“My eyes were opened to the potential for abuse with restraining orders after someone I love was accused of things they did not do and had a restraining order filed against them based on these false allegations. When you have personal experience with retaliatory or abusive restraining orders, it begins to appear that we’ve made the system easy to abuse, which is concerning for both those who are falsely accused and those who are truly in need of protective orders.”

—Kathy Haw (2022)

It’s worth noting initially that the introduction to Kathy Haw’s “How to Fight Restraining Orders Based on False Allegations,” which gives excellent advice, echoes a lot of the plaints that men’s rights activists (or MRAs, a term that’s largely used pejoratively) have registered for decades:

• shock and the dawning awareness of systemic inequity (see also “red pill” everything),
• the use of restraining orders to realize abusive or retaliatory ends,
• the ease, effectiveness, and rampancy of false accusation,
• and legal laxness that enables victimization of the innocent and consequently discredits actual female victims of domestic or other abuse.

Review responses to these claims, which are empirically based, and you’ll find that every one of them has been roundly ridiculed by kneejerk feminists, whose repudiation of them is based on gender solidarity and no experience of being on the business end of a pointed finger at all.

For starters then, here’s a woman, who may herself identify as a feminist in other respects, saying the same things MRAs have.

Chances are, though, that Ms. Haw won’t be mocked by the sis men behind the likes of We Hunted the Mammoth, which appears to be closing shop due to waning enthusiasm, or “RationalWiki.”

Some women out there—notice I said “some”—use restraining orders to try to ruin another person’s (usually a man’s) reputation. In the worst-case scenario, he could even lose his job, especially if his job requires the use of a firearm. He can also lose his home and access to his children—all because of made-up, spiteful lies or lies that are crafted in retaliation.

It isn’t solidarity with a loved one alone that motivates Ms. Haw’s observations: It’s firsthand knowledge, which is what differentiates the so-called “red pill” crowd from its critics.

In our case, we are among the lucky ones. We are among the respondents who were able to catch this petitioner in several lies, and when they called her witness to the stand, he also lied. Their stories about the same event were different. The court commissioner said that she could not believe these allegations and that the person who filed them was less than credible.

After researching this problem on the Internet, it seems that this is a more common occurrence than I ever believed possible. Virtually any woman who gets angry with a guy for something is capable of using this legal process as a weapon. And it can be a devastating thing if they’re able to lie well enough that the restraining order is granted.

Ms. Haw examines the paper-thin standards of evidence applied to abuse accusations and the potential fallout from being successfully misrepresented to the courts, and she offers sage and practical advice on how to combat a bum wrap. Her perspectives are recommended reading.

---

There’s nothing mincing or apologetic about criminal defense attorney Veronica Barton’s takes on courthouse gamesmanship in the least, and her numerous YouTube videos on defending against false allegations are not only experience-based; they’re expert.

Hers is brass-tacks advice that any defendant should take to heart. No commentary is necessary other than to point out that Ms. Barton practices in California and certain evidentiary standards she explicates are specific to her state and may differ from those of others.

Copyright © 2023 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*As for the likelihood that a trial attorney will be panned on “RationalWiki” as an “MRA,” I’d rate it at subzero.