“I don’t know of any other provision in law in which people go to court and take out a civil action with the goal of handing over some of their power to a judge. When you get a restraining order, you relinquish your power to unilaterally consent to being contacted by the restrained party. As the ‘Notice to Restrained Person’ that the court gave me says, ‘If you violate this Order thinking that the Protected Person or anyone else has given you permission, you are wrong, and can be arrested and prosecuted. The terms of this Order cannot be changed by agreement of the parties. Only the court can change the order.’ The ‘Notice to Protected Person’ says ‘You cannot give the Restrained Person permission to change or ignore this Order in any way. Only the Court can change this Order.’”
—Blog respondent (July 2, 2015)
There’s an unexamined assumption that restraining orders “empower” those to whom they’re granted. Ask a feminist, and there’s a good chance this is exactly what she’ll say restraining orders do.
They don’t.
Restraining orders don’t empower anyone but police officers, judges, and prosecutors; they only take rights away. They prohibit normal, lawful conduct under penalty of punishment.
Those on the receiving end of an order are perceived to be the ones who are deprived of rights. But so, too, are those to whom orders are granted denied freedoms. Restraining order petitioners concede their power of choice, often unknowingly. Some petitioners of orders assume the value of an order is to give them the power of consent so they can choose or decline to associate with the defendant on the order according to their preference.
Petitioners have no discretionary rights. They forfeit their freedom of choice when they file allegations, and they do it voluntarily.
It isn’t “If I say yes, it’s yes; if I say no, it’s no.” It’s just no. A restraining order doesn’t bestow any entitlements; it erects a barrier.
An order of the court is an order, and that order can only be modified or revoked by the court. Observance of its prohibitions is never optional. Plaintiffs surrendered their say when they invited the state to play parent.
Returning to our imagined (straw) feminist, she might remark that restraining order plaintiffs don’t want anything to do with the people they petitioned orders against, so they haven’t been denied anything they cared about. But real life is seldom as black-and-white as a feminist’s imagination.
Some plaintiffs say they felt they were coerced into getting restraining orders and express resentment when they discover the consequences; others say they were ignorant of the import of orders. Some of the latter report that they renewed relations with the people they petitioned orders against and even moved in with them or had a child with them, assuming consent was theirs to give.
They desperately want to know what they can do when the people they petitioned orders against and then invited back into their lives are arrested and face jail time for contempt of court.
Similarly, domestic partners want to know how to communicate with the spouse or boy- or girlfriend they obtained an order against. They’re at a loss for how to deal with daily exigencies like home repairs and bills. They thought getting a court injunction was a measure to pacify conflict, not a complete severance of relations. They didn’t realize they were signing over their autonomy to the state.
Predictably, a significant proportion of petitioners (reportedly as many as half) subsequently return to court to request that orders be withdrawn. A judge may agree, or s/he may not, according to his or her legislated prerogative. Some petitioners know to ask; some don’t know moving the court to dismiss an order is an option and instead act in violation of a judicial ruling that only exists because they requested it in the first place.
In “Protecting Victims from Themselves, but not Necessarily from Abusers: Issuing a No-Contact Order over the Objection of the Victim-Spouse” (2010), attorney Robert F. Friedman considers the constitutional right to autonomy that the advent of restraining orders has legislated away.
It gets worse.
Orders may also be issued by judges on their own initiative (sua sponte) if someone in a household reports a domestic altercation. They can even be issued if a third party (like a bystander or a neighbor) reports what s/he thinks is an altercation.
It’s not about who “presses charges.” That’s a misconception derived from TV. The state “presses charges.” The apparent “victim” has nothing to do with it. S/he can refuse to cooperate. S/he can even protest…and it doesn’t matter.
An order that’s imposed by the court, called a criminal or mandatory order, isn’t electively petitioned, so the person who’s named “the victim” can’t just go to a judge later on and ask that the order be canceled. Typically only the district prosecutor’s office can do this, and it has no compelling reason to.
Once the state is invited to be the arbiter of conflict, the rights of the parties involved become its to dictate. The only one “empowered” is Uncle Sam.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
LikeLike
How did you find this Todd? From the numbers I figured it was in Division 2 but that doesn’t matter I am in Division 1. I contacted Legal Shield and they are very in expensive now and only run month to month…but finding the court case you cited is prime…I will go to the Law Library unless you can give me more info…does it have an Arizona law library number? I want to read the entire case..did you find it online or how did you find it?
LikeLike
Yeah, online. It will give you a sense of how this stuff works (whether that’s a good thing or not, I can’t say).
Follow this link:
https://casetext.com/case/alvarez-v-schonert
Here the “abuse of discretion” standard explained in brief:
LikeLike
This case upheld the injunction so how does that help me Todd? I am hoping for a case that does the opposite…and it also says that it cannot be used and does not cause a legal precedent to be set..that is what I am really looking for something about a delusional man who said he was in love with me filing an injunction….all I can say is that Mary Hamm abused her discretionary power standard by granting an injunction without allowing me to present a defense. The defendant in that case you cited wasn’t even present and she was thus denied a defense and that was allowed..there was a huge difference though. the two parties weren’t romantically involved and the plaintiff obviously WAS harassing her and had an intent to harass…this lawyer said that every case is different…and I guess he is right….the only way I know to get any relief at all is take zanax…
LikeLike
Thanks Todd. Once again I have been up all night redoing or doing my oral argument. Lawyerist suggests that I put it on index cards but as usual I am doing the other way around, the way I used to when doing term or research papers in college. I have discovered a truth in lawyers i think…just as I used to pull laws out of context or that were not meant the way they are used, so do lawyers in making arguments and writing briefs. Michael did write two emails to me last May really huh, over a year ago now stating that he wanted me to “stay away” and that “I was obsessed with him” which went both ways really and like many of us, when something doesn’t make any sense we try to find out why which is why I emailed him again in February now almost six months or actually six months ago on the 19th of this month.I was so confused by him saying he was so ‘deeply in love with me” and then filing an injunction on me the first time as I KNEW he was STILL in love with me…as he proved in court in March when he completely forgot that he had filed an injunction against me and tried to contact me or talk to me even in the courtroom. The judge at that time had to remind him that I would go to jail if he contacted me in anyway…according to my son, Michael just seemed desperate to talk to me and really had no idea what was going on or why he was in court again and couldn’t talk to me..really meshuggah huh? Anyway, I wrote the entire Oral Argument out and then wrote on index cards the main points for my case. I will re write the Oral argument and bring it along in any case…I forgot what you said what to day if his lawyer brings up a rule of law against me for not being in the briefs, something about that I the appellant am not prejudiced? I don’t really understand what you mean about that though..the rule of law is that no new ISSUES would be brought up that weren’t brought up in the briefs not that the exact rules were not quoted..I spoke to a lawyer and he didn’t think that in actual fact that the judges would adhere strictly to the rules not being quoted that it is more fluid than that. and I am hoping that Goldstein is true to what I believe his character is that he is more concerned about the issues, Michael’s dangerousness and my denial of my rights according to the “discretionary standard” Michael’s mental health state is relevant to my case in regard to getting this case dismissed because Mary Hamm denied me the right to present RELEVANT evidence in regard to ARS 36 and the reason why I contacted him by email. I was confused and missed him and was worried that he might hurt someone. The fact that dangerousness is an issue is that Michael was charged with assault on one occasion but when he told me he beat his former partner to death and assault his ex wife he thought it was funny…I had no idea if he was hearing voices at that time but it is pertinent, dangerousness and his denial that he has a serious mental illness that could cause someone physical harm or even death. He is a stocky little man who was a street fighter and vendor on the street and could easily kill someone if he is not evaluated…maybe even me…The Legal Shield lawyer suggested I talk to one of their attorneys about this whole mess and that the OP was denied me without just cause as he thinks I am still at risk for being harmed or hurt in some way..but I have no idea how he will get past Markham as he is the ruling Magistrate of the Prescott Justice Court so I am appealing to the superior court to have him evaluated as that has seemed like my only option. My son is still concerned that he could end up here and the Prescott Police are not exactly my friends….they don’t call us back when we call them…so I need a Judge who is on my side, hopefully Goldstein will come to my rescue in some way by having him evaluated as well as dismissing the case..I do want Michael back but not this way…I am not sure I will be around any longer if it doesn’t go my way….I don’t want to be here without Michael…I have no use for the rest of my life in that case…
LikeLike
How can I find the blog from June 26th? Somehow my ex retrieved that blog and it was very damaging to my case as I admitted that I omitted the phone call I made to Michael as I had forgotten it but didn’t mention it in my erratum as that would have been too many filings. I can mention it in my oral argument if it is brought up but several lawyers have told me that it wouldn’t be even admissible as it was not in the original record or in the briefs. still I don’t want to lose my credibility. I am going to tell the judge if asked that I did call him ONCE but as I was so distressed had forgotten that I had called him when i wrote the reply brief..I don’t know how much good this will do. All the lawyers said that it is not a big deal but I don’t want to prejudice this judge against me…he will have the blog as my ex’s shyster lawyer included it in his response to modify my support order. I am not sure if i should just drop the Petition or reply to it if necessary…in my oral argument. He included as a sneaky way to destroy my case with Michael and as a way to get around the fact that as I could support myself as I suggested in the blog that I don’t need to have any support at all not even the one I currently live on with my son. It would decrease my income total for my son and me to only $1500 a month for two people….but the greater issue is that I don’t want my credibility with Goldstein to be detroyed..
LikeLike
Hang in there, Martha. You never know what may happen if you can get this business off your back.
I quoted the “order of protection” statute in my response yesterday. If you’re persnickety, you could cite the “injunction against harassment” one. Much of the language, including the passage I quoted, is exactly the same, however (both injunctions are termed “protective orders”), so it probably isn’t that big a deal. The only difference between the injunctions is that one is applied to people who share a residence with the plaintiff (“order of protection”), and the other is applied to people who don’t (“injunction against harassment”).
The “Domestic Violence Benchbook” (issued by the state supreme court) puts it this way:
You could download the book and print it out, or just bring along p. 42. It doesn’t matter that your case isn’t about domestic violence; domestic violence is the origin of all the law in this arena (which dates back decades). This page is just about how protective order hearings should be conducted.
It would be good to find out where the phrase “clear abuse of discretion” comes from and how it’s specifically defined since that’s the standard by which the superior court judges an appeal. I just wanted to give you something to chew on.
Lawyers proceed by offering “theories” to the court for why it should agree with them. You could, for example, say, “Appellant has two theories to present to this court for why the order against her should be dismissed. The first is very straightforward, Your Honor[s]: Appellant was denied her statutory right to present a defense.” Then you could quote the law.
What I was trying to emphasize to you is that judges aren’t like Old Testament judges. They can’t freewheel or play it loosey-goosy. They have to act in accordance with the statutes and with “case law” (prior decisions of the court). So defendants/appellants like you must tell the judge(s) why the the law says they’re right. (That’s what lawyers do: They tell judges how to rule.)
The impulse of defendants/appellants is to describe the facts and expect a reasoning judge to say, oh, I see your point—case dimissed! But if the standard applied to these cases is “clear abuse of discretion,” a defendant must prove that the lower court abused its discretion. The judge’s (or judges’) ruling will look kind of like the made-up passage I put in a comment to you yesterday. It will be a series of quotations of law. Judges have to make a case for why what they decided was just and correct.
What lawyers do is they quote the law (and sometimes dictionaries to define specific words) to show how the law says they’re right. Pro se (pro per) defendants/appellants will want to do the same thing.
After your “first theory,” you could say, “The second theory the appellant offers to this court is that plaintiff is a [diagnosed schizophrenic, or whatever] and….”
The first theory seems the stronger, if what you’ve reported is accurate, because the judge simply didn’t act in accordance with the law. You didn’t get a chance to defend!
That “reasonable cause” standard that you’ve referred to works like this, Martha: If, I, as a judge, believe that a reasonable person (any reasonable person) would find the behaviors of the defendant (you) to constitute harassment, then it’s fit that the order should be upheld.
Even, that is, if you proved the plaintiff wasn’t reasonable, your emails could seem to any reasonable person to be harassing. That’s how the “reasonable cause” business works. (Incidentally, I believe the law says that Michael would have to have requested more than once that you not contact him; blocking emails isn’t a request. Did he make requests, and can he prove he did? If not, you may be able to argue that “harassment” hasn’t been proved. That’s another theory you might consider. Maybe you didn’t understand what “blocked” meant. You weren’t sure how to read that.)
A person in your position can certainly argue that the plaintiff is not of sound mind, but that doesn’t matter if the evidence against you is true and any reasonable person would believe it shows you harassed the plaintiff (based, yep, on a totally superficial interpretation). I just mean for you to bear this in mind. (Again, though, if repeated requests weren’t made, “harassment” might not apply. Google: “Arizona harassment law.” You could find what qualifies harassment and cite the qualification, and say it wasn’t met.)
What I meant to convey is that I’m concerned about your placing too much emphasis on the plaintiff’s mental state, because his actions aren’t the occasion for the appeal; your alleged actions are.
I think you’re probably right to explain your motives: You were concerned for someone you considered a danger to himself and others. That’s a sympathetic motive. I’m not suggesting that anything about your strategy is wrong, Martha, and it wouldn’t be my place to naysay, because I’m not a lawyer.
I just want you to be aware of the limitations of merely reasoned arguments.
Citation of the law is always the surer bet. All I’m thinking is that you wouldn’t want to discount your legal argument in favor of arguing the plaintiff isn’t well. Remember, I’m not the judge, so I can tell you all day that I agree with you 100%, and a judge could decide something totally different.
I’m only trying to impress upon you what I understand of how judicial reasoning works.
It sounds funny to say, but the law is designed so that judges can’t just do what seems right to them. The law is there to make the process as automatic as possible so intrusion of human error and bias is minimized. (Except in these lower court restraining order hearings in which a judge can do whatever s/he wants.)
LikeLike
So, Martha, did Michael ever say anything like “Never contact me again!” You have an email of his after the “email block” that says he loves you?
How did you guys meet anyhow?
LikeLike
No he just told me to stay away last year that I was obsessed with him. This was last May two days after he told me he was DEEPLY in love with me and gave me what guys call a “BUTT FRONT” hug. He never emailed me that he loved me at all. I emailed him again because I was so confused and upset that he could say he was deeply in love with me and wanted to sleep with me( he didn’t say that but my son and I knew he wanted to but I don’t do that with guys so I just told him to go home that I don’t sleep with guys I am not married to). I figure he probably was upset with me because my son called the police on him for a welfare check as our therapist told me to do, a year ago last February. We met at a wedding and he was talking about how he loved Jesus and hated the Jews because they hated Jesus and his parents didn’t want to know about God..or Jesus. I found out from him that he was a full blooded anti-semitic Jew and thought it was funny. He told me when he was six and saw THE TEN COMMANDMENTS that he told God if He revealed Himself to him he would lick the carpet forever..then when he was 19 he said that Jesus appeared to him at the foot of his bed. No that wasn’t because he was crazy it is because that is what Jesus is doing to Muslims and Jews all over the world…you would have to be in my spiritual world to understand that and he LOVES JESUS so very very much. He was over every night until he got crazy when I was in the hospital..he blamed himself for my being there and it became a full blown delusion..he thought I would die if I was with him just like all the other people in his life did..if he wasn’t crazy I think you guys would like each other…he is for the underdog although he is mostly against guys that don’t treat women well..not realizing that he is treating me so badly…he tried to contact me in court when I filed the OP…I just got a guy from legal shield on the phone a minute ago and am going to go with him…it is only @20 a month for a family and I need one right now..he will contact an Arizona lawyer who might be able to help me prepare legally for this oral argument..I have a lot of laws to go by now and was on Lawyer Answer but this guy can help me for only $20 a month instead of $50 a time..I had a bad night last night…took zanax and diazepam again…I just want to sleep or die through all of this Todd..I love Michael so much but the conflict is that I also am afraid of him…he hasn’t come to harm me but my lawyer Ben told me that there should be a way I could get a temporary restraining order against him…a six month one would do and that the JP was probably just lazy….if the disposition of the appellate court it would be okay but I have a little less than a month to go on that one…Markham said no to the one I asked for because i was appealing the one I have against me..as you have said that doesn’t seem right…I shouldn’t have to worry that a crazy man would end up at my door..the police in this town don’t like me and won’t answer my calls in any case…although there is one who took me to the hospital and knows that Michael is nuts..he said that because I talked about killing himself.. really Todd..I am not sure I am going to make it until the 7th. I hope I don’t do anything stupid in front of Goldstein on the 31st in front of my ex husband.
LikeLike
I never met a man who loved God and me so much….before he went totally nut so..he enlisted the help of a former friend or acquaintance as he has no idea who is safe to trust. She thinks he is crazy because he loves God and hates me because I stole her former boyfriend from her she thinks…so that is how he was able to tie me up that and the ex parte Judge Mary Hamm who denied me a defense according to the law ARS 13-3602 and the sixth amendment..
LikeLike
Did he tell you he loved you before or after the call to the cops? I would imagine that was an influence on all of this. I’m confused about why you would call the police on someone you felt you were in love with.
LikeLike
He told me to stay away right after he told me he was deeply in love with me…he is psychotic so in his mind somewhere he thought that I was a threat to him. My son called the cops for a welfare check…that is a check by the police done on crazy people who could be a threat to themselves or others..he was angry with us about that though I hadn’t done it..I did do it later as I was afraid he was going to hurt himself or us and wanted to make sure he and others including us were safe..the therapist told us to do it because he knew that it was legal and valid according to ARS 36 which might be good for you to read…he filed the injunction after the told me he was in love with me because my son walked into his store..when I saw he is crazy I mean he is psychotic as in delusional and has hallucinations. I don’t know why he did this after he told me that he loved me even though psychiatrists tell me that is what paranoid schizophrenics do to the ones they love or who love them..that is why this is so very very hard…when I filed the OP that Markham denied to me…M had no memory of doing any of that to me the present injunction or the past one..that was before he hired the shyster…
LikeLike
I think a Jewish guy wrote that. Seriously.
If not for my introduction to prozess, I would be completely involved with creative projects, myself among them. A horror of the system is that any brush with it turns you into a commonplace. Your dignity is the first thing it denies you.
I had the impression you were back in court Monday. I’m Glad at least your “holiday” wasn’t made even more anxiety-stressed!
LikeLike
Thanks Todd. I appreciate it. If good “ol Auntie only knew. My son was really blindsided. I wasn’t. I don’t really celebrate holidays anymore but thsnks. Not sure I am happy or ipset that the court date isnt another month. Having only a week between cases is crazy. Ladt time my ec started coming at me right outside the courthousen Security had their hands imon their guns… I can hardly wait…I am being facetious of course.
LikeLike
I think the debate gets polarized because feminists have a nasty habit of not really caring how their proposed policies affect men, which prompts a lot of men to get pissed off and return the favor by not focusing on how their proposals to roll back feminist reforms will affect women. There needs to be more of an effort to find what the two sides can reasonably agree on, but feminists can be pretty hard to work with because they often take such a dogmatic stance, not willing to yield an inch.
Some of the more radical feminists are also skeptical of whether relationships between men and women are actually in women’s best interests. So, they don’t have a problem with undermining institutions such as marriage. This understandably annoys men who feel that society should not condone and encourage the abrogation of obligations under a consensually-entered-into agreement.
Some feminists also show a reckless disregard for the facts. For example, the feminist-inspired Duluth model of batterer intervention programs assumes that batterers are motivated by misogyny. This isn’t true of all batterers; situational couple violence has different dynamics than coercive controlling violence, and those batterers have better prospects for rehabilitation, provided the true causes of their violence are addressed. Feminists also tend to view the issue of false rape accusations as a distraction from their agenda, and act as though there were some way of proving that false rape accusations are rare. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416536/how-common-are-false-rape-charges-really-jason-richwine
Animosity against feminists will diminish when feminists become more willing to open their minds to inconvenient facts and look for common ground with those who have concerns about feminist-inspired policies. Feminists should have some concern for restraining order abuse, for example, and look for ways to curtail it. Since restraining order law is feminist-inspired, abuses of it will tend to tarnish feminism’s reputation for fairness.
LikeLike
Here’s something I came across yesterday: “7 Breathtakingly Sexist Quotes by Famous and Respected Male Authors” by Michelle Dean.
I thought about analyzing it in a post. What, for instance, would a woman need to say about a man for her words to be described as “breathtakingly sexist”? Seriously, “breathtakingly”? There is nothing a woman could say that would inspire this phrase.
Then you read a couple of paragraphs and the feminist author is reeling because a male lit teacher says none of the writers he loves are women…or Chinese. To a feminist, it’s actually illegal not to love any female writers. But it isn’t illegal. If the guy doesn’t worship any female writers, it’s not breathtakingly sexist; it’s just his taste. (I find baritone voices more soothing than sopranos. Ooooohhhh.)
A feminist could not for the life of her understand what I’ve just said.
LikeLike
Any access to a pool? What about swimming (no joint stress)?
LikeLike
Nothing I can afford anyway…thanks for your concern…no pool for me at this time….
LikeLike
Yours isn’t a reasoned reaction; it’s an emotional one. That’s the cause of my contempt for feminists; it’s how feminists think, and it’s a pathological mode of thought. Emotional thinking has spawned legal policy that destroys people’s lives.
Anyone who says she’s “never hurt or harmed another living creature” has issues with personal accountability.
LikeLike
I am a womsn raisef in the feminist era. I was never pro feminist. Rather this is about civil rights. The moderator snd othet men have suffered serious discrimination due to backlash from the feminist movement. Perhaps u should read their stories first. Mine is also bsd. A woman jp gsve my ex a restraining order snd laughed when I said he was delusionsl and dangerous. Dont let trigger words cause u to react.
LikeLike
LOL! Guess thats why we survived. Dad used to slways say I wad a survivor. I sm not good kyst sitting around waiting for these court cases either. I feel for this Dean. I have brothers who were trested poorly too. Men and women need to pull together or we will sink separately.. Oy!
LikeLike
Some comments came in that I think are still directed at your case as you described it. Don’t take these hard, Dean. I let them through because I think they’re illustrative of a certain way of thinking and because they need answering.
LikeLike
Martha, what about going outside later and taking in the fireworks? Does your condition allow you any form of vigorous exercise?
LikeLike
Hope u had a good fourth. I am trying to be calm but am stressed becaus Ms lawyer will talk first. I have to defend myself before he makes his argument against me. How do I explain how confusing and stressful that all was except to say I knew he is meshuggah?
LikeLike
Btw do u know the procedure in an oral argument in an appeals case? I eould think that in order to be fair the court ordered eval would be necessary in order to investigate my allegations to his dangerousness I just hopr I can ask for a few minutes for rebuttal as I am likely to firm up my allegations first. I am so stressed snd the insbility to walk it off makes it reslly tough on me. emotionally. Proving we were in a relationship might be difficult but I sm going to try to stay on the ground that zi was worried about him and confused and scared by his behsvior.
LikeLike
Martha, your son could corroborate you were in a relationship, couldn’t he? His presence in court could make an impression, too, and provide you moral support.
Yeah, something to be wary of is making your allegations the priority instead of making your denial of Michael’s allegations the priority.
Some deep breathing (in, hold, hold, out slowly, repeat) will help with nerves.
LikeLike
I have been in touch with an Indian psychiatrist friend who has been of immense help to me in this whole mess….but it costs money so I don’t contact him often…he has an M.D. as well in psychiatry and could tell me things that were really hard to believe but he has never been wrong. I am hoping for the best and trying to make sure that I am not forever focusing on this garbage. the main issues are to get the injunction dropped and have him evaluated by a psychiatrist. Judge Hancock is known for getting people the treatment they need and the chance to come up before her was no accident….it is nearly impossible to get someone evaluated through the local hospital here..they don’t even pay attention but the fact that this came up as a result of a legal matter is well just a huge thing….Judge Hancock is ex FBI and knows the ins and outs of mental health law and the things that the mentally ill do especially paranoid schizophrenics…I am sure Goldstein will get a kick out of the use of the word, meshuggah as well. Sam my son, is really a good witness..he is cool calm and collected so that is also a plus..so I am going back to watching NCIS….about men and women etc…..there have always been men who cared when women were raped and women who cared when men were wrongly accused..the feminist movement as a whole always annoyed me because I could see the way it could be used to hate the women who hate men. My daughter experienced it a lot in H.S. and she hated it when the girls would accuse the guys falsely…she was also kicked and beat up by gang girls so she is not the best person to stand up for women except on a case by case basis as well…which is the way ALL of these things should be handled anyway..anyway, I will get off my soapbox now…
LikeLike
Okay. Sam will be there but what about my allegations that he is mentally ill snd said entities were telling him he was a killer? Those are also part of my defense. They are the way I have tried to refute his allegations. I suspect that they will want me to speak first.in any case I was denied a defense snd a witness’ testimony thst is Sam’s.
LikeLike
Totally. Just be wary of the trap. What happens is instead of answering the allegations against them, defendants rattle off all the blameworthy things the accuser did. Above all things, I think, you want to clarify that the representation of you as a harasser or whatever is wrong. Since the accusations may be due to a troubled man’s paranoia, the allegation of mental illness is important, obviously.
I just don’t want you to get blindsided.
LikeLike
Good luck tomorrow, Martha!
LikeLike
Thanks Todd. You are sweet but I have to wait till the 7th if August. Its making me crazy. I have to go against my ex on the 31st of this month. Goldstein is going to start wondering about me. I don’t have enough to do. Having PTSD due to abuse by lawyers doctors judges doesn’t help. I realize in the main they want to see Michael and me. If hes the psychotic one who am I the one who feels so crazy? I live in the living room of a crappy little apartment where constables and police have been knocking on my door for over a year on and off as well as paramedics. So am feeling very jittery. I don’t go for counseling anymore so am sorry to be dumping..realistically I know Michael is more than likely to create a scene in the courtroom when he hears my argument or when Hancock makes her ruling. She will have to have my allegations checked out ifvshe is as good as all the people I know who know her say she is. Its his lawyer I am concerned about but the judges have been having people evaluated for a long time. Anyway thanks so much. Its nearly Zanax time.
LikeLike
To add insult to injury my ex husbands wife is spreading lies about me on facebook to my son sayinv I have no friends and am mentally ill when the truth is he is abusive and has bipolar disorfer. I tell ya Todd I sure know how to pick em. She told him I was probsbly going to jail thr bitch. Thr ttuth is that if he doesnt pay up he will be going to jail…hes a putz which I found out is a bad cuss word in Yiddish. Oy, dont ask…but fyi it id close to calling a guy a d $!# or a p $!#/$ if u get my drift.
LikeLike
A Jewish neighbor I used to have explained it this way: “It’s what a man has that a woman doesn’t.” She was explaining schmuck.
It’s not coincidence. Some people are more vulnerable to psychos.
LikeLike
Yeah u are right it is schmuck. I am extremely naive a d have always believed people will treat me the way I treat them…Golden Rule I guess but my mother was psycho and I was set up from infancy. Michael is rather an exception as at his core he is not mean. Both of my ex husbands are mean as was my mother. Still because I was in the psych ward he could csll the cops on me for a welfare check which would re traumatize me only…even though I we t voluntarily due to the enormous stress of this past year.
LikeLike
What happened in court?
LikeLike
Oh. I thought I told you..its not until the 31st with my ex and the 7th of August for the appeals one..I am concerned now as my ex husband is such an evil guy bipolar with socialpathic tendencies that he will bring up something in court about my being in the hospital…I couldn’t take it anymore Todd…having a sociapath for a mother caused me PTSD and I kept on marrying my mother…Michael at least in his right mind is a very kind and gentle non manipulative person…he just finds sociopaths who screw him and those he loves for some reason but Steve is a piece of work…sorry if i led you to believe that the court date was sooner…I was so under the gun trying to get the briefs done and re written..I didn’t find out until last week about both court dates….the evil ex(husband) comes knocking at our door whenever he feels like it and then tells me not to tell him what to do…if these cases weren’t pending and the JP in the lower court didn’t know who I was already…I would or have Sam file harassment charges against him..he refuses to talk to me at all on the phone and just bad mouths me like crazy as does his nutso sister..how they can even work is beyond me…I just want to run away from all of them…Good “ol Aunt Colleen had to stick her nose in 2000 miles away and try and manipulate him and try and turn him against me ….as if.. I haven’t said anything and they are saying I lied and told tall tales( I told him to stop knocking on my door uninvited it was bordering on harassment) that is all I said and I have had to bite my tongue…like a lot…I was abused a lot this way by my psycho Mom and by him and his alcoholic psyycho family. She said I would never get the love I wanted….as I was mentally ill..uh, how about depressed and stressed from all the abuse..I am NOT and never have been bipolar or psychotic…I remember a wise old psychiatrist who when I was young told me that I was totally sane that the family was INSANE because they thought that they were normal…there is something to be said and learned from that…still…it is one more stress I do not need at this time…I only get a week breather from that case when I have to dive in the one with Michael..Oy Vey…thanks for being there….I guess I can see why it might be confusing….
LikeLike
I really dont know how to start my oral argument except to reiterate how my rights were voplatrd because I was not allowed to defend myself and that I was not harassed because Mivhael is legally insane as he hears voices teing him to kill people so he can’t be considered reasonable. Also I am petitioning the court he be evauated by a court appointed psychiatrist because of this and bkeves he is okay has no mental health problems which fit tbe croteria neeced according to ARS 36 for involuntary commitment.
LikeLike
You might consider looking for law to cite, Martha. Judges must follow the law.
So if there’s a law that says a defendant must be heard by the court, you might cite that. Not generally but very specifically by number.
So, too, law concerning mental illness. The “reasonable” standard is often applied generally. Like this: “Would this strike a reasonable person as frightening?” If that’s the kind of law you’re citing, then Michael’s unreasonableness doesn’t necessarily make his interpretation wrong; a judge might decide it’s right. But if Michael is unreasonable then what he represents as “the facts” should be considered with suspicion.
LikeLike
Michael has been diagnosed with a major mental illness by a locsl therapist. There does not seem to be any law in regard to what zi should say. The only thing I know to say us that he said four times “entities” were telling him it was his job to “kill” people. He told me that twice and my sin once in my hearing. Law for oral arguments are rather muddy. Having them hear both of us and listening to the record where I did not get a chance to defend myself will hopefully be enough to get the injunction dropped. Proving he is dangerous will be based on what we heard him say to us and or getting him evaluated. Goldstein granted me the right to an oral argument as he said I requested it but more than that I suspect the judge who is the mental health expert is the one who wanted to hear and see for herself what Michael and I have to say. I dont know if his lawyer will allow Michael to speak but I do think that they have the right to hear from him without his kawyer speaking. Arixona mental health law law has two major components one, he or she has to be a danger to himself or others and he has to think he is AOk that is that nothing is wrong with him. We know that in order to find that out he will be given two options, one, voluntarily ageeing to be evaluated or in his case moee likely, being forced to be involuntarily evaluated. He will fight against either. That is the onmy way the judges will be able to decide if my allegstions against him are true.As far as the allegations that I was deniex a defense all they have to do is review the court recording and record. I was only given a chance at the end to ask a question not give a defense
LikeLike
Yeah, just remember that proving Michael is dangerous doesn’t mean you’re guiltless of whatever you’ve been accused of.
Do you want to present your case as you think you’d do it in court? I could give you my impressions.
LikeLike
I dont know why Todd. I did not harass him. He has four emails that he blocked and thats all he had. If he is mentally ill snd was hearing voices telling hin to kill people why would I be considered guilty of harassing him when he told me he was deeply in love with me? I dont underdtand your reasoning. I didnt harass him by any standard let alone by a mentally ill man
LikeLike
According to my reasoning, Martha, this law would be burned on a pyre! But don’t underestimate how unreasoning law can be. The lower court judge may “feel something out.” The appellate judge’s standard may be very different. He’ll need a legal basis to dismiss the order. He needs to cite law in his ruling so if it’s reviewed by others, he’ll seem to have acted correctly.
LikeLike
I don’t get it Todd. The legal basis is that he first needs to be evaluated to make sure that my allegations are true and that secondly if he is indeed that crazy he cannot be considered reasonable…and third. my fourth amendment rights were violated…what other law is there to prove I did not harass him? Goldstein already denied that my reply brief be stricken and to me that means or meant that at some level I had legal ground for my appeal. Are you just playing the devil’s advocate or what? I have a witness to the fact that he was in love with me and then suddenly just filed the first injunction against me. Earlier you told me to tell them that I was worried about him..in fact I was but I am still in love with him…I am already suicidal about all of this…no man has ever told me he is deeply in love with me and then filed injunctions against me and my son who just walked in his store and wanted to see him…Judge Hancock knows the mentally ill inside and out and I believe that she will agree with me but I thought that you were on my side or at least had some idea that I actually had legal grounds. My sixth amendment rights were violated and he is mentally ill according to ARS 36 and therefore cannot be considered “reasonable” if he is hearing command hallucinations telling him it his “job” to “kill people”..
LikeLike
Also I spoke with a lawyer who thought I had a good basis in law for my case…my only question to you was how do I proceed once i am in the courtroom…they have already granted me an oral argument based on my briefs and what they thought( there are at least two judges in this case remember) the legal grounds or basis for my case is…they will have to have him evaluated by court appointed psychiatrists in order to prove that my case is right OR wrong….maybe I should just quit is what I think you are trying to tell me right?
LikeLike
Not sure what you mean but “feeling something out” but in any case the JP in that hearing didn’t care. She knew Michael was Meshugganah…In my appeal I got the case accepted because of the several rules of law that I cited..ARS 36 and his diagnosis plus the fact that he is hearing command halluciniations telling him to kill people and I have a witness to that effect. The lower court record will bear out the fact that my rights to a defense were violated and once they have Michael evaluated they will know that he is crazy according to ARS 36 and therefore cannot be considered “reasonable” according to ARS 12-1809..if I sound upset its because I am.. a part of me knows that Hancock is going to have to have him evaluated because of my allegations of his “craziness” as this is part of my defense and also that my sixth amendment rights were violated after she looks at the lower court ruling as Goldstein already has…I only need two out of three judges to agree and if a mentally ill delusional person files an injunction in his delusion she will know that according to the menatl health law once the psychiatrists have evaluated him that from a mental health perspective he is not “reasonable” Hell Todd, he is not even competent to stand trial in any cazse according to my knowledge of psychiatric law but that doesn’t mean that he cannot get evaluated. He needs to be evaluated because he is dangerous and they need to prove me wrong or hopefully in this case right…he is “off” and anyone around him knows it…
LikeLike
Ha! Insanity is one who is unreasonable according to Miriam Webster or foolish as in schizophrenic.
LikeLike
It really doesnt matter. I sm probsbly just going to end it all. I dont eben care if I win. It wont mayter. I will just leave…. I dony want to live anymore
..I never loved anyone like I loved him
. I sm going to check out.
LikeLike
First of all I am going to present what already I did to them in my written briefs. Number one I was denied a defense as you can see from the written reply brief I wrote in response to the one Mr Gordon( Michael’s lawyer) wrote to the court in violation of my sixth amendment rights. For that reason alone this injunction against me should be dropped. He filed a previous injunction against me last year after I responded to his decarations of how deeply in love with me he was and at the same time said “entities” were telling him it was his “job” to kill people. He said this three times to me and also to my son in my earshot. Two days later he told me to stay away from him that I was obsessed with him. After a few emails trying to find out what in the heck had happened. I stopped contacting him. That was in may of last year. He then in July proceeded to file an injunction against harassment against me after my son went up to buy something from him at his store. Mind you this was two months after he told me to stay away which is sadness and confusion I did not understanding why he was doing this…But I still was in love iwth him so in February I emailed him and he blocked me. I tried several times to email him again not knowing he was somehow retrieving emails I thought he had blocked and then I stopped contacting him…he is delusional according to therapist Bill Rubin whom we saw together and is a classic paranoid schizophrenic. According to the sixth amendment I was denied my rights to mount a defense in my own behald as the lower court did not allow that…Also, if you want to make sure that Mr B— is a paranoid schizophrenic I know that according to the law he needs to be evaluated by a court appointed psychiatrist not a therapist. By his own admission Mr B— does not believe he is a paranoid schizophrenic. Point one of ARS 36 states that if a person is considered a danger to himself or others and refuses to accept that he or she is, then he can be involuntarily evaluated and or committed on the professional opinion of two psychiatrists…the only way to do that is for you to order that. In addition according to ARS 12-1809 harassment is an act or series of acts that is directed at a specific person that in fact annoys or can annoy or irritate a reasonable person. I submit to you that Mr B— is not “reasonable” as he is a paranoid schizophrenic and the only way to prove that he is not “reasonable” and is in fact a dangerous paranoid schizophrenic is to have him evaluated by court appointed psychiatrists..
He told me he was in love with me more than he had been with his wife and to me it is not “reasonable” to assume that I was harassing him when I was worried about him because hs is meshuggah and was hearing command hallucinations telling him to kll people..that to me only makes sense that he is dangerous and needs treatment voluntarily or involuntarily..
LikeLike
I mean this kind of deal, Martha:
LikeLike
Okay.thanks so much. But it is okay if I just mention the law in my oral argument,Todd? Because of my motion that I was not allowed to argue my case, the initial lawyer appellant judge who decides what will be heard and what won’t already heard my argument in my opening ( appellant ) brief though I didn’t mention the actual law in my brief. So I don’t have to file any more motions right? I just need to make mention of the law itself, the ARS 13-1336 law right? I will quote it in my oral argument. I hesitate to file any more motions or even make an addendum to my reply brief though I could if that was allowed. It is way past time for me to file any written briefs..I did do that however and to my knowledge nothing was dismissed. I called the filing counter already but wonder if a written addendum would be best or if that would be thrown out as I didn’t mention the law itself in any of my briefs..
LikeLike