“I want my life back. Restraining orders have stolen everything from me, and I’d give anything to have it back.”
—From “End Restraining Order Abuses”
Here’s what no one on the outside of the restraining order process can possibly grasp: that it can strip from someone, possibly based on nothing but maliciously false allegations, everything that s/he held dear.
That everything may have been what we conventionally regard as the worthiest values in life: home, family, and children. Or that everything may have been a career, an ambition, or sanity, peace of mind, and well-being. It may have been faith in government…or God. Or it may have been good repute.
All of these values are sacred ones and ones protected by our Constitution, and all of these values are vulnerable to casual violation by a state process engineered, intentionally or not, to abet casual violations. Restraining orders not only enable but legitimate attacks that wouldn’t otherwise be possible, let alone legal.
The source of the gnawing outrage so evident in complaints about restraining order abuse isn’t simply false allegations but the eagerness with which they’re accepted as fact by the court and effectively sublimated into fact by application of a judicial signature.
Consider: If someone falsely circulates that you’re a sexual harasser, stalker, and/or violent threat—possibly endangering your employment, to say nothing of savaging you psychologically—you can report that person to the police, seek a restraining order against that person for harassment, and/or sue that person for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. If, however, that person first obtains a restraining order against you based on the same false allegations—which is simply a matter of filling out a form and lying to a judge for five or 10 minutes—s/he can then circulate those allegations, which have been officially recognized as legitimate on an order of the court, with impunity. Your credibility, both among colleagues, perhaps, as well as with authorities and the courts, is instantly shot. You may, besides, be subject to police interference based on further false allegations, or even jailed (arrest for violation of a restraining order doesn’t require that the arresting officer actually witness or have incontrovertible proof of anything). And if you are arrested, your credibility is so hopelessly compromised that a false accuser can successfully continue a campaign of harassment indefinitely. Not only that, s/he can expect to do so with the solicitous support and approval of all those who recognize him or her as a “victim” (which may be practically everyone).
Can a completely innocent person be completely destroyed like this in gratification of a sick impulse by someone with a yen for vengeance or an attention-seeking personality disorder? Totally. The allegations, files, and records (public records) gradually accrete to mock, humiliate, and destabilize that person indefinitely, denying him or her a sense of security and any reasonable expectation of receiving just treatment from his or her own government.
It works this way: police officers and judges have only brief exposure(s) to the matter and, having no investment in it, couldn’t care less either way; people who are on the fence are liable to maintain their perch, being disinclined to get involved; those who know better will express their sympathies, which are kind but powerless to work any sort of remedial or regenerative effect; and those who don’t know any better will swallow a liar’s frauds, because their reactions have been socially conditioned and they have, besides, no reason to doubt the merits of a court’s (or multiple courts’) findings.
It’s a piece of cake.
Liars typically don’t expect to have their frauds challenged, but if they are, those frauds are more likely than not to continue to succeed (the courts are averse to backpedaling, and there’s no oversight). Lies don’t even have to be consistent or particularly cunning, just sensational and dramatically delivered (bigger, more lurid lies are actually easier sells than small ones). The rewards of attention, social sympathy and encouragement, recognition by authority figures, and the sense of power that comes from prevailing over an opponent are furthermore heady and addictive, and easily eclipse any twinge of conscience or fear that a liar may feel.
Victims of abuse are left eating their hearts out while those who’ve abused them can expect to be surrounded by consoling arms. In work settings, those abusers may even end up with promotions.
Copyright © 2013 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
I agree if people really knew the toll it can take on a person. I DID NOT believe it would affect me so much, but it has. I am typically a person that sees the positive in just about anything and how to move forward, but I just can not find my way out of this hole. A order was taken out against me full of abuse lies, proven in court by her contradictions and other facts such as police taking her from the residence and I not charged with any DV or abuse. This preponderance of evidence ALLOWS for the judges to take ANY sign of “fear” even with the actual claimed abuse, not being true and granting the order. In the end all for a visa, when she insisted how she’d rather go back home!
I am demoralized, depressed by all of this and wish it were otherwise.
LikeLike
I can admit the toll is IMMENSE, it is almost unbearable. I NEVER thought I would feel so worthless in my life! In my case the judge granted a two year order. Prior to it being granted my wife/family had me arrested on an alleged violation of the temporary PO. GUESS, who I had to see after the PO became a permanent order, to fight the violation..the SAME JUDGE. My chances of not being in jail were higher if I took a plea, than to TRY to defend myself against more lies that were used to obtain the ARREST WARRANT.
During the permanent order hearing, the judge did not allow my lawyer to use the motive of obtaining a visa via abuse claims as my wife’s intent behind the protective order request. She told him, there was no evidence for that. How could she say that when my wife had stated she was here in the middle of the visa process?!! And I have rights that should be protected?!
My lawyer told me before the violation hearing, if I were you I would not try to defend myself against the same judge that granted the permanent order. I would not roll the dice he told me. So here I am now a criminal with a DV mark…
Do you KNOW how embarrassing, demoralizing it is to be returning to the USA from a trip to be escorted by the CBP once I left the plane!
LikeLike
Blessedly, I don’t, but I can well appreciate your trauma. And people need to start recognizing the effects of these abuses as trauma. You’re supposed to—what?—shrug this off? If no one else has said this to you, I want to: I’m sorry. I’m sorry, too, we live in a country (and a world) where these kinds of travesties are not only possible but socially condoned. What’s the point of having a Constitution if we have to remind one another that we have one?
LikeLike
It is truly a form of domestic terrorism by the courts onto the American people, which I do not think that many people recognize. Even though it’s generally a civil process, unless a restraining order comes about through criminal procedure, the civil process often neglects to touch any many aspects of the alleged conduct that a criminal court would. A defendant often has to use his own resources to disprove guilt, which generally makes the process a financial burden on the defendant rather than the petitioner.
I believe in the use of Occam’s razor to get to the bottom of things. As such, I believe that many judges use faulty thinking when considering restraining order cases in front of them. If there is no evidence of an act, then the defendant is not guilty. If there is no evidence of a mens rea, then the defendant is not guilty. However, even if there is evidence of an act, that does not necessarily mean that the defendant held a guilty mind. Furthermore, the presence of a restraining order does not necessarily mean that a defendant was guilty of committing a crime: That would be accomplished in criminal court with a conviction of guilt. The civil court may simply be working off of a paradigm of strict liability, whereby because an act occurred, then the defendant is civilly liable. However, in criminal court, that an act occurred does not necessarily mean that the defendant is criminally liable.
It is a strict liability paradigm that a court adheres to that acts as a form of domestic terrorism. It subjugates individuals to a form of civil liability that is unjust in a realm where the true correlates of the allegations are criminal liability. And from my background of studying human psychology, the state of mind is truly important in relation to domestic relationships, because you do not want people who have held learned behaviors of violence being around other people, as it may cause further violence: This is the difference between an individual who could have his or her acts perceived as uncommon/unreasonable (if not negligent) vs. criminal.
When courts attack people based on strict liability allegations, if but attacking people not being “reasonable” people, then courts are attacking individuals based on their individuality. As such, the courts are taking action against people holding individual differences. And from that point, it is understandable that people gripe about the courts attacking individual freedoms, such as the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech. From there, an individual can understand that people “want their life back.” People want to be able to freely express themselves and their individuality without being penalized or punished. The restraining orders that punish individuality rather than criminal conduct are acting as a social experiments and forms of oppression by the courts as forms of intimidation and as cruel and unusual punishment. The restraining orders than act to oppress individual freedoms in a cruel and unusual manner.
LikeLike
In reference to there being no evidence of an act, I mean that there will be no evidence to prove that the act occurred: circumstantial evidence, character evidence, habit evidence, and so on.
The courts that use a strict liability paradigm, whereby the Truth of the situation is that a defendant did not hold a culpable mens rea, are attempting to alter the freedoms, constrict the freedoms, and undergo a form of operant conditioning on defendants by stripping away their liberties and freedoms and punishing them for the liberties and freedoms they were allowed with lawful justification during the acts they had committed. They are attempting to generate a form of learned helplessness in defendants, as to change the behavior of the defendants and turn them into “reasonable” people as the courts see fit. That is simply oppression and penalizing people for being individuals in society rather than the legal systems desired model of mankind.
LikeLike
I have an instance of oppression in relation to the state of Illinois in relation to the Illinois Stalking No Contact Order Act. For instance, in Nicholson v. Wilson, 2013 IL App (3d) 110517, the court used sophistry to make arguments in relation to the defendant’s culpability: (http://tinyurl.com/p75asct). On paragraph 12, 13, 14, and 15 the court fails to address that the individual “knowingly” went about stalking Wilson. The court decided to use sophistry in order to disagree. The court appealed to ignorance and used circular reasoning.
The court has quoted People v. Baily: “A law survives a vagueness challenge so long as it
‘give[s] a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is
lawful and what conduct is unlawful’ and ‘convey[s] sufficiently clear standards so as to avoid its arbitrary enforcement.'”
First off, “ordinary intelligence,” “reasonableness,” and “knowledge” are debatable. As I am a neuroscientist, I believe that any individual who holds a firm epistemic state of mind, whereby he or she is consciously aware that the alleged victim is or will be in a state of mind, whereby he or she holds fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or is suffering other emotional distress has been criminally stalked (Illinois law). However, that court evaded the cognitive psychology of the mens rea while using the term “know” in the statement, “…to know what conduct is lawful and what conduct is unlawful…”
However, an individual can perceive that the court is using circular reasoning at this point in reference to “knowledge.”
The court goes on to say the following: “Here, Wilson engaged in conduct which, from an objective standpoint, would cause a reasonable person to have some fear for his or her safety or cause that person emotional distress. Wilson placed a tracking device on Nicholson’s car for the purpose of surreptitiously tracking her movement and trained a hidden video camera on her desk to secretly record her activities. It cannot be seriously argued that such conduct would not cause fear and emotional distress for a reasonable person in Nicholson’s position. We therefore reject Wilson’s vagueness challenge to the constitutionality of the Act.”
However, the court did not say that Wilson “KNOWINGLY” engaged in conduct. The court did not say that an individual of ordinary intelligence would know that Wilson’s conduct would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for his or her safety or suffer other emotional distress. How can an individual hold fear or suffer emotional distress unless they know that the GPS is there?
And what of recklessness? Was there a conscious disregard that it would cause fear if the GPS were found? As in the appeal, “Wilson maintains that this statutory language converts the “reasonable person” from the usual objective test (see McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78 (1988)) to a subjective test, which would require a respondent to be able to predict the subjective emotional state of the petitioner in order to conform his conduct to the requirements of the Act.”
And then the court goes on to say the following: “Here, Wilson engaged in conduct which, from an objective standpoint, would cause a reasonable person to have some fear for his or her safety or cause that person emotional distress. Wilson placed a tracking device on Nicholson’s car for the purpose of surreptitiously tracking her movement and trained a hidden video camera on her desk to secretly record her activities. It cannot be seriously argued that such conduct would not cause fear and emotional distress for a reasonable person in Nicholson’s position. We therefore reject Wilson’s vagueness challenge to the constitutionality of the Act.”
DID YOU SEE THAT?!?!!?
CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!!!
HOLY CRAP!
A person of ordinary intelligence has a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is lawful and what conduct is unlawful when he or she KNOWS (is consciously aware with an epistemic state of mind) that his or her conduct IS or WILL cause a reasonable person to have some fear for his or her safety or cause that person emotional distress. And a reasonable person is defined as a person in the petitioner’s circumstances with the petitioner’s knowledge of the respondent.
The court used circular reasoning. The court used malicious sophistry (if the court was not being foolish and ignorant). In essence, the court was upholding the restraining order against Wilson for not being a person of “ordinary intelligence who has a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is lawful and what conduct is unlawful.”
However, the conduct is UNLAWFUL when an individual KNOWINGLY causes a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress.
A court placed an Illinois Stalking No Contact Order on Wilson for NOT KNOWINGLY STALKING Nicholson. If he consciously disregarded the substantial probability that his acts would caused a reasonable person fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress, then he was being reckless.
In my view, because whether or not stalking occurred is a jury question, at the most, an individual can only be said to hold a reckless state of mind, whereby reckless stalking would be considered that a jury might ignorantly convict him on a vague and unconstitutional stalking law. However, recklessness is not a state of mind culpable for a stalking conviction in Illinois.
If anything, an individual should be not guilty by reason of mental defect for not being a person of “ordinary intelligence who has a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is lawful and what conduct is unlawful.”
However, there is still the fact that the burden of proof to prove state of mind is on the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff failed to prove that Wilson held the state of mind. By necessity, there should have been no need for Wilson to argue that he held a mental defect because he did not KNOWINGLY cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress.
Instead, the court went on to talk about the ACTUS REUS rather than the MENS REA. The court completely avoided the topic of MENS REA.
As to whether Wilson knew or should have known that his activities were likely to cause
a reasonable person to fear for her safety or suffer emotional distress, the record supports the conclusion that Nicholson would likely suffer emotional distress. She had sought assistance from the employer regarding pervious acts of surveillance upon her and indicated that she was very upset about the 2008 incident, regardless of whether Wilson was proven to be the perpetrator. The trial court’s finding, therefore, that Wilson’s actions were covered under the Act and that a plenary order was warranted to prevent further conduct of a similar nature was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
LikeLike
In reference to knowledge, rather than saying that a person is knowing when he or she is consciously aware, there exists the Illinois Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions that define knowledge. Those are sufficient. Considering those aspects in relation to mens rea, there was nothing to imply that Wilson was “practically certain,” or aware of the substantial probability that Nicholson would be in fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress. With Wilson having made the appeal the way he did, a jury should be “reasonable” enough to find him not guilty.
AGAIN!! One of the major issues here is that an individual is often (if at all) not allowed a jury during a restraining order hearing. The judges can use sophistry, appeal to ignorance, act ignorant, and all kinds of stuff. And in being able to do that, the judges are acting as domestic terrorists.
LikeLike
My real opinion on what a REAL stalker is (in relation to Illinois law) has quite a distinct view. I consider a criminal stalker to be a very sick-minded individual. This would be the kind of individual with enough “cognitive empathy” toward an individual that he or she is engaging in conduct toward to know that individual will be or is placed in a fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress. This could be said about someone who has truly abused another individual, such as someone raping another, seriously harming another, or some other serious criminal act that causes severe emotional distress and fear. However, it all boils down to this: Did the defendant hold cognitive empathy toward the alleged victim? That’s what I’ve learned. I guess you could say that a lot about assault, domestic battery, sexual assault, and stalking. And the defendant who does hold cognitive empathy toward the alleged victim during the actus reus, such as following around the person knowing that it will cause fear for the person’s safety, is committing REAL stalking. A lot of the other allegations are high-school drama: “Eww. I don’t like you, creep!”
Wikipedia has a nice article on cognitive empathy with discussion about neurobiological correlates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Types_of_empathy
LikeLike
correction to the above:
“If he consciously disregarded the substantial probability that his acts would caused a reasonable person fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress, then he was being reckless.”
I meant to say,
“If he consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable *risk* that his acts would cause a reasonable person fear for his or her safety, the safety of a third person, or suffer emotional distress, then he was being reckless.”
LikeLike
Here is a news article related to Nicholson v. Wilson.
Peoria pulls funding for police officer’s defense in stalking case
Read more: http://www.pjstar.com/x853688241/Peoria-pulls-funding-for-police-officer-s-defense-in-stalking-case/?tag=1#ixzz2nA7FNawv
I believe if Wilson had taken the issue to a higher court, such as the Supreme Court, then the matter of culpability would have been further hashed out. Although there was one individual who alleged that he told Wilson about particular conduct, there was no evidence to support that individual’s allegation, for what I read of the appeal. Instead the appeal court focused on the actus reus rather than the mens rea, which was a dirty tactic. It seems like Wilson is socially incompetent, a joker, or an absent-minded individual. It could be a mixture. Either way, he lacked culpability. And I believe KARMA got back at the state, as the individual was given funding by city hall because of Wilson’s history. Of course, the government boys couldn’t have anymore of being shown to be liars. Of course, the next step would be for Wilson to take the appeal one step further to disarm the law and show that it was unconstitutionally applied to him.
LikeLike