Disregarded Reality Checks to VAWA: Highlighting the Efforts of Family Law Attorney Lisa Scott

“Congressional sources have revealed some significant changes will be made to federal domestic violence laws. Bowing to pressure from men’s rights groups who for years have claimed that the Federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is biased against men, congressional leaders will soon announce a revamping of this legislation.

“In recognition of the fact that there may be a few men out there who get beaten up by their wives but are too ashamed to admit it, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will be renamed the Violence Against Women and Wimps and Wussies Act (VAWAWAWA).”

—“VAWAWAWA: Federal Law Finally Catches Up with Reality

That’s Lisa Scott, a Bellevue, Washington, family attorney who knows a whole lot more than almost anyone about the reality of domestic conflict, satirically poking defenders of the Violence Against Women Act (as biased an act of legislation as has ever been conceived) squarely in the eye.

The Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, which demonizes men, takes as granted that they’re always the villains and could never be victims themselves.

Ms. Scott is one of those rare, intrepid women of parts and integrity—see also Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, and Phyllis Schlafly, among a few select others—who made a determined effort to temper the iniquity of “women’s law” in the years before the most recent decade or so, during which light has been smothered by heat and noise (or what might be called “Tweat”).

Victims of VAWA, who were powerless to begin with against a billion-dollar federal juggernaut flanked by thousands of media-savvy minions, have today been marginalized by the #MeToo movement to the point of invisibility.

This post, which is meant as an homage to writing Ms. Scott did between 2001 and 2011, endeavors only to highlight her perspectives, if not simply because they’re right then for those who will appreciate them.

They are no less current today than when they were first published.

Copyright © 2020 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*For more on male suicide: “First Amendment Rights from Beyond the Grave: Defense of a Suicide’s Publication of His Final Words by the Randazza Legal Group”; “False Accusations and Suicide: Some Headlines about the Effects of Finger-Pointing and Legal Abuse (Culled for the Empathically Challenged)”; Wendy McElroy (Fox News, 2002); Prof. Augustine J. Kposowa, Ph.D. (Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 2000); Dan Bilsker, Ph.D., and Jennifer White, Ed.D. (BC Medical Journal, 2011); Christie Blatchford (National Post, 2017); Suzette Reynoso (Eyewitness News, 2017); Lindsay Holmes and Anna Almendrala (Huffington Post, 2016).

Kim Cheezum Prays for Chick-fil-A as My Dad Starves to Death

Kim Cheezum, Kimberly Cheezum, Kim Bredfeldt, Mrs. Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Trinity Montrose, TRPC, Montrose CO, Kim Cheezum, Kim Cheezum Pomona Elementary, Kimberly Cheezum Pomona Elementary, Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum

Kim Cheezum

This post briefly marvels at the callous indifference of people who support lies that tear lives apart.

For the benefit of the reader, the subject of this post, Kimberly Cheezum, wife of Presbyterian pastor Jeremy Cheezum, is the sister of a man, Phil Bredfelt, who, in conjunction with his wife, serially prosecuted the writer from 2006–2018 claiming abuses that ranged from harassment to sexual assault and violent danger. All were the false concoctions of a married woman desperate to hide that she had indulged what might be characterized as a pang in her pants, and all of the allegations were eventually dismissed.

In the last round of prosecutions, Kim Cheezum’s dad, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, M.D., a Presbyterian deacon, meant to join his son and daughter-in-law in the fun, but proceedings were suspended before he had the chance.

That was in 2016, which is the year this post concerns. At the time, the writer had maintained this blog about false accusation and abused and abusive civil court procedures every day for five years, which Kim Cheezum couldn’t help but have known only too well.


Kim Cheezum, the author of the Facebook entreaty above, teaches children (“!!!!”) at Pomona Elementary in Montrose, Colorado.

Having been out of court for a year, I’ve had a chance to review the whos and whys and whens and whats of a legal matter that chewed up a quarter of my life (and in the fullness of time will probably prove to have shortened that life besides impoverished it).

Above is an image from Facebook. It’s a request from Kim Cheezum, sister of one of my accusers, Phil Bredfeldt, and sister-in-law of the other, Tiffany Bredfeldt, that the restaurant chain Chick-fil-A please come open a franchise in her hometown of Montrose, Colorado, where her husband, Jeremy Cheezum, is a Presbyterian pastor (Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church).

Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Kim Cheezum, Kimberly Cheezum

Jeremy Cheezum, in the glow of health, shown in place my father, who starved to death while Cheezum and his wife’s family sought my false imprisonment and whose appearance in his final days, gaunt and ravaged as it was, would horrify the viewer

Noteworthy in this context is that I had applied to Rev. Cheezum and several of his peers for help with gaining relief from Tiffany Bredfeldt’s false accusations many years before.

At the time Kim Cheezum posted her request on Facebook, then, I had been lied about for 10 years, had informed her family that I’d been lied about, had asked for her husband’s help, and had maintained a blog for five years denouncing false accusation.

In March of 2016, I was served papers (while I was in court responding to a separate prosecution by one of their stooges) informing me that after having already been forced to live in the shadow of Kim Cheezum’s family’s lies for a decade that her brother, her sister-in-law, and her father were seeking my imprisonment.

Why? For reporting those lies, lies that would be glaringly obscene to a child.

A month earlier, February 2016, while the lawsuit was being carefully typed up by one of the family’s sleazy lawyers, what was on Kim Cheezum’s mind? Her stomach.

About seven months into the 2016 prosecution, my father succumbed to cancer by starving to death after years that were diminished by Kim Cheezum’s family’s self-indulgent lies and games.

I’m a vegetarian. My dad wasn’t. If he weren’t dead, he would probably have liked to have Chick-fil-A, too.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

Emails by PCA Pastors Kevin Hale, Daren Dietmeier, and Jeremy Cheezum Used to Support Lies, Lawbreaking, and Abuse

Kevin Hale, Jeremy Cheezum, DietmeierDaren, USAF, Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Kevin Hale, revkevinhale, ozarkdogmatics, Christ Church, Christ Church Conway, ozarkdogmatics.com, Ozark Dogmatics, Conway Arkansas, Pastor Kevin Hale, Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Montrose Colorado, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo Illinois

From left to right, Rev. Kevin Hale of Christ Church in Conway, Arkansas; Rev. Jeremy Cheezum of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Montrose, Colorado; and Rev. Daren Dietmeier of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Aledo, Illinois

Emails authored by pastors Kevin Hale and Daren Dietmeier of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and displayed in this post were submitted in evidence to the Arizona Superior Court in 2013 to procure what has since been recognized as an illegal speech injunction—the intention of which was to conceal false testimony to the court and false reporting to law enforcement officials—and the pastors’ emails are accordingly public documents.

The unlawful injunction they were used to obtain, which was imposed without a trial and which deprived the writer of his constitutionally protected freedom of speech for five years, was dissolved in 2018, and a family that had endeavored to have the writer imprisoned based on filthy and/or frivolous allegations spanning 12 years is today prohibited by mandate of the court from harassing him further.

Note to the reader: When the writer appealed to the ministers named in this post for help in gaining relief from persistent false accusations by church insiders, he had already existed in the shadow cast by those lies for six years.


Probably the Presbyterian ministers pictured above wouldnt be grinning so broadly if members of their congregations had accused them, for example, of inappropriately touching their children. Whispered nicknames like Creepy Kevin, Germy Jeremy, and Dirty Dietmeier are punishing, especially on the job security of men in professions like theirs. The tolls are far worse when the innuendo and gossip are the products of lies.

Many who’ve been lied about to the courts feel the acid burn of such labels even if they’re never put into words. I’ve been lied about a lot and for a long time, and I have felt the actual words.



This message was communicated to me by email on the first day of what would become 12 years of legal abuse by a woman named Tiffany Bredfeldt and her husband, Phil Bredfeldt, sister- and brother-in-law of Rev. Jeremy Cheezum.

To relate the background as briefly as possible, Tiffany Bredfeldt had nightly lingered outside of my house for months in 2005 and taunted me with references to her body and underwear, apparently relishing the attention. Then she lied to the police and the court to conceal her misconduct when I learned she was married and demanded an explanation—and she has lied over and over since, as the testimony I’ve included below shows plainly.

Tiffany Bredfeldt in 2005

The message above was sent after Tiffany and Phil Bredfeldt had obtained a court injunction forbidding me from responding to it. Sort of like a four-letter nyah-nyah. The couple thought it would be cute to send a copy of the message to the police, apparently to reinforce the idea that they were afraid for their lives (because why wouldn’t you provoke someone you were afraid of?). The restraining order, which was petitioned by Tiffany Bredfeldt, particularly emphasized that I was a danger to her husband, a guy I had never met, and shouldn’t be allowed to talk to him.

I was an aspirant kids’ writer with a puppy and a parent in chemotherapy. Maybe the spoiled brats, both of whom were reared in the church, thought that was funny also.

Certainly evident is that everyone I appealed to for relief from lies that would continue for 11 years (and may be repeated and embellished upon today) couldn’t have cared less.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Tiffany Bredfeldt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between the years 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The woman has lied impulsively, randomly, and wickedly and then lied to conceal the lying—and gotten by with a little help from her friends. Her husband, Phil, after whom one of Rev. Cheezum’s kids may be named, was incidentally privy to all of these statements and has supported them fully, including under oath.










Jeremy Cheezum, Kevin Hale, Daren Dietmeier, Dr. L. Roy Taylor, Pastor Kevin Hale, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Phil Bredfeldt, Rev. Kevin Hale, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Paul Sagan, Dr. Roy Taylor, Roy Taylor PCA, Kevin Hale PCA, Jeremy Cheezum PCA, Daren Dietmeier PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA, Christ Church Conway, Trinity Aledo, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Trinity Montrose, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, TRPC, Covenant Church Fayetteville, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt MD, Tiffany Hargis


Jeremy Cheezum, Kevin Hale, Dr. L. Roy Taylor, Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Kevin Hale, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Phil Bredfeldt, Rev. Kevin Hale, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Paul Sagan, Dr. Roy Taylor, Roy Taylor PCA, Kevin Hale PCA, Jeremy Cheezum PCA, Daren Dietmeier PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA, Christ Church Conway, Trinity Aledo, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Trinity Montrose, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, TRPC, Covenant Church Fayetteville, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt MD, Tiffany Hargis


People of moral character might call the woman psycho, or they might call her evil.

Here are a couple of alternative interpretations by men I appealed to for help seven years ago whose profession it is to conscientiously listen.


Rev. Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Christ Church, Christ Church Conway, Conway AR, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA


In the email above, Rev. Kevin Hale offhandedly dismisses an appeal for help I sent him (unread) as “porn spam,” and the person he says he pities is the woman whose lies are glossed above. Rev. Hale’s addressee in the email is Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, to whom I had also appealed. Rev. Cheezum played middleman during this interlude, snatching up my appeals for help, which he also disregarded, and funneling them to my accuser’s husband, Phil Bredfeldt, his brother-in-law. Phil Bredfeldt would then use the appeals to coerce an illegal speech injunction in 2013 (putting me at risk of incarceration for exposing his wife’s lies even by “word of mouth”) and later (2016) to accuse me of felony extortion. The extortion ploy was ditched when it failed to scare me into abandoning my defense and agreeing to shut up, and the unconstitutional court order was eventually dissolved. Had it not been, this publication would have been grounds for my imprisonment.


Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo IL, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA, Trinity Aledo


In response to the appeal I sent him, Rev. Daren Dietmeier concluded I should invest in a book of sudoku puzzles, perhaps, or take up crochet.

A woman who was scheduled to testify when I was most recently prosecuted (2016) had characterized Tiffany Bredfeldt’s behavior toward me this way:

Jeremy Cheezum, Kevin Hale, Daren Dietmeier, L. Roy Taylor, Dr. L. Roy Taylor, Pastor Kevin Hale, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Phil Bredfeldt, Rev. Kevin Hale, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Daren Dietmeier, Rev. Paul Sagan, Dr. Roy Taylor, Roy Taylor PCA, Kevin Hale PCA, Jeremy Cheezum PCA, Daren Dietmeier PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, PCA, Christ Church Conway, Trinity Aledo, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Trinity Montrose, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, TRPC, Covenant Church Fayetteville, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt MD, Tiffany Hargis

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online since the beginning of last year and is presumably known to Rev. Cheezum, though I suppose it’s unlikely he has brought it to the attention of his fraternity brothers Kevin and Daren, whose denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, asserts, “Godliness is founded on truth.” (Besides Pastors Hale, Cheezum, and Dietmeier, I had apparently appealed to a Pastor Paul Sagan of Covenant Church in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and an L. Roy Taylor, whose title is stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America and who’s seemingly the church’s top administrator. Needless to say, they also turned a blind eye.)

Rev. Hale, who is married, expressed his sympathies for a liar who had violated the bounds of the marriage covenant, a subject he probably has occasion to speak of often.

Rev. Dietmeier, a married former serviceman who would unwittingly be made an accomplice to a violation of the liberties this country’s flag stands for, simply scoffs. Worthy of note is that that flag is the banner image on his Facebook page and that that page is plastered with those pithy digital posters, one of which quotes Mark Twain on the importance of reading and another of which claims something like, “Everyone sins. Christians repent.” If Rev. Dietmeier is sincere about that, there’s a comment section below.

God sees everything; we grieve Him when we claim His name in Christ, and act as if we’ve never had a saving experience with Him at all. Our actions, public and private, must meet the words we utter [Rev. Daren Dietmeier, “The Fear of the LORD,” Aug. 4, 2019].

My father starved to death in 2016, alone in a cramped room in a cut-rate nursing home, while the latest series of prosecutions brought or motivated by the family this post concerns was raging. I spent the last night of my dad’s life preoccupied with another family’s sins, sins that have now been allowed to fester for almost 14 years. One of that family’s members who was slated to testify against me, moreover, was Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, M.D., a Presbyterian deacon.

In the early hours of the Sunday morning when my father stopped breathing, while I was poring over legal jabberwocky, the pastors mentioned in this post were probably dreaming of the inspirational sermons they would deliver on the importance of truth, love, and charity.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*For those who might wonder what I could have said in my appeals that would have urged seasoned clergymen to dismiss them as the ramblings of a stalker, here are a couple of examples.


Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum



I wish I could say I haven’t had cause to revise my impressions.

Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Daren Dietmeier, Rev Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Rev Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA, PCA Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Daren Dietmeier, Rev Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Rev Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA, PCA Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Daren Dietmeier, Rev Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Rev Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA, PCA Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Daren Dietmeier, Rev Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Rev Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA, PCA Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Daren Dietmeier, Rev Daren Dietmeier, Pastor Daren Dietmeier, Rev Kevin Hale, Pastor Kevin Hale, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCA, PCA

Christ Church’s Sara Rojas Part of 11 Years of Lying and Abuse

The text of this post is based on an earlier one originally titled, “Uncle Phil Said He’s a SICK F–K.” That phrase was one I was labeled with in a document submitted to the police by the brother of Sara (Bredfeldt) Rojas, a staff member of Christ Church Milwaukee, whose two children are the inspiration of this post. Those children’s aunt, uncle, and grandfather, who are today prohibited by mandate of the court from harassing me further, endeavored to have me imprisoned based on false, filthy, and/or frivolous allegations. They employed unscrupulous attorneys and exploited laws that are typically criticized by conservatives as destructive to the family, conservatives, it’s worth noting, like those of Christ Church Milwaukee’s evangelical Christian congregation. Conservatives criticize the laws for good reason: While advocates of these laws pay lip service to child welfare, children are arguably the predominant victims of the laws’ commonplace abuse. Among the ways children are damaged is exposure to the twisted games that self-indulgent adults play.


This message was communicated to me by email on the first day of what would become 12 years of legal harassment by the aunt and uncle of the children who inspired this post. Their uncle Phil I had never met. Their auntie Tiffany I knew better than I ever should have. She had nightly lingered outside of my house for months and taunted me with references to her body and underwear, apparently relishing the attention. Then she lied to the police and the court to conceal her misconduct when I learned she was married and demanded an explanation—and she has lied over and over since (as testimony I’ve included below shows plainly). The message above was sent after Phil and Tiffany Bredfeldt had obtained a court injunction forbidding me from responding to it. Sort of like a four-letter nyah-nyah. The couple thought it would be cute to send a copy of the message to the police, apparently to reinforce the idea that they were afraid for their lives (because why wouldn’t you provoke someone you were afraid of?). I was an aspirant kids’ writer with a puppy and a parent in chemotherapy. Maybe the spoiled brats thought that was funny also.

I was most recently prosecuted by liars in 2016. What made that year different—and what made this publication possible—was that the liars sought my imprisonment (to cover up lies), and I requested and was granted court-appointed representation.

What’s more, the attorneys I was granted were excellent. Allegations spread across multiple prosecutions were thrown out in their entirety.

Maybe I have divine intervention to thank. To be certain, the God of the Bible despises bullies, especially rich, self-satisfied ones, which is what this post is about.

Like many or most of those who visit this site and identify with its accounts and criticisms of false accusation and abused and abusive laws, I’ve been lied about a lot and for a long time, and the lies probably continue today.

I have no way of knowing.

What I do know, because I know I’ve been monitored for as long as I’ve been lied about, is that there’s no one I’ve appealed to for help over the years who can possibly be unaware of the truth today.

Sara Rojas, Mrs. Roberto Rojas, Sara Bredfeldt, Sara Bredfeldt Rojas, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

Sara Rojas, daughter of a doctor, wife of a doctor, who has lived a privileged life while ignoring her family’s corruption of others’

That includes Sara Rojas, today children’s and women’s ministries coordinator of Christ Church Milwaukee under Rev. Jon Talley. If mention of the church attracts any of his congregants to this post and site, so much the better, because I think they’re exactly the kind of forthrightly ethical people who are offended by the excesses of feminism and #MeToo movementeers.

I appealed several times to Mrs. Rojas for aid in gaining relief from persistent false accusations made by her brother’s wife, Tiffany Bredfeldt. I reasoned a woman whose father and husband were doctors would appreciate the harm such behavior could cause, and I reasoned, wrongly, that she would care or that her Christian conscience would bid her to.

Not only did I never hear from her, but her father, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, a Presbyterian deacon who got rich flacking health insurance, volunteered to testify in court eight years later to have me jailed while my father lay dying and to have me forbidden, besides, from ever sharing the truth with anyone in any way for the rest of my own life. He wasted his time and years more of mine.

I had also appealed to Mrs. Rojas’s brother-in-law, Jeremy Cheezum, who, like Rev. Jon Talley, whose congregation Mrs. Rojas serves, is a Presbyterian minister, which seemed like an ideal person to negotiate a remediation. I never heard from Rev. Cheezum, either. I had told him that cleaning up Auntie Tiffany’s lies would be costly and that those lies had left me in no position to foot the bill. This “devout” Christian family represented my settlement appeals as extortion to the court. The allegation was baseless, and it was abandoned when I declined to be intimidated and submit to their terms.

Their terms boiled down to disappear and die.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Christiano Rojas and Maria Rojas’s aunt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The children’s aunt has lied impulsively, randomly, and wickedly and then lied to conceal the lying, and I have lived in the shadow of those lies every minute of every day since they began, while Sara Rojas has reared two beautiful children and enjoyed “spending time outdoors with her family and cooking up new recipes in her kitchen.” (The children’s uncle Philip, Mrs. Rojas’s brother, was incidentally privy to all of these statements and has supported them fully, including under oath.)




Dr Roberto Rojas, Aurora St Lukes, Roberto Rojas MD, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee







Jeremy Cheezum, Ray Bredfeldt, Roberto Rojas MD, Dr. Roberto Rojas, Aurora St Lukes, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee


Tiffany Bredfeldt, Jeremy Cheezum, Ray Bredfeldt, Dr. Roberto Rojas, Roberto Rojas MD, Aurora St Lukes, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee


People of moral character might call the woman a crackpot, a Jezebel, a monster, or a pageant of much coarser things. What they couldn’t call the woman is a victim.

Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Montrose, TRPC, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Kim Cheezum, Fletcher Cheezum, Bailey Cheezum, Logan Cheezum, PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

So Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Sara Rojas’s brother-in-law, tells his followers at Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Montrose, Colorado, and I think Sara would say she agrees with the directive. The message their children register, however, may be very different: Do what you want. Don’t get caught. Lie. Wealthy people love you. Nothing else matters.

I’ve never met Sara Rojas or her kids. The children, however, I pity, because I don’t think this conduct is a kind that should be role-modeled, and I think a children’s and women’s ministries coordinator should be particularly sensitive to that. Some might consider deceiving law enforcement officials and judges against the law.

Mrs. Rojas and her husband, Dr. Roberto F. Rojas, an M.D. at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center, have seemed cool with it, and to me that’s worse role-modeling yet. Mrs. Rojas’s father, moreover, Grampa Bredfeldt, is presumably a cherished figure in her children’s lives, and he’s a man who sought to have another man his family had already wronged for 10 years gagged and locked in a concrete box to save face and what I think is most precious to this family: money.

A woman Grampa Bredfeldt was scheduled to testify with in 2016 had characterized his daughter-in-law’s behavior toward me this way:

Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Tiffany Bredfeldt PhD, Dr. Tiffany Bredfeldt, Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online since the beginning of last year and is presumably known to Dr. and Mrs. Rojas, whose denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, asserts:

Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious…than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

By the church’s own standard, Sara Rojas and her family’s fruits are rotten.

Pastor Jon Talley, Rev Jon Talley, Jon Talley, Christ Church Milwaukee

I’m reminded of a Biblical quotation about whited sepulchers, and some readers of this post may be too.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*My father starved to death in 2016, without dignity or grandchildren, alone in a cramped room in a cut-rate nursing home, while the latest series of prosecutions brought or motivated by the family this post concerns was raging. I spent the last night of my dad’s life preoccupied with another family’s shit. These people have allowed their disease to corrupt and diminish others’ lives for almost 14 years.

Tim Hargis, Father of My False Accuser of over 11 Years, Retires from Banking to “Spend More Time on His Cattle Farms”

“I’m an old cowhand, from the Rio Grande, but my legs ain’t bowed, and my cheeks ain’t tanned….”


Tim Hargis, Cattleman Tim Hargis, Rancher Tim Hargis, Timothy Hargis, Galyn Hargis, Tim and GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn and Tim Hargis, Gay Hargis, Hargis 4GN Ranch, Jon Hargis, Hargis Ranch, First Security Bank, FSB, Tiffany Hargis, Arkansas, First Security Bancorp, Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association, First Security Bank Springdale Emma, North American Corriente Association

Tim Hargis reportedly “runs” 200 beef cattle on his “fourth-generation family ranch” in Hindsville, Arkansas. The writer, who has been falsely accused by Hargis’s immediate and extended family of sexual aggression, stalking, and posing a violent threat; temporarily denied possession of firearms (of which he has never owned any); sued while one parent was in chemotherapy; sued again while the other starved to death; sued to be imprisoned (twice), etc., was an aspirant children’s humorist who has been a vegetarian since he was 16. Allegations against the writer by Tiffany Hargis, who testified in 2013 that she was in psychiatric care, were dismissed in 2018 in their entirety.


Timothy Hargis, father of my false accuser of over a decade, apparently retired from his post as a Springdale, Arkansas First Security Bank vice president in July. My attention was otherwise occupied, which would probably disappoint Tim to learn.

Tim Hargis has determinedly ensured that his family’s stockyard smell has tainted every breath I’ve drawn for almost 14 years.

Tim Hargis’s married daughter, Tiffany Hargis (Bredfeldt), who has been in psychiatric care, formed what for brevity’s sake I’ll call an infatuation upon our meeting about this time in 2005. She hung around outside of my residence up to and past midnight for months and engaged in antics she would not have had her absentee husband or her scolding mom been present. Tiffany told me her fundamentalist parents had constantly made her “feel like a whore” growing up, which I would contend is the motive of all that I’ll disclose below; monsters like her are the products of nurture, not nature. Suffice it to further say that Tiffany Hargis, who had been married for four years, represented herself as a single woman living alone with a dog.

Since I learned she had a husband and demanded an explanation from her, she has lied profusely to law enforcement officials and judges to whitewash her conduct and retool herself a victim. I expect she’s still lying today. She has interests to protect, like inheritance of her father’s “cattle farms in Hindsville and Huntsville,” for instance. Her husband’s family is well-to-do, too.


Tim Hargis, Timothy Hargis, Tim and GaLyn Hargis, GaLyn and Tim Hargis, Gay Hargis, Hargis 4GN Ranch, banker Tim Hargis


Based on what I’ve been told over the years, that’s how Tiffany was reared: to marry well, that is, wealthy, which is why I think she was catting around my doorstep. The husband, Philip, who has apparently dumped her, was an obsequious twerp.

I could report that the woman was cloistered as a child (that is, kept indoors with mom while her father and brother, Jon Hargis, “shot shit”), that her friends and boyfriends were screened and rejected if deemed unsuitable, that she showed me a choker she had fashioned to remind herself of what it was to be “kept on a leash,” that she told me her grandfather (Tim Hargis’s dad, I guess) had killed himself and left a gory mess she resented having to mop up, etc., but I no longer value the force of narrative. Others who may find themselves in similar situations with inveterate liars in today’s political climate are advised to take the cue: People will discredit or ignore what you say. That especially includes cops and judges. Optics will always be against you.



Instead of defending yourself with a narrative, get the liar to talk on record as much as you can and then quote her (or him, as the case may be).

That’s what I’ve done since an illegal speech injunction that was imposed on me in 2013 was lifted last year and the court put this family on notice that legal process isn’t a playground regardless of how much money you have to burn.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Tiffany Hargis (Bredfeldt) gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s short, and its contradictions are palpable. The woman has lied impulsively and viciously and then lied to conceal the lying. Phil Bredfeldt, her “husband,” has followed his wife’s lead, nodding when expected to and signing beside the X’s.












Tim and his wife, Galyn Hargis, who have watched this happen, were informed their daughter was a liar at least as far back as 2007, and I more than suspect they already knew that. (Tiffany Hargis’s allegations were dismissed in 2018.)

Maybe the four people who didn’t miss Tim Hargis’s retirement announcement on First Security Bank’s Facebook page and offered their congratulations—Ron Harrison, Brenda S. Rascoe, DeLane Johnson McCoy, and James Bradley—would also care to congratulate him on his success as a parent.

If I were to congratulate him, it would be for what was likely an unguarded moment of honesty. Tim Hargis reportedly isn’t retiring from a 40-year career in finance to spend more time with his family but to “spend more time on his cattle farms.”

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Tim Hargis’s sister, Jamie Hargis Witmer, who presumably shares in the profits of the “fourth-generation family ranch,” is a licensed professional counselor (LPC) in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I dimly recall writing to her many, many years ago to ask for help gaining relief from abuse by her niece. A therapist, she bills herself as a “behavioral health” specialist. Jamie Witmer’s son—her own son—Daniel Witmer, Tim and GaLyn Hargis’s nephew, is a plainly troubled guy who is reported to be a convicted felon, which may lead the reader to ask, what kind of people are these? It’s a question this writer has asked himself for over a dozen years.

Jamie Hargis Witmer, Ron Witmer

Jeremy Cheezum Complicit in 11 Years of Lying, Abuse

This post was formerly titled, “Uncle Phil Said He’s a SICK F–K.” That phrase was one I was labeled with in a document submitted to the police by the brother-in-law of “Rev.” Jeremy Cheezum, whose four children are the inspiration of this post. Those children’s aunt, uncle, and grandfather, who are today prohibited by mandate of the court from harassing me further, endeavored to have me imprisoned based on false, filthy, and/or frivolous allegations. They employed unscrupulous attorneys and exploited laws that are typically criticized by conservatives as destructive to the family, conservatives, it’s worth noting, like those of Pastor Cheezum’s evangelical Christian congregation, which Montrose Mirror columnist Gail Marvel has reported is mostly “young families with children.” Conservatives criticize the laws for good reason: While advocates of these laws pay lip service to child welfare, children are arguably the predominant victims of the laws’ commonplace abuse. Among the ways children are damaged is exposure to the twisted games that self-indulgent adults play.


This message was communicated to me by email on the first day of what would become 12 years of legal harassment by the aunt and uncle of the children who inspired this post. Their uncle Phil I had never met. Their auntie Tiffany I knew better than I ever should have. She had nightly lingered outside of my house for months and taunted me with references to her body and underwear, apparently relishing the attention. Then she lied to the police and the court to conceal her misconduct when I learned she was married and demanded an explanation—and she has lied over and over since (as testimony I’ve included below shows plainly). The message above was sent after Phil and Tiffany Bredfeldt had obtained a court injunction forbidding me from responding to it. Sort of like a four-letter nyah-nyah. The couple thought it would be cute to send a copy of the message to the police, apparently to reinforce the idea that they were afraid for their lives (because why wouldn’t you provoke someone you were afraid of?). I was an aspirant kids’ writer with a puppy and a parent in chemotherapy. Maybe the spoiled brats thought that was funny also.

Like many or most of those who visit this site and identify with its accounts and criticisms of false accusation and abused and abusive laws, I’ve been lied about a lot and for a long time, and the lies may continue today.

I have no way of knowing.

What I do know, because I know I’ve been monitored for as long as I’ve been lied about, is that there’s no one I’ve appealed to for help over the years who can possibly be unaware of the truth today.

Jeremy Cheezum, Counselor Jeremy Cheezum, Innovation at Work Interview with Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Watch D.O.G.S., Watch Dads of Great Students, Trinity Montrose, TRPC, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Montrose, Kimberly Cheezum, Kim Cheezum, PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, Rocky Mountain Presbytery, Ray Bredfeldt, Ruth Bredfeldt, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy

Above, in an interview with InSync Media CEO Laura Williams, Jeremy Cheezum, pastor of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Montrose, Colorado, and “volunteer coordinator” of an elementary school mentoring program called Watch D.O.G.S. (“Watch Dads of Great Students”) jokingly clarifies the program’s requirement of a background check for participation. Thanks to Rev. Cheezum’s family’s sleaze, it’s uncertain the author of this post would pass such a check. Rev. Cheezum’s church hosts a weekly “Men’s Coffee Klatch.” This post’s contents could be mined for many rich topics of discussion, among them repentance and atonement, men’s and fathers’ rights, and spousal fidelity. Of note is that Rev. Cheezum, unlike his brother-in-law’s wife, actually wears his wedding ring.

That includes Jeremy Cheezum, today minister of Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church (TRPC) in Montrose, Colorado. If mention of his name attracts any of his congregants to this post and site, so much the better, because I think they’re exactly the kind of forthrightly ethical people who are offended by the excesses of feminism and #MeToo movementeers.

I appealed several times to Rev. Cheezum for aid in gaining relief from persistent false accusations made by his brother-in-law’s wife, Tiffany Bredfeldt. I reckoned a pastor, a person who might well identify himself as an evangelist of truth, would be eager to serve the truth and promote peace.

Not only did I never hear from him, but his wife’s father, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, a Presbyterian deacon who got rich flacking health insurance, volunteered to testify in court five years later to have me jailed while my father lay dying and to have me forbidden, besides, from ever sharing the truth with anyone in any way for the rest of my own life. He wasted his time and years more of mine.

In my appeals to Pastor Cheezum, I had told him that cleaning up Auntie Tiffany’s lies would be costly and that those lies had left me in no position to foot the bill. The good reverend passed my appeals along to his in-laws whose shyster lawyers represented them to the court as extortion (and threatened a felony prosecution in federal court). The allegation was baseless, and it was abandoned when I declined to be intimidated and submit to their terms.

Their terms boiled down to disappear and die.

Here’s a synopsis of statements Fletcher Cheezum, Bailey Cheezum, (Philip) Logan Cheezum, and Lydia Cheezum’s aunt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between 2006 and 2017. The story they tell isn’t the half of it, but it’s succinct, and its contradictions are palpable. The children’s aunt has lied impulsively, randomly, and wickedly and then lied to conceal the lying. (The children’s uncle Philip, Rev. Cheezum’s brother-in-law, after whom one of the kids may be named, was incidentally privy to all of these statements and has supported them fully, including under oath.)












People of moral character might call the woman a crackpot, a Jezebel, a monster, or a pageant of much coarser things. What they couldn’t call the woman is a victim.

Jeremy Cheezum, Trinity Montrose, PCA, Presbyterian Church in America, Colorado, Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum

So Jeremy Cheezum tells his followers. The message his children register, however, may be very different: Do what you want. Don’t get caught. Lie. Wealthy people love you. Nothing else matters.

I’ve never met Rev. Cheezum or his kids. The children, however, I pity, because I don’t think this conduct is a kind that should be role-modeled. Some might consider deceiving law enforcement officials and judges against the law.

Rev. Cheezum and his wife, Kim, an elementary school teacher, have seemed cool with it, and to me that’s worse role-modeling yet. And what a simple Google search suggests is that their kids spend a lot of time with Grampa Bredfeldt, a man who sought to have me shut up and locked away to save face and expense (but who probably supports the Cheezums generously—both in church and out of it).

A woman Grampa Bredfeldt was scheduled to testify with in 2016 had characterized his daughter-in-law’s behavior toward me this way:

The email containing the woman’s remarks has been online since the beginning of last year and is presumably known to Rev. Cheezum, whose denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, asserts:

Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to promote holiness according to our Saviour’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more pernicious…than that which brings truth and falsehood upon the same level.

By the church’s own standard, Jeremy Cheezum and his family’s fruits are rotten.

I’m reminded of a Biblical quotation about whited sepulchers, and some readers of this post may be too.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*My father starved to death in 2016, without dignity or grandchildren, alone in a cramped room in a cut-rate nursing home, while the latest series of prosecutions brought or motivated by the family this post concerns was raging. I spent the last night of my dad’s life preoccupied with another family’s dysfunction. These people have allowed their disease to corrupt and diminish others’ lives for almost 14 years.

**My impression of Jeremy Cheezum’s reaction to this post (which may give him more credit than he deserves):

Jeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, MontroseJeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, MontroseJeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, MontroseJeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, MontroseJeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, MontroseJeremy Cheezum, Rev. Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Montrose High School, Olathe High School, Peak Academy, Montrose

Why Lying Women Don’t Cry Rape All the Time

A rhetorical catfight has been waged for years on the Internet between injured men and injured women or people who advocate on behalf of injured women. It’s a logical mare’s nest. Untold men (and women) have been wronged by casually abused and abusive procedures of law whose genesis owes to rabid feminist politicking at the end of the last century. These men (and women) have, again in untold because incalculable numbers, been unjustly deprived of children, home, property, livelihood, security, dignity, and/or liberty, and that fact has largely gone disregarded. A perusal of the quotations in the margin of this blog will satisfy any conscientious reader that this is a fact and not merely an allegation. The laws themselves are bent. Injured men (their predominant victims) have, sensibly or not, accordingly sought to draw attention to lying by women by emphasizing that women will lie even about rape (the specter in the room, incidentally, during any legal proceeding based on an allegation of abuse). There have, of course, been many documented cases of false rape allegations’ being made by women. Feminist advocates deny false accusation of rape “occurs” to any significant degree, ignoring the underlying male plaint, namely, that women lie in heinously vengeful, passive-aggressive, attention-seeking, destructive ways—and contrary to what some apologists for feminine lying would have the public believe, unscrupulous women (and men) don’t lie because they’re crazy, per se. They lie because it’s effective, just as diverting the “conversation” away from lying to lying about rape is effective at denying either one merits consideration.


These are not people.

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

—Marie Shear

Far from suggesting that women are Barbie dolls or marble angels, a proposition that may even have offended its speaker, this quotation, oft brandished by feminists today, promotes the idea that women are people. And people, unlike Barbie dolls or marble angels, lie. They lie about anything it serves them to lie about.

So much then for the myth of the faultless woman—which is one you’re unlikely to find debunked on Jezebel.com.

The question this post considers is that if women are willing to lie to cops and judges (and they are, as are men), why pussyfoot and not just accuse any target of malice of sexual violation? It’s a potent allegation.

Well, it comes with a host of complications is why. In civil court, a false (or possibly real but baseless) claim of fear is all it takes to procure a protective order and turn a person’s life on its head. It can win a perfect stranger the exclusive entitlement to a person’s home and property while possibly landing him or her in jail. Unless a lying plaintiff aims to drive her victim to suicide, falsely alleging rape is overkill and pointlessly invites exposure.

A criminal claim of rape, on the other hand, both figuratively and literally invites strangers’ noses into uncomfortable places. Government wants specifics and evidence. Girlfriends and family members may gently inquire about details.

This is the kind of claim, if false, that requires a great deal of determination to pull off and carries a heavy risk of tattering under scrutiny.

Let’s not deceive ourselves that unscrupulous women are too virtuous to lie about rape. Rather let’s be honest: Lying about rape is demanding and dicey.

That said, it’s really not that tough in civil court, which doesn’t require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” In civil court, it’s just he-said-she-said. A defendant doesn’t even have to be heard in court for a “default” judgment to be entered against him. And even if he does appear, there’s no guarantee the plaintiff will be required to or that the accused will have the opportunity to cross-examine her, making a mockery of the adversarial process. A judgment in civil court doesn’t represent a finding that a rape was committed, necessarily, but it’s not a denial that a rape was committed, either, and the accusation is what’s preserved.

The injustice is glaring but note that it’s legally no worse than that any other allegation that works can be made and can accomplish the same damaging consequences.

People have to live with this shit. Their families have to live with this shit. Their children have to live with this shit.

This is what men’s rights advocates would be saying if there were anyone who would listen or have the least capacity to comprehend the breadth and depth of injuries that instead tend to be casually batted aside (while accounts of groping or sexual harassment are gravely highlighted on NPR).

Most of these men have not been accused of rape, which doesn’t mean they couldn’t also have been accused of rape had their accusers been gutsy enough or that it wasn’t implied (point 1). And it doesn’t mean they have nothing to complain about (point 2).

Injustice is always something to complain about (point 3).

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*I think I even read that on a liberal yard sign.

Is the Policy of Arizona’s Courts under Chief Justice Scott Bales Taught at UCLA as an Example of State Judges’ Contempt for the Constitution (and Bad Practice Generally)?

The author of this post recently chipped off a bit more of his dilapidated front teeth on the brim of the coffee mug that’s virtually wedded to his hands. After years of demoralization in the courts, he depends on external energy sources to triumph over inertia and earn a living. The occasion of the damage was his running to give a stylist-in-training a $5 tip for an $8 haircut. This is where one can easily find himself after 12 years of abuse in the court and by the court, whose handsomely paid judges almost invariably excuse themselves for their arrogance, their misperceptions, their shortsightedness, and their professional failings. The exercise of dominance over the lives of others should at the very least demand scrupulous care. This post is inspired by its utter absence.


The number of thousands of dollars paid to Arizona judges and judicial administrators each year

I occasionally corresponded with UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh in 2016 and 2017 when he consulted with my attorneys in advance of an appeal of numerous unlawful “prior restraints” imposed upon my freedom of speech in 2013 (by a judge who has since been shamed off the bench), and Prof. Volokh was very charitable with his time.

UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017

I don’t know him well enough to bother him with inquiries about his classroom curricula, though. So I don’t really know the answer to the question posed in this post’s title.

I can, however, surmise.

Prof. Volokh, aided by a gifted law student, Alison Boaz, invested more than a little time in preparing an amicus brief to the Arizona Court of Appeals on my behalf. This is a very big deal. I know, too, that Prof. Volokh is a brilliant jurist, that his arguments to the court were unassailable, and that the court’s disregard for those arguments (which weren’t even mentioned) is a symptom of crap practice that I believe to be pandemic to the point of institutionalization.

(I have no doubt Prof. Volokh would express qualms he had more circumspectly—neutrality comes harder for those who’ve been in the defendant’s seat—but I don’t think he would find much fault with my characterization insofar as it concerns respect for liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.)

Arizona Chief Justice Scott Bales, who has beautiful teeth, a state that a $160,000 salary and a $130,000/year pension should guarantee he always enjoys

Certainly one way Prof. Volokh could recover on his investment in my case would be to use the ruling returned by Arizona Court of Appeals judges Philip Espinosa, Sean Brearcliffe, and Christopher Staring to show his First Amendment students what they’re up against, namely, recalcitrantly erroneous (i.e., crap) practice by state courts.

In the last post, I shared some informed impressions of some of the judges who’ve weighed in against me over the past 13 years. It’s mostly been crap practice all the way up the ladder, and I know from years of correspondence with others all over the country (and abroad) that my experience is unexceptional.

In 2017, much more knowledgeable after a decade of legal abuse, I succeeded in having two Tucson municipal court judges verbally spanked for abuse of discretion (which roughly translates to judicial abuse of authority), and one of them, Judge Wendy Million, could be said to have literally written the book on protective order law (which will only seem ironic to those who’ve never found themselves in its crosshairs). Judges in this arena can’t even be relied upon to observe statutory requirements let alone comport themselves with anything approaching rigor, impartiality, or politeness.

People like Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice W. Scott Bales, who has backed a proposal to raise judicial salaries by $15,000, shouldn’t be concerned, in this writer’s opinion, about whether judges are getting paid lavishly enough (already $100,000 to $160,000 per plus lifetime pensions that alone exceed the yearly incomes of most of those whose lives they impact and whose labor provides for their salaries).

What people like Scott Bales should be concerned about is whether judges are actually earning anywhere near their purported value.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The professor referenced in this post, Eugene Volokh, is a renowned constitutional scholar, and his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, which is listed by the ABA Journal in its “Blawg 100 Hall of Fame,” appears on the website of The Washington Post. I discerned no hint that the Arizona Court of Appeals judges also referenced in this post had ever heard his name. Prof. Volokh addressed the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee the same year he addressed them.

Terse Reviews of Arizona Judges I’ve Been Disappointed with So Far (with Critiques of a Couple of Arizona Attorneys and a Police Task Force Tacked On)

What follow are brief reviews of judges the writer had during 12 years of prosecutions (2006–2018) prompted by a vindictive liar (see this post’s third endnote), her husband, and a cohort of theirs. All allegations introduced against the writer during the previous decade by the three—and some that reach back over a dozen years—were discredited and/or dismissed in the past 24 months, no thanks to any but one of the judges referenced below. (Besides to the court, allegations were made to municipal, state, and federal police, among others.) The writer was awarded no compensation by the court, which has, with rare exception, never formally acknowledged error.


Judge Christopher Staring, Judge Sean Brearcliffe, Judge Philip Espinosa, Judge Paul Tang, Judge Carmine Cornelio, Arizona Courts, Judge Richard Gordon, Judge Roger Duncan, Judge Jack Peyton, Judge Jay Cranshaw, Judge Antonio Riojas, Judge Wendy Million


ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS (DIVISION 2)

Judge Christopher Staring (2017):

Distinctly polite and affable, Judge Staring would make a superlative Walmart greeter. What qualifications he may possess as a negotiator of facts and interpreter of law were indiscernible.

Judge Sean Brearcliffe (2017):

A pedant who seemed to consider freedom of speech a nonessential civil liberty that could be casually revoked by a court.

Judge Philip Espinosa (2017):

Profoundly limited.


ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT (PIMA COUNTY)

Judge Charles Harrington (2006):

Pedestrian and unworthy of note.

Judge Paul Tang (2010):

Like several of the judges critiqued here, Judge Tang is distinguished only for adding ethnic diversity to the court. (In a 2010 case, Judge Tang servilely parroted back what he was told by opposing counsel almost verbatim—at least in this writer’s opinion—and the writer believes he may have documents from the court not inaptly stamped “P. Tang.” See UrbanDictionary.com.)

Judge Carmine Cornelio (2013):

A disgrace who was twice censured by the Arizona Supreme Court for abusive conduct, in 2010 and 2013, and shamed off the bench in 2016 by a no-confidence vote returned by the Arizona Judicial Performance Review. Judge Cornelio unlawfully denied the writer a trial in 2013 and imposed an unconstitutional speech injunction that denied the writer core civil liberties for five years, including the right to speak about his experiences in court even “by word of mouth.” (The amoral attorney who coerced the illegal injunction from Judge Cornelio has also served as a judge of the Arizona Superior Court.)

Judge Richard Gordon (2016–2018):

Faultlessly civil, a too rare quality among judges, but from this writer’s perspective not above placing personal/political motives before the law. Judge Gordon ruled against the writer in 2016, a couple of months before a retention election, only to mandate a settlement of the case two years later after an eminent constitutional scholar, UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh, tweezed apart the court’s rationale.


PIMA COUNTY JUSTICE COURT

Judge Roger Duncan (2006):

As a judge pro tem the year he intruded upon the writer’s life, thoroughly incompetent.

Judge Jack Peyton (2006):

A bombastic bully whose neck must have strained under the weight of his inflated head.


TUCSON CITY COURT

Judge (Timothy) Jay Cranshaw (2016):

Recommended only by the quality of his grooming and manners, which are somehow meant to justify a $100,000 salary.

Judge Wendy Million (2016–2017):

A scold who was more civil on a second encounter but whose derelictions necessitated reprimand by the superior court for abuse of discretion.

Presiding Magistrate Antonio Riojas (2017):

Genial and conscientious after rebuke by the superior court for abuse of discretion, which translated to seven months of added stress to this writer’s life. To his credit, Judge Riojas acknowledged to the writer that he knew court process was routinely abused…with impunity.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*TUCSON ATTORNEYS

Jeffrey Marks (2010, 2013, 2016) and Chris Scileppi (2016–2018):

This writer would categorically characterize these officers of the court, both of whom frivolously attempted to have him jailed on multiple grounds, as an aggregate of used latex condoms recycled into matching douchebags.

**TUCSON POLICE TASK FORCE

Tucson Police Mental Health Support Team (2016):

The Tucson Police Mental Health Support Team is a clown car. A detective of this task force issued the writer two criminal citations based on statements made by a woman who is herself reportedly diagnosed mentally ill (bipolar disorder). Both charges were subsequently dismissed.

***WHAT STARTED IT ALL









Ray Bredfeldt, Doctor and Deacon, Scorns God’s Law: A Consideration of the Biblical Commandment against False Witness

This post is inspired by Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, a physician who purports to be a man of faith. By means of one lowlife attorney and then a second equally unscrupulous one, whose conduct during a rape trial attained minor notoriety, Dr. Bredfeldt and his son and daughter-in-law sought to have me wrongfully imprisoned while my father lay dying (to conceal sins). The reader may conclude from these details that court process corrupts or that the corrupt are drawn to court process…but s/he may not conclude otherwise.


Ruth Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond C Bredfeldt, Dr Ray Bredfeldt, Dr Raymond Bredfeldt, Dr Raymond C Bredfeldt, Ray Bredfeldt MD, Raymond Bredfeldt MD, Raymond C Bredfeldt MD, Dr Raymond C Bredfeldt MD, Dr Ray Bredfeldt MD, Ray and Ruth Bredfeldt, Ruth and Ray Bredfeldt, Jeremy Cheezum, Pastor Jeremy Cheezum, Rev Jeremy Cheezum, Sara Rojas Christ Church, Kim Cheezum, Kimberly Cheezum, Montrose

Dr. Raymond Bredfeldt is an adherent of a religious sect called the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which seems to consider itself Christian while holding both that the Bible and its laws are to be interpreted literally and that believers are saved or damned before they’re born so how they actually behave in life doesn’t matter one way or the other. Three guesses where Dr. Bredfeldt reckons he’ll be hanging out in the afterlife. According to PCA doctrine, which has nothing to do with the Bible I’ve read, Hitler may be wearing wings and a halo. Presbyterianism, the reader may be unastonished to learn, was founded by a lawyer.

Today, in a dialogue dominated by #MeToo jihadists, voices denouncing false or unfounded accusation are as quickly overwhelmed as those of sanitation workers responding to a sewer explosion.

It’s accordingly kinda great to count God Almighty’s voice as an exception.

Not bad, either, is knowing that if He’s up there taking notes, which He’s reputed to be very meticulous about, the karma of false accusers stands to be more than just a bitch.

Think snap-crackle-pop, like, forever.

And that’s discounting the liberties demons might take when they’re bored and horny—which I would imagine is pretty much always.

Ray Bredfeldt, Raymond Bredfeldt, Ruth Bredfeldt, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Church in America PCASome of those who have or who had intended to witness against me in court, either to have me denied rights or to have me locked up, would know better than I, though.

They style themselves pious Christian souls—and I would wager that many people who’ve been falsely accused include the indifference of hypocrites like these in their litany of grievances.

In my case, take Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., chairman of the EPA’s Science Advisory Boards, who identifies himself as a dedicated churchgoer. Although he’s never met me, Mike willingly testified against me in 2013 on behalf of his protégée, Tiffany Bredfeldt, a crackpot who harassed me for over a decade through law enforcement and the courts following a three-month association at my own home…where she was routinely to be found at night minus her wedding ring.

Or take Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, M.D. (“First, do no harm”). When the accusations against me by his daughter-in-law began in 2006, I recall reading he was a church deacon. I subsequently learned he and his wife, Ruth, hosted Bible study classes in their home and that their daughter Kim was married to Presbyterian pastor Jeremy Cheezum (who ignored my pleas for his help in mediating a settlement of the matter, pleas made fully eight years ago).

Here’s testimony Ray Bredfeldt’s daughter-in-law, Tiffany, gave in court during a 2013 hearing (that’s seven years after her accusations started):

null

Ray Bredfeldt’s family’s version of conservative Christianity differs considerably from the one I knew growing up. When I was a boy, there was no conceivable chance a married woman could be mistaken for single, least of all by a man she met and discussed her underwear with alone in the dark—unless she wanted to be. The word my Southern Baptist family would have used to characterize such a woman the reader will guess easily enough.

Ray’s daughter-in-law broadly accused me from 2006 to 2016 of “pursu[ing]” her, “proposition[ing]” her, trying to kiss her, and making “physical, romantic advances” toward her despite “rebuff[s]” and “rebuke[s]” based largely on a 12-week “friendship” in 2005 during which, by her own sworn admission, she never felt any urgent need to inform me she was married.

I don’t have to call her a liar; the contradictions are obvious and—and—they always were.

Reverend Ray was nonetheless prepared in 2016 (that’s 10 years later) to make sworn statements against me to have me jailed for a year and judicially forbidden (on pain of further incarceration) from ever sharing these contradictions with anyone in my defense. Because what would the neighbors think, right? Never mind, apparently, whether God might take a dim view of his daughter-in-law’s conduct…and his own.

Where Ray’s son, Phil Bredfeldt, was while his wife was indulging herself at my home in 2005 has incidentally never been explained. I don’t recall a single conversation I ever had with Tiffany Bredfeldt, including up to and past midnight, being interrupted by a phone call (“Uh, Honey, are you coming home?”). If Phil Bredfeldt is homosexual, that would explain a lot, both about his conduct and the keenness of his family’s interest in keeping up appearances.

At any rate, things didn’t ultimately work out the way they had envisioned. And Ray Bredfeldt’s son has apparently dumped his wife.

Telling to note in this context is that at the conclusion of the closest thing to a trial that ever occurred in 12 years of courthouse mischief, Tiffany Bredfeldt, herself the daughter of a fundamentalist evangelical Christian exclaimed, “God damn it.”

Well, here’s hoping, anyhow.

It turns out the Jews—at least once upon a time—appreciated false witness to be the grave and consequential trespass that it is, so much so that they ranked it a cardinal no-no. Yahweh’s even reported to have carved its prohibition in stone, which seems fairly emphatic. According to Proverbs (stresses added):

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Witnesses in prosecutions may wear the same suit to court that they do to church. But in my experience of legal games, imperatives of the soul take a backseat in the courthouse to cardinal sins, like avarice and wrath, and avoiding blame in this life is the definite priority.

If the avowed faith of people like Ray Bredfeldt has the cosmic order of things right, though, escaping a court’s censure is only a very temporary reprieve from judgment.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Jezebel, the millennial feminist house organ, which takes its name from a Biblical figure, tends to discount false accusation and its damages. The sophistical line of reasoning, demonstrated, for example, by Donna Zuckerberg in “He Said, She Said: The Mythical History of the False Rape Allegation,” conflates the phrase “false allegation” with “false rape allegation” and dismisses both collectively as extremely rare, apparently on the basis of the number of criminal allegations of rape that are determined to be untrue by, perhaps, the FBI. Rape allegations can, of course, be judged “worthy” by a court based on no standard of actual proof at all. (A rape claim made in a civil proceeding can be validated simply by default, for example, because a defendant was unable to travel cross-country on his own dime to appear in his defense. How often this happens is tabulated nowhere, though civil “protective order” cases are estimated to number in the millions per annum.) False accusation, what’s more, can include any number of ruinous claims other than sexual assault. False accusation can also be chronic. So mountainous is the political resistance to acknowledging it happens at all, it’s perpetrated with impunity. Ms. Zuckerberg surveys literary instances of false rape allegations, including Biblical ones, and finds grounds to deride them. A story she ignores is that of Jezebel, who amid a career of wickedness conspired to have a man falsely accused and stoned to death. His alleged crime was blasphemy, not rape. Jezebel was fittingly thrown from a window to become fodder for stray dogs—as today the tabloid website that bears her name is.

A Brief Reckoning of the Tolls of False Accusation Inspired by Liberals Who “Wonder,” What’s the Big Deal?

The word wonder in the title of this post is sleeved in quotation marks because the perspectives of self-styled “social justice advocates” aren’t those of critical thinkers but those of religious zealots. That people, particularly women, never lie about fear or abuse, and that even if they do (note the contradiction of the overarching tenet), there are no consequences to their deceits worthy of consideration—these are articles of faith. Liberal activists’ perspectives on these matters are as precognitive as any hive insect’s or rabid carnivore’s.


Dental imaging of the writer’s teeth (which are the least of the reasons why the doctor who is mentioned parenthetically below, Ray Bredfeldt, should burn in hell)

I went to the dentist for the first time in over a decade last week to be informed I grind my teeth in my sleep, and evidently have done for some while. This is among the possible consequences of chronic stress—to say nothing of, for example, cancer or heart disease or carelessly (or deliberately) wrapping your vehicle around a phone pole.

The dentist’s urgent recommendation was a full set of crowns, which he estimated would run me in the neighborhood of a “pretty good new car.” My own vehicle has in excess of 170,000 miles on it. I settled for a cleaning, which itself overextended my resources.

The hygienist was very professional. If she winced, I didn’t notice.

I was harassed through law enforcement and the courts for 12 years by some attention-seeking freaks I found hanging around my house, a house that now has termites in the ceiling, mice in the cupboards, and truly fascinating arachnid architecture spanning entire walls (all of it laden with dust). The parts of the exterior that haven’t literally fallen away are sloughing paint.

(Telling fact: Two of the witnesses slated to testify against me in 2016—in a case that began in 2013 and slogged on until July of 2018—are researchers in the field of human health, one of them a Ph.D. and Trump appointee to the EPA; a third is a retired M.D. and former columnist for a health insurance quarterly. This latter guy, Dr. Ray Bredfeldt, has almost certainly cautioned against the perils of stress, possibly making him the scabbiest of the lot. And count on it that if you met him you’d conclude he was a stalwart Samaritan and all-around swell fella. Also count on it that Mayday Ray would identify himself as my victim.)

I’ve tried to stanch the tide of decay during the six months since the last of the matters arising from the latest round of accusations leveled me concluded. Note: That case was the last of four initiated (or reinitiated) in 2016, and it featured a “Victim’s Impact Statement” (and the originating accusations began in 2006, with many more made in the interim “to the Court…[and] to multiple police departments, detectives, federal agencies, and other officials in several states,” which included to the FBI—and possibly NASA).

Some might say I prevailed. That’s semantics only.

I work as a manual laborer. I used to tutor kids (I’m an almost Ph.D. and probably always will be). But the chances I’ll ever apply for a job at Sylvan Learning Center or the like are today zero. I had aspired to publish humor commercially, and the likelihood of my recovering the clarity of mind, purpose, and environment that demands is scarcely better.

The residual taint of legal abuses, much of it digitized and preserved for posterity, is potent.

My father died two years ago in a “professional nursing facility.” To translate: He lay in bed, in a room he shared with a stranger, staring at the ceiling while he starved to death with a wad of cancer cells devouring his colon. I was meanwhile distracted by the looming threat of a year or so behind bars, which conclusion would only come after months of hearings…and filings…and trials. After a long night of poring over legal twaddle, I got a call at around 2:30 in the morning informing me my dad was dead.

I deposited the plastic box with his ashes in it on a windowsill just inside my door—another ambient token of loss—where it remained until the courthouse games ended in July.

It now sits on a closet shelf. It’s not alone. My dog, who was my emotional ballast during the long fallow years, died a year before my father, while I was similarly preoccupied with railing against injustices that shouldn’t be possible in a civil society. A plastic box with her remains occupies the same shelf as my father’s. What else is on the shelf I haven’t looked at since before I had white hairs.

It’s conceivable, of course, that I have cancer. More significant to remark is that I have no interest in finding out and really wouldn’t care.

Copyright © 2019 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

Undocumented Immigrants and “Women’s Law”: Reflections on Liberal Incoherence

The plight of undocumented immigrants has become a banner cause for the liberal left. They don’t comprehend the law; they just reckon detaining people for being in this country without official leave is cruel—and maybe unconstitutional.

Welcome to the United States civil justice system, the same civil justice system whose criminalization of its own citizens liberals have applauded for decades. Unlike the criminal justice system, the civil justice system affords scant protections to those who fall under its scrutiny.

The liberal position: It’s not okay to suspect noncitizens, deny them due process and free access to attorney services, deprive them of residence and access to family members, permanently record their names in police databases, and subject them to indefinite detention. But it is okay to suspect citizens based on no ascertainable proof, deny them due process and free access to attorney services, deprive them of residence and access to family members, permanently record their names in police databases, and make them subject to warrantless arrest and criminal incarceration, sometimes indefinitely, which is what the instrument called the civil restraining order authorizes.

Liberals furthermore are affronted by discrimination and injustice, according to their rhetoric, baffled by those who reject their values, and confused by this country’s intransigent political polarization.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*This week on NPR, the “cathedral of [liberal] political correctness,” it was deplored that undocumented detainees weren’t granted hearings with judges—that’s when they’re granted hearings at all; many sit in limbo for years in privatized detention centers with no de facto government oversight. Hearings are often conducted by video, meaning even if defendants have lawyers, they can’t confer with them. The instrument called the civil restraining order is typically issued ex parte, meaning defendants can’t confront their judges, either, and the issuing judges only know them as names on fill-in-the-blank forms. Restraining order hearings in the overwhelming majority of cases are required by statute to occur within days, making effective legal representation, which may be unavailable and is anyway seldom affordable, sketchy at best. Looping back around, the filing of a restraining order against a documented immigrant, again based on no certain evidence, is often grounds for his or her deportation.

“An Asshole”: A Review of Jeffrey Marks, Tucson Attorney at Law (Who’s Disliked Even by His Heart Doctor)


Tucson attorney Jeffrey Marks, attorney Jeff Marks, Jeffrey A. Marks, Southwest Legal

This client review of Tucson attorney Jeffrey Marks appears on Avvo.com, which notes that the number of times Marks has been endorsed by other lawyers is none.


In 2013, I told a cardiologist I knew, Lee Goldberg, M.D., that I was in court with some monsters and that they were represented by a degenerate attorney. Goldberg, who had a business relationship with my father at the time, guessed the attorney was probably one of his patients. Sure enough he said he’d seen Jeffrey Marks (whose heart I already knew was rotten). Goldberg described how Marks would commandeer his waiting room and set up shop there like the lord of the manor.

He’s an asshole,” Goldberg agreed.

My opinion had been cemented years earlier. I’d been in court with Marks in 2010, when he represented the same client he did in 2013, Tiffany Bredfeldt, a woman who has accused me serially since 2006 and whom Marks would go on to represent in 2016, too. But only briefly. Marks insisted I be jailed in that prosecution, I moved the court to appoint me counsel, it did…and Marks hastily took his leave of the matter.

It’s not as jolly squaring off against a fellow attorney as it is taunting a self-represented defendant (as Marks had delighted in doing repeatedly).

Here’s Marks cross-examining me in 2013:

Tucson attorney Jeffrey Marks, attorney Jeff Marks, Jeffrey A. Marks, Southwest Legal

And that’s nothing next to how Marks mocked the court. His first witness, Michael Honeycutt (who today chairs the EPA’s Science Advisory Board) testified:

Then Marks’s client, the prosecuting witness, who told her boss that I had “propositioned” her, told the court this:

Then Marks submitted a brief to the court a couple months later acknowledging this:

And Marks had already provided the court an email by his client to me that said I’d been “nice to [her]” and that she had “never felt the need” to tell me she was married.

Marks didn’t even try to hide obvious contradictions, which any disinterested onlooker might reasonably consider evidence of lying (of a grave nature) to whitewash hanky-panky. I think Marks enjoyed showing me just how stage-manageable judges of the Pima County Superior Court were.

Marks succeeded in coercing an illegal speech injunction against me that year from a judge who has since been shamed off the bench, Carmine Cornelio. It was indicted as unconstitutional in 2017 in an amicus brief to the Arizona Court of Appeals by UCLA law professor and distinguished First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh (who blogs about such violations of citizens’ civil liberties in The Washington Post). The injunction unlawfully prohibited me from disclosing facts about my own case like those I just have.

By trying to enforce the order in 2016, Marks made himself vulnerable to a lawsuit, but I had to relinquish my damage claims for constitutional injury this month in order to permanently arrest false or frivolous claims to the police by his client—who would face punishment were she to engage in this conduct in future.

The unlawful injunction Marks finessed was gutted (at a cost to the Arizona taxpayer of tens of thousands).

A low-rent opportunist, Marks has an advertisement on his Facebook page that says everything a prospective client should need to know about his character: “Don’t forget about our incredible October surprise: 25% OFF ALL MONTH LONG[—]Wills, Personal Injury Cases, Divorces, and More!!

His Twitter subscriptions include several about pets, including Baby Animals (@BabyAnimalPics), Cats (@Cats), Cute Emergency (@CuteEmergency), and Emergency Kittens (@EmrgencyKittens).

His Twitter subscriptions also include this (fourth among 40 when this screenshot was taken):


Tucson attorney Jeffrey Marks, attorney Jeff Marks, Jeffrey A. Marks, Southwest Legal


At least Marks doesn’t try to conceal he’s an asshole.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

“Fuck the Court”: A Brief Lesson on American Civil Liberties for Those Who’ve Been Given Every Reason to Believe They’re a Mirage

“I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. […] I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.”

—Emerson

I thought about using, “F*ck the Court,” in the title to this post to spare the sensibilities of the prudish. But that would have defeated the point.

“Fuck the court” is a sentiment untold multitudes feel. You’ll nevertheless find few returns for the phrase on Google—and no wonder: Citizens who have experience with the court know it’s pretty good at fucking with them.

So, “can” you say, “Fuck the court”? Sure. The freedom to express any opinion or conviction you have, especially a political one, is guaranteed by the First Amendment, no matter how objectionable that opinion or conviction may be to others, including representatives of our public institutions (whose kids’ college tuitions we subsidize). As long as you’re not exciting violence—namely by advocating or threatening it—you enjoy the freedom to say your piece. Expressions of disgust are not only constitutionally protected; they’re more than warranted in this case.

(Consider that anarchists advocate for the complete abolishment of government. Are they “allowed” to do that? Of course.)

Context alone matters. What you say to the world at large, in a blog like this one, for example, is protected speech. If someone doesn’t want to hear it, s/he doesn’t have to listen.

Important distinctions: If you, as a party to a proceeding, wore a t-shirt emblazoned with “Fuck the Court!” to court, the judge might (would) order you turn it inside out. Or if you were just a looker-on, the bailiff could (would) ask you to leave and only come back when/if you were “respectfully” attired. If you pronounced, “Fuck the court!” aloud in court, you could be held in contempt for causing a disruption.

Got it? Good. And fuck the court. You have every right to register your disapproval.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*If you’re wondering whether this means you can criticize the conduct of judges and attorneys (by name), the conduct of plaintiffs (by name), and how a case or cases you’ve been involved in were conducted, the answer is YES. Just qualify your opinions as such, restrict their expression to the world at large, that is, never direct them to the object of your scorn, and represent facts accurately.

Hoax Prosecutions by Psych Patient Tiffany Bredfeldt & Co. against the Author of this Site Terminate: ILLEGAL SPEECH INJUNCTION COERCED FROM DISGRACED JUDGE IN 2013 IS GUTTED

Tiffany Bredfeldt, a toxicologist employed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the EPA who testified before the Arizona Superior Court in 2013 that she was in psychiatric care, has accused the writer to, in her own words, “the Court multiple times [and] to multiple police departments, detectives, federal agencies, and other officials in several states,” including the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and the FBI. The writer knew Bredfeldt for three months in 2005, in and around his own home, where she “would not wear a wedding ring,” and he has had no contact with her since March 2006. All of her post-2006 allegations, which have included charges of sexual trespass/assault and which have corroded more than a decade of the writer’s life, were this month invalidated. Coincident with the conclusion of the case, Tiffany Bredfeldt was apparently dumped by her husband.


Tiffany Bredfeldt, Tiffany Bredfeldt PhD, Tiffany Bredfeldt TCEQ, Tiffany Bredfeldt EPA, Tiffany Hargis, Bredfeldt TG, Dr. Tiffany Bredfeldt, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, TCEQ, Michael Honeycutt PhD, Loreal Stepney, Phil Bredfeldt, Ray and Ruth Bredfeldt, Jeremy and Kim Cheezum, Jeremy Cheezum, Kim Cheezum, Ray Bredfeldt, Ruth Bredfeldt, Governor Greg Abbott, GaLyn Hargis

TCEQ senior toxicologist Tiffany Bredfeldt, who lied to the court and law enforcement for over a decade, represented as the monster I believe her to be


“Defendant Greene agrees not to use the following terms and/or phrases in reference to Plaintiff [Tiffany] Bredfeldt, unless and until these words become true: perjurer, felon, felonious conduct, criminal, fraud or fraudulent within her profession, narcissistic personality disorder, [or] adulteress….”

Bredfeldt v. Greene, June 26, 2018 settlement agreement

Consenting to the foregoing clause in a “voluntary” settlement with a woman who has accused me broadly since 2006—and twice attempted to have me jailed in recent years for exercising my First Amendment liberties—was a compromise I had to make to gain the substantive dissolution of an illegal speech injunction, or “prior restraint,” that she coerced in 2013 from a since disgraced superior court judge, Carmine Cornelio, that literally prohibited me from speaking…at all.

(Cornelio was shamed off the bench in 2016. Put politely, he declined to face voters after being roundly panned by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Put plainly, he abused the power entrusted to him and, what’s far more extraordinary, was held to account for it.)

When judges violate the Constitution—and other judges affirm the violation despite, for example, contrary arguments by a renowned constitutional scholar—a settlement agreement like that quoted above is the recourse of last resort.

In contrast to my concessions, which were relatively minor, my accuser of over a decade had to consent to this:

Plaintiff agrees not to pursue any criminal charges against Defendant for any conduct by Defendant before the date of this Settlement Agreement.

And:

Plaintiff agrees that her execution of this Settlement Agreement constitutes a release of any and all claims which she may have or claim against the Defendant, whether known or unknown, which in any way arise out of or are connected to Defendant’s actions occurring before the date of this Settlement Agreement.

This doesn’t of course mean her accusations, which exist in at least four different police agencies’ and at least three different courts’ public records, will be shredded; it just means the gag is now on the other face.

My accuser is expressly prohibited from making false or frivolous accusations to law enforcement officials, and any further allegations she wishes to bring at court must pass muster with “a single arbitrator who shall be a practicing attorney, retired judge, or law school professor with at least ten years of total working experience as such and with experience in First Amendment law.”

She’s also obligated to schlep herself from Texas to Tucson where her mendacious accusations began 12 years ago.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*I was granted the services of a public defender in 2016, because my accuser demanded that I be jailed. Otherwise the cost to me of realizing an equitable revision of an injunction grounded on judicial abuse of power would easily have exceeded $50,000. Who footed the actual bill, including expenses incurred by law enforcement and the courts? If you’re an Arizona taxpayer, you did. (Also to thank for that is Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., toxicology director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Scott Pruitt’s selection for chairman of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. Honeycutt presented misleading testimony to the court in 2013 on my accuser’s behalf.) Good thing Arizona didn’t need those tens of thousands of dollars for education or low-income housing or the legal representation of immigrant children taken from their families and confined in cages. Rock on, #MeToo. You go, “social justice crusaders.”

**What follows is a synopsis of statements Texas state official and EPA adviser Tiffany Bredfeldt gave in evidence to the court or, in one instance, to the police only between the years 2006 and 2017.




Michael Honeycutt, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Governor Greg Abbott, Beth West TCEQ, TCEQ Human Resources Director Beth West, TCEQ Executive Director Toby Baker, Toby Baker TCEQ, TCEQ Deputy Executive Director Stephanie Bergeron Perdue







Michael Honeycutt, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Governor Greg Abbott, Beth West TCEQ, TCEQ Human Resources Director Beth West, TCEQ Executive Director Toby Baker, Toby Baker TCEQ, TCEQ Deputy Executive Director Stephanie Bergeron Perdue


Michael Honeycutt, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Tiffany Bredfeldt, Governor Greg Abbott, Beth West TCEQ, TCEQ Human Resources Director Beth West, TCEQ Executive Director Toby Baker, Toby Baker TCEQ, TCEQ Deputy Executive Director Stephanie Bergeron Perdue


Tiffany Bredfeldt, Tiffany Bredfeldt TCEQ, Tiffany Bredfeldt Phd

Tiffany Bredfeldt, Tiffany Bredfeldt TCEQ, Tiffany Bredfeldt Phd

Tiffany Bredfeldt, Tiffany Bredfeldt TCEQ, Tiffany Bredfeldt Phd

#MeToo Politician Sunny Reynolds’ Protective Order TOSSED

“I actually thought he actually could have hit me.”

—Former Warrenton, Virginia Vice Mayor Sunny Reynolds

Translation: He didn’t actually hit her.

Question: Is the subjective impression that someone “could have” committed an act of violence a valid—or even rational—basis to seek the state’s protection after the moment has passed, and there was no violence?

Considering that statutes that authorize injunctive relief were enacted to check violence that actually occurred (or at least was actually threatened), the answer is a pretty resounding no.

Here, remarkably, is an instance of a judge actually agreeing.

A complaint of abuse by (now former) Warrenton, Virginia Vice Mayor Sunny Reynolds, one that has been criticized on this site, was this month thrown out by the court.

Context: Local real estate developer Keith MacDonald was alleged to have verbally accosted Ms. Reynolds in a restaurant in February, pointed his finger at her, and said, “I’m going to get you.” Then: “All it takes is 125 votes.” In other words, Mr. MacDonald allegedly threatened to run against her in an election that has since seen Ms. Reynolds unseated.

Judge Jeffrey Parker, as quoted in the Fauquier Times:

“I have little doubt the behavior was rude and impolite and made the petitioner uncomfortable,” Parker said. “This statue is not about rudeness or a lack of politeness” but, rather, calls for a level of force or threats that invoke “a reasonable apprehension” of death, sexual assault or bodily injury.

Ms. Reynolds, in contrast, reportedly testified she felt Mr. MacDonald’s spittle on her face.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The cost to Virginia taxpayers for this self-indulgent public tantrum by a member of their government, which involved law enforcement officials, besides several courts, and surely ran to the thousands of dollars, was not reported by the Fauquier Times.

Letter to the Editor Notes How Claims of “Abuse” Are Used to Exert Control

Some recent critical scrutiny by the author of this blog was inspired by a restraining order petitioned by Warrenton, Virginia Vice Mayor Sunny Reynolds against a constituent and political rival of hers.

Since the March prosecution, Ms. Reynolds has been voted out of office (reportedly by a margin of 2 to 1) and replaced by a male candidate whose campaign stressed change.

What follows quotes former Warrenton town council member Yakir Lubowsky, who reminds readers of the Fauquier Times how being a citizen of the United States is supposed to be different from being a citizen of China (see First Amendment). What Mr. Lubowsky highlights is an emergent social trend that is hardly new but has newly been brought to the fore by social media: assuming the victim pose to silence unfavorable opinions (which has notably been remarked elsewhere in recent months).

The quotation below appeared in a letter to the editor last week and is in response to critical remarks by Ms. Reynolds concerning an earlier letter by Mr. Lubowsky (who writes that he composed two). Ms. Reynolds reports on her campaign website that she has filed a formal complaint with the State Board of Elections, apparently on this basis: “Mr. Lubowsky’s letter…presents nothing more than an accusatory opinion.” The last this writer heard, opinions were protected under our Constitution’s free speech clause.

Mr. Lubowsky (stresses added):

I wrote two letters, a short one that appeared in Fauquier Now [and] was also faithfully reproduced on approximately 1,200 leaflets (distributed lawfully in the spirit of the founding of our Republic); and a longer one which went viral through emails, and appears to have been read by hundreds more.

Both letters only criticize [politician Sunny Reynolds’] conduct, not her personality, and by points detailed and supported in each case by examples. Readers of both my letter(s) and Sunny’s will notice that hers does not respond meaningfully to any of these censures.

Sunny dismisses my criticisms as simple animosity. Yet she points out herself that I worked with her at the town council and voted for her to be vice mayor. (Moreover, as many know, Sunny and I had cordial relations during most of our time as colleagues.) No, my letters are neither angry nor personal, as is evident from even a casual reading. The letters are substantive indictments of Sunny’s injudicious behavior.

Finally, as to style, Sunny characterizes her own energetic engagement as “fervent” or “spirited”; while that of others, especially men, as “bullying.” She plays this card whenever useful, for example forcing our colleague Sean Polster into an absurd “mediation” and bringing specious charges against candidate Keith MacDonald in court.

What Mr. Yubowsky observes is an isolated point on the fringe of a very long shadow that has been steadily eclipsing citizens’ civil rights for decades.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Had Mr. Lubowsky’s critical opinions been ad hominem attacks, had they been rude, hurtful, ill-supported, or even off-the-wall, they would still be protected speech in this country.

Resistance Is Feudal: Understanding the Role of the Court, Especially in Civil “Abuse” Prosecutions

The role of the court, despite popular notions and its own rhetoric, is not to mete out justice. The role of the court is to keep power where it’s “supposed to be.”

Does that mean the court privileges plaintiffs over defendants, the rich over the poor, and the titled over the commoner? Generally, yes. Little has changed in 1,000 years. Even the word court is evocative of the Middle Ages, and it’s hardly unusual for court administrators to behave like overlords.

Skilled attorney representation can upset the age-old paradigm, but typically it’s the haves and not the have-nots who can afford it, so not really.

In the restraining order arena, or in any civil procedure arising from allegations of abuse (domestic violence, child welfare, etc.), the influence of money and power in favor of plaintiffs is preexistent. Billions of federal tax dollars have been lavished on law enforcement and the courts since the 1990s to sway their judgment, or even to prescribe how they should react. Complainants of abuse today don’t need money to tilt the scales, because it has been prepaid. Plaintiffs just need stories. Female plaintiffs alleging abuse, what’s more, may be entitled to free attorney representation in accordance with the same special interest legislation that authorized the federal subsidies (see Violence Against Women Act).

This is what leads many victims of procedural abuse to conclude, “It’s a conspiracy.” They expect the court’s definition of justice to be the same as the dictionary’s.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The author of this post has been in nonstop litigation for over two years, litigation stemming from accusations made 12 years ago. Judicial response in 2006 was incompetent (the judge, a pro tem, or temp, violated statutory law), and an order arising from the 2006 judgment, in 2013, was even more plainly unlawful. The Arizona Court of Appeals last year affirmed the 2013 judgment, because the writer hadn’t been able to afford to promptly appeal it. The 2017 court upheld “finality of judgment,” ignoring that the 2013 judgment offended both the state and federal constitutions. The 2017 court privileged economy and maintenance of face, in other words, over justice. The writer’s case now returns to the trial court for further litigation, which has provoked the court’s consternation, again despite the facial illegality of the 2013 order. In 2016, the attorney for the plaintiffs cited their monetary investment in the case as a reason the court should enforce the unlawful order and send the victim of that order to jail. The court can not only justify its own malfeasance but punish its victim for it. To quote a California paralegal, There is no justice system; there’s just a system. The writer is expected in court on Wednesday and again in July based on allegations made in 2016 that were based on allegations made in 2013 that were based on allegations made in 2006…that were false.

About Liberalism and Its Deterioration of Civil Rights…and Its Own Credibility

Liberals are curiously less than rapturous about a political victory only they could have accomplished: the election of Donald Trump, a living caricature straight from the pages of a satirical novel, to the country’s highest office. Liberals do count as a victory, and have for a long time, laws that authorize the wholesale removal of citizens from their homes by armed agents of the state based on what may amount to nothing more substantive than finger-pointing.

In this writer’s opinion, they’re the same victory.

Since the advent of the restraining order in the 1970s, and particularly since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994—under the auspices of which billions of federal tax dollars have been poured into state courts and police precincts to condition how judges and law enforcement officials respond to complaints of abuse—the priority in the U.S. has been to curtail evidentiary requirements and due process rights to expediently meet political expectations, expectations inspired by liberal feminist politicking.

With typical dramatic irony, liberals today vehemently denounce immigration policies that divide family members who have entered the country illegally, that is, in plain violation of the law. Meanwhile the separation of accused citizens from their families, citizens who have not, in a majority of cases, been proven to have violated any laws, continues to quietly transpire, as it has for decades. Attorney Liz Mandarano posits that “[t]here are between 2 and 3 million temporary restraining orders issued in the United States annually,” and attorney Gregory Hession, a vocal critic of protective order laws, observes that “500,000 children are right now in the custody of the state” (“an astounding number”).

Liberals consider conservatives “dumb” yet fail to perceive that alienation of such a broad swathe of the populace could inspire contempt for their values if not a raw animal loathing for everything they represent. Liberals adduce (and Twitter-reinforce) preposterous and hackneyed theories to explain disenchantment with their positions like resistance to progress and a longing to return to the days of “patriarchy.”

The author of this post has recently examined criticisms by NYU Journalism Prof. Katie Roiphe of #MeToo feminists’ disregard for due process (for which she has been excoriated almost everywhere but in the National Review, which called her criticisms courageously commonsensical). Prof. Roiphe has similarly qualmed about the extrajudicial “rape trials” of male college students. Even she, however, seems to assume that if the merits of “abuse” complaints are decided in a courtroom, then defendants have been afforded due process of law.

The assumption is understandable but ignorant of the legal standards and the practical ones that have come to inform how civil claims of abuse are adjudicated, claims that affect the lives of millions of American citizens every year.

It’s a truism of language that the meanings of words follow usage. Applied poorly, language degrades. Rights are no different, which is something our “educated” class should already know.

On a scale our government disdains to even calculate, citizens are denied both rights and dignity, besides in many cases family, property, and liberty, in the absence of determinate evidence, which is not, in any case, heard by a jury. Liberals, who often “identify” as humanist, say they simply deplore insensitivity.

The only thing more hateful to voters than a hypocrite is a party of hypocrites who support arbitrary attacks on citizens in their own homes.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

A Brief Introduction to Feminist Rape Culture

“For those who don’t know, rape culture is an environment in which rape is highly prevalent, normalized and excused by the society’s media, popular culture, and political figures.”

—Ashley Jordan, The Humanist



Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Omitted from this collage, its author realizes belatedly, is the acronym VAWA, which stands for a vector of evil. A chronicle of what this collage summarizes is here.

Fighting the Arizona Injunction Against Harassment

“Let’s face it, sometimes you get wrongfully accused of harassing someone. Perhaps it is a vendetta, a figment of the accuser’s imagination, or something else. […] The mere accusation, even if unfounded, can be devastating to your reputation and may imperil your chances of employment, could lead to the loss of your right to possess a firearm, [restrict] where and when you can go places, etc. (Note: These matters become public records that can be easily searched and identified.) For example, we often find that neighbors who become ‘unneighborly’ will seek an order restricting how close you can come to their home, and whether you are to stay away from certain ‘areas,’ etc. Additionally, if left unchallenged, then often the mere allegation that you violated the injunction against harassment may land you in custody.”

—Attorney Joseph A. Velez

The “Injunction Against Harassment” is one of three types of restraining (or “protective”) order issued in Arizona. The title of the instrument is deceptive. Allegations by petitioners aren’t limited to harassment and may be of anything, including violent threat or assault, or even sexual violation.

An “Order of Protection” is what a complainant files against someone who shares a residence with him or her; an “Injunction Against Harassment” is what a complainant files if his or her relationship with the defendant is other than domestic (e.g., against a friend, neighbor, or stranger). Conduct alleged on either order may be identical.

It may also be false. Orders aren’t hard to obtain, including on the basis of exaggerations or outright fraud.

Here are some facts of which the recipient of an Arizona Injunction Against Harassment should be aware:

  1. Highlighted in this explanation from the Tucson City Court, which applies everywhere in the state of Arizona, is a statutory requirement that the judge who issued you an Injunction Against Harassment may have carelessly overlooked.

    The injunction may be appealed, and an appeals hearing may be requested at any time during the order’s term of effect (one year). It need not be requested immediately. A.R.S § 12-1809(H). You must apply to be granted a hearing, and you must apply in writing. (Instructions appear at the top of the document’s first page.)

  2. Postponing the appellate procedure allows you more time to gather evidence and witness testimony, and save money to procure the services of a lawyer. Being issued an order of the court can be intimidating and bewildering, and a defendant’s impulse may be to drop everything and respond immediately. There’s much, however, to recommend deferment.
  3. Satisfaction of A.R.S § 12-1809(E) requires that the petitioner of the order must have presented to the judge “specific facts attesting to [his or her] efforts to give notice to the defendant or reasons supporting the plaintiff’s claim that notice should not be given.” This means if the petitioner of the order did not notify you prior to applying for an ex parte order from the court, and no good reasons were provided to the judge why you weren’t notified, then judicial approval of the order was against the law.
  4. Judicial derelictions are grounds for an order’s dismissal.

Restraining order defense may be a specialization of some criminal attorneys, and the defendant seeking legal counsel would do well to search for a specialist in his or her city online and/or call around.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The author of this post successfully had an injunction against harassment dismissed last summer.

Katie Roiphe Rebukes the Trivialization of Due Process by Feminists but Is Scarcely Less Guilty of It Herself

A recent post on this blog commended NYU Journalism Prof. Katie Roiphe’s essay, “The Other Whisper Network: How Twitter feminism is bad for women,” published a few months ago in Harper’s. Certainly its observations about feminism’s “vicious energy and ugliness” are unimpeachable—and for their confrontational candor, remarkable.

It feels as if the feminist moment is, at times, providing cover for vindictiveness and personal vendettas and office politics and garden-variety disappointment, that what we think of as purely positive social change is also, for some, blood sport.

Prof. Roiphe’s reportage and commentary on America’s due process crisis, though, be they ever so laudable, are limited by classism. What Prof. Roiphe considers a “new” witch hunt has only newly spread into her social set, which includes prominent media figures like those who’ve recently been run out on a rail.

Who are the female members of the “other whisper network” who Prof. Roiphe says “fear varieties of retribution (Twitter rage, damage to their reputations, professional repercussions, and vitriol from friends) for speaking out” about “the weird energy behind [the #MeToo] movement”?

They’re her peers.

Whose due process rights, similarly, does her essay defend?

Those of her peers.

Her appreciation of the due process crisis is motivated by attacks on those who occupy high political posts, particularly in media, and who formerly enjoyed the immunity that only money and titles can confer. Her curiosity, furthermore, seems to extend little further than that.

Observations like this one are trenchant:

The need to differentiate between smaller offenses and assault is not interesting to a certain breed of Twitter feminist; it makes them impatient, suspicious. The deeper attitude toward due process is: don’t bother me with trifles!

Further symptomatic of the crisis, though, is that Prof. Roiphe’s own “deeper attitude” toward complaints by people of lesser pedigree and influence—for example, those who toil for a living and who have been the butt of outrageous “abuse” laws and their unscrupulous administration for decades and in the tens of millions—seems no different from Twitter feminists’. The path of her essay meanders some but nevertheless skirts the murky underbrush.

The social media “dialogue,” even if it were amended to meet Prof. Roiphe’s standards of decency and qualified judgment, would still be sophomoric chatter.

No less so is the one carried on among writers in the likes of The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, New York Magazine—and Harper’s.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

Tell Us a Story: Using Pennsylvania’s Laws to Expose Restraining Order Lawlessness

“The court determines a witness’s credibility and may infer fear based on the witness’s testimony describing the defendant’s actions.”

Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2005)

Complainants of false allegations and judicial bias in restraining order prosecutions express disbelief that lying in court or forming rulings based on lies can be legal. Some exclaim that their judges “didn’t know the law.”

There are a lot of things judges don’t know, but the law isn’t one of them. Restraining orders are a lawless arena, anyway, so there’s not much to know.

The quotation at the top of this post is law, and what it says is there is no law. It says the court can make up whatever it wants. That’s not a cynical interpretation; it’s a literal one.

The quotation is lifted from case law in Pennsylvania, birthplace of the Constitution, and it informs how judges rule on restraining orders in that state (called PFAs).

It says the court may choose whether an accuser is honest, and that it may “infer” from this choice that the accuser’s fear is real and valid. Some citizen tells a story “describing [another citizen’s alleged] actions,” and that’s the only basis the court requires to deny that other citizen basic civil liberties.

The court must be provided with a narrative to act upon, which the storyteller may make up. Everything else the court is authorized to make up itself.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

“Vicious Energy and Ugliness”: Candid Observations about the Feminist Movement by Prof. Katie Roiphe

“[V]icious energy and ugliness is there beneath the fervor of our new reckoning, adeptly disguised as exhilarating social change. It feels as if the feminist moment is, at times, providing cover for vindictiveness and personal vendettas and office politics and garden-variety disappointment, that what we think of as purely positive social change is also, for some, blood sport.”

—NYU Prof. Katie Roiphe

A preliminary, superfluous observation: Prof. Roiphe is right. The only valid criticism of her perspectives is that what she perceives as new and alarming isn’t new but only newly visible because of social media.

A recent post considered some measured criticisms of an essay of hers, “The Other Whisper Network: How Twitter feminism is bad for women,” which was published a couple of months ago in Harper’s. Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine quibbled, “Katie Roiphe Is Right About Twitter Feminism and Wrong About #MeToo.”

Underscoring the absurdity of the “dialogue,” a week before Mr. Chait said Prof. Roiphe was right about Twitter feminism, Sarah Jones of The New Republic, where Mr. Chait worked for 16 years, pronounced: “There’s no such thing as Twitter Feminism.”

Other responses, instancing dramatic irony that reinforces Prof. Roiphe’s points about mainstream feminism’s knee-jerk intolerance and conformity policing:

The reactions themselves are protracted tweets and creepily insular and incestuous. There’s no evidence their authors read anything but one another and those they consider influential blasphemers, like Prof. Roiphe, who is probably considered a gender-betrayer. The repeated reference to Prof. Roiphe’s essay as “anticipated” suggests a throng of rabid feminist meat merchants impatiently whetting their knives—in lockstep accord with Prof. Roiphe’s criticism of their leap to prejudge and their “vicious energy.”

To any sane reader, Prof. Roiphe’s essay isn’t even edgy. Consider a point like this, for instance:

[C]onnecting condescending men and rapists as part of the same wellspring of male contempt for women…renders the idea of proportion irrelevant.

Or:

The need to differentiate between smaller offenses and assault is not interesting to a certain breed of Twitter feminist; it makes them impatient, suspicious. The deeper attitude toward due process is: don’t bother me with trifles!

The scandal is that statement of the obvious is felt to be a daring act of defiance. Prof. Roiphe quotes members of a “new whisper network” who “fear varieties of retribution (Twitter rage, damage to their reputations, professional repercussions, and vitriol from friends) for speaking out” about “the weird energy behind [the #MeToo] movement.” Prof. Roiphe says:

Before the piece was even finished, let alone published, people were calling me “pro-rape,” “human scum,” a “harridan,” a “monster out of Stephen King’s ‘IT,’?” a “ghoul,” a “bitch,” and a “garbage person”—all because of a rumor that I was planning to name the creator of the so-called Shitty Media Men list.

Her piece centers around a list of professional media men alleged to be miscreants, a list that one of her “whisperers” describes as “Maoist.” The celebrity bellwethers of the #MeToo movement, who were collectively named Person of the Year by Time Magazine, were extolled as “silence breakers.” For doing the same thing unpopularly, Prof. Roiphe is derogated “scum.”

Noteworthy is the perception by a journalism professor that this sort of feminist list-making is novel when it has been the feminist m.o. for years, maybe decades. The push under the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA (advent 1994), has been to have anyone who is accused, in civil court no less, entered into permanent public registries, even in cases if the allegations were later dismissed. (This is actually a contractually stipulated demand made of states in return for massive federal grants.) Lawmakers who have opposed renewal of VAWA have been publicly “outed” the same way.

Jonathan Chait, mentioned in the introduction to this post, besides in an earlier one, calls Prof. Roiphe’s essay “alternatingly brilliant and incoherent.” The essay is ranging, but there’s nothing incoherent about it.

Its sole fault is its assumption that only still waters run deep. Neither feminists’ “great, unmanageable anger” nor its unseen impacts are new.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Toward the end of her essay, in a description of a conversation with a friend, Prof. Roiphe relates a reaction she had that exactly mirrors how civil court allegations of abuse are received by judges and adjudicated: “[A]s she was talking, I was completely drawn in. I found myself wanting to say something to please her. The outrage grew and expanded and exhilarated us. It was as though we weren’t talking about [an alleged abuser] anymore, we were talking about all the things we have ever been angry about…. I felt as though I were joining a club, felt a warming sense of social justice, felt that this was a weighty, important thing we were engaging in.” This response, which Prof. Roiphe says caused her to feel remorseful afterwards, is the same one that has been drilled into judges for decades thanks to feminist politicking. Why it requires a blogger to make such a connection is baffling.

Play Misty for Me: Feminine Psychodrama and Restraining Orders

“The first time ‘Misty’ broke into the backyard to pound and scream at the bedroom window, the police handcuffed her and said—her face pressed to the hood of the idling black-and-white—that she was not to return. I figured we would never see her again after that early morning in 2012. But the next night, around 1 a.m., I was in bed with my new boyfriend, ‘Scott,’ and we heard the bedroom door slowly crack open. Scott jumped up. ‘No! You can’t be here!’ he shouted, all high-pitched.”

—“This Restraining Order Expires on Tuesday

Here’s a fascinating look at the female drama behind restraining orders. Its author is a gifted writer, and it’s an engaging read.

The subject of the piece, who’s called “Misty,” actually responds to it in the comments section—repeatedly—and calls some of its details into question, including ones that suggest speculation by the author (which, while imaginative, is nevertheless scrupulous and plausible). The writer, Natasha, was Misty’s rival in a love triangle. She apparently replaced Misty before Misty was prepared to relinquish her man.

That first night, [Scott and I] stayed at my house, and after having an intimate conversation in bed, we noticed his phone had 41 missed calls from Misty.

Then came the texts. She was at his house.

12:03 AM: Where are you? I’m staying here

12:05 AM: Please come back. I’m not going to lose you. I’m not going to give up. Please come back I want to see you. I love you

12:06 AM: I’m too drunk to drive home, can I please stay?

12:10 AM: Ok I’m staying.

Scott turned off the phone. The next morning when we checked again there were 16 more:

6:41 AM: By the way the pup tore the shit out of the house, but don’t worry I cleaned it up. If you can’t take care of him then you need to put him up for adoption.

To judge from Misty’s not contradicting the meat of the story (see the comments that follow it), its more titillating details are substantially accurate—and include serial calls and text messages to a nonresponsive ex, camping out in his yard, and even entering his house uninvited.

Hollywood representations like this one are seldom mirrored in real life. True “fatal attractions” are rare. High-conflict people, though, aren’t as rare as most imagine, which would be better known were their spiteful urges literally murderous (or even significantly violent). Attacks are typically insidious in their effects rather than bloody.

I tried to relax in Scott’s bed and just as I did, Misty appeared in the doorway.

“No! You can’t be here!” Scott cried, as he scrambled out of the sheets.

“I just came to see about the dog!” Misty shouted, rushing towards Scott.

Scott managed to wrangle Misty backwards away from the bed but she broke through and, before I could get fully to my feet, her arm swung back and I felt a fleshy thud against the side of my head.

She looked me in the eye, her nose ring glinting in the lamplight. “That’s what you get, you fat c[—],” she said.

She swooshed around, threw open the door (she had broken in through the window), and ran away into the night.

There was another series of confrontations with Misty but most of them took place in a courtroom, or through the unregulated space of fake Facebook profiles and anonymous emails. In the days after our first six-month order expired in 2013, Scott’s phone buzzed at 1 a.m.

It was a text message from Misty that just read: “Hi.”

Misty’s claim that her rival engaged in some passive-aggressive payback after a restraining order was procured also sounds credible:

Did you tell the people reading this article that you sent me a blank text from your boyfriend’s new phone during the restraining order period? I responded asking “who is this?” Natasha then proceeded to call the cops and told them I had violated the order. The judge laughed at it.

I’m no more a psychologist than Natasha, who chronicles the escapade, and I don’t know that her diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) would be confirmed by a clinician, but I think there’s more than a hint of personality-disordered aggression in Misty’s conduct (that reported and that on display in the comments section beneath the story). Of the various personality disorders that typify high-conflict people, what’s more, BPD seems the best fit.

The individual with BPD demonstrates a wide range of impulsive behaviors, particularly those that are self destructive. BPD is characterized by wide mood swings, intense anger even at benign events, and idealization followed by devaluation. The BPD individual’s emotional life is a rollercoaster and his/her interpersonal relationships are particularly unstable. Typically, the individual with BPD has serious problems with boundaries. They become quickly involved in relationships with people, and then quickly become disappointed with them. They make great demands on other people, and easily become frightened of being abandoned by them.

Most suggestive of a disordered personality is the lack of shame or remorse in Misty’s responses. Her impulse is to blame, derogate, and punish:

One day I will laugh at her and said moron’s obese, ugly children and thank the lord they are not mine. I will defend myself to the end! A gigantic f[—] you to all is well deserved. I really can’t help the fact that she’s ugly. Jealousy is a horribly disease. I can’t really think of any other reason why she’d carry this drama on so long, they clearly talk about me. I’m flattered.

A high-conflict person may act impulsively—i.e., in hot blood—but having a personality disorder doesn’t mean someone is insane or psychotic. After an outburst of pique, rage may cool to mute hostility—which may nevertheless endure and continue to flare for years. (It’s perhaps telling, though, that wrathful women are often portrayed brandishing knives. It’s our go-to image for invoking vengeful malice.)

There’s a temptation to wonder whether all of this couldn’t have been resolved by talking things through. The reactions of the couple, like the behavior of Misty’s that motivated it, might be considered hysterical. On the other hand, had the man in the middle shown empathy and tried to assuage Misty’s feelings, he might have been the one who ended up on the receiving end of a restraining order.

This happens.

People like Misty are on both sides of restraining order and related prosecutions. Dare to imagine what Misty would be like as an accuser—the absence of conscience and the vengeful vehemence—and you’ll have an idea of what those who are falsely fingered as abusers are subject to. They’re menaced not by repeated home intrusions but by repeated abuses of process (false allegations to the police and court), which are at least as invasive and far more lasting and pernicious in their effects and consequences.

Something the story significantly highlights is feminine volatility. Feminism (itself often markedly hostile) would have us believe women are categorically passive, nurturing, and vulnerable. It’s men who are possessive, domineering, and dangerous.

The active agents in this story are the women; the guy (the “bone of contention”) is strictly peripheral.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The author of RestrainingOrderBlog.com (now apparently defunct) alleged his accuser was a borderline personality.