Whoever came up with restraining orders must have been a marvel at Twister.
Though they’re billed as civil instruments, restraining orders threaten their recipients with criminal consequences and may be based on allegations of a criminal nature, for example, stalking, sexual harassment, the threat of violence, or assault.
The standard of substantiation applied to criminal allegations is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Since restraining orders are “civil” instruments, however, their issuance doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of anything at all. Approval of restraining orders is based instead on a “preponderance of evidence.” Because restraining orders are issued ex parte, the only evidence the court vets is that provided by the applicant. This evidence may be scant or none, and the applicant may be a sociopath. The “vetting process” his or her evidence is subjected to by a judge, moreover, may very literally comprise all of five minutes.
Based on allegations leveled in this hiccup of time by a person with an obvious interest in seeing you suffer, you are now officially recognized as a stalker, batterer, and/or violent crank and will be served at your home with a restraining order (and possibly evicted from that home) by an agent of the nanny state: “Sign here, please” (“and don’t let the door hit you on your way out”).
The application of a standard of proof to restraining order allegations is circumvented entirely: what a plaintiff claims you are becomes the truth of you. The loophole is neatly conceived (and it’s exploited thousands of times a day). Your record may be corrupted by criminal allegations like those enumerated above based on crocodile tears and arrant lies spilled on a boilerplate bureaucratic form. And these allegations may tear your life apart.
Abuse of restraining orders for malicious ends is a court-catered cakewalk.
How easily it’s exploited for foul purposes, in fact, is the restraining order process’s claim to distinction from other judicial procedures. Even by veteran officers of the court, false allegations made in restraining order petitions are routinely accepted at face value. The reasons for this are manifold:
- Judges are trained to regard women’s plaints as legitimate and may never question this prejudice, because it’s shared by the society at large. And to appear to be fair, a judge may apply the same prejudice to allegations brought by men against women.
- No judge wants to be the one who refused a restraining order to someone who later comes to harm, because (a) he will have failed a constituent in need and be perceived as having had a hand in her (or his) injury; and (b) because he will be publicly vilified, likely fired or forced to resign, and possibly sued.
- Innocent defendants never succeed in making a stink that would put a judge’s career in jeopardy: erring on the side of a plaintiff poses no threat to a judge’s job security, while erring on the side of a defendant may cost him not only his job but considerably more.
- It’s in the financial interests of local jurisdictions and their judges to appear to be “cracking down” on society’s bad eggs.
Lying to obtain a restraining order, therefore, is a cinch. Any lowlife can do it.
Disinterest (a.k.a. objectivity, fairness, impartiality, yadda-yadda-yadda) is the essential canon of judicial ethics. Since it’s one that clearly doesn’t obtain in the restraining order process, this judicial procedure is also distinguished from others by its inherent corruptness.
This corruptness is obscured from public awareness by yet another knot. Innocent defendants, in endeavoring to extricate themselves from false allegations—for example, as this author has by clamoring in a blog—cannot help but appear to be the fixated “deviants” that those false allegations represent them to be. The more they resist the allegations, the more they seem to corroborate them.
Appearances are not only the predominant grounds for restraining orders; appearances are what motivated their sketchy conception in the first place (“We’ve got to show we care”), and appearances are what preserve the corrupt process from which they issue from being recognized for the disgrace that it is.
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
I agree with the moderator. You have been slammed down by a court committing a “crime” and then you lose all rationale of why the restraining order happened in the first place. When I go back through it taking my emotions out of it and looking at the facts, these facts are that my sister who’s the attorney, accused me of theft from her law firm. When I disproved this to her she got really angry and threatened a TPO. She had many times over the past year. She got the TPO I caught her with proof in every lie she tried to tell to avoid paying back lot of money. So her way out finally was a TPO. She stopped responding when I told her that what she was claiming I did was not true. Where she “got” me was that indeed her lies and bullshit were making me angry but I kept asking when she was going to pay the money back. I did say she was a rotten liar because that is the truth. She even agreed at one point to meet at a restaurant and settle up appropriately until I said ok that would be fine. She changed her mind and text me she wanted sniper protection and wanted to put this sniper up in her apartment???? Having the guy watch me!? I freaked on that. She stated in her application that I was going to post bad things about her. I admit to that and the “bad” things are all her LIES! She also put a photograph of a gun on facebook ( with a small boy not to mention in the home) and the court gave HER a restraining order on me? I did take a copy of the y photograph she prominently displayed all over her facebook page with the gun just laying on her bed right in the open with her 2 year old child on the bed for God sakes!! What is scary is that I am not against guns per say but the comments of people to this picture I found to be just ludicrous with the exception of three people asking her what she was doing and why??? I almost broke the restraining order to yell at her as to what in Gods name was she thinking about ?? Not to mention the 30 comments as if it was just so cool!
LikeLike
What kills you is how easily these procedures are abused by people who escalate, escalate, because they’re incapable of backing down and defusing conflict. They’re always the source of the conflict in the first place.
https://talkingback2restrainingorders.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/beth-high-conflict-family-law-matters.pdf
LikeLike
hey guys my ex has been going around tellling that she has a restarining order and barring orders against me none of this is true not once has a member of the garda soichana came to my home can you advise me of what to do as i feel this is grounds for a defamation case any advise would be great
LikeLike
Ironically, Ken, this might be grounds for you to obtain a restraining order against her (for harassment). You’d probably need some concrete evidence of the slanders, or you’d need witnesses. This is harassing and distressing, but you’d have a hard time claiming it made you afraid, particularly since you’re male. If you were a woman, you could say that anything (or nothing) made you afraid. You’d also probably want to consider before you did anything just how cool you’d be with the situation’s escalating. One horn-mad woman can tear a person’s life apart with abuse of legal process, and there’s not a lot you can do about it short of becoming the person you were falsely accused of being in the first place.
On suing for defamation:
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/10/26/predator-v-porn-star-restraining-order-fraud-false-allegations-and-suing-for-defamation/
LikeLike
Preponderance of evidence, the standard of proof applied to matters litigated in civil court, means evidential strength, that is to say, the court’s ruling in a civil matter like a restraining order case favors the party whose evidence is stronger. Ex parte means on or from one side only. Since restraining orders are issued ex parte—that is, since only one side is heard from—it necessarily follows that the evidence of that side, the plaintiff’s, will be the stronger, because it’s the only evidence. This is all a roundabout way of saying that there’s no opposing evidence to contrast the plaintiff’s with and that ex parte “rulings” are as much rulings as single-candidate elections are races—which is a figurative way of explaining that defendants in restraining order cases are guilty until proven innocent.
The restraining order process farts on the most basic principle of justice.
A jurist (that is, a legal expert) would counter that restraining orders don’t equate with criminal convictions, so the hallowed principle of “presumption of innocence” doesn’t apply. His observation would be accurate but untrue. It’s accurate to say that restraining order allegations don’t translate to crimes; it’s untrue to say that these allegations don’t criminalize and shouldn’t be subject to a criminal standard of proof. Though the recipient of a restraining order may not be recognized by the judicial system as a felony stalker or batterer, for example, s/he becomes a de facto criminal in the eyes of others. The social ramifications are comparable, as are the psychological consequences that a restraining order’s implications have on the one who has to bear them.
LikeLike
I think this is great reading, I was with a woman for 7 years and I needed a break to get my head straight. After realizing I needed her more than I thought, I made contact with her (she kept in contact with me) she stated “On Valentines day she wanted me to walk through the door, but I didn’t…well it was only 3 days later. I waited for her and we talked at Starbucks and it seemed we might reconcile. I went back to Socal for a day, but then returned to meet with her, but she said she didn’t want to and never said why! I was at the College for work reasons so I approached her and we talked and she said I don’t love you anymore, and that she was dating another man, who she claimed was a jerk…funny as it sounds I said fine, at least we could still be friends!!! I left and emailed her how I was hurt but wished her the best…she said she was afraid of me! And was in fear for her life!! I was shocked and asked her why, stating that I loved her and wouldn’t ever hurt her (that’s just not me) Then she pretty much wrote the whole definition of Stalking and said if I called her emailed her anything she would get a Restraining Order on me! I’m like wow where did that come from? I won’t call, email…and even though my job requires me to be on campus at times I won’t even go! I am wondering if I should be in fear that some behind the scenes work is taking place. When I met her she was illegal, but I helped her get the Dream Act card! LOL stupid me didn’t realize she was using me…but damm 7 years is a long time! So now what should I do? I don’t want to come home and get served some papers based on BS!
LikeLike
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. I can’t see what the angle would be except causing you pain. In her mind, you manipulated her by raising her expectations and then disappointing them. My counsel would be to stop all contact with this person and let this settle out. If a couple months go by and you haven’t talked, texted, or anything else, whatever yarn she decided to spin for a judge would lose a lot of its oomph. That’s assuming she’s trying to sorta stick to the truth, of course. A viciously vindictive woman can make up anything she wants. It would be in your favor, though, if there are no trails of phone calls, messages, etc.
Forewarned is forearmed. You should probably start keeping track of any contacts from her (log them and keep hardcopies of emails, texts, etc.). Otherwise just don’t provide her with the raw materials for lies to the court (the record of a phone call, a girlfriend’s seeing your car around the neighborhood, that kind of thing).
Keep your head down for a while. Good luck, Ed.
LikeLike
Correction: A reasonable person would not normally have a psychotic break toward the individual he or she loves…. the psychotic break shows that the reasonable person has become unreasonable by some influence.
LikeLike
Hello, Todd.
I have recently been able to fight off the restraining orders placed on me by two different women. However, in admitting to the evidence that the second woman used to place a plenary restraining order on me, I learned that I had dissociated my memories of her due to emotional distress caused by the first woman who placed a restraining order on me: I underwent dissociative amnesia, which is why I had difficulty fighting the restraining orders.
I reason that I will personally e-mail you all of the details once I get all of the kinks worked out. However, I would like to mention, and if you could do research on this, it would be great… that in English law, there is a concept called “breaking the chain.”
As such, in a restraining order case, if you can “break the chain,” then you have found the variable(s) that caused the restraining order, or your behavior that influenced you to abuse/assault/attack/etc., the plaintiff seeking the restraining order.
I have recently broken the chain.
I believe I have scared the judges in relation to this issue as of late.
As such, I’ve noticed that the city police continue to follow me around the city.
LikeLike
p.s.
What I meant by do research, is that I mean if you can find other cases whereby the chain was broken.
However, in relation to your article, it would be extremely important for an individual to do a Motion for Discovery in an attempt to understand what kind of evidence someone had in making claims and allegations toward another of abuse.
LikeLike
P.P.S.
It would be great to see an article from you about the various motions an individual can make in restraining order cases in an attempt to fight them off. I’d recommend the following:
1) Motion for Discovery
2) Motion to Subpoena X, Y, Z if digital/electronic/communication sources are involved
3) Motion to Vacate and Dismiss
–> The importance making a motion to vacate and dismiss is to inspire an individual to collect as much evidence and counter-evidence, such as character witnesses, to disprove that an individual should have a restraining order placed on them.
4) Motion for Continuance
5) Motion to Lay on the Table
6) Motion for Re-Hearing
7) Motion to Appeal
8) Motion to Vacate without Prejudice
LikeLike
Okay, so I absorbed a little about “breaking the chain” from Wikipedia today. It refers to the breaking of a causal chain that would have made a defendant subject to liability if not for the interruption/intervening circumstance, right? This is some pretty fancy lawyer talk for a guy defending himself in Justice Court! Courthouses always makes me think of those movies about Dickensian England with people emptying chamber pots out of windows and swearing at each other through yellow, crooked teeth.
Did the judge know what you were talking about?
I added motion for continuance to the Glossary page, because I think this definitely is important for defendants to be aware of. Did you make all of these motions in a restraining order appeals hearing?
LikeLike
In general, to be able to break the chain is to find a new form of evidence. Furthermore, that evidence could be what explains why everything occurred the way it did. For instance, if a person dissociates/represses the reason for his/her behavior, then he or she cannot defend his or herself in court until the reason is remembered. However, there are other ideas in place, such as an individual coming to realize that he or she has a psychiatric disorder, such as bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, and so forth. Unless an individual can come to realize this, then can be no explanation as to his or her behavior. As such, an individual has to find WHY something occurred. In other words, as I have studied much world history and philosophy, an individual must take an Aristotlean route with Socratic roots to a particular issue rather than belittle the plaintiff by using what I consider an Alexandrian or Megas Alexandros route. In simpler terms, there is a different between asking questions first and shooting later vs. shooting first and asking questions later.
I’m under the belief that a variety of individuals who are “guilty” at first are underhanded by a particular philosophy of “free will” that the courts employ against the republic. However, a determinist and behaviorist would reject an idea of “free will,” and he or she would claim that there was a route of causality that led to the restraining order being placed on the individual. As such, when the courts enable individuals to place restraining orders on other individuals, the courts are defrauding the republic. And the firm reason that I believe the courts are defrauding individuals is because many judges have training in philosophy and determinism. As such, the judges SHOULD understand that people are not responsible for their behaviors, but it is instead the environments, people, and life experiences that were responsible for that individual’s behavior.
It has long been understood that the American courts are built off old ideals of “free will” from the Christian church. However, in an attempt to depart from that, the U.S. court took out the 10 commandments structure some years back. This was only a deceptive tactic to confuse the republic into thinking that the legal system is just. However, the legal system is still holding onto archaic roots by keeping a philosophy of free will rather than determinism. It could be said that all individuals who are “guilty” are then guilty by insanity (or not guilty by insanity). This could easily be translated to “guilty by determinism.”
This then brings out the fact that the U.S. Court system is but elitist and discriminator toward the republic, as it attempts to belittle individuals from the true reality that there is a link of causation that brings out particular behavior, which then leads to restraining orders to occur.
LikeLike
My impression of the way the system works is that if you’re well-connected or loaded, misconduct you engage in was involuntary or beyond your control. If you’re not well-connected or loaded, your misconduct was willful and deserving of punishment.
Here is a news story a respondent to this blog sent me in February. It’s about the wife of a judge who embezzled $18,000 from the bank she worked at.
The judge who ruled on her case said, “There’s no question she’s a good person.” Her defense attorney (a former federal prosecutor) argued she had a “‘shopping compulsion’ rooted in childhood trauma” and should be sentenced with one hour of confinement. The prosecuting attorney recommended a sentence of four months of confinement.
She got 30 days in jail, had to repay the bank, and will have to wear a tracking anklet for nine months of detention at her own house.
The statutory penalty for embezzling $18,000 in the state of Illinois is a fine of up to $25,000 and a term of incarceration between three and seven years.
LikeLike
In an equivocal way, using equivication, well-connected could also mean you understand why your actions occurred the way they did. Also, being loaded with knowledge, which is power, can help an individual fight off a restraining order. It’s surely true that people high in power can fend off others, because they have a particular socio-economic status.
It seems from reading the story, however, there is still an argument for determinism for the lady who embezzled.
LikeLike
Also an argument, I think, for wanton self-indulgence licensed by a sense of impunity or social superiority. I appreciate your thesis, but the reason that rape or burglary, for example, isn’t more common than it is isn’t, of course, that we aren’t all confronted with temptation every day; it’s that most of us are able to resist it (to a greater or lesser extent). Clearly if everyone acted according to impulse, there could be no expectation, let alone hope, of civil accord. Civilization is only possible when members honor a social contract and endeavor to override the limbic urges that, admittedly, pretty much rule everything we seek in life.
LikeLike
Congratulations for breaking that chain, And for going for broke. Most people are too overwhelmed and intimidated to gather their wits and aggressively react, let alone undertake a study of the law. I’ll investigate your leads as soon as I have a chance.
LikeLike
Thank you. As I have a social science background, I am beginning to wonder if there is a trend of behaviors that individuals display that leads to them getting restraining orders placed on them. A reasonable person would not have a psychotic break toward the individual he or she loves. I’ve also read that bipolar individuals tend to have psychotic breaks and dissociate, although I know my medical history and know very well my issue is not bi-polar disorder. Even if an individual does harass or act angry toward another individual, there is more than likely a behavioral reason, and if an individual cannot determine that, then it is possible that the individual has forgotten, repressed, dissociated, or underwent retrograde amnesia as to the reason. Me breaking the chain was finding the reason I snapped on my ex-girlfriend, which is what I dissociated from after I had “snapped.” Interestingly, and this is quite intriguing, is that the dissociation I underwent was evolutionary advantageous, as what I dissociated from was what was causing problems in the relationship.
Again, it would be interesting to see other cases of individuals breaking the chain.
LikeLike
The point of this post is that judges know nothing about a defendant’s conduct other than what a plaintiff represents that conduct to be. If all plaintiffs were reasonable, conscientious people, then your proposition about “a trend of behaviors” might apply, but the fact is restraining orders are easy, mostly free, effective, and psychologically rewarding for their applicants, about 4 in 5 of whom are women.
Assuredly there are actions that would lead even a person with scruples to turn his or her thoughts toward a restraining order. Domestic violence happens. Threats and fits and tantrums happen.
Something your musings importantly touch on, though, is that the dynamics of social and romantic relationships are nuanced and court instruments are not: they’re boilerplate, dummy forms that are meant to accomplish crowd control (as are the judges who preside in this arena, often).
LikeLike