Tag blogging about legal abuse

What Knee-Jerk Feminists, Their PC Partisans, and Judges Need to Understand about Why People Complain about the Abuse of Restraining Orders and Family Court, Domestic Violence, and Child Protection Procedures

Moderator 5 Comments

Some posts on this site have concerned exposing and articulating legal frauds, and the challenges these acts face, such as distrust and disinterest from the public, and censorship from the powers that be. The focus of posts past has been divided between efforts to encourage the wronged to talk back and efforts to chasten the rigid views of those who would diminish, derogate, or dismiss their complaints.

This post is directed exclusively toward detractors, particularly dogmatic feminists and judges. This is what you need to understand. What you think motivates people to complain of legal abuse is wrong.

There are plenty of feminist attention-seekers, and they seem to be of the opinion that complainants of legal abuse are like them. They’re not. They’re people who want their lives back. They’re not interested in “debate” or a fan following; they want(ed) to be left alone.

Besides its direct consequences (i.e., privation), the pain of legal abuse is that it’s public. For its victims to openly acknowledge they’ve been abused, then, is to exacerbate their pain. This is not a decision made lightly or an undertaking embraced with gusto, which is why public complaints are few and often anonymous.

No one does this for shits and giggles.

Both feminists and judges may believe complainants of legal abuse are trying to “get even.” How, with a “blog” post—or with 100 “blog” posts? There is no “getting even.” People abused by legal process want relief from slurs and false allegations that are preserved as public records and that may have cost them everything. They want restoration.

A bizarre misconception prevails that the person who counter-accuses someone is hung up on that person. What s/he wants is that person (and the court) out of his or her life. But how is a falsely accused person to achieve that? Recourse to the law doesn’t avail, because law in this area has been corrupted. So s/he’s stuck (literally) with exposing the shenanigans of some cretin, creep, or kook who means absolutely nothing. S/he’s stuck because of what that cretin, creep, or kook took, whether that was his or her dignity, peace of mind, security, livelihood, property, or family (or all of the above).

can_I_stalk_him2Complainants of legal abuse may “live” under constant threat. One successful false accusation not only invites but may encourage an endless number, particularly from a “high-conflict” person. The only alternative for some to looking over their shoulders day and night is exposing their tormentors and making everything a matter of public accountability. It’s not about exhibitionism.

Knee-jerk feminists and judges want to believe complainants of injustice are enjoying a game and not that accusers are. The accused’s lives aren’t a game, and those lives have been hijacked. Many vocal feminists and all judges are paid to play games; the legally abused are not.

Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*And if the “rantings” of the legally abused seem raw and unpolished, that’s why. They’re not professional disputants; they’re normal joes and janes who are distraught, anguished, or unhinged. Note: A person doesn’t endure these outrages and not become unhinged.

“Some Results Have Been Removed”: Search Engine Censorship of Bloggers Who Write about Legal Abuse

Moderator 2 Comments

These are some search terms that recently drew readers to this site:

  • how can a person just make stuff up in a personal protection order
  • female stalkers and false allegations
  • lie to get restraining order
  • indiana cps false reporting
  • the consequences of lying to obtain a tro in nj
  • permanent restraining orders based on lies
  • if someone threatens you with a pfa and is lying is it libel

What they imply are personal attacks and procedural abuses, kinds of them that daily confound lives yet seldom reach the public’s awareness, whether because victims are ashamed to discuss them or afraid to.

As prior posts have noted, the court tends to view criticism of legal abuses as abusive, so engaging in it is dicey. Appreciate that it’s next to impossible—and virtually pointless—to air grievances about courthouse misconduct without identifying whose behavior is being complained of, what s/he or they have done, and why.

Criticism of people who’ve falsely testified in a public forum and on public record is protected speech, so long as that speech is about them and not to them, and doesn’t contain falsehoods, threats, or sensitive information that might qualify as invasive to privacy. What someone has aired in court under oath is not private, particularly if the testimony is criminally perjured.

Restraining orders, though, are prejudicial instruments that explicitly or implicitly identify defendants as “stalkers” or “harassers.” So those who criticize their issuance are vulnerable to having their criticism interpreted as “further” harassment, despite authorization by the First Amendment…and despite the fact that the original claims against them may have been false to begin with. (Such claims may be established in minutes and on no ascertainable basis other than some finger-pointer’s say-so.)

Adding to the obstacles that critics of process face is that search engines may censor them, particularly if an order of the court can be provided that states or suggests writers are prohibited from speaking about a particular person or persons. Such an order is called a prior restraint, and it’s unlawful. Trial judges aren’t First Amendment experts, however, and orders aren’t hard to obtain, and can even be issued ex parte (i.e., without a trial).

censorship by Bing, censorship by Yahoo, search engine censorship

While this blog has existed for over four years and has been viewed more than 300,000 times this year, it isn’t cataloged on Microsoft’s Bing or on Yahoo (though it was prior to its author’s being sued by his false accuser in 2013 for “libel and harassment”). Whether administrators of these search sites unilaterally opted to “delist” the blog from their returns, or whether the blog author’s accuser(s) insisted that they do, I don’t know. It may be that the blog was determined to be “misogynist,” “defamatory,” or to otherwise traffic in or host “hate speech.” They’re easy allegations to put over.

Eugene Volokh, eminent First Amendment scholar and UCLA professor, would clarify that censorship can only be committed by the government.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia has a page titled, “Censorship by Google,” and Bing has been censured for “censoring” returns according to certain search criteria. ElephantJournal.com, for instance, explains “Why We Should Boycott Bing”:

[C]onduct the search with the simplified characters used in mainland China, then you get sanitized pro-Communist results. This is especially true of image searches. Magic! No Tiananmen Square massacre. The Dalai Lama becomes an oppressor. Falun Gong believers are villains, not victims.

Elephant Journal links to a New York Times editorial by Nicholas Kristof (similarly titled) that inspired its condemnation.

Application, then, of the word censorship to “selective revision” of or the delisting of websites from search engines’ returns isn’t without strong precedence. See also:

Search engine “censorship” is brought to the attention of this audience to emphasize the importance of airing stories of court injustice. Policies and perceptions have been prejudiced for decades by violence rhetoric, and vital to motivating a reassessment of politically biased positions is challenging them and contradicting them with evidence and personal narratives of abuse.

Today, it’s an act of subversion and nonconformity even to voice misgivings.

When complaints of courtroom travesties become “normal and everyday” instead of “suspect,” then process itself will come under scrutiny instead of the people whose lives have been trashed by it.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified sites that vehemently criticize legal abuses as sources of “hate speech.” Consider, then, what consequences a proposal like this, meant to disrupt terrorists, could have over time: “‘Spell-check for hate’ needed, says Google’s Schmidt” (BBC).

Why People Who’ve Been Falsely Accused “Blog”: A Tutorial for Judges

Moderator 9 Comments

An absurd notion seems to prevail in the minds of men and women of the court—many of whose familiarity with the Internet begins and ends with shopping for bargains on eBay or Skyping their grandkids—that people who “blog” about being abused in court have nothing better to do.

No, they do it because they’ve been screwed, blued, and tattooed, and the peace of mind needed to do what they’d rather be doing has been denied them.

Their sanity, dignity, and good names, if not their children, have been sacrificed to the false idol of justice. They’ve been railroaded through one or more gimmicky, derelict procedures that confounded their lives for nothing…excepting politics, that is, and cash.

(Seriously, what pinnacle of pretense does a person need to surmount to entertain the idea that someone would expend dozens, hundreds, or thousands of hours decrying inept, lopsided policies of law merely because s/he was “miffed” or “disappointed”? )

Demonstrating the ability to write isn’t proof of anything but the attainment of a third-grade education.

Wake up and smell the Folgers: Not everyone knows to or has the means to enlist a lawyer to swat down some false or hyped allegations whose only ascertainable basis is that they were scrawled on a bureaucratic form in 10 minutes with a Bic Round Stic by someone displaying anxiety.

If you’re a veteran of process, you know very well the obstacles people face (even if they have representation) in disentangling themselves from accusations after a judge has once signed off on them. Tell yourself what you want, but this isn’t deliberative stuff (an order of the court can be delivered sooner than an order of waffles at Denny’s).

This stuff is, however, saprogenic. That’s a fancy word—and we know judges favor fancy words—that means producing decay and putrefaction.

What may be a few moments of your workday can profoundly influence years (or all) of a person’s life. It can hasten a body into the grave.

If this is news to you, that’s probably because you began your career before a medium existed in which the legally abused little guy could publicly air his or her grievances. That doesn’t mean you haven’t been arbitrarily trashing lives all along; it just means you didn’t have to hear about it before.

Probably you felt securer on your pontifical peak before casualties of slovenly adjudications could complain about them.

Probably, too, that’s why orders of the court are routinely issued that prohibit the exercise of free speech by complainants of procedural abuse, orders that have recently fallen under stern scrutiny.

The reason people “blog” or “video-blog” (“vlog”) is that the courts fail them, and the court’s miscarriages exact a grave toll that endures and compounds over the months and years. The victims of those miscarriages live in limbo, and speech is the only recourse left them to air truths the court disdained, ignored, edited, or quashed.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Doctors may get to bury their mistakes; judges don’t. “Public record” doesn’t mean only as public as you want it to be.

Bruce Aristeo, NJ, New Jersey, indefinite temporary restraining order

New Jerseyite Bruce Aristeo was cited for violating an “indefinite temporary restraining order” for, among other things, using his accuser’s image and that of her “pet Belgian Malinois.” He has been arrested at least four times.