The postscript (P.S.) to a series of comments left on the blog this week by the stepmother of a man who was falsely accused of violence asks whether he could sue his ex-girlfriend for lying.
The details, as the stepmother reports them, are these:
- Man and woman, who aren’t married, were together for four years and have a one-year-old daughter.
During the term of their relationship, no reports of any kind of domestic conflict were made to authorities.- The woman has heart disease (diagnosed as “congestive heart failure”) and can only perform minimally stressful activities, so this had typified the couple’s daily life: The man “gets up [at] 5 a.m., feeds [the] daughter, changes [her] diaper, makes his lunch, and heads to work. [He] gets home around 4–4:30, and she is still in bed [and the] baby is still in [the] same diaper from that morning. […] He cleans, cooks, [does the] dishes [and] laundry, bathes [the] child, and heads to bed—and [the woman] bitches ‘cause he rolls over and goes to sleep.”
- On or about December 13, 2014, the couple “got in an argument, and she moved out, taking [their] child with her. She then texted [the child’s father] saying she was taking [the] child and moving to Oregon and he [would] never see [his] daughter again.”
- The woman then returned home to retrieve her belongings, “and when she went downstairs, he went out [the] door with [the] child. She freaked out. [Two] days later she filed a protection order saying all these lies about him…and he had to give [the] daughter back.”
- The woman, with her dad’s help, then relocated to Oregon with the child.
Among the woman’s allegedly false statements, apparently made to the police before she prepared to abscond with the child, was that the man pushed her into a fish tank, which it’s reported she actually slammed with her fist in a fit of rage while the man’s 
back was turned. Since the woman’s knuckles were plainly lacerated from punching glass, no arrest ensued. According to the man’s stepmother, the woman lied similarly to procure a protection order a couple of days later.
The stepmom wants to know if her stepson can sue his girlfriend for lying under oath. The answer, which is no, exposes why lying to the court is so effective, besides being easy.
Quoting “The Rule against Civil Actions for Perjury in Administrative Agency Proceedings: A Hobgoblin of Little Minds” (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1983):
“No action lies to recover damages caused by perjury.” If A is injured by the false or misleading testimony of B in a judicial proceeding, A cannot maintain an action for damages against B; A can obtain relief only by a direct attack on the judgment. So it was at common law, and although some observers have called for its abandonment, courts today are unanimous in following that ancient rule.
Tennessean and fraud victim Betty Krachey has launched a petition to urge her state to punish lying.
Appreciate that a corollary of that “ancient rule” is that if someone who’s lied about in a judicial proceeding lapses into suicidal despondency and kills him- or herself, his or her loved ones have no legal recourse. If you publicly mislabel someone a stalker, child molester, or batterer, for instance, outside of court, and that person kills him- or herself, you can be sued. But if the same end results from false allegations you make in court, you get away scot free.
Perjury—that is, knowingly lying to the court about influential facts—is a “serious criminal offense,” as a law student from South Africa recently remarked in a comment about a case of restraining order fraud that emerged in her country’s popular press. In many if not most jurisdictions in the U.S., perjury is a felony.
Punishment for it, however, can only follow its prosecution by the district attorney’s office, which rarely initiates perjury proceedings and only does so in slam-dunk cases of prominent interest like misconduct by public officials. Private litigants can sue for damages caused by the commission of other crimes—murder, for example—and they can sue for slanders and libels made outside of court. They can’t, though, sue for damages caused by lies told in judicial proceedings, no matter how injurious those lies might be.
The reason why, basically, is that the system likes closure. Once it rules on something, it doesn’t want to think about it again.
Consider what would happen if Person A lied about Person B, and Person B were authorized to sue Person A for lying. This would open the door for Person A to turn around and claim Person B lied in the second proceeding and sue Person B back. Person B could then pursue another action that alleged Person A lied about Person B in the third proceeding, and on and on ad infinitum.
While this would force the court to pay more than a lick of attention to the facts and also motivate it to drop the hammer on liars, it’s messy and time-consuming. So it’s rejected in the name of economy—and damn the consequences to people who are lied about.
This policy is among the reasons why restraining orders should be repealed.
Temporary orders are issued upon a few minutes’ prejudicial deliberation (really none at all). A petitioner goes to the courthouse, fills out some paperwork, and has a chitty-chat. If the accused doesn’t appeal, the court’s entire application to the case will have been those few minutes (sandwiched between stifled yawns). Even when a defendant 
does appear in court to contest allegations against him or her, judicial “review” of the matter may be less than 30 minutes.
On the basis of this brief “review” (which is often merely theater), a person like the man in the story above can be branded a “domestic abuser,” have his or her name entered into state and national police databases (permanently), and be denied contact with his or her child (besides potentially being denied credit, leases, and jobs, and having to indefinitely endure the agony and humiliation of being re-judged for something s/he didn’t do). S/he can also be made to pay court costs for having his or her life torn apart by lies.
A person like him, who can be male or female, can attack the false judgment in a further appeal—provided s/he has the emotional and financial resource—but s/he can’t seek redress for fraudulent testimony given in evidence against him or her.
That would inconvenience the court.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Reblogged this on .
LikeLike
You cannot sue for perjury as perjury is considered a crime against the court. What you don’t understand and have failed to bring up is that ALL speech made to the court is protected. It doesn’t matter what is communicated to the court you cannot sue for slander/libel. There is case law on the subject and there is no real need to give the citations.
However there are ways you can sue. Many women go to domestic shelters or victim advocates and they will assist them in filling out the protective order. This communication is not protected. These people are required by law to instruct that falsely filing a protective order is a felony. What you need to do is to call these people as witnesses and get them to recite what the person said which will become part of the court record. Those advocates are going to say that they warned the individual that anything they said would be considered a crime. If you can prove that the abuse did not happen and they recite that they were told the abuse did happen you could have recourse against not only against the person but also the advocate helping file the paperwork.
With that information coming from multiple witnesses you can sue for slander. Criminal defamation has bee ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The only recourse you have is a civil suit. The problem you have is that if you are married to the individual you cannot really sue yourself so you need to get your divorce final (or bifurcated) before the typical Statue of Limitations expires (generally 1 year.)
If you are dealing with somebody that you feel may be setting things up then go out and buy a digital recorder and record all conversations. Many of the new digital recorders can hold over 1,000 hours of voice. Some will argue that in a 2 party state you cannot record the other party without their consent however if the person accuses you of a crime they cannot not let the conversation in. Yes you admit to recording the conversation but that is a lessor crime than being accused of physical abuse.
LikeLike
I’m not certain, in fact, that lies (particularly lies tantamount to fraud) are “protected speech,” per se. Practically speaking, though, you’re right. (The reason is a practical one, too: Lying is so common that the court would be overwhelmed with lawsuits if perjury were among the crimes people could sue for.) The blurb I put up about malicious prosecution does acknowledge that damages to someone’s “fame” from scandalous allegations to the court are actionable and says this acknowledgment has a long history. Also, restraining order petitions must be signed “under penalty of perjury,” avowing that all contents are true, so the court certainly owns that perjury is an offense. It also warns “the individual that anything they said would be considered a crime.” It just doesn’t mean it, and this is a big deal. It’s bullshit rhetoric—and therefore a fraud that understandably misleads the wrongly accused. Either perjury is penalized or it isn’t, and if it isn’t, this “warning” doesn’t belong on a document issued by the court. Selective (i.e., preferential) application of the law says the system is corrupt.
I think, though, the approach you recommend is right, that is, getting confirmation of defamation/perjury from a private citizen or citizens. You’ve also described the obstacles very well, which are absurd. That’s not a criticism of your remarks, which are astute; it’s a criticism of “the game.” It can in no way be called “just” that someone should have to go to these lengths (surveillance and divorce!) to counteract some malicious lies told in a five-minute powwow.
The outrage is that everything you’ve said makes sense, and anyone who’s had no experience of what you describe will read what you’ve said and conclude, “That’s crazy.” This is why “crazy” is able to continue unbridled. The outside world—including legislators and journalists—imagines that lies are condemned and sanctioned by the court and that there are feasible recourses for exposing them.
Look around on the Internet, and you’ll find any number of unwitting experts who report that perjury is a crime, that you can go to jail for it, etc. It doesn’t happen (unless you’re a tax-cheating senator or a steroid-abusing pro athlete). The statute is essentially a fraud.
P.S. I passed along your thoughts here:
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2015/02/14/if-youre-silent-youre-guilty-take-a-page-from-the-feminist-playbook-and-register-your-complaint/#comment-62824
LikeLike
State of Utah v. Ian Lake ruled the state’s libel/slander law unconstitutional. The state’s criminal defamation law was recently ruled unconstitutional. Most state’s criminal defamation laws have been declared unconstitutional and if I had the time I would list the Utah case that cites other cases. One of the BS arguments made in the Utah case is it doesn’t allow for a absolute truth defense. If I was a juror sitting on such a case, I would consider a truthful statement even if out of context as not libel or slander. The statement must be malicious and false.
Perjury is rarely prosecuted. In fact, go ask a lawyer because for every perjury case that gets prosecuted a lawyer loses his law licence for putting on perjured testimony. It’s only use to put a somebody behind bars that they cannot prosecute for any other reason.
It’s why I think “ex parte” protective orders may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I can go into why but basically they don’t enforce any negative actions on those who have clearly lied but also the statute doesn’t define what can be done to somebody who falsely accuses somebody. Read the statute. Pages of what can be done to enforce such an order but one line in the Utah statute saying the judge can do something but doesn’t require any action.
LikeLike
Ironically, in light of what you report, I was sued for libel in 2013. I hadn’t lied, but the judge had no qualms about asserting on record that statements of mine were “false.” I don’t even recall that he specified what statements were “false.” He didn’t have to; he was the judge, and I represented myself in case prosecuted by an attorney. (I argued gruelingly for six months, and I’m not sure the outcome wouldn’t have been the same if I’d just accepted a quickie judgment on day one.) I won’t say I didn’t speculate or use inflammatory language in the writing of mine that was alleged to be libelous, but I didn’t lie about anything (I didn’t report anything that was “false”). I was, moreover, reporting someone else’s falsehoods. The judge’s ruling was unconstitutional (and I may oppose it in a further prosecution if the means and opportunity present). His ruling was also foggy. What limits on my speech were imposed weren’t clear. I’ve abided by the ruling to the best of my understanding by refraining from naming or otherwise descriptively identifying any of the parties involved in my restraining order case, which dates back to 2006. (There were three procedures that year, and there have been two more over the intervening years. I have during this period also written dozens of letters, been in correspondence with two former intimates of my accuser, and blogged until I’m pretty much a shadow of my former self—all of this because of some statements made to camouflage a married woman’s impulsive misconduct nine years ago.)
The conclusion to be drawn from this, probably, is that libel is applied selectively as it serves to protect the good image of the process and the people who exploit that process.
LikeLike
I believe a part of the problem is a Judge will grant a TRO without any predicate acts. Someone merely saying they are scared, should not be accepted without some sort of vetting. Why are you scared? Why do you believe you need a TRO or a FRO?
The person who filed for a TRO against me claimed I was harassing her via texts and emails. The TRO should never been granted, but her family knew a judge in the county. We had a 10 year relationship, there was never a history of any kind of violence, never any calls to the police, etc.
What she left out was she was replying to me and calling me as well. My Lawyer looked at the order and said it should never been granted. He read the texts and emails, at most it was clear that me and her were arguing, there were no threats on my end.
This leads to a point, if one Judge grants the TRO, the court automatically assumes some level of threat to the alleged victim. At first I believed I would have some form of recourse against her, but I was wrong. She could say she lied to get the TRO out of fear. She also claimed I had a restraining order in another State (which I did not). To be honest that part annoys me the most. It was something anyone could have looked up to see it was a lie.
In the long run, you are allowed to defend yourself in court, but recourse against “victim” is seen as further Harassment. I believe a person should have to at least demonstrate a reasonable amount of imminent danger to get a temporary restraining order. Why doesn’t a Judge ask if they made any attempt to tell the person to stop contacting them?
If there are threats, I get it. I also get why this website exists. It is so easy for someone to mess with your life. I had to hire a lawyer and spend 2 days in court and I am lucky compared to many others.
LikeLike
@Walter: I agree with you. A judge should not grant a TRO because of a claim that somebody made.
1) The claim of a restraining order in another state:
This is why you need a lawyer because the first thing that the lawyer should say is “Objection.” Falls under the hearsay rule but even somebody saying that you had the protective order against you, the objection would be “Best Evidence” which would be a certified copy of the protective order.
2) NEVER, EVER go this route without an attorney.
My ex brought up a well published case where my best friend was accused in the disappearance (assumed murder) of his wife. Later that idiot killed his 2 children and that story made national news. I described what was going to happen to the media years before so the ending should have surprised anybody. But a lawyer would have objected to the story as not relevant because to be honest everybody (including most lawyers) know and represented some disgusting people. No judge would permit that kind of testimony in because on appeal it would be overturned.
3) Defending yourself cannot be considered as harassment.
You are the victim of a crime and if you can prove you are the victim then you have every right. Judge cannot side with the liar here.
LikeLike
Defending yourself is ok, recourse is different. The Lawyer I hired was very good at this and very honest. There was nothing for me to gain by pursuing the issue. If I recall in Slander and Libel cases you need to show some form of harm, did it help her get a TRO against me, yes, but since the order was dismissed what harm was done?
As time has gone by I appreciate his advice. It would have been a waste of money for me.
In granting the TRO, there should be some form of uniformity; a predicate act, a history of violence, a reasonable expectation of violence, a threat, etc.
To give you a laugh, a couple of weeks before she filed for the TRO, I sent her an email reply stating I wanted no further contact with her requesting she leave all of my stuff outside for me to retrieve (without her present). She is the one that maintained contact with me. I only replied.
LikeLike
@Walter: You cannot sue for slander/libel based on statements made to the court. This is protected speech and there is significant case law on the subject. Your lawyer told you it was a waste of time because prosecutors refuse to prosecute.
However like I said before, statements she makes to the police, friends, to an advocate like a women’s shelter is admissible in a civil hearing. Police are especially good today as they have body cameras.
Here is the problem with TROs is that the person should need to provide proof instead of a simple statement. If there were a long line of profanity laced emails then I would say that might be grounds if the person wasn’t provoking the situation. However if what you are saying is correct then your email should be enough be enough to cancel the TRO.
WHAT WE NEED is legislation that when a TRO is denied for cause the respondent should be rewarded with damages. If the Respondent can show something did not happen then the Respondent owes Petitioner damages. If the order TRO was dismissed for insignificant information the state should be required to pay damages.
LikeLike
The problem with what you are doing here is that we need to have the legislation changed to MANDATE and REQUIRE judges to act when the respondent proves that the actions did not happen. My ex claimed:
1) She had a miscarriage and I just left here there bleeding
2) She drove herself to the hospital
3) I did not return for 4 days.
The day after the miscarriage I have a police report stating I was at the house and she did not know where I was for the previous 3 days. That she had a miscarriage and I was not there. A neighbor drove her to the hospital and have many witnesses that can confirm her statements were false.
Judge only dismissed the order.
We need mandatory things the judge must do like rewarding expenses if you prove the statements are false. We need people to call into their legislators to fix the laws.
While I am very much in favor of protective orders when they are needed but they really need to be part of the justice system when violence has already happened.
LikeLike
Having looked at this from just about every angle it’s possible to and having heard from any number of people who’ve been falsely accused of violence, my opinion is that being “very much in favor of protective orders” is something anyone who’s been abused by one shouldn’t be. Fraud is just too easy. The conception is bad. “Violence” can be alleged by people who don’t even specify what that “violence” was. Serial “violence” can be alleged that can’t be proven. “Violence” can be self-inflicted. Or “violence” can be a scratch (or—this was reported last year—allegedly threatening someone with a typewriter!). The phrase domestic violence, too, has become virtually all-inclusive. Looks and (alleged) gestures are “domestic violence,” and these can be from someone who doesn’t even share a domicile with the alleged target of “domestic violence.” Allegedly withholding money or car privileges, alleged emotional (verbal) torment—these are now “domestic violence,” also. These things happen, and they are oppressive. So what approval of the process basically boils down to is who do you want to believe? This makes it not just problematic but ethically untenable.
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/04/21/a-scratch-a-push-a-pinch-domestic-violence-false-allegations-and-restraining-order-abuse/
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/10/09/what-journalists-need-to-understand-about-what-restraining-orders-are-a-tutorial-for-investigators-part-2/
LikeLike
EVERYBODY would agree that if there is proof of physical abuse, protective orders are good thing. Somebody gets physically beaten and the police threw the person in jail; you have physical evidence like pictures and hospital records, etc… Then that what protective orders are for.
When there is no proof… NO PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD BE GRANTED… EVER!
A simple statement of fear is not enough. After 911 do people fear people dressed in Muslim attire. YES. But is that grounds for a protective order. NO!
We do need something in place when people do lie to obtain a protective order, judges are required to act like Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Make prosecutors prosecute. Place a “Backfire” provision where the person filing a false protective order gets the protective order placed on them and ban then from filing additional protective orders. Make it so that all monies taken from the Respondent are returned PLUS INTEREST. Make the Petitioner be liable for time away from the residence at Per Diem rates and do a change of custody to the Respondent.
We need to fix the law. But when violence definitely does happen we do need the law.
LikeLike
I understand what you mean, but this is the kind of thing I hear: “As a male victim of domestic violence, my voice was never heard by any responding police officer. In fact, when they arrived my batterer made false allegations against me [that] led to my arrest. Three years later, the Eloy Police Department settled out of court, admitting wrongdoing. Still, I lost my career, my name, and three years of income because of the sexist actions taken by Arizona law enforcement.”
The post you’ve responded to has a cautionary tale in it, too (see up top). The woman, who belted a fish tank, sounds a lot more volatile than the husband.
An extreme version of this kind of thing is exemplified in a case like this one:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jan/02/55000-ordered-paid-for-false-accusation/
LikeLike
What really needs to be done, Domestic Violence actions need to be taken out of the civil court system and put it in a Criminal Court. That would solve most of the issues and it would allow people to get public defenders, etc.
The major farce of this all, is a civil court has a different standard of evidence, but still has the ability to put someone in jail.
They use the Civil Court as a work around, there is no false reporting, no perjury, just a victim. No matter what the outcome is, there is no prejudice in domestic violence cases, so no matter what someone says or does, they can always refile.
I know it is preaching to the choir, but it is what it is. By changing the Venue, the dynamic would change automatically. It would require facts before a judge granted a TRO, it would require evidence. It should require the same standard of evidence. If I called 911 and said I think my neighbor is dealing drugs, do you think they willl get a search warrant?
Not based on what I said. A Judge is not going to sign a warrant because someone says this guy called and said so! But with a TRO, they can do just that, come in, seize any weapons you have, search the place, just because someone says so. (I don’t own any weapons)
LikeLike
@Walter: I have said before that there needs to be proof if not a hearing needs to be held but no action to be taken until that hearing. You can be denied property before due process which is “UNCONSTITUTIONAL.” The other aspect of the “Violence Against Women Act” which is unconstitutional is the fact that they never enforce any sanctions against women when you prove they are lying.
However what are you going to do about it? You can rant all you want in this forum but you MUST contact your legislators and get the law changed and get those that do not support such changes out of office. Anything short of that is BS.
I have contacted both US Senators and all 4 Congressmen in my state as well as most of the major state house and senators trying to get the laws changed.
LikeLike
What were the lawmakers’ responses?
LikeLike
I am getting some positive responses. I am not trying to change prevent protective orders from happening but by putting protective measures in place that are required if they are abused. Including if they are denied because of lack of proof (If somebody gets jailed for crimes they did not commit.)
LikeLike
What state? New Jersey, right?
LikeLike
There needs to be a cohesive message. Nobody wants Domestic Violence to happen or to be tolerated, but to address how easy it is to get a restraining order. The nature of the abuse should be self evident, not just alleged or claimed.
I am not a good writer nor do I have the skills to do what the Mod has done. Yet, I do know it is futile for one person to make phone calls and send emails to Legislators. Heck, I would say filing a restraining order against a politician might have a greater effect.
So why not figure out a message? Put together every screwed up example from this forum and in Law, and use that to send out. Cite every case possible.
Once it is completed, provide lists with email addresses so people can easily forward it.
Anyway, my case was dismissed, I hired a Lawyer, the judge and legal advocates recommended she hire a lawyer, she did, and it was still dismissed. Even without a civil agreement, she would have lost. It is not about what happened to me, but how the whole situation is messed up.
Even with a Lawyer, this was the best resource I could find, so I have stayed around. If my presence is unwanted I will go.
LikeLike
What you need is EACH and EVERY TIME a guy gets an “ex-parte” protective order against them served and that order gets dismissed they need to contact legislators to get the law modified. Federal and state. These orders get dismissed every single day. Just talking about the situation does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
People need to get the transcript of the case (many sell an audio DVD.) You need to show the legislators how you suffered damage because of this kind of action and why it needs to change.
In Utah in cases involving assault there is an automatic protective order in place that lasts until the person is arraigned. Often times prosecutors will get the order continued until the resolution of the conflict. However the problem is there is resolution for damages if the protective order is dismissed and definitely not if prove to be false.
So Walter, CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS. Tell them the problems you had and why there needs to be a change and tell everybody who has experienced your problem to do the exact same thing.
LikeLike
I wanted to let you know I made a donation yesterday and I will try to do more as I can
LikeLike
Thanks, Walter. Much appreciated!
LikeLike
If you’d care to prep a “guest post” for publication here that described your efforts and why you think they’re important, it would be welcome. You might even offer a “template” that someone who’s not a confident writer could base his or her own letters on.
Along those lines, I published this last year:
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/06/27/reporting-restraining-order-abuse-to-elected-officials/
The blog gets 500 to 1,000 views a day, but motivating committal action is rough. Most people “lurk,” and it’s possible a goodly number of visitors are looking for a way out, not a way to “promote social justice” or oppose the system.
The obstacle—and it’s one even people who do talk about this stuff publicly labor under—is perception. The propaganda machine is a potent one, and it’s got a 30- or 40-year head start. People, even ones who’ve been totally misrepresented, are made to feel like roaches (stalkers, molesters, and rapists). Accordingly, encouraging them to own what’s been said about them with confident defiance is a bear.
LikeLike
I am thinking about that. I am preparing based on case law and police procedure on what to do. One thing that you haven’t considered that is now starting to become an option is to get the officer’s body camera footage. While this is primarily meant to protected the officers it’s good evidence. Had the officers worn that, I could have easily proven my ex-wife lied and posted that footage on YouTube. Hard to dispute those lies when lying is on camera. Another thing is that when officers in my case refuse to provide information to prosecutors they are violating Brady v Maryland and your 14th Amendment rights.
However what you need is more than just a forum for people to complain. You need to push people into contacting legislators because without that the law will never change.
LikeLike
It’s not for wanting of trying:
“PLEASE HELP!!”: Sign a Petition to End Restraining Order Abuses
A Recourse to Redress Restraining Order Abuse That Might Be Worth Considering if All Others Have Been Exhausted: The Formal Complaint
Reporting Restraining Order Abuse to Elected Officials
Class Action Lawsuits: Suing Uncle Sam for Rights Violations Arising from Restraining Order and Domestic Violence Prosecutions
Why It’s Valuable to Report Your Story of Restraining Order Abuse or Other Procedural Abuse on an E-Petition or Similar Medium
LikeLike
Problem is that signing petitions on a situation like this is MEANINGLESS. Doesn’t do any good and encouraging such petitions to be written is a waste of time. Women’s groups are always going to have a louder voice as there are more victims of violent crime than there are people falsely accused on protective orders. Encouraging such behaviors isn’t beneficial.
Class action suits really aren’t going to happen because you cannot sue a city/county or state. Well you can and there is some case on the subject but it’s difficult and this option isn’t realistic. A woman did sue Fresno, CA and that’s a 9th US Circuit Court opinion but it’s rare.
You can sue IF CONVICTED police and prosecuted if they do not provide all the evidence even if it’s inadvertent. This will become more useful as police are wearing body camera and that kind of evidence is admissible. This will possibly help in even assault charges and the reports of false victims will be contradicted. If that evidence disappears it will be grounds for a dismissal.
WE NEED… Everybody that can PROVE the were falsely accused to contact legislators. He said, she said won’t work. But we do need changes in the law.
As I am reading case law, the Violence Against Women Act as well as the protective order statutes may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL as there are mandated arrests for violated a protective order but no such prosecutions every happen for lying on a protective order. I need to write something and publishing my research based on existing case law.
LikeLike
I have found several instances in case where the police and the prosecutor violated US law as well as several existing issue related to case law. I would encourage anybody who has PROOF that the person lied to obtain a protective order file a complaint with the police. I have also found that in case law that if you make complaints against the officers THAT ARE VALID where the officers write information or omit information in case that is grounds to have the protective order dismissed.
You need to send me an email privately so we can talk about this more offline.
LikeLike
Will do.
LikeLike
Only 47 of the 145 search terms that brought visitors here today—three days before Christmas—are visible on the site’s stats page. The terms below represent more than half of those 47:
LikeLike
Yes, it is total bs, same happened to me, RO based co p,early on lies with no proof what so ever, except a few texts, rant were gathered, manipulated and used against me , total domestic entrapment!! It’s so wrong! Bottom line…….there’s a much greater power we all will stand in front of in this universe! ,!!
LikeLike
My own situation was about the same: three emails over a weekend in response to email I was sent. My accuser has broadly identified me as a stalker, sexual harasser, etc. for something like nine years. I was last in court in 2013, and her attorney weirdly shared private correspondence that had been sent to her by other people. He entered the emails into evidence, I’m guessing to awe the court with a ream of paper. He printed out blog posts, too, so the stack was like two inches thick. The private emails confirmed that she’d been nursing her story for years. I have emails from her husband’s brother-in-law, from one of her former project directors, and probably some others I haven’t bothered to look at. I have emails from one of her friends, too, to me. They tell an interesting story, one the court says I can’t air myself. Her employer at the time testified, too, that she’d alleged she was in danger (appreciate that this is seven years after I knew her). He described to the court a fairly elaborate series of measures that the institution she worked at had enacted to protect her (I don’t even live in the same state). Her concrete evidence to the court—what all of this is based on—was three emails from me over a four-day period in response to a couple from her.
The woman I’m supposed to have stalked and sexually aggressed against was a married woman who was at my house at midnight, which is the only place I’ve ever seen her outside of court. I’ve never even talked to her on the phone. When I knew her, I brought her hot drinks and soup. I gave her a toy for her dog, because she represented herself as living alone (and, of course, never wore a ring). I never pushed her away when she touched me, but the only time I ever touched her first was to put my hand on her shoulder when she said she’d been suffering from a migraine. It was a story to get out of joining my family for Thanksgiving dinner. She had a husband to get home to she didn’t want to mention.
LikeLike
This is actually a good essay, too many people keep forgetting that these actions are in a civil court. You can extend the logic, anyone pleading not guilty in a criminal court only to be found guilty, should also be charged with Perjury, since it would be implied by their plea they were lying (to the court). I think in the long run, what people overlook, is if someone files an order against another person, there is nothing left to gain. You can get your possessions back, you may have a custody issue, but the relationship with that person is over.
LikeLike
I was really impressed with what you told the woman who wrote recently. My own accuser was just someone who took a shine to me at my home—a married woman who hung around outside of my house at night—so my understanding of domestic types of prosecutions isn’t firsthand. If you’d feel like sharing what that’s like in a post someday, Walter, you’re very welcome to.
Regarding your observation about relationships, it might interest you to know that a lot of search terms that bring people here are about that—how to talk with someone while a court order is in effect (both petitioners and respondents want to know), how to have a relationship after the order expires, does-[he or she]-still-love-me? kinds of questions, and reports of accusers contacting defendants, often repeatedly (or reports from accusers saying they’ve contacted defendants and wondering if they’re “in trouble” for it). Numerous people have written who resumed relationships while orders were in effect. Some move (back) in together against the court’s prohibition, and some don’t know this is against the law. They figure if a resumption of the relationship is consensual, it’s cool (which lands some in jail).
I’m absolutely certain, too, that a lot of relationships that could have been patched with apologies die because accusers, who act impulsively, are too proud to recant—or too afraid of imagined legal consequences.
This, to me, is what most urgently speaks against these instruments: They’re obtained in heat. It’s why I’m urged to talk back to different journalistic pieces I read, because the dogma is that orders are procured in “emergency situations” and need to be available immediately if not sooner. This affects how judges think and rule on them. What this translates to are procedures that are very easily exploited by people in the throes of temper tantrums. A feminist is going to be mad to hear someone say this, but it’s like when little kids rat on or lie to grown-ups to get other kids in hot water (and then stand behind the grown-ups’ legs and smirk and make nyah-nyah faces).
Rape is horrible. Terrorizing people is horrible. Attacking people is horrible. The emphasis, though, that’s placed on these acts, combined with lax standards of evidence and ex parte (civil) procedures that are completed in hours if not minutes means either the procedures have to change or the emphasis on violence against women has to be more reasoned and reasoning. I don’t like arguing with people who are against violence, but the fever-pitch rhetoric means the guy who has a history of knocking women around and the guy (or gal) who writes an angry email or gets mad and breaks some china or who doesn’t even do what (s)he’s alleged to have done—they’re the same person in the eyes of the court and therefore everybody else (and they carry the consciousness of judgment with them always).
Contrary to what one female lawyer wrote recently in The Washington Post (Zerlina Maxwell), the consequences of being accused are worse than just being “suspended” from work or “defriended” on Facebook (the worst consequences she could imagine of being falsely accused of rape).
You can’t make people care about violence by accusing them of it.
LikeLike