A person who obtains a fraudulent restraining order or otherwise abuses the system to bring you down with false allegations does so because you didn’t bend to his or her will like you were supposed to do.
To contest the restraining order (or whatever other state process was abused) is to once more defy the will of your accuser.
No surprise then that such an accuser will up the stakes on you. Defy subsequent allegations, and your accuser will escalate them further. This is especially the case when your accuser is female. It’s not for nothing that the (mis)quotation, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” has become immortal. (And it’s not only men who have to fear this wrath; women can be at least as vehemently and doggedly brutal to other women.)
It’s rare for a false accuser to relent.
This is partly due to psychology and partly due to how easily the processes we’re talking about are abused. Restraining order issuance, for example, pretty much follows a revolving-door policy: plaintiffs are in and out in minutes.
Once a foothold is attained, and the paperwork starts mounting in the plaintiff’s favor, she’s committed and feels ten feet tall, and the snowball begins rolling downhill on its way to becoming an avalanche.
One success (that first rubber-stamped round of allegations) assures that a repeat performance will be that much easier. And it is. Both police officers and judges have been “educated” to react paternally to allegations leveled by women, and the worse those allegations are, the more hastily they’re swallowed. Initial allegations once validated by a judge’s signature, moreover, make future allegations that much more credible and future judges’ eyes that much narrower.
Each added strand strengthens and sustains the web of lies and makes it that much more lethal a snare.
Any number of men and women have written to this blog reporting that they never had a run-in with the law in their lives, and now, in the span of a few months, they’ve been transmogrified into Attila the Hun.
And no one gazing down the tunnel from the far end—whether an employer, a neighbor, or a judge—can perceive that it originates with some calculated lies scrawled on a bureaucratic form: “Hey, can I borrow your pen for a sec? I’ll give it right back.”
Lies like these, upon multiplying like cancer cells and having as they do the full force of public policy behind them, can take over lives.
And, relentlessly chewing, chewing, chewing like the parasitic agents they are, destroy them.
Processes that are supposed to defend people from abuse provide liars with the perfect media to make their wildest vengeance fantasies come true.
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
I’ve found that one of the best things to do is analyze the allegations that are being made. Afterward, look into the state statute for the alleged crime, as restraining orders are based on allegations of domestic violence (which means that restraining orders contain allegatons of criminal misconduct). After determining which criminal law the petitioner is alleging that the respondent broke, find the “elements” to that crime in relation to what the state considers may be the elements.
From there, an individual can go about refuting the elements of the alleged domestic violence. For instance, for assault, an individual can claim that he or she held no intent to cause a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The ALI “Restatement of Torts” helps guide an individual into the elements. Also, conducting the discovery process and looking for any false allegations, such as in police reports, that the petitioner developd, can be used to show the respondent is a liar and deceiving the court.
Another aspect an individual should do is determine if the petitioner committed any crimes of domestic violence, write them up in a motion for a restraining order, describe intent and motive, and file against the petitioner. I firmly believed in not using the law to get at people, because I believed in a therapeutic goal in order to resolve domestic issues. However, after a long time studying domestic violence and mediation, I’ve come to understand that if an individual is prosecuting you, then you need to prosecute that individual. It’s about an issue of equality, and there is therapeutic resolve in showing the other individual the error of his or her ways, thus that the person has been arrogant in his or her actions.
LikeLike
— Is there a fast and hard rule that requires that the blood still be wet at the time of filing the RO application? The 20% that require a DVRO fear getting the RO, while simultaneously fearing NOT getting it. Review of Family Law Code does not specify a cut off timeframe, unless it was missed. Appears that DVROs have been granted up to a year since last contact, though 30 days is frequently alluded to.
— Abuse is broadly defined under the DVPA. It includes physical abuse or sexual abuse, but also includes threats of abuse or harm without any physical harm, and even harassing or stalking conduct. Stalking-wise are there any factors that would substantiate the claim, besides photos? Most (90%) victims don’t know they are being stalked until the stalker is ingratiated into the victim’s life. Therefore, could the grounds for the DVRO be emotional and mental implications of ongoing contact?
LikeLike
I don’t think there are any hard-and-fast rules period. People can be labeled abusers based on conduct over the previous week or from months prior. I’m not even sure the dates are paid that much attention. Nothing really is. If the judge is a little more scrupulous, then your 30-day rule would probably apply. The point of a restraining order is to arrest ongoing conduct.
Probably most restraining orders are issued in response to alleged emotional states. I’m not strictly certain what the source of or reason for your apprehension is. What’s the conduct you’re trying to restrain?
LikeLike
The best details of a DV case which is predicated on false allegations is the courthouse file, and the transcript of the hearing. I have seen scads of these astonishing files, and in so many cases the judges provide aid and comfort to the femme plaintiff gaming the system. Sadistic punishments worked on innocent men are the rule rather than the exception. And the animating force behind these injustices is VAWA, the offspring of ideological feminism.
I have no problem with restraining orders against men who physically abuse their wives, but a restraining order for arguing with her or saying something unpleasant to her?
The idea now is NOT to permit the guilty to go free with criminal prosecutions dedicated to the presumption of innocence. “It is better that ten guilty go free than for one innocent to be convicted” is no longer the goal of justice. The present idea is “GET THEM ALL! So what if we tag the innocent too? The broad sweep of our net does not permit the guilty to escape.”
The trials in these cases are non-jury. Your right to jury trial has been scrapped. So has your presumption of innocence. The judge, who is likely a woman, will find the facts. Or fabricate them.
As the bishop told the 13th century crusaders who had conquered a medieval city with both Christians and Cathars living peacefully side-by-side: “Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are His.”
We have to stick together to defend ourselves against this national outrage, of men as presumed batterers. As Benjamin Franklin warned, we can all hang together, or we can hang separately.
LikeLike
Have you considered writing a book?
LikeLike