I have a crippled leg.
It’s hardly the impediment it would have been if a surgeon hadn’t reconstructed it, but there’s only so much I can expect from it, and barring some advances in orthopedic science and my winning the lottery, its limitations are ones I’ll have to live with.
A recent comment from a very generous woman moved to express sympathy for a fellow victim of false allegations brought something to my attention. She said she was trying to get past her pain.
I understand her very well, but at the risk of pointing out the obvious, she shouldn’t have to. False allegations aren’t a withered limb, a ruptured disc, or an autoimmune disease. These latter things are real and unavoidable. Lies aren’t real, and their pain is easily relieved. The lies just have to be rectified.
That lies were made to the court doesn’t somehow convert them to truths that necessarily must be lived with. Lies don’t become authenticated or authorized because they work. The court isn’t God, and its rulings aren’t ineluctable verities etched on stone tablets. The pains of false allegations are artificially induced and nothing the wrongly accused should have to bear.
I’ve known people who were participants in compound hoaxes on the court. They, too, convinced themselves that false allegations were something that the victims of those allegations had to live with. One of the people I’m thinking of is a parent. She’s probably commanded her children to apologize for lying more than once, because she recognizes it’s wrong and wants to impress that fact upon her kids.
Lies by adults only have to be borne, because those adults aren’t equal to the expectations placed on infants. This fact isn’t changed because the lies were made to judges (who may be unequal to those expectations themselves).
The civil in civil process (from the Latin for citizen) is you and I. “The court” is a concept that society (also you and I) made up and invested with meaning. It stands for a collection of procedures that are supposed to preserve brotherly (and sisterly) harmony. The common denominator here—and the only real part—is you and I. The court’s agents are merely more infinitely fallible you’s and I’s.
It’s certainly pragmatic to accept that liars who don’t have to recant their lies probably won’t. But lies are never irreversible impositions of divine will.
They’re just the acts of liars, and there’s nothing lowlier and less divine than them. The only ones who should have to live with lies are their perpetrators.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
I’ve read your article, moderator. I read a webpage in the past 24 hours, and I think there is something from it that I would like to quote. I apologize to those who are of different religions, but I believe this part from the website is extremely relevant:
“Because the code of morality which we have in the Old Testament was inspired by God and imposed by Him on His people, it follows that there is nothing in it that is immoral or wrong. It was indeed imperfect, if it be compared with the higher morality of the Gospel, but, for all that, it contained nothing that is blameworthy. It was suited to the low stage of civilization to which the Israelites had at the time attained; the severe punishments which it prescribed for transgressors were necessary to bend the stiff necks of a rude people; the temporal rewards held out to those who observed the law were adapted to an unspiritual and carnal race.”
– http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm
LikeLike
I’d like to offer an interpretation of what I really think that passage means. I think that’s really saying that despite there being laws, an individual may not be culpable. An individual may not possess 100% of the state of mind required for there to be actual guilt. An individual who physically harms another may not have within full consideration of his or her conscious awareness the textualist description of that law: Assume that one must possess in his or her mind the textualist knowledge “Knowingly causing harmful or offensive contact.”
The rude person, as described above, is the mundane person. The mundane person is without the manifestation of what it is to guilty yet presented in man’s law, the individual becomes falsely accused of breaking the law. Because one cannot 100% possess that mental state, there can be but deviations of that state of mind: And this is my neurolaw perspective. There is man’s law, neurolaw, and divine law. But there is only one LAW. Man’s law is but an attempt at divine law.
And in this child process of attempting to imitate divine law, there has been a technology generated called “the reasonable person.” It is a fictitious concept, a lie told to society. It is an imaginary person, a being that is non-existent. At yet, it is used as a standard to compare and contrast human behavior in society. However, belief in this “reasonable person” is to hold a false belief. It is to generate a false paradigm of law and it mocks divine law.
Human behavior is determined.
LikeLike
And whether or not an individual believes in determinism or free-will, and I make this comment to sympathize with those of different philosophies, only divine law can see to an individual’s punishment. Man’s law is but an imitation of divine law, thus one must be skeptical and seek the Truth.
LikeLike
Definitely. Practically, of course, truth is only sought if it’s in the seeker’s interest. A judge is only going to seek the truth if the law directs him to, and he’s paid to.
LikeLike
Nice and very apt. That’s exactly what these processes are: crowd control. Crude crowd control that’s crudely applied.
The law’s perspective, clearly, is that human behavior can be modified—or that everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt and only locked away upon repeated exhibitions of recalcitrance. In a sense, restraining orders acknowledge their own crudeness. That’s why there’s no immediate punishment, per se (discounting, in cases, having everything you own taken from you). Restraining orders are supposed to be warnings, and that’s how the court perceives them—ignoring, of course, that the warnings may be wholly unwarranted and devastating merely by their (enduring) implications.
LikeLike