A presumption of people—including even law professors—is that when restraining order defendants say the accusations against them are false, they mean that specific allegations of fact made by their accusers are untrue.
This is a misunderstanding, and it’s a totally understandable one that accounts for the incredulity expressed by proponents of the battered women’s movement when they hear statistics propounded like 50 to 90% of restraining orders are based on “false accusations.” (A family court judge might say 30%. The jaded former director of a woman’s shelter might say 40 or 50%. A men’s rights activist might say 60 to 80%, and a family attorney might well agree.) There are no “official” statistics—and there can’t be, because no records of false accusations are kept, and false accusations, besides, are seldom called “false accusations” in court rulings. Figures put forward are always speculative.)
It must be appreciated that restraining order prosecutions aren’t criminal prosecutions. They don’t evolve from detailed allegations made to the police and vetted by public attorneys; they’re based on forms filled out in 10 or 15 minutes by private litigants who deliver their claims straight to a judge (who meets with them for about the time it takes to make a sandwich).
To falsely accuse someone of “domestic violence,” for example, may just mean putting a check mark in a box on such a form.
That’s the false accusation—and if a defendant doesn’t show up to court to challenge that check-marked accusation, s/he becomes, by default, a “domestic abuser” according to the various law enforcement and registry databases his or her name is entered into.
People on the outside of the restraining order process imagine that the phrase false accusations refers to elaborately contrived frame-ups. Frame-ups certainly occur, but they’re mostly improvised. We’re talking about processes that are mere minutes in duration (that includes the follow-up hearings that purport to give defendants the chance to refute the allegations against them).
The fact is when defendants say accusers lie, they may just mean those accusers uttered the five magic words: “I’m afraid for my life.”
The magic words, which may of course be untrue, aren’t even susceptible to contradiction. They can’t be refuted; what they represent is an alleged feeling, not a fact that can be disproved. You can’t even really call them an accusation.
Contrary to all things reasonable and sound, a restraining order may be issued on the basis of the five magic words alone.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Reblogged this on Through a lens diary.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sweetsurrender922 and commented:
And, HOW is this even possible!!!??? The defendant doesn’t show up in a court that’s in a state that they have never even set foot in, yet now they are guilty because they couldn’t afford the $600 airplane ticket because they were served 3 business days before the court hearing in a state half a continent away!?? WTF? Shame on the court, shame on the judge and shame on the attorney who says he actually goes to church and teaches Sunday School!!! What does he teach exactly, definitely nothing that Jesus Christ or his prophets did, that’s for sure!! Shame, shame, shame.
LikeLike
The rationale is women must be protected from abuse—that’s the priority. If you go to a superior courthouse to file a document, you’ll see a sign that instructs anyone applying for a protection order to go to the head of the line. “You’re our first concern” is what the sign means.
The interests of the person doing the accusing, who has traditionally been a woman and still usually is, are everything. This person is automatically nominated “the victim” and extended every convenience and privilege.
LikeLike
Yes, the petitioner in my case in the RENEWAL of the restraining order against me used just four magic words: “I don’t feel safe” and was awarded a renewal of the restraining order. No evidence as to exactly why she might reasonably have felt unsafe was presented to the court. In fact, given that it was the renewal of a restraining order already in effect for multiple years, there is an existing track record of me NOT behaving in a threatening manner to her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Critical thinking is a core section of the LSAT, the test that law school aspirants have to take to qualify for admission; practitioners of law are supposed to recognize its significance—at to be good at it. The ethical priority to judge fairly and critically, however, has been overridden by the “training” that many, most, or all judges have been required to receive post-VAWA (i.e., since 1994). The federal “Justice Department” has essentially given them their marching orders. It provides cash incentives to state courts—along with police departments—to see things its way. It’s not called coercion, though; it’s called remedial education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, the petitioner in my case in the RENEWAL of the restraining order against me used just four magic words: “I don’t feel safe” and was awarded a renewal of the restraining order. No evidence as to exactly why she might reasonably have felt unsafe was presented to the court. In fact, given that it was the renewal of a restraining order already in effect for multiple years, there is an existing track record of me NOT behaving in a threatening manner to her.
LikeLike
here is where you may be right. what i have experienced is that my accuser made that very statement and obtained a restraining order against me and when i attempt to obtain the very same restraining order i am DENIED! i made the same 5 words, i am in fear of my life. and i am denied all of my attempts to obtain anything against my accuser. and not only being denied but i am treated as though i am the criminal! my accuser is constantly obtaining anything she can in order to stop me from asking her to pay me what another judge has said she is to pay me an unlawful detainer in the amount of $2305.00. all avenues are closed to me in order to receive in my unlawful detainer case. thank you
LikeLike
See also here, Ronald:
http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-Predominant_Aggressor.pdf
I know yours isn’t a case of domestic violence, but a report like this will show you how the justice system has been conditioned to think: in black and white. You’re only supposed to have one bad guy.
Basically, you’re trying to convince the court that your accuser is the actual bad guy. It’s not going to change its mind, though.
I’m not sure what you’ve alleged, but my impression is that for you to stand a chance at getting a restraining order against this woman, you’d have to cite specific and recent incidences that have caused you alarm, that is, you’d have to convincingly show the court why you feel legitimately AFRAID for your well-being. The court doesn’t care about skulduggery; it practices its own.
Probably you’d have to tell a way better story than you’ve told so far.
LikeLike
You might also consider applying at a different courthouse, Ronald.
LikeLiked by 1 person