Madness

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Rohrer 714, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    Our courts are easily manipulated by women pretending to seek protection from abuse because our political climate reinforces the stereotype that men are abusers.

    A woman can get a domestic-abuse restraining order for any reason. She fills out the forms and says she is "afraid", and gets a restraining order automatically.

    There is no penalty for making false claims.

    Thus, they embolden women angry at their partners to use them to gain an advantage in divorce, to get custody of children without a family court hearing, or as a surefire eviction process.

    There are no rules of evidence, no burden of proof, not even a requirement to have a story that makes sense.

    In December 2005, Colleen Nestler came to Santa Fe County District Court in New Mexico and got a domestic-abuse restraining order against TV host David Letterman.

    She stated, under oath, that Letterman had 'abused' her by causing her 'bankruptcy, mental cruelty, and sleep deprivation'.

    Nestler also alleged that he sent her "secret signals in code words" through his television program and that he "responded to my thoughts of love" by telepathically expressing his desire to marry her.

    Sounds crazy?

    Judge Daniel Sanchez immediately issued a restraining order against Letterman.

    By doing so, he put Letterman on a national list of domestic abusers, gave him a criminal record, took away several of his constitutionally protected rights, and subjected him to criminal prosecution if he contacted Nestler (directly or indirectly), or possessed a firearm.

    David Letterman never even met Colleen Nestler, and this all happened without his knowledge.

    Asked to explain why he had issued a restraining order on the basis of such an unusual complaint, Judge Sanchez answered that Nestler had filled out the restraining-order request form correctly.

    The really amazing thing is that the judge had no choice. Current federal and state legislation mandates this draconian action whenever any woman alleges domestic abuse - true or not.

    The judge finally dismissed the order after much expensive legal wrangling.

    Those who don’t have a national TV program and deep pockets are rarely so fortunate.

    Falsely issued restraining orders are of great concern because the punishment that is meted out to defendants is a violation of their Constitutional protections.

    Feminist political clout trumps the rights of the accused.

    Here's what happens:

    After the initial (secret) restraining order is issued, the clerk faxes it to the police, who then serve it on the defendant.

    Since most orders contain a "no contact" provision, the first thing the police do is remove the man from his home, with little more than the shirt on his back

    The man may have no idea that the Pro Se hearing took place, that a restraining order was granted, or what he is supposed to have done.

    Most restraining orders require that the defendant may not contact the plaintiff directly or indirectly or get within some distance, usually 100 yards, of the alleged victim.

    Often, wives will list their children as 'co-victims' on these orders, so the defendant cannot contact his children either.

    No contact means no phone calls, no e-mail, no cards, no letters, or even accidentally running into the person on the street.

    No reconciliation is possible once an order is issued because any contact is a crime and subjects the violator to immediate arrest and jail.

    Most district attorneys, intimidated by feminist political pressure, have a no-drop policy on prosecuting all domestic restraining orders, no matter what.

    This means that even if the woman admits she lied, the order and the charges will stand.

    The claimant will not be subjected to any form of punishment, or even censure.

    Only a dysfunctional system allows complainants to make false allegations without any accountability whatsoever.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    While I agree with your premise by in large (women quote often do abuse the system), I would take issue with several of your points.

    First of all, as I read your post here, you are talking about a temporary restraining order, as opposed to a permanent, stay-away order. Yes, temporary restraining orders can be issued. In fact, they are issued all the time. But they are extremely limited time-wise. They are designed to be in force only until the parties can get to court and litigate their problems in front of a judge.

    I suppose a temp restraining order could require that the restrained person not possess a firearm - but it would only be for the duration of the temporary order. I seriously doubt that people go on national lists as a consequence of having a temp order issued against them.

    You are totally correct, however, when you point out that these orders are often issued for the slimest of reasons and, once issued, they can have draconian and immediate (bad) results for the restrained person.

    Here is a definite area where the law needs to take a second look at the situation.
     
  3. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    Whenever lawmakers respond to political pressure, a bad law is the usual result. While many persons involved in passing these laws may have been well-meaning, thinking they were going to stop abuse, the unintended consequences have been to rend the fabric of our legal system asunder.

    To address your point, please note that the TRO is almost always extended, usually for 1 or 2 years, or it is made permanent.

    A week or 10 days after the initial hearing, a return hearing is held, where the accused is usually allowed to present evidence and testimony, but it is often difficult to assemble needed documents and witnesses in that short period, partcularly in light of the fact that such documents may be in his residence, which he is barred from entering. Most temporary orders are automatically extended for at least 1 year at these hearings, regardless of the evidence.

    Why? Judges are reluctant to "take the chance" and vacate these orders, lest the accused subsequently commit an act of violence.

    For the first time, we now have laws that penalize people before they are proven to be criminals, for something they only "might" do.

    Restraining orders also violate Second Amendment rights. Each state’s laws require that a defendant surrender all guns and ammunition, and violation of this provision is not only a state crime, but a federal one, under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2010
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    If you do something to a woman to make her feel she needs a restraining order then you deserve it.

    If you had a relationship with someone who is soooo shitty a person they use this protection just to piss you off then quit letting the little one think for the big one.
     
  5. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    If you want to make light of this, you should know this.

    Although I am a lifelong advocate of meting out stern punishment to abusers of all stripes, I was the victim of just such a tactic.

    My wife of 16 years, advised by our eldest daughter, who had just graduated from a law school, went to the courthouse and filled out a statement that she 'feared' me. That is all it took.

    I never threatened her (or anyone), no prior record of any domestic dispute exists, and our reputation as a happily married couple was well-established.

    At a stroke, I lost my children, my savings, our beloved pets, my home, my car, most of my possessions, and not least my treasured relationship with my best friend, with whom I thought I was going to spend the rest of my life.

    My crime?

    I was unemployed for 4 months and as a result I told my daughter I could not pay for her wedding and honeymoon as we'd originally planned.

    She, and her husband-to-be and our other two children were all living in the home. Only one child (our youngest aged 21) was working. I did not see how we could afford to spend thousands and asked her if we could postpone.

    She went ballistic. Although I didn't know it at the time, she began telling her mother that I was acting strangely and drinking heavily when she wasn't around.

    It's true that I was depressed, I started sleeping a lot, had no health insurance so could not afford any treatment. I did start drinking, but hardly to excess. My financial state would not allow it even if I had been so inclined.

    Long story short, a policeman came to the house and gave me 30 minutes to pack a bag, then took me away in his squad car. I had $12 in my pocket and little more than the clothes on my back.

    My wife and I were so close, and I still cannot believe this nightmare happened to me.

    Now that it has, and I am so much poorer in so many ways, I want only to make others aware of this miscarriage of justice.

    It could happen to anyone.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2010
  6. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Do you make an effort to be completely stupid or is it a natural gift?
     
  7. Rohrer 714
    Offline

    Rohrer 714 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    Restraining orders are now seen as part of the "gamesmanship of divorce," according to a 2005 article in the Illinois Bar Journal.

    Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, says "Everyone knows that restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."

    If you have to fight for your rights in front of a judge, you've already lost. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if the truth is on your side, you'll be OK. The truth may be on your side, but it rarely matters in family court.

    Stephen Baskerville, in his book Taken Into Custody, quotes Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City, New Jersey, at a restraining-order training seminar:

    "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, 'See ya around.'… The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection…. They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don’t have to worry about the rights. Grant every order. That is the safest thing to do."

    If you are not convinced that this is a real epidemic, read your state's DV law and see what is considered 'domestic violence'.
     
  8. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    Just a passing comment - this is an EXCELLENT thread. The topic is one that should be discussed because it is a vital and important issue.

    I deal with these types of restraining orders literally on a daily basis, as a large part of the cases I handle involve domestic violence.

    The OP makes some valid and very accurate points. Further, his own, personal story is, sad to say, not as uncommon as you might think.
     
  9. Father Time
    Offline

    Father Time I'll be Still Alive

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,130
    Thanks Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +438
    Because it's impossible for women to be paranoid or delusional or suffer anxiety or just have bad judgment right?:cuckoo:
     
  10. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Looks to me like you should have pursued this much further, hired a good lawyer, threaten to take her to court for malicious misrepresentation of facts, and gotten some press coverage out of it. Maybe it's not too late? She would then need to prove that you're the scumbag she claims you are. I think you ALLOWED HER to gain the upper hand. Even a family court proceeding would hear your side of the argument without a lawyer!
     

Share This Page