I was emailed yesterday by a humbly polite man whose family was under threat of eviction from their state-subsidized living quarters if his wife refused to swear out a restraining order against him. He admits to a criminal past but says he’s engaged in no recent conduct that would warrant this invasive action. Nevertheless his inaccessibility to legal representation and his family’s being in dire financial straits make his wife’s “choice” inevitable: either he lives in a refrigerator box on the streets or he shares one with his wife and children.
Browsing the Internet brings up similar accounts of coercion by government agents (of a process that is itself inherently coercive: “Do what we say or live in a cage”):
And these stories are echoed by others that have led visitors to this blog over the past year.
So unregulated and debauched is the restraining order process that even agents of the state abuse it without worry of censure or reprisal. Its manipulation has become standard operating procedure and is both systemic and systematic. There are even secret passwords to cue judges as to how they should rule on restraining order applications: “Just say you’re ‘in fear of immediate danger’”—wink, wink.
These are the cynical conspiracies of those who know they have the power and can abuse it arbitrarily. Public perception of restraining orders is that they’re indispensably vital to checking the misconduct of “bad guys.” The propagandists who maintain this duck blind—feminist advocates, for example—are often true believers who militate for even broader court discretion and laxer standards of due process, ignoring the truism that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And lawmakers and administrators yield to popular sentiment.
As for the kids who are either left fatherless or are tossed to the curb or fostered out—they don’t vote, anyway.
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Reblogged this on .
LikeLike
No person should put a restraining order on someone out of malice (if but malice is to be the major premise), as that is grounds for being sued for fraud and/or misrepresentation. True feelings of fear for one’s safety (or the safety of a dependent who cannot file) are good grounds for asking for a restraining order; however, compromise should be found before doing such. If compromise cannot be found, then I can see how one would fear for his or her safety. In my situation, compromise was found.
LikeLike
This is the horrible bind created and sustained by the restraining order process, the power of which is predominantly menace. Restraining orders are often sought in heat. After a restraining order has been issued, there’s no way to defuse this heat, because the lines of communication are severed. Even plaintiffs are intimidated by the process they initiated. This blog receives daily queries from plaintiffs who have reestablished contact in spite of restraining orders (or tried to reestablish it) and are desperate to know if they’re “in trouble.”
LikeLike
I recall when some people on behalf of my ex-girlfriend were stalking me. I do not know if these people went rogue from direct or indirect command from my ex-girlfriend. However, I do know they were stalking me. As such, I had called the city police and made a report.
Moments prior to calling the police, the person attempted to blackmail me.
I was in no interest for a conspiracy to be against me. Furthermore, I wanted to silence and shutdown those who opposed me. When the policeman arrived, I told him truth, especially in relation to me interrogating some people prior to them stalking me. He asked prior to taking the report if I was going to file for a restraining order (as if the police force has turned into McDonald’s and suggesting to people to super-size their meal). I said that I may (so, not saying that I would, but that I could); and he took the report.
Afterward, the person who stalked me had apologized.
Evidence on both sides.
LikeLike
I think pack mentality is often the urgency behind restraining order applications. We’re accustomed to thinking of pack mentality as a male phenomenon, but women reflexively supporting women is at least as bad (the physical threat that men in groups threaten manifests as psychological violence from women). There is, in the restraining order apparatus, additional knee-jerk incentive to pounce from police officers, women’s counselors, and even judges. Women, especially, are provided that validation of team support that contributes to the momentum: “Do it! Do it! Do it!” The brain shuts down, and it takes a loud finger snap (like calling the police to break up the mob) to restore people to their senses.
LikeLike