Court-Abetted Trespassing, Burglary, Larceny, and Embezzlement:  A Terminally Ill Man’s Story of Restraining Order Abuse

“I know the purpose of the site is to decry the injustice of being falsely accused. Just have some sense of proportion, please. It’s terrible to be falsely accused. It can have many horrible consequences. It’s still light years away from being raped.”

—Comment submitted Friday

I believe the man who gives the account that follows would agree with the commenter quoted above. The blog’s author, however, rejects the commenter’s absolutist stance, because the categorical privilege granted to female claimants of violence is what enables wanton violations like the one detailed below, a violation that is denied its due by a dismissive word like “terrible.” The man whose story ensues is living what may be his final days in penury, alone in an empty house. The responses he’s received from the court, from the police, and from attorneys have been conditioned by the conviction expressed above, namely, that psychological violation and vicious privation are “light years away” from physical violation.

The man has, in short, been stripped of everything based on a false allegation of violence, and he’s been told, “That’s tough.” Because of the prejudicial nature of the court order that was fraudulently obtained against him, his bank has refused his request for reimbursement of his savings. Although he was fully exonerated, he has no credibility and no recourse except to quietly die.

William Batson, who says he has been informed by his doctors that he may have only months to live, was barred from his home and then robbed of all of his money and personal property consequent to the issuance of an ex parte restraining order against him petitioned by a person he had never met who represented him to be a batterer.

All the court required to legally authorize the theft of all he owned was a fake narrative of violence.

William’s story (edited for readability):

The difference between other crimes that people are falsely accused of and false DV [domestic violence] accusations is this: All of your rights—to be heard, to face your accuser, and others—are completely circumvented, and the mob that is Rome will get its loaf of bread and its quart of blood whether it’s right or wrong.

I never even met the person who accused me. My DV charge had a special attachment: ex parte election order with all property and financials given to the accuser instantly with nothing more than an accusation.

By the time I made bond, I was not allowed in my own home. I finally convinced the magistrate with witnesses that I lived alone, etc., and upon entry into my home 15 days later all the contents were gone, all bank accounts were drained, and $13,800-plus in forged checks is still owed.

I got an immediate dismissal with prejudice from the court and a too-bad and angry attitude from law enforcement. They helped this person rob me. I can’t sue the police, and no lawyer will even get near it. Before, I had a 814 credit score, $49,000-plus in possessions, $25,000-plus in savings and checking, and they would not even write a letter to the bank so I could get the money returned.

[…]

I will never recover financially or physically. I had cancer that was in a nine-year remission. The last time I bothered to listen, I was told I was stage four and might make it to Christmas. I’m not bitter, and I wish no ill upon any. There was a reason our country was founded and its constitution was written the way they were. This is merely one example of why. There will always be someone who changes something for a stated good cause merely to devour others with its use.

Amen, good luck, and I wish you all well.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

Constitutional Rights Are Only Real if They Can’t Be Denied: On the Price of Tolerating Bad Law

“Americans need to wake up to the sobering fact they are living in an ongoing Constitutional crisis in the U.S.A. Their Constitutional rights are being deep-sixed by the courts in bulk. And once they’re gone, they’re gone forever, [with] ‘precedent’ and ‘stare decisis’ standing in their place.”

—Former attorney Larry Smith, author of BuncyBlawg.com

Imagine if there were a process of law that allowed citizens’ constitutional rights to be circumvented. Imagine if someone—anyone, possibly a complete stranger—were authorized to take an accusation (any accusation) straight to a judge and receive a ruling on that accusation within hours or minutes. Imagine further if judicial tendencies in the formulation of a ruling in this process had been socially conditioned and monetarily influenced. Then imagine that the accused could be incriminated, absent any investigation, entered into multiple police registries, and deprived of property and livelihood…without ever being heard from at all.

Now imagine that such a process existed in the United States of America and a plurality of other countries, and was conducted millions of times a year, right out in the open and not only under the noses of journalists and other social critics but largely with their earnest approval.

You’ve seen the rhetorical ploy the introduction uses and won’t be surprised to be told such a process doesn’t need to be imagined; it exists and has for a long time.

The writer could enumerate the various civil rights violations licensed by the restraining order process (and has, as have many others), but is it really necessary? Read the first paragraph again.

Viewed in stark simplicity, minus propaganda and graphics and “social science” figures, the process is horrifying. Criticism of it is framed as a political debate, which is merely a distraction. Is a process like that limned in the first paragraph constitutionally, socially, or ethically conscionable? Plainly, it isn’t.

The argument against it is really that basic. Yet the process has not only persisted unchecked but magnified in its scope and severity since its advent nearly 40 years ago.

The epigraph, a quotation from a former trial lawyer with a personal investment in exposing the injustice of this process, highlights what the decades of social tolerance of it imply.

Rights may be called “inalienable” all day long, but if a judge can find a precedent—some snatch of text from a previously published ruling—s/he can lawfully deny those rights. That’s on top of the violations already allowed by statutory law.

The law accretes according to “stare decisis.” The phrase is Latin and means “to stand by decided matters.” A judgment that denied one person his or her constitutional rights (any time, even in the distant past) can be used to deny everyone else theirs.

This is how “inalienable rights” can be judicially obliterated. Citizens have those rights only until they actually depend on them for self-defense. Then they’re not there. The citation of a prior judgment or judgments in a related case or cases nullifies them.

In other words, those rights aren’t real; they’re just pretty words.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com