them away because they were disgusting.”
“She showed me a knife and said that if I didn’t leave my girlfriend she would ‘cut her good.’”
“She said she wanted to drink my blood.”
An affidavit on a protective order application could include any or all of these statements and any number of others, including, say, alleged confessions of any act conceivable by the imagination of the accuser.
An affidavit, that is, a statement of facts alleged and sworn to be true, can usually be of any length and could include detailed descriptions of the accused’s anatomy, commentaries on his or her hygiene, and judgments of any variety, besides including an account of “what happened.”
There are no rules, and the court cannot retroactively censor what is effectively a complainant’s testimony.
Note that none of the accusations listed above could ever be ascertained as true or false, and a judge, accordingly, has no particular investment in “the truth.” His or her job, as prescribed by the law, is to decide whether the accuser is convincing.
An even cruder fact is that a judge may never read a complainant’s affidavit at all but simply ask for a verbal accounting, that’s if s/he does anything more than make sure the paperwork is filled out correctly. Once validated by a judge’s signature, unless contested and successfully quashed during a hearing that may be afforded 30 minutes on a judge’s docket, the order is a binding instrument of law and an indefinitely preserved public document that can be quoted or published.
Restraining orders are typically issued ex parte. That means based on the accuser’s say-so only. The accused may know nothing about it until a law enforcement officer or agent of the court appears at his or her door, possibly in the presence of friends, family, and/or neighbors.
The whole application and approval process may take from a few minutes to a few hours.
The latitude granted to judges in this arena of law is virtually boundless, as the politicking behind so-called “women’s law” intended it to be. A single statement from the list that heads this post, delivered persuasively enough, could suffice to make any number of allegations “stick” (whether relevant or not). Or repeated emphatic claims of terror and violation could. Or the testimony of a crony witness. Or a real or faked series of text messages or emails. Or a real or spoofed series of calls on a phone (which, if real, could have been about anything).
As Ralph Nader said, “Power has to be insecure to be responsive.” To judges, this business is just quotidian paper-shuffling, and they have no liability for their rulings, which are issued without oversight (including by judges who aren’t even judges but merely seasonal temps). Grounds for appeal, furthermore, are almost none (and “lying” is not among the few).
A reasonable person would conclude that anyone who supported laws that would allow a woman to be falsely accused of molestation, rape, or murder would have to be a monster.
The left-leaning feminist humanists and self-styled social justice advocates who do militantly support these laws emphasize their virtue: bringing relief to women in abusive relationships. This is somewhat like explaining communism’s goal is the protection of the working class citizen—while ignoring that tens of millions of working class citizens have been killed in the name of an idealistic social experiment.
Perhaps social justice crusaders who promote “women’s law” would say they’ve only ever meant for it to treat men monstrously.
Copyright © 2022 ProtectiveOrderVictims.com
*In civil lawsuits that aren’t filed for free, as restraining order applications usually are, a defendant could move the court to strike inflammatory statements that weren’t relevant and that could only serve to damage (his or) her reputation and, for example, professional standing (and health, security, interpersonal relationships, etc.). Whether this would fare any chance of success in drive-thru procedures conceived to permanently document misdeeds is less than iffy. (It would require redacting, or “blacking out,” parts of the original order, which is contrary to its purpose.)
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Posted on January 24, 2022
0