Representations of legal process on TV and in the movies are misleading. Judges are not sage, and they don’t care about you or your rights any more than they have to. People are falsely accused on restraining order petitions who may never have seen the inside of a courtroom before. They may enter with the expectations that they will be granted a judge’s compassionate and deliberate attention, and that if they tell the truth, they will be exonerated. These expectations are wrong.
- Law is about rules; it is not about truth, evidence, or morality.
- Judges don’t make the rules, but laws license judges to act independently as they “deem appropriate.”
- Judges can do whatever they want, which includes ignoring truth, evidence, and morality; ignoring truth, evidence, and morality isn’t against the rules.
- Judges aren’t accountable for anything they do unless it violates the law, which extends them broad discretionary powers (discretion is the right to freely choose, according to any standard or arbitrarily).
- Judges have been trained to be judges; they have not necessarily been trained to be lawyers (and neither lawmakers nor the court recognizes this to be a contradiction). The judge you appear before may not even have a college degree.
- Part of judges’ training is being told how to respond to certain allegations. In other words, bias is intrinsic to the process.
- Judges are guided in forming restraining order rulings by the principle of economy (i.e., efficiency), not by the principle of justice.
- Restraining order rulings are based on a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means judges favor the side whose presentation is more forceful, not more truthful. Restraining order rulings are not based on ascertainable proof, and the exposure of lies can count for nothing. (“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is a criminal standard and has nothing to do with restraining order judgments, which are based on claims, not facts.)
- In contrast to a lurid falsehood (e.g., “I’m afraid for my life!”), the truth is often weak, feeble, or ridiculous (i.e., less influential).
- The truth only has value if a judge finds it more compelling than a lie.
- Judges decide “the truth”; the truth doesn’t decide anything.
- Once judges bang their gavels, the truth is of no consequence and cannot be reasserted. (Its reintroduction in court is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.) Lies cannot be attacked in a collateral action (i.e., another legal proceeding, including an appeal). After a restraining order hearing is concluded, the allegations litigated in the case cannot be retried (except under extraordinary circumstances).
- Lies to the court are not recognized as libels or slanders, and the falsely accused cannot sue for criminal perjury.
~SUMMARY~
The truth only counts if it works, and it can only work in a restraining order hearing, which may be afforded all of 10 minutes of the court’s time. The truth may be of value if it controverts or refutes false accusations (and the judge is paying attention or cares). Merely establishing that a false accuser is a liar, however, is no guarantee of a dismissal.
In preparing a defense, the accused should consider what will work, not what is true, decent, or honest.
Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*If all of this sounds like a recommendation to get a lawyer, that’s because it is. One false accusation, successfully put over on the court, is a foot in the door that a false accuser may exploit indefinitely. The record is public and permanent…and may be only the first of many.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
I don’t know where you are talking about but in Indiana, orders of protection are done through ex-parte hearings. There were no rules in my case; I didn’t even know a hearing taking place. When I later found out that the TRO being initiated and then vacated corresponded almost exactly to my slut wife initiating and then ending an affair, the judge could care less and prosecutor didn’t want to know anything about it. In fact, after I started scatter-shot emailing churches, schools and local businesses about what happened, I was visited by a pig who said if I didn’t stop, I’d be arrested for harassment. You think I’m kidding? A man named Dan Brewington spent 2 years in prison for persistently questioning the wisdom of the courts and judges. I think you are being too kind to a completely scam system of justice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great read and I might add that I enjoy your blog regularly. However, for the first time I have to disagree. Getting a lawyer isn’t the answer or in most cases even the best option. After a half million spent on them believe me I know. But more to the point is that a person falsely accused must be prepared for himself. You are Leonidas out to slay the wolf. David v Goliath or however you wish to realize the situation.
After 6 years 3 attorneys 1 assault charge 2 protective orders 2 convictions of violations of same and the aforementioned 1/2 million. I am now in appeals court Pro Se like others here.
Know the law and know your options. But also know their options. Judges do as they please because no one ever calls them out on it. Lawyers who practice in these courts daily are often more concerned with appeasing the judge than you as the client.
Res judicata and estoppel are not applicable to things like fraud upon the court by an officer of the court. Nor are they to an abuse of discretion by the court. In fact most protective /restraining orders are in courts of equity and not of law. eg family court.
The best advice Ive ever received was that no matter who the judge is they are answerable to a higher authority. Namely the constitution, due process, equal protection and etc.
Often times especially after several years and hearings like in my case you will find that the “system” is a monster not within the control of the judge, prosecutors, cops or your well paid attorney. That monster becomes a noose around the neck of the “economic” approach but you have to be determined to hang them just as they would hang you.
The worst thing any defendant can do is to believe that the court is the “good guys”.
Im not a lawyer I would mention that my son is but that is another story.
LikeLike
….after reading my comments I thought I should be clear that the noose comments are simply to stress the fact that you can hold them to the same standards and criteria that they hold you and are not in any way a threat. Perhaps a better analogy is that the tool box of laws are there for everyone. Just because the judge has a hammer doesn’t mean s/he is allowed to hit you with it,
LikeLike
My accuser has also been called “Barbie.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! It so happens that my accuser is actually “Barbie” but I’m happy to know that my use of the name has conveyed its intended sentiment.
LikeLike
The value of a lawyer is the credibility and courtroom skills s/he may bring to the show. Lawyers can suck like anyone else, and my experience is people in these situations grasp at the first life-preserver that bobs along.
I was so heartened when a lawyer finally took an interest in my case that I gave him thousands for nothing.
He was a decent man and even let me exchange labor for counsel (seven hours of my time to his one), but he wasn’t an aggressive advocate and preached resignation.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, but, for example, to say this or that doctrine doesn’t apply in this or that situation really only means something if a judge agrees. It doesn’t matter if you’re right if a judge doesn’t know you’re right or doesn’t care.
To make a judge listen can require a lawyer (especially if your opponent has one). It’s a vicious circle. I do know that fewer people who’ve had lawyers complain of injustice than people who haven’t, though the many people who’ve had lawyers and been screwed anyway typically complain of the most serious (direct) financial losses (six figures, in instances).
LikeLike
I agree with almost everything you say. As a general rule, having a lawyer is better than not. However, if you are financially disadvantaged and can’t pay $300/hour, it is not a legitimate option to discuss and entertain. It them becomes a “pro se” issue and one needs to be somewhat armed in becoming a “pro se” litigant. I am somewhat practiced at being a “pro se” litigant and I will (and have) written about how to be a better “pro se” litigant.
Even if someone is able to afford a lawyer, the clients who are most victimized are those that are clueless, in the dark, and don’t know their power/rights as a client.
I can tell you that very few people are going out of their way to educate naive, legally-illiterate, broke, “pro se” defendants. I am one of the few that will attempt it in 2016. We will see where that takes me. It may be a lost cause where I can help myself but can’t help anyone else.
The world of “legal haves” and “legal have nots” is alive and well.
LikeLike
I’d say there is another class of haves and have nots: free speech haves and free speech have nots. Now three years out from my ordeal, although I’m outraged by many things, what really outrages me is that I can be arrested for telling people facts about my case. I still can’t get over that. I had a big fat pig come to my door and threaten me with arrest if I didn’t stop making noise about what happened. I guess I’m a free speech have not. That would never happen to Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes. I think we are heading in a direction where free speech is reserved for the 4th estate and the rest of us had better hold out tongues.
LikeLike
I certainly concede to your point that an attorney if s/he performs their duty to you as a client is an advantage and benefit. My attorney for instance made a settlement offer to my ex’s attorney without my consent. She stood and told bald face lies to me when I pointed out laws and due process violations I wanted her to present. Telling me they did not apply.
In fact it was only because I fired this attorney and took up my own banner and issues that I am still legally alive today in the court of appeals. I thought since the judges, prosecutors, the ex and her attorney were all women that a woman advocating my position would be a benefit. But OMG was I taken for an expensive ride on the tilt-a-whirl. Just meaning I was almost physically ill when I came to realize she had fallen in with them instead of standing against them.
My case is in the Texas 1st COA Cause 01-14-00845-cv. I mention this because if any of your readers are interested it is available online with all the briefs etc. it is a lesson in due process 101. But even more so you can see from all the events what to expect and how these rights are regularly trampled in district and family courts.
Thanks again for your Blog. When I found it I was almost to the point where I was about to resign myself as being an idgit who just needed to move on. Not so. And now I have uncovered systemic violations of due process in this jurisdiction.
LikeLike
Do you think it would be okay if I emailed Michael after the injunction lapses? Doesn’t it take two incidents in a year to have them file an injunction? I thought if I just sent him a short email that he might not do anything. Just to let him know I still care about him. Crazy I know but that is where I am at…
LikeLike
I don’t know your circumstances but you seem to be insinuating that you want to communicate with someone who placed a restraining order on you. Are you kidding? This is the type of crazy stuff I talk about that people do to self-sabotage.
Some people have really crappy internal radars when they select people to have relationships with. And when found out, people need to move on!
LikeLike
I too have felt like maybe just an email or something would help heal some wounds but what I have found is that an accuser knows and relies upon that human emotion to not want to hurt someone to injure you again. What folks should realize is that with a false accuser though the first accusation may have been difficult for some of them once that initial action was confirmed by the courts it emboldens that sense of power and lessens any sense of decency. I know in my jurisdiction 1 accused violation can equal jail time. Best advice…. drive away and leave the rear view mirror in the driveway. If there is any repentance or reconciliation It Can Not be accomplished by the one who is falsely accused.
LikeLike
I am not kidding. We were in love headed down the aisle Matt when he went into a full blown psychosis voices and delusions and all. I was married twice and this man treated me and my son and daughter very well. His wife had died and we are in our sixties. He was goaded into it by an unscrupulous woman who hates me and she is the real villain her not him. My “radar” as you call it was pretty good.The two marriages were the result of not crappy radar as I knew they were ***holes from the start but I was pressured by family to get into them and did not really love them. Michael was different spiritually emotionally and personally. He has no one to help him get on meds for the schizophrenia. I was it…he is isolated and has no one…he didn’t do this out of meanness..he even thought he could still talk to me when I filed an OFP on him because he was scary. Sometimes schizophrenics go into remission and that is all I was asking for….I still love him he loved me everything about me until he became certain that something bad would happen to me if he was with me like I could die…he thinks he is cursed that way is all…its kind of complicated…
LikeLike
Depending upon the laws in the state where you have a restraining order against you, there can be risks associated with contacting the petitioner even after the restraining order expires. For example, in the state where Angela successfully sought two restraining orders against me, it appears that a new order does not necessarily require any new incidents:
“A new harassment order may succeed without new incidents, if the petition alleges:
1) an act of physical violence or threats of the same violence (see Question 3, page 4), and the petitioner demonstrates continued perceived threats;
2) a course of conduct to harass/intimidate, serving no legitimate purpose, and the petitioner demonstrates continued intimidation;
3) child abuse (as defined in question 3, page 4);
4) sexual intercourse or sexual contact (under §940.225); or
5) stalking (under §940.32), if the past acts indicate intent to continue, and the petitioner demonstrates a reasonable person would continue to suffer serious emotional distress or fear of bodily injury.”
So a single new incident–in conjunction with the past incidents that led to the original restraining order–might well be enough to prompt a new injunction filing.
Note also that even if the new contact is not a violation of the restraining order (since it has expired), it might still be considered a crime under stalking laws, since the past restraining order (even though expired) is pretty strong evidence that this person doesn’t want contact with you.
My thought is not to contact the petitioner until ALL THREE of the following conditions are met: the restraining order has expired, the petitioner is the one to initiate contact, and you’ve talked to a lawyer about any legal risks associated with resuming contact. If the petitioner doesn’t take such initiative after the order expires, I would let it go and assume contact remains unwelcome.
LikeLike
He would probably apply to the court to extend/renew the injunction.
I don’t see how a “short email” would necessarily qualify as harassment, Martha, but you know how this works: “Judge, the defendant has a history of harassing my client. She was ordered not to contact him. The court’s order expired, and now she has begun to email him again. We are seeking to extend the order for five years so my client is spared these intrusions.”
LikeLike
Well said. That is exactly the point that needed to be made.
LikeLike
I don’t use lawyers anymore. Both times I did they failed me. I know every facet of my case and how wrong the law was misused. In the court of appeals now.
LikeLike
Well… I have first hand experience in Superior Court, Family Part. The judge, Nan S. Famular, was not only a liar, but a fraud and entirely incompetent.
I filed a motion, made videos about another matter, and waited for my day in court. Without getting into the manucia, I stood before a full courtroom, and called out the judge on everything.
We had a screaming match in front of over 50 people for nearly two hours. As she began ordering me to comply with her rules, I firmly told her she was wrong, what my rights were, and I was not following her orders.
She ordered me to pay for the other party’s attorney fees, and I told her I was not following her orders. After filing 3 more motions (to reconsider, to recuse, and to stay the orders), she scheduled the hearing.
This time, the judge made sure I had the courtroom to myself. Opposition’s counsel began complaining that I had not paid the sanction, and that I doubled the amount of videos about the case.
The judge began to order a psychological evaluation, legal assistance, and as she was about to issue a judgement for the money, I interrupted her and said,
“Before you finish that order… I guarantee after the psych evaluation I’ll have the Dr. on my side, I’ll take the legal assistance, but if you issue a judgement against me for the sanction, I’ll sue 22 of oppositions clients to pay the sanction.”
She looked at me and said, “Mr. Aristeo, I just don’t know what to do with you… You just threatened the plaintiff before this court.
I yelled, “I didn’t make a threat, I made a promise.”
She reversed the sanction, canceled the psych evaluation and legal assistance.
That’s Family Court!
LikeLike
Why was this matter heard in family court?
LikeLike
Most restraining order cases typically fall under family court by default. In my case in GA, it was classified as “domestic relations case” despite the fact I never even met or communicated with Linda Ellis.
Likewise, Bruce’s “indefinite” TRO was classified as a “domestic violence civil complaint”, hence, family court.
LikeLike
How much all of this emphasizes that a procedure enacted for a very specific purpose (arresting wife battery) has burst its seams.
LikeLike
It truly depends on what’s stated in the TPO-temporary restraining order. If someone has lied on you stating a gun is involved (even if you are registered to carry) it is considered criminal and your him and permit can be revoked and whatever punishment the judge rules.
LikeLike
*gun & permit…sorry for typo, replying on my phone
LikeLike
You know, these affairs begin because the court strives for “economy” (streamlined process). Justice is compromised to save time and money. The outrage is that consequent to some five-minute sham procedure, a judge will order a “psych eval.” What does that cost the taxpayer? Then defendants (as you know too well) are subject to police interference ($), arrest ($), detention in jail ($$), etc. Where’s the so-called economy?
We live in a culture that says accusers must be afforded every consideration. They file their accusations…the taxpayer pays. They need a lawyer…that may be covered, too.
There’s nothing economical about any of this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s quite an accomplishment to have a screaming match in front of a judge much less with the judge. All I can say is incompetent is… well I suppose not strong enough to describe her.
Had you been in Texas you would be writing your posts from prison today. You should have made a video of that! That’s Family Court…. Texas Style
LikeLike
I have the sound recording and transcripts.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Falsely Accused.
LikeLike
Todd, a great read as always!!! This information is needed!!!
LikeLike
As you know, “getting a lawyer” is the nice, neat answer. In reality, there are many who cannot afford a lawyer. And even if someone can afford lawyer, there are bad and unethical lawyers ready to take money and do a bad job for the uninformed. There are no absolute clear-cut answers in this. Being educated and being committed to being an active part of defending yourself is crucial. I am doing my part to make some small dents on these fronts in the years to come. Defiantly.net and the upcoming Defiantly publishing is going to take on subjects lawyers don’t want to write about.
Even with getting a lawyer, it is fraught with certain dangers and pitfalls. As you know, the family court system is very bad and has many flaws. That is where so much of the legal travesties happen because it is not supervised and uneducated/unrepresented litigants don’t know how to get things “on the record”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I look forward to the books Matthew. There is a definite abundance to write about in this arena of the judicial system. As you stated things being part of the courts record is crucial.
I know I have read here that you want to tell peoples story concerning the 1st amendment but I hope to also see many chapters on abuse of office, due process, affirmative duties of prosecutors etcetera. Never before, well other than slavery, have I seen such one sided legalism. I cant find anything that compares in modern American society with the un-impinged fundamental rights bashing of a protective order. The closest ive come and I have looked is the terrorist watch list but even then the possible accusers are few and do not include vengeful or emotional ex spouses and so forth.
LikeLike
FightingBarbie,
I know my limitations and I value my credibility. I am not going to write about things I am not knowledgeable or passionate about. That is why I stay away from most domestic cases involving child support, children, custody, alimony, etc. I don’t have a background in those areas and I don’t want to have a background in that. I stay away from drama, it keeps my life much simpler.
People want recipe books. Unfortunately, the world and the judicial system doesn’t work that way. I am a proponent for education in conjunction with developing the right attitude. I am also a big proponent of prevention and learning from prior (or other people’s) mistakes.
I will be publishing through Amazon Kindle platform. It allows me to reach many people at an affordable price. It will also allow me to keep titles current. I am not going to do any hard copy books. People don’t need to have a Kindle to read Kindle books. They only need a PC, phone, or tablet. None of my titles will be more than $9.99. There is a good chance most titles will be less expensive because they will be narrowly targeted subjects.
I am going to be very direct that people should support the effort. I don’t need charity money but at the same time I want to make it clear very few people are going to spend time to help the broke, naive, legally-illiterate person. I will do what I can to help but people will have to decide to play ball. Not all support requires money but it will require participation to some degree. For example, content and dialog is very important. So people need to start posting more when that time comes. There will be call to action. I will focus on those that help themselves and speak out. Those that want to stay quiet, I can help but those are the ones that will have to become a customer. Everyone gets to choose but people that choose to sit quietly on the sidelines are not people I will devote much time to. Victims that do nothing will continue to be kicked around and have no one come to their cause. It sounds a bit harsh but it is true.
At the same time, I intend to be a clearinghouse of information and allow people to engage me but the caveat is that it will have to be through a discussion forum. I have some experience in creating a community, bringing people together, and connecting to other resources when necessary.
The nice thing is that I don’t need anyone’s approval, manpower, or funding to make this happen. I have all the skills. It is a matter of time management (always a struggle) and execution. I will give more updates as I go along.
LikeLike
Ahh, ok. Well I admit I erroneously thought the root of your tree was a false accusation and injunction issued on those allegations. Am I to understand that although you’ve had an injunction levied against you that your only issue is your right to talk publicly about it?
I feel as though the 1st amendment infringements after the fact are consequentially nil unless the foundation is flawed. If it has been factually shown that a person has committed a crime of violence or stalking or whatever then consequentially that person may be restrained from brow beating his accuser by publicly pandering support which in essence would be unjust enrichment at the expense of his / her victims reputation and piece of mind.
So my point being I believe is that the facts can argued. The process can be argued. Even the circumstance and equity can be argued. However I cant endorse the thought that (to be extreme) a murderer can profit from selling his story or send the murder victims family innuendoes letters ect. There is a reason molestation and rape victims are not identified in court documents and media.
In any case I see from your comments above that you are a one man self sufficient effort. I would only comment that personally I have found that such a narrow scope of a subject will alienate allies and the receptive persons to a would be hero whom is also a dictator are those weak and in need of rescue rather than mere assistance.
I am not a weak person nor do I need rescuing so I prefer to lean upon the adage….. We should all hang together or surely we shall all hand separately. (Ben Franklin) I am in a word the person you describe as speaking for themselves, But in no instance would I declare to be so capable as to be your Superman. I rarely can offer more than an empathetic ear and meaningful discussion. But when and where I can I will stand in the trenches side by side with anyone whom is fit for the battle so that we will protect one another’s liberties….and justice for all.
LikeLike
FightingBarbie,
I thought you knew my case as it has made the rounds online and been referred to by Todd on this site many times. It is the Chan v. Ellis appeal. I won. Google it, lots written about it by very notable sources. It had to do with Linda Ellis, poet of the viral poem “The Dash”. She didn’t like it when I used some strong language talking ABOUT her but never contacted or communicated with her. That was my situation.I am one of the few victors that continue to participate here. I had a team, a mindset, and strategy. I had a contingency plan in event of a loss. I lost time, energy, and a couple thousand dollars over it. I was never going to throw inordinate amounts of money like so many people do fighting it. My situation is tame compared to the many stories I read about.
Also, because my case is so much more “simpler”, it would be arrogant of me to attempt to try to use my “simple case” and apply it to messy, complicated domestic cases involving children, assets, alimony, divorces, etc. My case is more meant for political or simpler domestic issues.
Unfortunately, victims become victims to such a large, destructive degree because they are so woefully and naively uninformed and they do the wrong things (intentionally or not). Why does it need to be said so often to stay the fuck away from your accuser? Don’t communicate with them ever again (aside from legal matters between co-parents of children).
The fact that I have to repeatedly say “Stay away from fucked up people” is disconcerting to me. This is called a “prevention” strategy. People need to learn from their bad experiences and exercise PREVENTION so it doesn’t happen again.
We all get to choose who we associate with and who we want to ally with. I don’t ally or associate with people who refuse to learn and see the light. They hurt the overall cause and effort. They need a counselor. So, no. We don’t “all” need to stick together. People who self-sabotage and repeatedly go back to the ugly well hurt the ones who “get it”.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info Matthew. I did take up some casual reading on your case today and have a better idea of where your coming from. Seems that this case was an argument of words literally. While I haven’t digested the nuances of your case seems that the protection order applicants expectations were indeed flawed.
I did have to chuckle slightly when I read that the two of you are on opposite sides of the country and have never met. And you are correct there is a vast distinction between this corporate type of a case and the family or relationship style cases (I am assuming) most of the readers here have lived. It is that close sometimes long term familial bond in many instances which leads to the ignorant or maybe irrational and sometimes illegal efforts to cure what has damaged them in a much deeper often spiritual way.
Prevention, learning from mistakes ours and others, strategy ect…. all great principles to live by.
Those folks that don’t “get it”…. well maybe some of them do get it but haven’t been able to conform their mind to the legal over what is the logical to them. Those folks are the ones not yet fit for the battle and make a lot of mistakes detrimental to “the cause”. These are not the people myself or old Ben Franklin was talking too. But yeah, it is disconcerting at times especially to those of us who prefer the battle field rather than the counseling couch. At the same time though many of those people will soon be strategizing contributors we cant do without.
There is always that percentage of people which are feeble or simple minded and those that know better and continue to do what they do no matter the effect because its the easy road. I call this type the welfare people because you cant give them a hand up. They wont get up and are a continuous drain on those that “get it”. Therefore they don’t participate yet they enjoy and share in the reward of the sacrifice of others and rightly so. It is our duty only to sustain them not enrich them.
I have a personal role model whom has been considered to be the hardest most feared man in our industry. Aside from the fact that he is a multi billionaire and international policy maker by virtue of his status and influence. Apart from the realization that he has personal friendships with royalty and even setting aside the fact he has been to prison for doing what he knew to right and just, All things which are publicly known. He and I have a moment of life in common. In that moment he taught me that some men bare a burden so others they love do not and those men will die young. Others eschew a burden and cast it upon others. Those men will live long but not well. And still others, those who get it, will receive others willing and capable to take up his burden for a day when he is unable. “A man so prideful as to give but not to receive help is a fool not long for this earth.” He is in his 90’s and Id say he has lived well. So I believe him.
Congrats on the win Matt. I believe you should have won that case.
I have won also…. just waiting for them to publish the fact. lol
LikeLike
The thing with f*ed up people is they never relent.
LikeLike