“I was wondering if you have a rebuttal to the argument that restraining orders should be granted based on little evidence, because it’s ‘[b]etter [to be] safe than sorry.’”
—Recent query
The question implicit in the epigraph is this: What’s wrong with the policy “better safe than sorry”?
The questioner refers to the judicial practice, long inculcated, of taking complaints of fear on faith and issuing protective orders “just in case.” Appreciate that these protective orders may be based on no substantial evidence and are effectively “mini-criminal statutes.” Their violation, real or alleged, leads to criminal prosecution. They are custom-tailored laws applied to individual citizens about whom the court knows nothing but is willing to presume the worst—and whether they’re violated or not, they may be accompanied by a host of privations like loss of access to home, family, property, and money (and even the ability to earn it).
There are a plenitude of reasons why the policy “better safe than sorry” is crass and hypocritical. Liberal feminism, based on whose politicking the policy originates, eagerly supports discrimination and stereotyping in one context. We see it applied almost daily in response to the #MeToo movement: Men are accused; men are fired. The same policy, in other contexts, is vehemently opposed by the left, however. Profiling to screen potential terrorists or catch illegal immigrants, denial of entry into this country by citizens of others associated with anti-American sentiment, and forced deportations of aliens who came here as children are nominated cruel and unjust.
People of the same political stripe oppose bullying. They denounce finger-pointing, name-calling, and humiliation (like “slut-shaming” and “fat-shaming”), which may inflict emotional harm and lead victims to commit rash acts, including violence or self-violence. But they decree finger-pointing, name-calling, and public revilement urgent and commendable when it’s done by a complainant of violation: “Believe her.”
So an evident double-standard demonstrated by its advocates—whose self-contradictory battle cry is “Equality”—is a compelling logical argument against the better-safe-than-sorry position. A compelling legal argument against it is that in a democracy, privileging the interests of one party or collective over the interests of another or others is unconstitutional.
The most forceful argument against it, though, is that it’s unethical:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
This 350-year-old formulation, which most of us have heard at one time in our lives, is attributed to English jurist William Blackstone but could as easily be credited to ancient sources (see, for instance, Genesis 18:23-32). Its point, as interpreted by Wikipedia, is that “government and the courts must err on the side of innocence,” that is, they must grant the benefit of the doubt to the accused, not to their accusers. “Better safe than sorry” is an inversion and perversion of this principle, and the argument is best dispatched on the grounds that it’s savage.
Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*To suffer, for those who need reminding (and they are legion), is to endure pain or distress, incur loss or damage, or sustain disability or handicap. All obviously apply in this context. The position that being falsely accused never causes suffering is monstrous.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Reblogged this on ProtectiveOrderVictims.com.
LikeLike
OK, this is my best effort to consolidate so far. Might be my last post for a week or two (but I’m gonna try to keep going):
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/conflicting-statements-3
LikeLike
What you have to do is make this accessible. That means a framing narrative that someone will care about. Then support of what you’ve said. You can use the blog you started to assemble a collage of text and captioned images.
What a general audience would care about: legal abuse, lying by a professional therapist, lying by a professional woman.
No one will care about you. No one will care about Mary Beth except Mary Beth.
These are the cold realities. You have to make your case NEWSWORTHY and inviting. Don’t expect your audience to invest any effort unless they are attorneys at a law firm, and you’re paying them for their time.
LikeLike
So, I have been playing around with the snipping tools and although I’ve created a word document with everything in it, it doesn’t all post since some of it is inserted as a picture. I go back to work tomorrow (Tuesday) and may not be off again until Sunday when I prep for a minor medical procedure on Monday. In other words if I don’t get back on this for a while, don’t think I’ve abandoned the cause!
LikeLike
Sure. I didn’t mean to imply it was easily or accomplished quickly. I hope all goes well for you at the doctor’s.
LikeLike
A restraining order hearing is essentially a form of criminal trial, but without any of the protections to the accused normally associated with criminal trials in Western countries. I am most familiar with the laws in Wisconsin where Angela, my petitioner, successfully obtained two restraining orders against me.
Angela was granted a fee waiver in filing her restraining order which was granted because: “The action may be commenced without payment of filing fees because the petition alleges conduct that is the same as or similar to conduct that is prohibited under § 940.32 (stalking); or is an intentional infliction of physical pain, physical injury or illness; or is an intentional impairment of physical condition; or is a violation of § 940.225(1),(2) or (3) (sexual assault); or is a violation of § 943.01 (damage to property) involving property that belongs to the individual; or is a threat to engage in the above mentioned conduct.” This verbiage is taken from § 813.12 which is the part of the Wisconsin statutes related to domestic abuse restraining orders.
Note that all of the above actions are essentially criminal, and by granting the fee waiver, the court was saying that I was accused of committing or threatening to commit one or more of the above noted rather serious crimes. So I was being accused of a serious crime, but without it ever being clear to me which of the above crimes I was being accused of. In conversations with me just prior to seeking the order, Angela accused me of stalking her. In her testimony she appeared to more focus on me as a threat to sexually assault her, but without presenting any evidence that I was in fact such a threat. It was difficult for me to prepare to defend myself without it being clear what crime, specifically, I was accused of.
Moreover, real restrictions on one’s liberty are imposed as a result of a restraining order hearing “conviction”. I was barred from any direct or indirect contact with Angela. The direct contact was not that difficult to avoid, but the indirect contact was trickier, because it meant that I needed to avoid contact with mutual friends because of the danger of indirect contact.
Restraining orders can result in a loss of contact with children and/or a loss of one’s home. In Wisconsin, the Scott Walker government was seriously considering requiring GPS monitoring for people with restraining orders even without a violation, although that eventually didn’t fly.
Restraining orders are essentially a mechanism for getting what is a de facto criminal conviction but without the usual standards of proof or evidence for criminal convictions.
LikeLike
The situation in Montana is the same, if not worse. I was immediately restrained (pending the hearing) to the entirety of the downtown area of my city. This effectively prevented my access to over half of the attorneys in town. That order is now permanent. It was based only on the woman stating that she “feared” me, without providing any factual basis. In the process, Dr. Mary Beth Reed, my former psychologist stating that I had had several restraining orders (which is different from protective orders in that restraining orders are not reported to NCIC and thus one cannot prove that they don’t exist) issued against me by various women. I had NEVER had a restraining order or a protective order issued against me. I suspect that the usage of the word restraining as opposed to protective was a deliberate choice on her part as most people would see them as one and the same, but in one case you can prove or disprove their existance and in the other you can’t.
LikeLike
I wonder what happens if a restraining order bars someone from a radius around the petitioner’s residence that includes the courthouse where the hearing will take place–meaning that even attending the hearing would be a violation of the order.
LikeLike
Dr. Mary Beth Reed, the psychologist in question, had (more on this later) a professional office in the downtown area. She requested and was granted that I be restrained from being within 1500 feet of her office – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It happens that I have had a good relationship for some time with the former Chief of Detectives for Missoula County Sheriff. I first knew him while he was on active duty and he has since retired. I have known him for approximately 18 years. He told me that the Protective Order does not bar me from “passing through” the area. I would assume it is much safer to do this in a car than on foot. He also told me that this does not prevent me from transacting legitimate business. It happens that the city courthouse is on the edge of the 1500-foot radius, and I think one could easily argue that if you go along the street rather than “as the crow flies,” you are outside of the area. The county courthouse, however, is clearly within the 1500-foot radius. Now, attending a court hearing does give one certain protections, so I am pretty sure (but don’t have an official legal opinion on it) that attending a court hearing for a matter in which you are either a party or a witness that you are within the law. However, getting, say, a license plate renewal, voter registration, new car title, I think you would be exposing yourself to jeopardy.
The discussions I have had with lawyers on this is thus – if a police officer sees me and recognizes me as having an order barring me from being in that area, he or she can arrest me and file charges. Once that happens, I would almost certainly be charged with a felony. Anyone who knows our legal system would know that without money once you are charged you are guilty. The average person simply would not believe how bad this is and how easily lies can be used against you. Your typical defense attorney only wants to get a plea bargain that avoids jail time. The problem here is if you don’t fight tooth and nail the first time, the subsequent ones get very, very, very easy to come by. The system will be much quicker to charge someone who already has a record than someone who does not. I could go on at great length about this, but I won’t. It would be easy to get into conspiracy theory territory here. But intentional or not, there is a trend in this country to increasingly deprive rights to the lower and middle classes. Protective/Restraining orders, the attended restrictions and the potential for criminal charges are all part of this.
Regarding the use of the term had an office in the downtown area:
The protective order was issued 12/24/2014. The terms of that order state that the PARTIES must keep the court informed of any changes in address. The terms also state that violation of the order is a felony. Although I do not know the exact date, by October 2015, Dr. Mary Beth Reed had relocated her office approximately 4 miles away (I have not officially been told the address). In the spring of 2016, my attorney at the time (I went through two before I found a pretty good one) interviewed Dr. Mary Beth Reed in the presence of the city attorney. He asked Dr. Mary Beth Reed if she had moved her professional office and she admitted that she had. She also confirmed her new address.
As of this date, Dr. Mary Beth Reed has not informed the court of this change of address. She has not requested the restriction around her previous office be dropped nor has she requested a new restriction around her new office.
We have a pretty active downtown area. Outdoor small-time concerts (we actually get some pretty good acts), and “Out to Lunch” on Wednesdays in the park along the river. Needless to say, I do not dare go to any of these.
LikeLike
They apply common sense. For a change.
LikeLike
Not to mention that they are reported to NCIC and the presumption is that you were violent. I have an order of protection against me that prevents me from going to the entirety of the downtown area of my city for life. It was obtained by my former psychologist based solely on her “fear.” I was never even in her physical vicinity during the period in question.
LikeLike
Richard, best wishes with your efforts. I can help a little. Please consult this post:
If You’re Determined to Write about an Unjust Restraining Order (or Other Procedural Violation), There’s No Point in NOT Naming Names
It will help you navigate the First Amendment/defamation issues, which the brief statements on your website indicated you had scrupled about.
In short, when making allegations against others, work with facts and be reportorial: She said this, did this, etc. For example, instead of saying X “lied,” say X said this to Y and this to Z. Call someone a “liar,” “fraud,” “perjurer,” etc., even if perfectly true, and you give an accuser, who may already be drawn to court process, simple soundbites to use against you in a defamation suit. Lawyers are unscrupulous, and judges are not First Amendment experts. I’ve been sued for over 11 years. Here’s an account that the same litigants who’ve repeatedly sued me seem uneager to bring to the court’s attention, because it simply relates facts supported by evidence and doesn’t make categorical assessments:
Texas Officials Michael Honeycutt and Tiffany Bredfeldt Allege Sexual Solicitation in Contradictory Testimony to the Arizona Superior Court, Implicating a Tucson Man Who’s Been Falsely Accused for 11 Years: FACIALLY VOID GAG ORDER STANDS; “WOMEN’S LAW,” TCEQ DISCREDITED
I would also be glad to host a digest of your story. There are no names you need to be reluctant to use. The First Amendment protects speech about anyone. It’s how you say what you say that matters. Also, do not contact anyone you are criticizing. Unwanted speech ABOUT a person is protected; unwanted speech TO a person may be grounds for another injunction. Speech in a one-to-many medium like a blog or a book cannot be said to be directed TO any particular person. It’s TO the world at large. See this blog’s Index of Posts for further info. Also follow relevant links concerning First Amendment law in the account mentioned above.
LikeLike
Thank you for your offer. I would be delighted to have an opportunity to tell my story. And yes, I will happily name names and use just facts. Not hard. As in my former psychologist, Dr. Mary Beth Reed of Missoula, Mt obtained a protective order against me based solely on her “fear.” In the process, she either disclosed material obtained in confidential counseling sessions and/or falsely stated information that would appear to have been obtained through the confidential counseling sessions. In addition, she embellished details.
Needless to say, this might take me a little time to put together and I certainly don’t want to make it too long.
LikeLike
What was she sore about? What was her motive?
LikeLike
So, as a bit of background, in psychotherapy, there is something called transference and something called countertransference. Transference is when the patient transfers feelings for some significant other onto the therapist. Although transference may seem somewhat creepy to an outside observer, it is a normal, healthy part of therapy that clues a therapist into what needs to be treated and they are trained in how to deal with it. Countertransference is when the therapist transfers feelings for a significant other onto the patient. I had suggested a friendship, which she took as a sexual overture. When I explained that that wasn’t my intent (I knew the ethics forbade it) she seemed disappointed. Everything that she did after that and from what I now know is that countertransference (as well as transference) was occurring. So I went to see another therapist and my conversations with the new therapist weren’t about my original problems but with my confusion over how the prior therapist had handled things. He even suggested that I call her and flat out ask her if she was interested in a sexual relationship. She didn’t answer the phone or return my call.
As best I can tell she saw my conversations with the new therapist and my increasing depression about the situation as a professional threat to me and decided to use my past (felony record) against me in order to make me compromised. Through all this, she never once attempted to talk to me.
She had trouble getting the PO, and finally told the victim’s advocate that she had received a “duty to warn” call from my new therapist, a phone call that the phone records show did not occur, and this was after he had left her a message 4 weeks before and she didn’t call him back.
LikeLike
What did the new therapist say about the “duty to warn” claim?
LikeLike
The new therapist consistently led both myself and my attornies that if he were to testify in court he would say that he did place a “duty to warn” call. My in-person discussions with him were ones of him clearly changing his story as new facts were presented to him. This is a classic case of professionals protecting each other. Don’t know how bad it is elsewhere but in Montana, it is virtually impossible to get one professional to go against another. To dig a little deeper into the facts, I believe it was on November 21. 2014 that I signed an authorization for him to discuss my treatment with her. He made a phone call to her that evening. She stated that she returned his call, “at that time,” but in another version of her events states that she did not talk to him. Regardless, the phone records show his call to her, later supported by her handwritten note of the voice message he left her complete with time and date. The phone records do not show any return call from her. She filed for the protective order late on December 23, and then on December 24 SHE called the new therapist. This was after she had told the victim’s advocate on the 23rd that she had received a “duty to warn” call from him. And of course he had called her on November 21 and she hadn’t even tried to call him until December 24 which has to make you wonder just how fearful of me she really was.
If you get a sense of outraged injustice with me, yeah, there is. And yes, I have records to back all of this up.
LikeLike
Good. Focus on the contradictions. Show don’t tell. Instead of saying you have records that support your story, SHOW the records. The records are the story. If they’re audio, clean the sound and upload them to Google Drive.
LikeLike
Before I go into posting these records there are a few things I should cover. First, it should be clear going through this that I have used a pseudonym, Richard Williamson, rather than my real name, Will MacPheat. The background on this is that I wrote and published a book, “Nightmares With My Psychologists.” Don’t mean that as a plug. I don’t consider it particularly engrossing reading, but I do feel it tells an important story. For what it’s worth I have priced as cheap as Creatspace/Kindle allow me to. Have also been working on a Freebooksy promotion but need to pay some other expenses first. It is much more important for me to get the story out rather than make money. I wrote the book under a pseudonym and redacted names in order to prevent my wife’s name from being associated with this and end up causing her a problem with her job. We have both moved on since then and I do not think it would impact our jobs now.
When I wrote the book, I created a website with the documents mentioned in the book:
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/home
I have just been working to put together somewhat of a detailing showing the evidence mentioned in my previous post. I have been working to change these files to ones where the names are not redacted. Also, trying to follow the references to exhibits can be confusing since there are many different filings involved. For example the reference to p.27, therapeutic notes in the first item under lies is to the police reports, p.27 of her notes that she handed over to the police. I think that the best order to review these in is as follows:
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/lies
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/police-reports
The point of the billing statement below is that it shows that she contacted me after stating she did not wish to have contact with me. It is important to note that she specifically did not provide a copy of this to the police. It is also noteworthy that it is this particular note that sent me into a state of deep depression that led to the text messages that became the basis for her protective order filing (and later misdemeanor charges).
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/billing-statement
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/temporaryprotectiveorder
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/kb-therapeutic-notes
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/marybethreednoteswithherattorney
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/marybethreedpartnotes
https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/phonerecords
LikeLike
Start with two pieces of contradictory evidence. Two things that can’t both be true
LikeLike
So, this is the first bit on conflicting statements. Both cannot be true. What I have done in order to make this easier to follow is to trim documents down to only those parts that show the statements at issue, then post them to separate web addresses. I am think hyperlinking those sites in my reply.
In Dr. Reed’s therapeutic notes dated 12/15/2014 (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/12-15-14policestatement) she states, “He has been referred to another therapist and I have furnished records to that clinician.” However, Kim Barta, the clinician she refers to here, has stated that he never received any records from her (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/kimbartanonotesreceived). Worse still, is that Dr. Mary Beth Reed tells a completely different story in her “Timeline of Contacts Involving William MacPheat (WM),” stating in her entry for 11/21/2014, “No records were ever sent, as WM apparently revoked the ROI-?” (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/11-15notesforattorney)
This particular set of notes were Dr. Mary Beth Reed’s personal notes for her conversation with her attorney, Josh Van de Wetering. She gave these to the city attorney which then meant that I was entitled to them as it was “in their files.” The court ordered this but redacted names and such. That’s the blackouts.
Keep in mind that her therapeutic note of 12/15/2014 is part of her therapeutic file on me, which is supposed to be accurate and a failure to keep it accurate is an ethical violation. Apparently, she isn’t sure about this revocation, but is attempting to use that as a cover up for the fact that she had previously stated that records were provided. The problem here is that the “Release of Information” was signed by me and given to Kim Barta on 11/21/2104. He called her on that date. That phone call has been well documented, and there is little dispute as to the content. The total length of that call was 56 seconds of which approximately 20 seconds of it was a message that Kim Barta left and that she has documented. Here she alleges that she left a voicemail consisting of instructions for Mr. Barta so that she can send him her records. Kim Barta has no documentation for that call, and the records of her office phone number show only the incoming call from Kim Barta – NO other calls to or from Kim Barta at any time on any day. But if it is true, she is alleging that Kim Barta committed an ethical violation because, from November 21, 2014 until I revoked his ROI on January 5, 2015, a span of nearly 7 weeks, Kim Barta apparently did not transmit the ROI to her. Which seems rather difficult to believe. Why would Kim Barta even call her and let her know that he had the ROI if he then had no intention to send her a copy? But I have wandered from the point. She lied about this in one way or the other. Both statements cannot be true, and one was made to a police officer and could be the basis for a misdemeanor charge.
LikeLike
Yes, this is the idea. Acquaint yourself with the Windows “Snipping Tool,” with the “Print Screen” (PRTSC) command, with cropping and underlining in MS Paint, etc. With very basic/free software, you can assemble a collage. I’m inclined to believe you just based on phrases the therapist uses, which echo many others’. To make an impression, though, you need to actually pull snips out and juxtapose them in a medium easily absorbed by the eye. Then you have to contextualize as you go.
LikeLike
This will be my third item in response to the suggestion to present items that are self-contradictory. These items get to be in an area where you can’t say 100% absolutely that the items are self-contradictory, but the area in which both items could possibly be true is very hard to find and would likely take a pretty convoluted explanation:
I refer to the diagnosis of both therapists (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/diagnosticcodes) which show no diagnosis of an obsessive disorder as well as Dr. Reed’s note of 12/30/14 https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/12-30-police-report). She needed a copy of the ROI before she could talk to him and she admits that she never received a copy of the ROI (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/11-15notesforattorney). If Kim Barta had said that I was the worst case of obsession he had seen in 30 years of clinical practice it would be inconceivable that he would not diagnose me that way. And if I was also the worst case of dangerousness he would certainly have documented it, made a duty to warn call, and documented that call. Plus he likely would have called her a second time between 11/21 and 12/24 when she had failed to return her call.
There was not a duty to warn call (see evidence presented elsewhere – the phone records don’t support it (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/phonerecords), she told the CVA she had received it before she even talked to Kim Barta. See note of 12/23 where she states that she told the Victim’s Advocate that she had received a phone call from Kim Barta (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/12-23notepolicereport). See the phone messages that show that no phone call occurred between Dr. Mary Beth Reed and Kim Barta from 11/21 until 12/24, and then the call on 12/24 was placed by Dr. Reed, not received from. She can’t make a call to him and then claim that he made a “duty to warn call to her (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/phonerecords). If you look higher up on the 23rd (see link above), you will see that she indicates that she gave the TRO paperwork the Victim’s Advocate on the 23rd and that it was filed then. Yet if you look at the last 7 pages of the TRO, you will find that on the first of these pages Dr. Reed documents the phone call the morning of the 24th. Her own documentation of his phone message does not show a duty to warn call, (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/11-15notesforattorney) (https://sites.google.com/site/nightmareswithpsychologists/1121phonemessage).
LikeLike
I felt like I should add a little clarification regarding the terms “restraining order” versus “protective order.” In Montana, there are two separate statutes. Restraining orders can be used, for example, to restrain someone from entering onto a disputed property. Or to stop a deposition from being taken. Thus they are not reported to NCIC. Protective orders are reported to NCIC and restrict one’s liberty without due process. IE, they take effect without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. It is a process that rewards lying. Once the Protective Order is issued the burden of proof is then on the person whose liberty has been restrained – not on the accuser. So, lie to get the PO, then the restrained person has to prove the lie. And you may not even have all the evidence and know what was said by the time you have your hearing.
LikeLike
We’re a federation of states, each with different idioms. I think in Arizona, where I live, what you call a “restraining order” is called a “protective order,” which is of course used generically with any kind of interpersonal injunction. These court orders go by dozens of names. We have, for example, the order of protection, the injunction against harassment, and the injunction against workplace harassment: three flavors. Liberal California has about eight.
LikeLike
All states have one or more standard orders that are petitioned for on standard forms that are intended to comply with Full Faith and Credit in the VAWA and that therefore will be reported to NCIC. In Montana it does appear that that is known as an Order of Protection. In addition, in pretty much any legal proceeding in any state you can file a motion with the judge to issue a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until the court can reach a more permanent decision. That type of restraining order, if the judge agrees to grant it, won’t, in general, comply with VAWA or be listed in the NCIC.
Although they go by many different names, the NCIC-VAWA orders are pretty easy to recognize. They all tend to include warnings about full faith and credit and about firearms possession. And they all involve a very short term legal process (but often leading to a long term order) running days not weeks. There is little or no due process despite the quasi-criminal nature of the NCIC.
LikeLike
In Arizona, no appeals hearing is slated. The defendant must apply (in writing) to be heard in his or her defense at all.
Yeah, most of these orders are boilerplate documents with different tick box titles at the top. The title the order takes may only depend on the nature of the relationship between the accuser and the accused.
LikeLike
I’m curious why in the other post you mentioned, you are saying there is no reason not to use “coercive” speech. Comments about a restraining order, naming names, directed at the general public would seem (IANAL) to be protected free speech. But if the goal is “coercive” meaning you are really directing the comments at the protected petitioner and hoping she sees the post and changes her behavior–isn’t that a violation or very close to a violation of the restraining order?
LikeLike
You get at the reason why judges so often get it wrong. All the law authorizes is that they may grant relief from unwanted contact. “Hopes,” “goals,” etc. are speculative and anyway speech to the public is beyond a judge’s discretion and jurisdiction to censor.
Coercion doesn’t have to be directed at anyone, per se. For example, consider any of the news stories cataloged here:
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/05/22/you-be-the-judge-on-those-who-blame-for-a-living-restraining-orders-and-the-golden-rule/
Do media report wrongdoing to exert a corrective/coercive influence? Sure.
LikeLike
Put another way, the court has no business poking its nose in unless speech is unwanted and directed to a specific person (that is, not intended to be read/heard by everyone) or is false or threatening.
Here is the law (cited by Prof. Eugene Volokh).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Falsely Accused.
LikeLike