Restraining orders may be obtained by anyone on a modicum of evidence—sometimes a vague claim of fear suffices—and for the modest outlay of a few minutes’ time. The application takes about 15 minutes to fill out and possibly even fewer to “substantiate” in an interview with a judge (you sit in a wooden pew or a molded plastic chair and wait for your number to be called—like at the DMV). The worst that happens is the judge says no and you have to apply again another day. (It’s not unheard of for someone to obtain restraining orders against the same person in multiple jurisdictions.)
Applicant’s cost to prosecute: as much pocket change as the parking meter outside the courthouse requires.
Restraining orders may be quashed by virtually no one who isn’t represented by legal counsel. And then it can be a coin toss. (You get served by a county constable who comes knocking on your door—or politely informs you you’ll be arrested if you don’t respond promptly to the yellow notification he hangs there.) Contesting a restraining order demands of defendants weeks of sleepless nights; frantic calls to lawyers; assembly of documentation (possibly to refute nothing that can be refuted); disclosure of intimate, personal details to strangers; stammering, red-faced appeals to friends for corroborating testimony; and a lot of cash. (These stresses are exacerbated in many cases by denial of access to shelter, property, and possibly money, clean clothes, and transportation, too, after being forcibly ejected from your home by the police.)
Appellant’s cost to successfully defend: around $5,000.
Does this mean someone who bears you a grudge or gets off on a little arbitrary cruelty can waltz into a courthouse in the Land of the Free, shed some crocodile tears, and dismantle your life? Totally. Yours and anyone else’s.
I’ve corresponded this week with a former public official who’s a vegetarian animal philanthropist and mom (she and her daughter donated $100 to a fundraiser for a surgery needed by my dog). She grows her own vegetables and walks dogs to raise money for animal shelters. She re-homes spiders and worms. Four years ago she offered to donate one of her kidneys to save the life of a boy she wasn’t even related to. She stands accused of domestic violence by a former boyfriend she’s scarcely seen in decades. The closest she’s come to battering him is giving him a hug at a class reunion. And she’s not the only one this man and his wife have fingered.
(Not only does the court liberally allow anyone to apply for a restraining order on the taxpayer’s dime; there’s also no ceiling on the number he or she can swear out. The cost to the state is estimated at $1,300 to $2,000 a pop. The total cost to the nation is reckoned at $4 billion a year.)
Restraining orders, which are an obvious invitation to wreak utter havoc, are defended as civilizing and litigated in civil court. Jurisdictions may even pride themselves on the number they issue, expecting it to proclaim their intolerance of domestic abuse. They may besides be rewarded with federal subsidies for their “diligence.”
My friend Annie has been pulling her hair out and medicating herself to sleep (I’ve done the same since I was falsely accused years ago—god bless Benadryl!). She’s even had to resort to applying to the mayor, a former colleague, for a character reference: this to combat allegations that wouldn’t bear up under the scrutiny of a schnauzer. If she successfully prosecutes her appeal, she’ll have had to forfeit enough money for a decent used car, will be remembered for having unsavory associates, and will be subject to the idle speculations aroused by the phrase restraining order. And even if she’s exculpated in the minds of everyone she knows and has had to share this with, the stigma will linger with her in her own psyche (which will itself be only a shadow of what she’ll have to live with if the judge finds for her accuser). This public shaming promotes alienation, bitterness, and depression (besides an abiding distrust of government).
Agents of the nanny state tolerate and even defend the restraining order process, either blind or indifferent to its casualties. The members of the fundamentalist feminist establishment the state answers to curl their thumbs around their suspenders, puff their cigars, and gleam with self-satisfaction.
Where the shame belongs is on them.
Copyright © 2012 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Amen, my friend. I had a stalking Restraining Order placed against me 2 years ago a week after I filed a small claims suit against a circuit court employee (she worked with the Judges in my city as well as the Commonwealth Attorneys). Lies, lies, and more lies. Dismissed and expunged, but not without my putting out $$$ and now having a serious distaste for local government. I volunteer for the Circuit Court for about 11 months, and to see how I was treated… Disgusting. Also, the lady who made the complaint is now married to (and was then dating) the head Commonwealth Attorney’s nephew, and actually showed up to my expungement trial and held up a sign in the middle of the case. That is why I am always so honest to anyone about what happened… Even in job interviews when asked if I have ever been arrested, I explain the situation. Sunlight is the best disinfectant in these situations.
LikeLike
Rob, I agree, and I’m really glad you have this off your back (if not entirely off your mind). I’m thinking it’s a lot easier to talk about them when the lies have been recognized and erased. When they haven’t been, it’s hard to establish credibility with anyone who doesn’t know you (including court officers and staff, lawyers, and potential employers). Was the woman dismissed from her job for conduct unbecoming a person in her position?
LikeLike
Actually the case never got heard… My attorney and the Special Prosecutor agreed to drop the charges in 90 days (to cover her ass more so than mine so it would be tougher to file a Malicious Prosecution suit, I later realized). I had a job coming up with the Federal Government and I didn’t want the endless series of delays to affect my job, so I went along with it. This lady is still working where she was. Interesting, too; She has had 20+ civil suits filed against her since 2003, she always defaults on them (doesn’t show up for court), although she works one floor above General District. Also was arrested twice for worthless checks (one of them only shows up on a background check, I believe that one was expunged).
There actually is another “Act” to the whole fiasco. After she showed up to my expungement hearing and made a scene (Sheriff Deputy had to tell her to sit down and shut up, yelled at me in the hallway as I was going to get my copies of the order), I had the last straw and filed another Civil Suit against her for my attorneys fees, filings, annual leave from work, etc. I talked to several attorneys around town, but none would take the case because of who she was (sad, ain’t it?). Soon after I filed a FOIA request for any emails between her and her employer (an elected constitutional officer), I wanted to see if I could pull a Section 1983 claim and bring her employer in as vicariously liable. Both came back with “no responsive documents” and I received a bill of $100+ for their time (an hour) looking through their email. Well, when her attorney responded to my suit, guess what? There were emails in the packet as “evidence” that were responsive to my FOIA request, and you know how when you print something it prints the date on the bottom right corner? The date it printed was the exact same date they responded to the request. But, the FOIA office stonewalled me and the employer told me he, “just used the search function on his email, which does NOT take an hour to do (about 15 seconds), not to mention his original response stated that he had reviewed his emails from that time period.
On the date of the trial, the Judge refused to let me try my case (I was pro se) since it was “expunged”, even though I had a copy of her original statement for the warrant and the new Bill of Particulars defense, which both had conflicting information. I even had a witness and receipts that could place me in another entire city when she accused me of following her with me car. She even put that my brother and father had to be thrown out of the courthouse for verbally accosting the employer (over another issue when I volunteered. A job was promised to me if I turned down a private paralegal position, but he gave the job to someone else), which even the employer admitted was a fabricated lie, but wouldn’t do anything about it. After the judge refused to let me try my case, he actually threatened me with sanctions because I didn’t have anything else to try the case on (bass-ackwards, huh?).
Sounds like a really screwed up story, huh? Not to mention that I had to deal with a couple of cop friends of her’s… But that’s another story. I want to keep the whole ordeal though in the front of my mind, because if it happens to someone else I want to be able to lend a hand and fully empathize, I know I could have used it when I was in the trenches.
I plan one day on writing a satirical novel about my experience, titled something along the lines of “Sycophancy”. I thank God for sites like this and Media RADAR that shine a light on the underbelly of the legal system.
(sorry for the long post, but it’s one of those epics that has so much meat to it, there is no chaff to separate from the wheat).
LikeLike
Write whenever and as much as you like! I’m really grateful to you for this information and your willingness to disclose it. This site receives traffic from several continents and most states, but I think people who are abused by the system are generally too intimidated to speak up. And no surprise in light of your own story. Is it any wonder that so many people who do speak out sound like conspiracy cranks? This is corruption, plain and simple, and I’m not even sure the conspirators know they’re conspirators. I think they believe they’re working for the greater good (which defies every canon of judicial ethics, for example, impartiality!). My impression of the sitting judges I’ve had any form of interaction with is that they resent it when evidence runs counter to the conclusion they had preformed or that exposes the flaws in this process (with the exception of the one female judge I talked to briefly who impressed me as having genuine integrity). They also resent the guy who’s bold enough to dare expose these flaws (also a violation of judicial ethics). Thanks, Rob. More power to you! I admire your perseverance.
LikeLike