Tag critical commentary

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

Moderator 10 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VAWA_order

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

Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

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

Jody Raines, Bruce Aristeo, WebMarCom

The Use of Restraining Orders to Bully Women: Jenny’s Story

Moderator 12 Comments

The painted fingernail in this image isn’t that of the person who filed the domestic violence restraining order; it’s the fingernail of the person against whom the order was issued (wrongly).

A woman named Jenny brought her blog to my attention yesterday. Jenny reports she was falsely accused of domestic violence for no better motive than to hurt her, and she prevailed in court.

I broke down during my turn to defend myself, but I couldn’t help it. My heart hurt so badly. I was in so much pain. The judge took no time at all to throw the case out. He pretty much laughed Mr. Wrong out of the courtroom for his petty allegations and…what he was trying to use as proof of domestic violence….

As Jenny puts it, she was “slapped with a restraining order.” She should have said “SLAPPed.” Her accuser, whom she calls “Mr. Wrong,” implied the worst about her that the boilerplate bureaucratic form allowed—to shut her up: She’d published a warning about her ex-boyfriend online and invited his friends to read it. That’s protected speech (besides nonviolent), and the judge was right to vacate the order.

Don’t break out the champagne yet, though.

Jenny, who has been served with two falsely petitioned restraining orders alleging “domestic violence” (this month) besides heckled on her blog as a “crazy bitch,” a “joke,” a “loser,” and “just a booty call that didn’t leave in the morning”

In her latest post, Jenny reports she was yesterday served with a second domestic violence protection order. Yeah. The motive is the same: to shut her up and hurt her. Jenny had left a note asking if she could see her accuser’s son, a boy she had parented and whom she cared about and missed.

This time around, Mr. Wrong ticked a box on the form mandating that Jenny attend a 52-week “Batterer Intervention Program” (funded by the tax-paying public).

He also ticked a box indicating Jenny owned a gun, which she says she never has. That doesn’t matter, of course, nor does it matter that the same guy petitioned the same order a few weeks before and was ultimately denied. Restraining order proceedings are conducted ex parte, which means orders are issued blindly, and the priority is to “protect” plaintiffs. There’s no cap on how many times vexatious plaintiffs can play this game. Defendants aren’t consulted or considered. They’re just handed orders that say the court has reason to suspect they’re batterers (or stalkers or child abusers or rapists, etc.).

Jenny has besides been serially ridiculed and taunted by “anonymous” commenters on her blog (who could “they” be?). She’s been called a “crazy bitch,” a “joke,” a “loser,” and “just a booty call that didn’t leave in the morning”:

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), domestic abuse includes “coercion and threats”; “intimidation”; “emotional abuse”; “isolation”; “minimizing, denying, and blaming”; and “using children.”

The NCADV and other “women’s advocacy groups” defend restraining orders as deterrents of abuse…and thereby make the abuse of people like Jenny not just possible but easy.

Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Contrast this story with how complainants of false accusations of domestic violence are represented by feminist advocates like UC Davis Prof. Kelly Behre.