Matthew S. Chan is the creator and administrator of ExtortionLetterInfo.com (ELI) and the appellant in the Georgia Supreme Court case Chan v. Ellis.
In my desire to give something back to RestrainingOrderAbuse.com (ROA) for the enormous help, contribution, and insights into my own protective order appeal case with the Georgia Supreme Court that it provided, I found myself a bit stumped as to what to write about that might be helpful and perhaps a bit different from the articles and commentaries I have read on ROA so far. So, if I make some wrong assumptions about ROA, please forgive me as I am a relative newcomer. As a disclaimer, I do not feel qualified to speak specifically on matters of domestic protective/restraining orders as they relate to divorces, custody fights, or other family disputes. I feel those issues are highly volatile, and I don’t have the background to properly discuss them.
What I do feel qualified to speak on, however, are matters that pertain to the First Amendment, free speech, and that speech as it relates to online speech. Whether disputing parties are related or not, the First Amendment, backed by many significant rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, makes it clear that everyone in the U.S. (including murderers, rapists, robbers, embezzlers, and any other type of criminal you can name) enjoys the right to free speech. That free speech comes with certain exceptions and restrictions as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some of them are:
- Incitement
- Defamation (including libel and slander)
- Obscenities, such as child pornography
- Fighting words
It is almost always legal to engage in speech about someone publicly or privately, unflattering or not. But it is not always acceptable to engage in speech to a person, especially if it is unwanted. In the context of the Internet, you should have the right to speak freely about anything or anyone as long as your speech doesn’t fall within the list of exceptions and restrictions.
And yet, I am hearing more about these underground restraining orders that instruct people to be absolutely silent regarding a certain person or party, i.e., that dictate you cannot speak publicly about that person or party to anyone. That is clearly unconstitutional.
This is an abuse of the protective/restraining order system that frequently happens in courts of local and smaller jurisdictions. It is no surprise that many of these cases involve “pro se” (self-represented) parties, who are more likely to be taken advantage of by an overzealous and overstepping judge. Up to this point, I have stated what most ROA readers already know.
But what then can you do about it? The easy, copout answer is hire a good lawyer. But we all know “pro se” parties represent themselves because they either can’t find a good lawyer or they can’t afford a good lawyer.
Having lived with a protective order for nearly two years, I have found that it largely doesn’t impact my day-to-day existence. I have very little emotional baggage about it. Although my protective order is a matter of public record, it is not easily found, nor is it advertised. However, my accuser chooses to make mine public as a way to get revenge/payback and to embarrass and humiliate me. I don’t feel embarrassed or humiliated at all anymore. I’ve had two years to let it sink in. She went to her local newspaper as well as a photography blog site to publicize my protective order. I am very certain she approached several other media sources, but she only managed to succeed in getting two to write her story. When she went public, I also went public, and I got way more coverage than she did because of the First Amendment issue.
It goes without saying that I became angry about her actions because the “facts” as told by her were incorrect. I was faced with one of two decisions: either slink away silently and live in fear, shame, and embarrassment of the protective order…or speak out and fight back, and tell my story.
An issue I see is that people let little pieces of paper define them, such as high school diplomas, college degrees, technical and professional certifications, their financial statements, their marriage certificate, etc. A basic protective/restraining order is simply a piece of paper that formally instructs someone to stay away and not bother someone. It is a civil issue, not a criminal one. But accusers like to try to criminalize the matter. My accuser loves to do the “stalkie-talkie” routine and likes to refer to me as her “stalker.” I have called her a copyright extortionist even longer. And yet, we have never met, spoken, emailed, text-messaged, snail-mailed, or even faxed. There has never been any contact. Still, she wants to say I am a “stalker” because she currently has a little piece of paper that says “stalking protective order.”
She is attempting to define who I am to whomever will listen. The problem she has is that I don’t buy into it; I have no guilt or shame over it, and I don’t hide from it. And because I am pretty good at explaining the facts of my case and position, only the most gullible or uninformed believe her.
Too many people take things too literally. Too many people are legally ignorant. Too many people do not understand how the judicial system works. Too many people do not understand the realities of the judicial system.
For example, I live in a city where there are overcrowded jails. I don’t think that is unique to the city I live in. I also live in a city where the district attorney and prosecutor’s office has many cases to pursue and a tight budget to do it with. I live in a city where there is an abundance of physical and “harder” crimes such as burglaries, robberies, murders, drug crimes, rapes, etc. In that context, I see the matter of a protective/restraining order (a civil matter) as ranking low in the prosecutorial pecking order.
Generally speaking, protective/restraining orders are designed to prohibit unwanted physical contact and unwanted communications. In my view, unless you have some huge emotional issues or obsessive tendencies towards your accuser, most orders are easy to follow, and they are not unconstitutional.
However, what if you have a restriction on your free speech where you can’t breathe a word about your accuser to anyone? It is certainly problematic on the local level, but it is even more problematic at a state or national level. It is simply unconstitutional, which is my way of saying that it is, in a sense, “illegal.” But some of you might say, what the order says goes. I don’t necessarily agree with that, because illegal contracts are not enforceable. For example, two people agree to do a drug deal. If one person decides to break the rules of the deal, it is unenforceable, because the deal was illegal to begin with. Likewise, an agreement broken by a John to pay a prostitute is unenforceable because it was illegal from the start. I similarly view it as illegal for my accuser to try to have me arrested or fined because I spoke or wrote about her (not to her) on my own website, and I think it would be embarrassing for any public official to dare to find me in violation of the law. That is my truth because I know what I know, but it may not be enough for you.
The sense of right and wrong has to be weighed against the costs of being a silent victim. The ability to overcome fear and ignorance, personal resourcefulness, the urgency to right a wrong, the fortitude to face conflict and risk—these are factors, and they are ones each person must self-assess.
It all begins with introspection and evaluation of whether the fight is “worth it.” In my case, if I had received a “stay away” order for one year, I would have been angry and unhappy, but I probably would never have appealed the order placed upon me. To me, it would have been an easy order to comply with, and I would not have seen it as devastating to my reputation, even if it were made public. The reason is that I know how to tell my story (and I have many times) in an open and authentic way. Certainly, there are some less than flattering reports about me but none worse than what I have seen about others.
I have a larger view of myself in this world. I am not famous, and most people don’t care about me or what I do. I am largely unimportant (to them). I am not a celebrity; I am one of many. But for many, because it happens to them, they think the whole world is actually looking at them and their restraining orders. The truth of the matter is that most people simply don’t care.
In the larger view, famous people have committed all kinds of indiscretions, including having affairs, divorcing, getting into fights, committing DUI’s, doing drugs, getting arrested, soliciting prostitutes, etc. There is a huge list of all the embarrassing things people get themselves into. But the fact of the matter is most of that is small potatoes in the big scheme of things. You think people will shun and hate you, but the reality is, to most, it is trivial. You are just another person who allegedly committed an indiscretion.
You may ask, if I believe it is all small potatoes, why am I fighting so hard against my protective order? There are actually multiple reasons for my current course of action.
My accuser inflamed me. For a woman who is so allegedly afraid of me and my alleged “stalking,” her actions betrayed that she really wasn’t that frightened of me or about whether I would actually cause her any physical harm or endanger her personal safety. She chose to flaunt, brag, and gloat over her “win,” and there was no good purpose in that.
The lawyer who represented her, Elizabeth W. McBride, engaged in unethical tactics like not providing me with a copy of her exhibits so I could examine them closely, while I, a non-lawyer, gave her the professional courtesy of providing an extra copy of mine. When the hearing was over, I both called and emailed the lawyer about getting a preview copy of the protective order. I also wanted to coordinate with her about both of us getting a copy of the courtroom transcript, because it was a shared resource that was agreed upon at the beginning of my hearing. I realized she treated me the way she did because I was not a lawyer and she was trying to cheat me. Because I was opposing counsel, she was required to interact with me on certain matters as she would with another lawyer. She chose not to, and I have remembered this the last two years. One day, I am confident it will come back to bite her.
But the biggest reason I fought back was the outrage that I and others felt that there was a flagrant disregard of the First Amendment as it related to online speech, a total disregard of the actual context of my speech, and a total disregard for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that website owners are not responsible for content other users post. These were all points I clearly argued but the judge seemingly ignored.
I saw this as serious misbehavior by the judge and the local court system that could potentially have wide-ranging and long-term consequences to me and any other Georgia website owner. As a matter of disclosure, I do place a great importance on my Internet presence and online activities to my business and reputation. I am a self-employed entrepreneur and business owner who regards the Internet as a hugely important resource to both his personal and business life—probably much more so than the average person who works at a job 40 hours per week for an employer.
For all those reasons, I fought back. But I would be lying if I said there weren’t moments when I wavered. I had moments of weakness, but I also had my anger to prop me up. A lot of my impetus owes to the actions of my adversary and her lawyers. By their actions, they practically taunted and drove me into appealing the case. Because of my anger and sense of injustice, I was galvanized into action.
I want to take the time to point out an important element of my fight-back. It is very helpful to find friends and supporters who understand you, your character, and the type of person you are. Getting moral support from people who will empower and encourage you is motivating. Having “support” from people who are fearful, bashful, risk-averse, cynical, and unwilling is not.
In my life, I believe “like attracts like” and “birds of a feather flock together.” In my case, I have many people around me, people who are independent-minded, self-determined, believe in fighting for a cause (such as free speech) and not letting your enemies get the best of you. And believe it or not, most of my best support actually comes from those I have never met in “real life.” My best support came from “strangers” I have met on the Internet. I have never met or spoken to Todd of ROA and yet, unbeknownst to him, his work on ROA has had a huge influence on my fight.
There are so many layers to the conversation of how to fight back against a wrongful restraining order restricting your right to free speech. There is no way I could get into all the stories, tactics, and strategies, or the mindset involved in my own journey. I will one day write a book on the subject. However, as a guest blogger on ROA, I thought I would share some insights into how my mind works and the mindset that drives me.
I consider myself a victim of protective/restraining order abuse, but I have also chosen to publicly fight back against my accuser and the lower court that allowed the unconstitutional order. Win, lose, or draw, I have no regrets, because my voice is loud and travels far. And I will never let my accuser, a judge, a court, or a piece of paper define who I am. Not as long as I live.
It is that attitude, which has resonated outwards, that I believe helped attract many supporters to my side, including the lawyers who have worked on my (and my position’s) behalf.
Matthew S. Chan is the creator and administrator of ExtortionLetterInfo.com (ELI) and the appellant in Chan v. Ellis, an appeal of a lifetime protection order presently under deliberation by the Georgia Supreme Court.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com and Matthew S. Chan
*Update: The Georgia Supreme Court returned a verdict in favor of Matthew Chan on March 27, 2015.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Reblogged this on sweetsurrender922.
LikeLike
Dear Matthew, Todd/The Moderator recommended you to me me to share with you my situation and that possibly you could point me in the right direction in regards to helping me find an attorney that would be right- possibly pro bono. Most importantly someone that would be interested in the case from a 1st Amendment stand point; or whatever you recommend. This is what I shared on What is Restraining Order Abuse – Lived with a man and a woman. The man I had a sexual relationship with, while the wife encouraged it. After a year the wife wanted a romantic relationship with me as well, and once I didn’t comply, I was banished from their home. With witnessing a new side to these people I felt vulnerable to them with the knowledge that not a lot of people knew the truth of our relationship, so I subsequently posted to my Facebook that my relationship with the husband had ended. Within in an hour he attacked me in my home- beat on me, vandalized my property, and threatened if I ever shared my story with anyone, he’d kill me, followed by that, he said he knew people in the New York area that would ensure me a devastating existence. He was arrested and given a restraining order. Weeks later I was served with one on basis that I wrote of my truth with them online in a blog. He and his wife backed it the restraining order up in court with lies: they felt threatened by me, stalked them, drove by their home, and because they had children that it was seriously important for them to be protected. At first they were told they had no basis, no proof, and that at that point writing of someone online didn’t hold any legal merit. I followed by taking the blog down that I had written about my experience with them. Honestly, my blog seemed like protection to me, to write publicly, because watching him lie in court was as if I was watching a virtual stranger work to make me a bad person, make themselves look like victims of me, and it seemed like there was nothing I could put past he and his wife. Later I was served again, and by the basis of one social media site having his name still there, only his name, I was given a restraining order. I don’t write about them anymore online anywhere, and now for the third year he has renewed the restraining order. His order that protected me lapses this month, and yes it worries me. Should I be? And how worried should I be? Thank you much Matthew.
LikeLike
Victor,
I started to write a reply to you but then it got incredibly long, crazy long. Way too long for any blog comment section.
My full reply to you can be found here:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/protective-restraining-order-abuse-forum/my-long-answer-and-reply-to-victor-on-roa/
LikeLike
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/grant-alexander-dossetto/hopping-bird/
Don’t worry about me. I’m still trying hard in life and, at least according to Kirkus (a rather tough reviewer), doing quite well.
LikeLike
That’s wowing news, Grant. Congratulations.
LikeLike
Are you in print now? Do you have any links? Cover art? Send them along if so!
LikeLike
Grant, success is absolutely the best revenge. It is one I can heartily endorse.
LikeLike
that just scratched the surface of my battle with this person. I went to court and they tried throwing a contempt charge after i filed pro se a request for admissions. that really nailed her down and pissed her lawyer off. I was kind of enjoying myself. Then I recorded a corrupt psychologist. I had to go to him court ordered to see if i was fit to stand trial or fit to represend myself. These jugheads like to use psychiatry as a political weapon. I launched corruptpsychology.com as a result. PEOPLE AROUND HERE ARE DIRTY.
LikeLike
my blog wasn’t ordered taken down. rather it was used to show how angry i was at the cult follower/liar.
orderofpersecution.blogspot.com
kathrynandtheway.blogspot.com
LikeLike
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2015/01/26/restrainingorderabuse-com-guest-post-by-matthew-s-chan-the-appellant-in-a-restraining-order-case-before-georgia-s-highest-court/#comment-59278
LikeLike
Sean, I would like to know more about the restraining order you are talking about. I saw the clip about the girl who had been deprogrammed out of the WAY cult. Shocking. And that sort of litigation reminds me of the powerful legal forces applied by the Scientologists to gag their critics. Using the courts, or rather ABUSING the courts, the Scientologists have run roughshod over a bunch of innocent people who questioned them.
LikeLike
Oh, as an aside to both of your guys’ stories, I thought I’d share this. I remember it being a big story among a couple different bloggers I read and includes an extreme form of the behavior that has been done to both of you.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-brett-kimberlin-tried-to-frame-me_9842.html
LikeLike
Wow, the case you shared is extreme. Let me be fair and upfront that I don’t consider myself to be a victim of any extreme situation as described in that case. I also don’t consider myself as having been “damaged” in a traditional sense by Linda Ellis as I have not experienced any substantial negative consequences aside from some online reputation inconvenience and a bruised ego of which I feel I have adequately handled thus far.
I also do not consider Linda Ellis as someone who has “overpowered” me aside from the fact that she has a vagina, is the poet of a viral poem, she has kids, and some limited ability to garner some sympathy from a small group of people.
I have a great deal more of public support from people who have done something substantial and meaningful. Her and her lawyers’ very own actions have hurt her position and online reputation in so many ways. Honestly, her lawyers were not smart enough to know when to quit.
So far, her side keeps giving unexpected gifts to my side.
LikeLike
In case you’re collecting stories, Matthew, the man who commented above, Sean Heeger, wasn’t issued a restraining order because of something he’d written online, per se, but an order was “extended” or “refreshed,” Sean says, “soley because of my blog.” FYI.
In essence, a “new” restraining order was issued based on Internet speech.
LikeLike
I’ve read about this Brett Kimberlin character suing so many people and the idiot MD judge who issued one of the restraining orders. It seems to me, from memory, that Prof. Volokh was in on the appeal of one of the RO’s. I knew that one could not stand. Did it?
I read in Popehat that Kimberlin ultimately got clobbered in Maryland.
And btw, the doctrine of “strict scrutiny” applies to prior restraint in First Amendment law. “Prior restraint” is also a term commonly used by appellate courts in the discussion of First Amendment appeals. In speech and expression cases the courts have generally focused strict scrutiny where speech has been prohibited by prior restraint, such as in many restraining order cases. Strict scrutiny means that the state action restraining speech must withstand the highest form of scrutiny in order to survive reversal in appellate courts.
Larry Smith (buncyblawg.com)
LikeLike
Wikipedia:
LikeLike
Mr. Chan,
I don’t know that I agree that it isn’t unconstitutional to bar one private citizen from speaking or communicating with another under any circumstance. There is a rather famous Orwell quote that defines liberty as the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. While I would never suggest that speech has no restrictions, threats or yelling fire in a crowded theater being obvious examples of curtailment which make sense, an American court should treat the limiting of said speech with the utmost seriousness. I believe the Supreme Court uses the term ‘strict scrutiny’ when it rules on issues of discrimination. From my own experiences, it surely does not and that comes awfully close to an unlawful infringement on civil rights in my opinion.
In fact my own painful history with PPOs [https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/08/25/the-ppo-destroyed-my-career-grants-story-of-restraining-order-abuse/] has convinced me the process doesn’t intend to protect citizens from immediate and potentially irreparable threats (roughly the standard for an ex-parte PPO here in Michigan). It is designed to humiliate and silence, the methods of the authoritarian. A militant strain of political correctness best described by the English writer and doctor Theodore Dalrymple:
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
LikeLike
Grant,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If you read my paragraph, I was very careful in what I wrote:
“It is almost always legal to engage in speech ABOUT someone publicly or privately, unflattering or not. But it is not always acceptable to engage in speech TO a person, especially if it is unwanted. In the context of the Internet, you should have the right to speak freely ABOUT anything or anyone as long as your speech doesn’t fall within the list of exceptions and restrictions.”
You wrote:
“I don’t know that I agree that it isn’t unconstitutional to bar one private citizen from speaking or communicating WITH another under any circumstance.”
You can’t speak WITH another person without first speaking TO them. As a general rule, I have no interest in speaking WITH another person that does not want to speak WITH me.
My central issue is having the freedom to speak ABOUT another person publicly, not TO or WITH another person in their home.
While intellectual discussions are interesting and I enjoy them, what SHOULD happen and what DOES happen are clearly two different things which is why the ROA website even exists. Within the context of my commentary, my goal is to help, encourage, and motivate others to speak out vocally if you have been wronged. Trying to “right” the wrongs of the legal system is not easily done by many people. I am one of the “lucky” ones who could do something about it because I invested my time and energy in my knowledge, self-determination, relationships, etc. to do what I’ve done thus far.
I am not sure I agree with your sentiment that the system was DESIGNED to humiliate or silence. I believe the system was DESIGNED to prevent genuine harassment, physical harm, physical safety, physical injury, and unwanted/intrusive communication and contact TO an individual. The whole “shame and embarrassment” factor that is discussed here on ROA is a personal REACTION. Just because PRO’s are a matter of public record, it doesn’t automatically mean the intent is to embarrass. It is simple considered a matter of transparency and of public interest.
Real estate transactions large and small are all recorded and documented in great detail in public records. None of this meticulous reporting has anything to do with embarrassing anyone. It is simply a matter of public interest and transparency. Court proceedings, as a general rule, is a matter of public record and anyone can attend to watch. It has nothing to do with shaming or embarrassing either parties of any lawsuit.
The First Amendment mostly protects your right to be rude, crude, impolite, sexist, misogynistic, racist, and be a name-caller ABOUT a person in a public forum. Part of the exceptions doesn’t give anyone permission to do the same TO a person in the privacy of their home.
I understand the issue of how some people might try to HUMILIATE another. However, we have it within our power to accept it or not. I come from the school of thought that I won’t let anyone humiliate, shame, or embarrass ME if I choose not to. Look around, I am not exclusive to this club. There are plenty of people who are SHAMELESS in what they do. There is an upside and downside to shamelessness. My ethnic background is Chinese. The culture is steeped in embracing shame. I learned that embracing shame (as a general rule) was not a good thing for myself.
I cannot speak about anyone else. I am probably the minority here on that opinion but it serves me well. I want to be liked and “approved” like anyone but I would say that my self-identity or how I live and conduct my life is based on whether someone LIKES or APPROVE of what I do. Hence, I write many unpopular and “offensive” things publicly.
LikeLike
I understand your point and in general I would agree that others can’t define you, you define yourself. I don’t give a flying you know what about how the trash my accuser now runs around with feels about me. I was working to get her away from them and in a minute I will detail some things that made me think she was serious about it. What they say or think is different than a government sanctioned body which society has been taught to treat as sober and, for lack of a better word, judicious. To do an end run around normal Constitutional due process is reserved in Michigan law for situations where imminent harm will befall the petitioner. Speaking to someone, in non-threatening tones, doesn’t rise to that. I do not know the specifics of your case but I know that my court order labelled me as a threat serious enough that I was to be stripped of my right to bear arms. We don’t allow those who are mentally unstable or prior felons, found guilty after the right to a trial or a confession of guilt, to own guns. To me, that goes behind a simple court order. It is a judgment, backed by government, without even the courtesy of allowing the accused party to defend himself. That, to me, goes past the civil rights line.
On a separate note, I tend to think who a person is speaking to is part of the meaning of the communication. What do I mean by that? Here is as simple of an example as I can come up with. Two words: “Happy birthday.” Everyone on this planet at some point in a year will hear those words. If on May 26th, you said happy birthday to me it would make perfect sense. However (I’m assuming here) if your friends were to send texts, emails, phone calls wishing you a happy birthday on that day you’d be rather perplexed. The words only develop a meaning when they are said at the right time TO the right person. Who you communicate with is as much a part of the speech as what has been said.
So, citing my specific example, when my friend (and you seem to like using actual names so I will honor that request) Beth sits down and on multiple occasions throughout a year gives obvious warning signs about being depressed as well as saying how she spent hours on the phone with her father because of the awful things her new teammates were saying about her and how she was being forced for group political reasons to do worthless shit that she didn’t have time for I wasn’t exactly surprised by that. The varsity team she was a part of was, and still is, awful. I know the type that populates such an organization. I went to a high school that used to be highlighted on Sportscenter because for a 7 year stretch it went 1-62. My father, who was an all state high school player, three year starter with an over .800 winning percentage at Michigan Tech in college, and coach at Catholic Central high school where he won a state title on Tom Mach’s staff (Mach is still there today and has 348 career wins with 10 state championships) hated the idea of me playing football at Livonia Churchill. My freshman year the varsity team scored 51 points in 9 games. My senior year, the team had it’s first winning season in 18 years (not one player on the team was born the last time it had happened) and the first playoff appearance for the school in 26 years. Turning losing cultures around isn’t fun but it is doable. That team my senior year put in collegiate level work year round. Our picture still hangs in the barbershop by my old house. We got inducted into the school’s hall of fame. I really did think Beth was capable of fixing the team she joined (and that wasn’t my fight to have). I should have said something when she told us those same people she couldn’t stand were going to be her housemates starting her junior year. I didn’t and regret it.
She was dating an asshole who was on the men’s track team (she ran track if I didn’t mention it earlier). Think Animal House type. Was happy to be part of Tech’s version of “that group.” The hall that calls themselves maggots and scum. Slogans that are meant to show how cool they are like:
Don’t Die. Don’t get Caught. By choice or chance, you’re always a Maggot. And remember guys…NO FAT CHICKS!
And hall chants that they honestly run around yelling in public like:
Rat Shit, Bat Shit, Nasty Old Twat
Sixty-Nine Assholes Tied In A Knot
Eat, Suck, Fuck
Gobble, Nibble, Chew
We’re From La Maison
So hey, FUCK YOU!
Not surprisingly he went on to join the worst fraternity on any campus that has them, the TKEs. I never said anything about the obvious misery that a Type A personality like Beth, who wanted to go to Med School, would have around such people as him and the people he ran around with. That next fall she was even worse until she broke up with him. He physically abused her. I should have seen that, it was obvious, but I’m not predisposed to thinking people will stoop that low. I would have made sure he walked with a limp for the rest of his life. In just a year Beth went from the Dean’s List (http://www.sa.mtu.edu/dean/list/350_399_fall07.php#G) to being a C student. My worst fear is not that I said something but I waited too long. IF she had turned things around right then, I would have been more than happy to help her get her resume up to snuff by graduation (would have required work and retaking classes but it was definitely doable). She sat 5 feet from me and had a long conversation about how she had jumped even deeper into track team bullshit that no one cared about because that was how she would fix her resume as she was, in her own words, “a failure as an engineer.” She told me that her classmates considered a laughingstock and openly questioned whether she had gotten into the school only because she was a girl, an affirmative action applicant. I then asked about how track was going, already knowing the answer. Just excuses such as how the training was not the type she usually responded well to. This was January of her junior year and she already telegraphed to me that two more seasons of track were going to be as awful as the first. So I fought hard to prevent her from going down that path. I failed and her senior year, over a year after I had last been in a room with her, she was performing as bad as I could have imagined.
400 Meters Preliminaries Heat 2
PL. NAME YEAR TEAM TIME
1. Vallar, Kayla JR-3 Grand Valley St. 55.98
2. Hohmann, Zoey FR-1 Ferris State 57.39
3. Chandler, Adrienne JR-3 Grand Valley St. 59.88
4. Bildner, Katie FR-1 Hillsdale 1:00.52
5. Rotter, Becky FR-1 Northern Michigan 1:00.84
6. Geerer, Elizabeth JR-3 Michigan Tech 1:04.77
Sorry for the sloppiness but you can see she lost her heat by 9 seconds in a 400 meter race. She didn’t even deserve to be out there. In fact her time was so bad…honestly it wouldn’t stand out in a high school JV race. When you are a “failure as an engineer” it isn’t the best of ideas to compound that by being arguably the worst collegiate athlete in the United States. So of course I said something and, even when I got push back from her, I held my ground that this had to stop. I don’t know, I don’t regret that. I’d do it again. I’ve done it for other friends and have had it done by others to me. That bullshit lasted for three seasons. If I played that poorly for a half of football (and at times I did unfortunately) I would have heard about it. I don’t know, I treated her like I would expect to be treated and was treated.
Her housemates, that I know of, Dan Cook managed to be so awful academically (I believe his third college that he sucked at) in Tech’s ROTC program that the Army cut his scholarship and demoted him to being an enlisted private. My twin brother (also on that successful football team) is a Marine Captain now, the youngest when he graduated as a commissioned officer in his class by over 12 months. After multiple foreign tours of duty he now teaches future officers at The Basic School in Quantico. Another, who accused me of saying I wanted to murder Beth’s parents [offensive in general, even more so for me since I buried my father at 14 and have since buried my mother at 23], Erin Ballun…well she is a receptionist at an animal clinic. Not exactly what I would do with an engineering degree. The list of failures, including Beth, from that clique of juvenile trash is too long to continue but compared to my brother, friends and former teammates it’s ignominy cannot be understated.
For trying to stop that I have been barred from being licensed in my field because I can’t find someone who would dare sponsor me. My last job was at RBC and I got fired there for suggesting long dated treasury bonds. I suggested that they should be bought in the second half of 2013. I didn’t pass it off to the public as RBC’s position (it wasn’t) nor could I tell clients at the office I worked because I wasn’t even allowed to hear them give a trade order. 30 year treasuries are now at record highs and up over 40% (including coupon payments) the last 15 months. I wrote an article last summer about buying wheat futures into December which was correct, up over a dollar a bushel from when I wrote it and up nearly $2 from the lows in October if you averaged into a position as is prudent. I wrote a short idea for a homebuilder which came within 13 cents of hitting a 52 week low yesterday. I don’t make much for these articles.
LikeLike
Grant, I meant to reply earlier but honestly, you provided much more detail (too much) for me to try to get to the heart of your story and central issues. Fortunately, Todd stepped in and provided this link as an additional resource for me to try to more fully assess what happened with you and how you got to your predicament.
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/08/25/the-ppo-destroyed-my-career-grants-story-of-restraining-order-abuse/
One of the things that stuck out with me is that you were in your mid-20’s when this all began with Beth. The second thing that stuck out with me is that you had a dream/goal to get a stock broker license and you view your restraining order as the one event that “destroyed” your career to be a stock broker. The third thing was that you were dealing with Beth, a young woman who appeared to not have a good handle on her life and made bad choices. The fourth item was that you took it upon yourself to take action on her behalf for her own good. And finally, you stated “I don’t know, I don’t regret that. I’d do it again.”
You might not like what I have to say but I call things as I see it and I will make at least one attempt to tell you something others might not be inclined to tell you for your own good. You should know that despite all my public blustering, I do make an honest attempt to be objective even in my own case and I am being objective with my assessment with yours.
I think we can all agree that the restraining order process is full of imperfections and pitfalls for the accused. It has been acknowledged that abuse of the legal process is actually a “thing”. I am not disputing you might be a legitimate victim of the process but you cannot place blame entirely on that.
What Todd and I have discussed before is when you have “real life” relationships, it makes the situation a whole lot more complicated and more emotional. In fact, I would tend to stay away from commenting on those types of cases (especially family related) because it is way too volatile and people are way too emotionally invested to hear any objective comments.
I am willing to comment here because of the facts as described by you and Todd.
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/08/25/the-ppo-destroyed-my-career-grants-story-of-restraining-order-abuse/
The first point I want to make is one you probably don’t want to hear. At your age of being in your late-20’s, I don’t think you can convince me your life is irreparably over. And while you might not be able to be a stockbroker for all the reasons you list, there was no guarantee you would have been a success or that you would not have left being a stockbroker. There are plenty of people who PLANNED on a certain occupation and life course but then some “big life event” occurs (unintended pregnancies, disease, disability, war, bad economy, etc.) that prevent them from achieving what they believe are their dreams. Suddenly, a person is blocked from that path and forced into another one.
If you say you don’t regret “helping” Beth, then you should not be upset about what occurred. It was part of the price you paid to do so. But honestly, I think you made some critical errors in judgment. You were well-intentioned but I think you were blinded by what YOU wanted, not what Beth wanted. I think you fell victim to the “white knight syndrome” where guys want to rescue “helpless and needy” women. The sad punch line is that some women complain and SAY they want to be rescued but their actions betray the truth that they really don’t want to be saved. And that some women cannot be saved. You pull them out of one mess and they get into another mess.
To be fair, some women do the same thing regarding loser men. They want to “help and change” a loser guy except that no matter how much the woman does, the guy continues to be a loser in life. They always know how to make the absolutely bad decisions for themselves. In the meantime, the would-be rescuer expends lots of time, energy, emotion, and money to “help”.
The sad truth is that many people really don’t want to improve their lives. For many, it is a bottomless pit of problems and drama. Beth appeared to need to belong, be part of a group, be liked, and not disagree with others.
Based on what I read, all the circumstances that you tried to help with, she could have handled herself. Beth appeared to have the inability to say NO and just get caught up with bad circumstances and questionable people. She was content on complaining about her life but not willing to do the work or discomfort to bring about a life change. Based on results, it appears that your help was ultimately unwanted and you didn’t find out about it until much later. Beth did not have the ability to tell you directly or with anyone else. She used a cowardly method and use the protection order process to tell you. You made the mistake of trying to communicate with her again.
Men are literal and often don’t read between the line in their 20’s. I know, I speak from experience. I have fallen into the trap of trying to be a “white knight” to a few women in my life but I had to recognize it was a flaw with me, not the woman. You cannot help or save anyone that won’t do anything for themselves. As the famous saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.”
In my assessment, I think you should reflect a bit. It is perfectly okay to say that you made a mistake in trying to help Beth. You clearly paid a steep price for it. But I don’t think it’s helpful for you to ENTIRELY blame the legal system for your relationship with Beth. I stay away from “unhealthy” people because their drama spills over to everyone around them and their drama and problems are limitless. I would not say, don’t help a person in need but it has to be well-contained, well-defined, and you don’t get dragged down and get consumed with it.
The focus of the ROA website is obviously restraining order abuse. It is obviously a big problem. But you also have to be part of the solution. I personally think it is too big a fight to try to change the legal system but you are more than welcome to try. I tend to focus on things that I can control, influence, and change. As a matter of principle, I am going to minimize the power of any setback and attempt to workaround it even a restraining order.
As the saying goes, one door closes and another one opens. Honestly, being a stock broker is not all the glamor and glitz you might think it is. It is a sales business and as in any sales business, you have the pressure of monthly quotas and you are only as good as your last deal/hustle. In my view, there is a case to be made that you have been spared the path of being a stock broker. Having an MBA, worked in the corporate world, academia, having my own business, real estate investments, and getting my ass kicked from 2008 to 2012 was not fun and I have a much larger view of the business world than in my 20’s
The economy was out of my control during 2007-2011 but I would be dishonest if I didn’t say I didn’t also make some stupid mistakes that caused my own financial ass-whipping. I fell victim to the herd mentality and I ran with a “wrong financial mentor” who had very unhealthy advice he was espousing. I was smart enough to know that the ideas were problematic but I still did some dumb things like taking on too much debt and buying properties I never should have. Should I blame the people I hung around with? Or do I take responsibility for making stupid mistakes, learn from it, and then do better next time?
In your case, I see the central issue as you getting caught up with Beth and getting more involved than you should. You have also put too much weight on being a stock broker. If you want to be in sales working for commission (which stock brokering is), there are plenty of commissioned sales jobs. If you want to work with the stock market, learn to be an investor, study the market, educate yourself, find role models, buy your own stock, manage your own portfolio, and grow it. Start small and build it.
I never had to get a real estate license or business license to get buy my own properties. I did it INTENTIONALLY because I saw too many people get controlled by the licensing and testing process. I used to live on technical certifications in the I.T. world and I was done with that endless treadmill of keeping up with the latest requirements. I also learned I didn’t need a lot of credit to buy property. I learned to use seller-financing and investor money to buy properties. My point is, I eventually learned there are more than one way to achieve your goals.
There is no question you have been hit hard emotionally. But let’s put all your current challenges in perspective. Can you imagine being a soldier coming back from overseas and losing your arms or legs or being paralyzed? Or having PTSD? Or being a victim of violent crime such as rape, assault, murder, etc? Or being born poor in the ghetto dealing with gang bullets every day like people in South Chicago or East LA do? Those are serious problems to deal with.
Yes, it is a shitty deal have a restraining order part of public record. But I am telling you, in the big scheme of things, there are many roads and opportunities for a guy your age. You just need to start adopting a different mindset about your circumstances, chart a different path, and let go of the stock broker thing. It is one unicorn to chase. If you always think like a powerless victim, then you are surrounded by others of similar mindset. If you think like an empowered person, you will gradually be surrounded by other empowered people. That is how people self-organize in society. People subconsciously recognize each other and drawn to one another.
There are many others. No matter how bad your circumstances, I can guarantee you there are at least 4 billion people in this world that would kill to be where you are here in the U.S. even with the inconvenience and hassles of a public restraining order.
I took a great amount of time to type a reply to you. I hope you will consider it. You have everything to gain and little to lose to consider what I wrote.
LikeLike
Some “moderator” thoughts (always a day behind the dialogue):
First (and this is very important for anyone to understand) is that to say restraining orders accord with a “design” is to give too much credit to the “designers”: (1) The restraining order process is an ethically and constitutionally dubious merger of criminal and civil procedure that was convenient, and (2) restraining orders were conceived as an efficient deterrent of violence, not an effective one, per se.
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/10/09/what-journalists-need-to-understand-about-what-restraining-orders-are-a-tutorial-for-investigators-part-2/
The “value” of a restraining order is predominately rhetorical: It exercises a bullying/subduing influence; it’s intended to scare. It can’t stop a bullet, a knife, or a fist, and in at least some jurisdictions, repeatedly violating one is still only a misdemeanor. This is another way of saying that a lot of people are issued orders who fear repercussions or were never threats to begin with; therefore the orders seem effective. Every once in a while, though, it’s made startlingly clear how toothless they really are at arresting true threat. People are killed in spite of them.
And they may be hurt or killed because of them. The shaming and humiliation, which is real, may exacerbate the threat level someone poses, i.e., the orders may do the opposite of what they’re “designed” to do. They may inflame instead of quell passionate feelings, because they always outrage. Procedures so perfunctory and, as law prof Aaron Caplan puts it, accelerated can’t be probative, balanced, and just. They are authoritarian.
They were “designed” to be. They’re a quick fix long ago conceived to satisfy some (justly) angry women. The process doesn’t care about the arbitrary curtailment of freedoms; it just says you will obey.
The system is designed to humiliate and shame, because humiliation and shame are efficient. The point of the process is to satisfy the favored party and shut the disfavored party up, which, it’s hoped, will also shut the complainant up. It’s maximally efficient.
I suppose it is fair to say that humiliation/shame is subjective. Consider, though, that “bullying” (often synonymous with humiliation) is condemned by the system. It recognizes bullying as hurtful and grounds for punishment (as do the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a bazillion websites). Defamation (a form of public humiliation) is a tort that sometimes returns six- or even seven-figure damage awards. A related tort is “infliction of emotional distress.” If “emotional distress” is recognized as injurious, then it’s fair and valid to complain of it.
The court doesn’t dismiss defamation and “infliction of emotional distress” suits on the grounds that complainants should have thicker skin. That would certainly be economical, but it wouldn’t generally be regarded as just. The only grounds for suits left would be material losses, i.e., bodily and financial injury. How “injurious” these losses are to the losers is also subjective; they may just be easier to qualify/quantify (hand = $100,000, leg = $250,000, like that).
An irony is that the damage of humiliation/shaming can be the proximal cause of physical and financial harm: stress-related illness, carelessness, and injury, and impediment to or loss of employment (either of which form of injury can bring about the other).
LikeLike
Grant intended to be a stockbroker, Matt, and can’t even get sponsored to take the qualifying exam because of a blot on his record, a court injunction he never even had the opportunity to appeal. He’s barred from employment, and that bar is indissoluble and insurmountable.
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/08/25/the-ppo-destroyed-my-career-grants-story-of-restraining-order-abuse/
So even if you consider the shame of the blot to be trivial, there’s no denying the injury of financial loss or the shame of being denied his rightful chance to realize his potential and a return on his educational investment and sweat equity.
Maybe as an MBA you can counsel a workaround; I don’t know for finance.
As you’ve told me, the point is to make the most of what you have. It’s a pragmatic view. If, however, you say, “Okay, I can live without that,” and then I arbitrarily take something else away again and again…at some point you will say, “Hey, I can’t live without that, and it’s not right that I should have to.”
That’s where someone like Grant is coming from (and he’s not the only one).
LikeLike
Todd, you and I will have to disagree. I am not saying there are not some tough issues or challenges to overcome or surmount. What I am going to say is that there are 7 billion in the world. By virtue of being born in the U.S with 300 million people, you are among the top 5% in the world. By having a cognizant mind, reasonable health, reasonable literacy, good arms and leg, you go up even further in that 5%. If you have access to the Internet, have a cell phone, and don’t live in the ghetto, you are probably in the top 3%.
Given my world view, I will be hard pressed to believe that for anyone in their late-20’s unless they are incarcerated in jail, that their life is over.
I got my ass handed to me between 2008-2012 in the real estate market. I have grease burn scars on my arms from working in the fast food business when I was 19 years old. I worked for 7 long years attending classes at night to get my Bachelors degree. After a 2-year break, I went back and did the same for another 3 years to get an MBA. I am not saying all this to brag or have anyone feel sorry for me because I am quite happy with what I did. I just didn’t want there to be any confusion, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth and believe in working hard for what you want.
Opportunity and empowerment comes to those who are willing to do the hard work of changing their mindset and taking meaningful action in their lives. Having a restraining order sucks and certainly causes heartaches and challenges. You either work the problem or the problem works you. That is how I view challenges and upsets in life, in general.
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right. I have a greater investment in principle than pragmatism. In a fight, the pragmatist says put your back to the sun, turn at five paces instead of ten, etc.; the other guy says, fight fair, be honorable, yadda-yadda. Pretty but not practical if your goal is to survive.
I like the pretty principle. Maybe it’s aesthetic, and maybe endeavoring to prove it’s more than that would be a life’s work. (I’ve faced down an onrushing vehicle before, on principle, and like a moronic matador been steamrolled. I’m not among the percentage with sound limbs today. You would say getting mowed down by a speeding vehicle is worse than being lied about. I’ve had both happen to me, and for me the physical injury, though it could easily have been fatal, was minor by contrast. I was walking against doctor’s orders a day out of the intensive care ward on a leg that was held together with an erector set. I run today. The lies I can’t heal, and I can’t staunch their source without taking an action that might be even harder or impossible to live with. To me, though, the principle is more urgent than survival, which probably sounds mad to you.)
It is a source of gnawing outrage and disgust to me—and always will be—that advocates for a process that’s dishonorable not only represent themselves as the honorable parties; in all eyes but God’s, they are the honorable parties. Similarly, it’s a source of gnawing outrage and disgust to me that liars prevail because their targets are honorable.
This would be cool if I were confident God was watching and that (to quote a cynical old song) there’s “pie in the sky when you die.” As you would say—and as I believe William James would have said—it’s pragmatic to believe God is watching, that there is “pie in the sky when you die,” and that the fakers will get theirs in the end.
I believe in justice. I think you do, too. You just say take it where you can get it.
LikeLike
I am a huge defender of truth and shouting it where it needs to be. If I was only pragmatic, I would not have worked hard and appealed my case with the GA Supreme Court. So, I also believe in principle. That is what that fight is about. Principle AND truth. Hence, I have fought the good fight both in court and in the public eye.
But, I also realize that I cannot control what others (judges and court system) will do. The system allows for only so much. We only get to appeal a finite amount of time. For example, if the court system rules against me despite my best efforts, not much I can do except appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (which they accept very few cases).
I am not saying you should stay silent or forgive what your accuser and your local courts did. I am also not saying you shouldn’t advocate for change. You are doing that with your ROA website. I just don’t agree with some of the ideas being espoused that restraining order abuse is the end all be all root of all problems that arise such as in Grant’s case.
For example, I do believe that the courts overstepped and hurt Grant with Beth’s restraining order against him. I also do believe to the degree he was pursuing his stock broker career, it has permanently hurt and damaged his chances there if they are drawing from public records. That order might also come up and hurt him in other ways. I absolutely acknowledge that possibility
But based on limited information that you and he shared, he also bears the responsibility for choosing to insistently “help” a woman who clearly did not want to be helped. I don’t think Grant deserved what happened to him but his youthful decisions to help Beth at all costs hurt him. He can discuss the restraining order issue all he wants but the root cause in his case was trying to be a white knight to a troubled woman. He should have called it quits earlier. If he has no regrets as he claims, then he should be able to accept the consequences also.
Under normal circumstances, a young man trying to help a troubled woman wouldn’t be a big deal. But unfortunately for him, he encountered the wrong woman. Instead of being direct and honest with Grant, Beth took a very underhanded road.
Hence, the lessons learned must also include knowing when to back off.
LikeLike
It’s funny (because salient) that no one who debates the justice of restraining orders is a dangerously volatile person. This fact by itself betrays the absurdity of the business.
Restraining orders were not “designed” to provide people with a “sense of security”; they were “designed” to secure people from danger.
There’s a distinction, and it’s been forgotten.
LikeLike
My situatuation with my ex was based on a join our group or get out. That means what they call “mark and avoid”. The girl was a runaway to begin with. Hindsight shows that I was just trying to help when should have ran when the red flags started appearing. She and her family failed at pulling me in to their operation. I guess I have to pay but I will not cave in to anyone. Till this day I maintain all of my files online and I hold nothing back when i convey the truth. This corrupt town has a lot of lessons to learn. They’re all a bunch of good ol boys with their hands in each other pockets.
LikeLike
I’d still be interested in this kind of personal, summary version of your story, Sean. I’d be glad to write about it, but I’d need to get a feel for your relationship. Kind of like how you’d tell the story in a conversation.
FYI, Larry Smith, author of BuncyBlawg.com, said he was curious to hear more, also:
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2015/01/26/restrainingorderabuse-com-guest-post-by-matthew-s-chan-the-appellant-in-a-restraining-order-case-before-georgia-s-highest-court/#comment-59265
LikeLike
will do. the gist is that i was messing with a married woman. i tried to keep her at arms length then it all started by her preaying on my emotions and my weaknesses, i iad no family or frinds that i really trusted. I thoguth about getting another girlfriend just to drive her off but i ended up getting her preggo. then i was stuch an wanted to make it work. then her mom came into the picture since joseph was on his way in 2004. her mom has such a huge influence on her. she ran away from her moms home dure to her adopted step dad being psychologically abusive. So she calimed.
in 2007 her mom wanted us to go to the way class and i thought it was just rediulous. they teach you how to love GOD their way. The class is nothing more than someone pressing play on the vcr. I laughed in the local leaders faceand that’s when it all started between kathrn and myself. She does when her mom tells her no matter what. her mom has love bombed her into submision and everyone is going to hell if they don’t BELIEVE.
I keep everything on the websince i have a bad memory and if someone want’s to see what happened. I’ll provide more info soon. the blog addresses kinda help.
LikeLike
In just a few lines, you’ve clarified a lot for me. What a mess.
The woman who accused me was married, and her family and her husband’s were both hardcore protestants. So I can relate to some of this. I also grew up with extremists of this sort. They would buy TVs, then decide they were evil, and then come to our house to watch what they wouldn’t allow in their own homes! Some of them didn’t celebrate Christmas, because, as you know, Santa and Satan are anagrams.
LikeLike
Some of my relatives even attended “church services” that were nothing but taped recordings of a long-dead minister’s old sermons. They sat around and listened to a dead guy and said, “Amen,” I guess.
LikeLike