“PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED”: Camden County, New Jersey’s Idea of a Just Order of the Court

Moderator

NOTE TO THE COURT: Facts in this post were gleaned by its author and do not originate from its subject, Bruce Aristeo, who had no influence on its composition. Commentary, likewise, is solely that of its writer.

Camden County, NJ, New Jersey, unlawful orders of the court, civil rights violations, constitutional rights violations, prior restraint, indefinite temporary restraining order

A recent post on this blog highlighted the case of Raines v. Aristeo, out of Camden County, New Jersey.

You can find the post on Google. You won’t, however, find an association between that post and the name of the plaintiff, Jody Raines, if you use that name as your search term (or the name of her business, WebMarCom). That’s because the judge returned a verdict on April 26, 2016, against defendant Bruce Aristeo requiring that any such association be severed.

I got a chance to look at the judge’s order this week. To call it an offense against free speech (and some other constitutional guarantees) would be like calling public defecation impolite.

Bear in mind that Mr. Aristeo was prosecuted for posting satirical videos ABOUT Ms. Raines on YouTube. That’s the basis for his being nominated a “criminal stalker”—also that he’d previously been issued something called an “indefinite temporary restraining order” (unique to Camden County, New Jersey). Mr. Aristeo’s videos purportedly violated this “indefinite temporary” whatchamacallit and were represented as “harassing” and therefore evidence of “stalking” and “domestic violence.” (Don’t strain to find logical connections. You’ll give yourself a nosebleed.)

This is actually how the order, issued by Judge Frederick J. Schuck, reads:

  1. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from entering the residence or place of employment of Jody Raines and shall be further prohibited from being present upon the grounds or property surrounding said locations whether in the State of New Jersey or another jurisdiction as specified below.
  2. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any future acts of domestic violence against Jody Raines enumerated in J.S. 2C:25-19a and specifically from following, monitoring, surveilling, stalking, harassing and/or threatening Jody Raines.
  3. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any and all personal contact with Jody Raines.
  4. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any and all communication to or about Jody Raines and her business (see paragraph 8).
  5. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from causing any communication to or about Jody Raines and her business and any contact to be made with Jody Raines directly or indirectly, or through any third parties, mediums or agents.
  6. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from any and all communication or personal contact with any family members, friends, employers and co-workers of Jody Raines or other persons with whom communication would be likely to cause annoyance or alarm to Jody Raines.
  7. The Defendant shall be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from utilizing any internet and/or social media postings, directly or indirectly, or through any third parties, mediums, or agents regarding, referring to, or simulating, characterizing or alluding to Jody Raines, her family, her friends, her business, or her pets in any form, including but not limited to YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.
  8. Prohibited contact or communication in Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above shall include any form of communication made by any means, including but not limited to, any verbal or written communication, communications conveyed by any electronic communication device or medium, including but not limited to, a telephone, including a cordless, cellular or digital telephone, computer, or any other means of transmitting voice or data, including but not limited to text message, email, social media, social networking sites, internet or other communication via computer or electronic device, including but not limited to the posting or publication of images or audio recordings of Jody Raines, and communication made by sign or gesture and the physical presence of the Defendant in proximity to Jody Raines or at the specified prohibited locations.
  9. The Defendant shall further be PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from communicating, sharing, disclosing, or disseminating to any third party, medium or agent any information referencing Jody Raines, her business, her family, or her pets via any method described [above].
  10. The Defendant shall cause to take down and remove from the Internet any and all publications or postings over which he has control that mention the name of Jody Raines or any business owned or operated by her, exhibit her image, or contain audio recordings of her voice.
  11. A violation of this Order shall be governed by J.S. 29-9a; however, nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the filing of additional criminal complaints based upon the act(s) constituting a violation of this Order.

Remember that Mr. Aristeo, a former schoolteacher, was found guilty of “stalking” (in contempt of a “temporary indefinite” restraining order) for publishing some one-to-many satirical videos.

(Ironic of that is how the judge’s order reads like satire: “including but not limited to, any verbal or written communication, communications conveyed by any electronic communication device or medium, including but not limited to, a telephone, including a cordless, cellular or digital telephone, computer, or any other means of transmitting voice or data, including but not limited to text message, email, social media, social networking sites, internet or other communication via computer or electronic device, including but not limited to….” How can you not hear that in the voice of John Cleese?)

Mr. Aristeo is now PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED from publicly referencing (“including but not limited to”) a goldfish Ms. Raines might own—and congratulations to county prosecutor Tracy Cogan for that snot blob on the Constitution.

Mr. Aristeo, whom Ms. Raines has had jailed before, was sentenced to 364 days behind bars (less 190 previously served). There’s more, too:

  • Four (4) years’ probation, subject to standard conditions.
  • Defendant shall undergo a psychological evaluation and treatment if necessary.
  • Defendant shall abide by all of the terms of the Permanent Restraining Order entered separately this date.
  • Defendant shall provide a DNA sample.
  • The Court separately shall enter a permanent stalking restraining order pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10.01.
  • The State’s request for forfeiture of the Defendant’s Mac Pro Laptop Computer, and Apple Desktop Computer is denied. The State shall return to the Defendant any property seized from him immediately upon his release from incarceration, unless the State otherwise has initiated an appropriate civil action pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C 64-3.

He was also fined: VCCA Assessment, $50; Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund Penalty, $30; Safe Neighborhood Services Fund, $75; Probation Supervision Fee, $5; Domestic Violence Offender Surcharge, $100.

VAWA_order

Fittingly, the judge’s name, Schuck, is just one letter shy of an earthy Yiddish slang word that means dick.

Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The arrests and prosecutions of Bruce Aristeo have cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, for which they stand to be refunded $260 (if the judge corrects his math) by a man the state has left indigent (with a corrupted public record). If Mr. Aristeo now has grounds to sue the state for obscene abuses of power and false imprisonment, that may mean tens of thousands of dollars more drained from the public till, from which the costs of Mr. Aristeo’s housing, as well as the filing fees for his appeal, will also be drawn—all because he published some satirical material online representing his accuser as a toy monkey.

Jody Raines, Bruce Aristeo, WebMarCom

11 thoughts on ““PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED”: Camden County, New Jersey’s Idea of a Just Order of the Court”

  2. What’s really odd is that New Jersey v. Burkert has dealt with the issue of flyers about another being free speech. Odd that this would get through in the same state.

    But I am in the same situation in Washington state. The supreme court has said there must be “imminent threat” for an extended order but the lower court continue to ignore such precedent and do what they want.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. We need more people to raise litigation, the time is ripe to establish boundaries/parameters in domestic violence proceedings – courts are slowing starting to get it, there is far to much incentive for legal abuse in DV proceedings. I am working with a court reform network who is tracking the outcome of following cases, before proceeding with our own reform litigation.

    #1 Voisine v. United States
    Issue: (1) Whether a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9); and (2) whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9) are unconstitutional under the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

    #2 June 17 Johnny Depp Case – Why this case is a significant – Law enforcement was engaged and determined the accusations were unsubstantiated (obviously significant grounds to reject the claims, unless new evidence comes forward); therefore, the court must place more weight on the universe of the evidence (multiple police officer statements, etc.), rather than ruling on accusations alone – You can bet Mr. Depp’s attorney (best in the business) will ensure the court weighs all the evidence including the significant ulterior motive at play.

    The Depp case case is held in the same court house as the case studies profiled on this page – http://www.ourfamilylaw.com/bullies.html. These cases highlight the egregious incentive for legal abuse in our Family Law Courts and why boundaries must be established. The first case, Isaacs case, already overturned a fraudulent restraining order, and a win in the Depp case will provide significant foundation in the second case, Locatelli’s civil case. The accuser in the Locatelli case vehemently refused to engage the police, refused to meet in a public location and she acknowledges prior attempts to provoke a reaction to entrap Locatelli (she secretly/illegally recorded with blatant intent to entrap). The evidence also included testimony from an employee working for the accusers attorney. The employee ended her employment due to the accusers attorneys practice of encouraging his clients to raise false allegations to gain a court advantage! – her declaration is on the aforementioned website…the prior facts are just the tip of the iceberg in this egregious miscarriage of justice.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. A criminal order can legally restrict more first amendment activity than a civil order, although the order would conflict with Simon and Schuster v members of New York state crime victims board.

    If this video is what the criminal prosecution is based off of, I don’t see evidence of the video causing a reasonable fear for any persons safety as sworn in the warrant. The purpose of saying it cases a persons safety was to make it more difficult to obtain a bond. If a person fear for the pets safety, I don’t see that in the statute. Instead, new jersey statutes authorizes arresting people for stalking for violating a tpo. Effectively giving people a felony charge for a court made law that not even the legislature is allowed to make. Various SCOTUS decisions have ruled that violating an order is punishable by contempt (and even protecting first amendment activity from contempt, but readers shouldn’t do this because they will be crucified). Even in the congressional hearings leading up to VAWA there was lots of testimony about how ineffective they were, At some point the federal government stepped in and produced model stalking codes https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/144477NCJRS.pdf and they offered municipalities grants to encourage arrests 42 usc 3796-hh for their violation. In effect the democrats who controlled the congress congress and then President Bill Clinton knew, or should have known, that these orders were without merit or at the least were no curative and never should have been issued per the rules of equity, and chose not only to ignore these rules but also bypasse the due process requirement of contempt hearings by effectively giving the judiciary the ability to write their own felony statutes far exceeding their roles as courts of chancery that not even the legislature is allowed to do, and undermining the system of checks and balances….not to mention the congress usurping federalism, and green lighting child custody matters to be decided below the minimum due process requirements as determined by the SCOTUS.

    Some of the criticism about the warrant was that it was based upon talking about a person. But see New jersey statute 2C:12-10(1)(a)(1), the legislature includes talking about a person in their definition of a “course of conduct” * which has to be used as part of his intent (elonis v united states) to cause a reasonable fear for a persons safety.* The course of conduct provision seems to require “repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person”. The floating bubbles found in protection orders are unconstitutional, see schenk v pro-choice network, and People have a right to petition and to use the sidewalks and picket up and down the sidewalk within the boundaries of Frisby v Schultz, The NJ legislature created speaker based discrimination by exempting only labor disputes. Certainly if the statute were used as intended in this speech about a person provision, it would require entering into the boundaries of peaceful assembly[of others] v residential privacy rights which the statute fails to address what specifically is illegal and may even have to explore if there was the requisite criminal intent. Certainly the statute is vague and suffers from overbreadth, but some activist judge would probably and improperly uphold its constitutionality. Because the statute fails to define what is and is not proscribed, another danger is inherited; That you can be arrested for a undefined conduct, and not be able to recover from the false arrest because the police would have qualified immunity so as as the proscribed conduct was not a clearly established constitutional right. They can’t legally apply the heckler’s veto to speech [unless there is say a valid time manner or place restriction], so rather than using the heckler’s veto for speech it gets applied to any conduct [including protected speech] by any vindictive person claiming they felt an emotional distress and feared for their safety. Just about every stalking statute across the country effectively has employed an unconstitutional system of of noblisse oblige. When vindictive people are running to the courts and having people arrested for any BS reason imaginable under these harassment and stalking statutes and literally destroying people, it doesn’t make them safer. Just about any time you hear about an entire family being massacred [outside of post partum depression], you hear there was a TPO involved or threatened. When will our countrymen connect the dots that these things are designed to fail and fail in nightmarish ways?

    * A “course of conduct” has other sinister term that undermines various safegaurds in criminal cases including statutes of limitations, or prior difficulties, may be included under the guise of continuous conduct. See Toussie v. United States 397 U.S. 112 (1970) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/112/case.html . In Georgia and probably elsewhere, TPOs can also be used as evidence of a course of conduct of [stalking], even if that “evidence” stems from where a respondent has to go to work and miss court and having a default judgement issued against him.

    **If we stopped the reading of the statute at this point, Here the new jersey legislature is not using say the 6th grade test to understand a contract, let alone a person of ordinary intelligence. As applied to pure speech conduct, it would be limited to unlawful incitement found in brandenberg v ohio. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html .

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. How ironic, I that I was born in Camden NJ , I now live in Tucson Arizona, and have been on a TRO since Nov,3 2015 obtained through an ex-parte meeting with a Superior Court judge that believed an event that was staged,embellished,and for greater effect outright lies were thrown in. This, after 5years of living together,and 16 years of marriage. During the 16 years of marriage,not one DV,or police involvement. The specifics,of the embellished story, included stalking,fire arms, assult , and implyed animal abuse. I have been left bewildered,embarrassed,ashamed,and my phycological balance rattled to the point that I am unsure and debilitated in my decision making abilities. This continued abuse leaves me apprehensive,and disillusioned in regards to the honisty and intent of anyone that interacts with me for whatever reason contact is required.
    Les

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Hang in there. How long is your order for? Sure it is unconstitutional and the courts know it. But that would undermine their control of you and others so will ignore it as long as they can. I for one do not intend to be quiet and take this any more. I did for a number of years but it has now reached into the absurd. However if your order is only for a year you might want to just wait it out. If it gets extended, you might have a tough time getting over your debilitation. I think women have found this an effective tool to hurt men and they are using it to do just that. It is despicable!!

      Like

      Reply

  6. The bottom line is that the courts are FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. The time has come to take them back from the blatant negligence that is obviously epidemic in these judges overstepping not only their authority and power but the very constitution that they swore to uphold. Impunity is finished. And, we, the people, should be more then outraged that our money is being spent on a violation of not only our constitutional rights as an American citizen but our civil rights of due process and bias behavior by an entity that we pay for. These judges need to be thrown in jail along with the attorneys that file illegal petitions that violate our basic rights.
    The violation of destroying someone’s life through a CIVIL court that is actually a CRIMINAL order shows a lack of legislation in the right places. To have a civil order appear on your background check as a stalker, etc when the claims are false denotes a trend of control by an abuser. In both the case Todd is referring to as well as Richard’s Montana case, it is a flagrant misuse of the system and power. These are only two of a myriad of cases that are now in front of the courts. If a judge and/or attorney is going to show outright disregard for due process and the law, their licences need to be stripped and they need to have severe consequences ie: the same they hand out to their unsuspecting victims.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. I am a pro se litigant trying to challenge Montana’s protective order statutes in the US Supreme Court. The protective order against me was obtained by my former psychologist. She lied, disclosed from confidential counseling sessions, and did not make any allegations of physical harm or threats (as there weren’t any), yet she got the temporary order which restrained me from being within 1500 feet of her or her office, which almost completely bars me from the downtown area of the town I live in. At the hearing on the permanent protective order her attorney and myself (I was not represented) agreed to a no contact order. Everything in the court room was “no contact order.” Yet the judge issued a protective order until 2090. I appealed to the local district court, which denied the appeal without actually ruling on any of the issues I raised. I then appealed to the Montana Supreme Court which did the same, in an unpublished opinion. Thus I am left with only the US Supreme Court. My primary argument is that temporary protective order statute violates due process because it takes liberty without a hearing and that the permanent statute violates due process because there is no jury trial (the Montana Constitution requires a jury trial in all matters). What most people do not realize is that the protective order goes onto your NCIC and there is a legal determination that you were violent or at least threatened violence, neither of which were even alleged here. I need $3000 by about June 15 to have all of the filings prepared – I’m writing it myself, but need to comply with the formatting requirements. I then have until June 27 to file. Should certiorari be granted I will need additional amounts from the primary brief and Reply brief.
    I refer you to Montana Supreme Court Cause no. DA 15-0622.
    To donate see https://www.gofundme.com/27e598c or
    https://www.crowdrise.com/challenge-constitutionality-of-protective-order-statutes/fundraiser/willmacpheat

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment