Tag frivolous restraining orders

Warrenton, Virginia Vice Mayor Sunny Reynolds Explains What Legitimates the Protective Order Process

Moderator Leave a comment

“[Warrenton, Virginia Vice Mayor Sunny] Reynolds called the protective order process ‘very difficult, both timewise and emotionally’ and said she ‘could not imagine someone [enduring it] if they didn’t have a legitimate complaint.’”

—Jill Palermo, Fauquier Times

The previous post examined Virginia politician Sunny Reynolds’ “legitimate complaint” to a court, indulged at a cost to the taxpayer possibly as high as $1,000 or more. A detective was assigned to the case. A statement was taken. Paperwork had to be filed at the court, data entered, and police notified of the court’s preliminary ruling. The respondent had to be physically served with her restraining order by a constable or law enforcement official. A judge had to hear her complaint, and another judge had to rehear it. Then more paperwork had to be processed, data entered, and police notified a second time (and more paperwork processed and data entered).

Ms. Reynolds alleged she was angrily addressed, had a finger pointed at her, and felt crowded during an exchange in a restaurant with a local real estate investor, Keith MacDonald, who was addressing a grievance to an elected official (albeit in an unofficial venue).

Ms. Reynolds’ complaint, in essence, was that Mr. MacDonald intruded on her meal, which somewhat contrasts with how advocates for the restraining order process tend to justify it:

Law, like language, follows usage. Certainly in the sense that a judge is licensed to entertain any petty gripe, Ms. Reynolds’ complaint was “legitimate.” By this standard, though, what occasion for hurt feelings or indignation wouldn’t legitimate a complaint to the court that incriminates its target?

A question arises: Is this the first time Ms. Reynolds has sought a restraining order? The statement of hers quoted in the epigraph would suggest the answer is yes. If a public exchange in a roomful of people is the most fear-inspiring interpersonal experience Ms. Reynolds has ever had, she has led a charmed life indeed. If it isn’t, then what were her motives really? It’s one thing to seek protection after an act of violence has been committed (or at least threatened); it’s another thing to punish someone for an act that only exists in the complainant’s imagination.

In a more detailed account of the incident than that reported by the Fauquier Times, one published on the website FauqueirNow.com, Ms. Reynolds is quoted as testifying: (1) “He just got more and more aggressive. I was afraid he might hit me.” That’s during a dialogue that her witness testified lasted “three or four minutes” with a gap in between. Then Ms. Reynolds is quoted as remarking: “He said, ‘I’m gonna get you. I’m gonna fix you. All it takes is 125 signatures’”—to get on the town council ballot, something Fauquier Now reports Mr. Macdonald has done. If the stated threat was political opposition, why was a physical blow “feared”? The alleged threat by Mr. MacDonald, which was probably emphasized in typical tattletale fashion because it contained the phrase, “I’m gonna get you,” actually exculpates him. It makes his intention clear: to unseat Ms. Reynolds in the May election (an intention that’s conveniently hamstrung by the protective order Ms. Reynolds petitioned).

In her Fauqueir Times interview, Ms. Reynolds described her filing for a restraining order as “very difficult…emotionally.” For her, being challenged, then (and offered a brochure), was very stressful and so was “having to” complain about it.

It’s a telling commentary on the system that it’s there to provide emotional succor to fragile politicians.

Ms. Reynolds also told reporters that she felt singled out because she’s a girl, and maybe she’s right. So?

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

BABY ON BOARD: Restraining Order by Virginia Vice Mayor Sunny Reynolds Kneecaps Town Council Election Rival Who “Pointed His Finger at Her”; Letter to the Editor Criticizes Conduct

Moderator 1 Comment

The administration of restraining orders is a frequent target of censure by First Amendment scholar and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh in his blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. That’s because restraining orders may be exploited, besides as gag orders generally, as SLAPPs to suppress political speech, which the First Amendment is there to protect above all other kinds.

This post shares a letter to the editor of the Fauquier Times that was recently submitted by Virginian Nathan Larson and that concerns an injunction sought by Warrenton Vice Mayor Linda “Sunny” Reynolds, whose nickname and whose evident hypersensitivity are strikingly incongruous. “Misty” Reynolds would seem to suit her better—or maybe “Runny.”

According to the Fauquier Times, Ms. Reynolds petitioned and was granted an obviously spiteful restraining order against Warrenton real estate investor Keith Macdonald based on the allegation that he “appeared to be ‘very angry’” and “pointed his finger at her” during a public exchange about a proposed municipal development project (a library) that occurred in a restaurant where both were dining with others. Ms. Reynolds testified that Mr. Macdonald “invaded her personal space, preventing her from leaving the table.”

Not clarified in the story is whether she ever asked to be excused or made a move to rise.

One of Ms. Reynolds two female witnesses in court worked for the newspaper that reported the story. The other, Ms. Reynold’s dinner companion, Crystal McKinsey, “testified that she could tell Reynolds ‘felt very threatened by the situation and was very fearful.’” What was characterized as a harrowing confrontation transpired in a populated eatery, and there was no report that voices had even been raised.

Mr. MacDonald represented himself in court; Ms. Reynolds had an attorney.

The judge, J. Gregory Ashwell, “decided in favor of Reynolds’ petition, saying he believed Reynolds’ testimony and that of her dinner companion met the legal requirement to issue a protective order.” He offered the explanation that it was “clearly an ‘awkward interaction.’”

Mr. MacDonald, who says he intends to appeal, opposes Ms. Reynolds in an upcoming town council election.

The Fauquier Times reports “[i]t’s not clear if the final order, which will be issued by the court, will…bar Macdonald from town council meetings or town hall.”

Ms. Reynolds’ reelection campaign is titled, “Sunny, for a Voice.” Her bio identifies her as the mother of two daughters but contains no reference to a father.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

By Nathan Larson

The recent article, “Judge grants Warrenton vice mayor protective order against council opponent,” shows why we need to reform Virginia’s laws concerning restraining orders.

Warrenton Vice Mayor Sunny Reynolds was able to obtain a restraining order under a statute, Code of Virginia § 19.2-152.9, that required only that she prove she had been “subjected to an act of violence, force, or threat by a preponderance of the evidence.”

This is a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard which is used in criminal court. That higher standard exists because of the principle that a person’s liberty should not be taken away without strong evidence that he broke a law. Yet without having been convicted of any crime, Reynolds’ challenger in the May election, Keith Macdonald, has been deprived of his First Amendment right to petition his government (specifically, his vice mayor) for a redress of grievances. He also has been deprived of his Second Amendment right to possess a gun.

The article says, “Reynolds also said she felt taken advantage of as the only woman member of the Warrenton Town Council.” But it will have a chilling effect on free speech if men feel they could easily be deprived of their liberty just for confronting a female elected official about her public policies and threatening to run for office against her. The voters lose out too, because now any prospect of these two candidates’ appearing together in a forum to debate issues of public interest is gone.

Mr. Larson retracted his statement about Mr. McDonald’s being denied the right to own a firearm. In Virginia, he explains, a citizen may be slapped with a restraining order for an unwanted gesture, like pointing a finger, but to be denied gun ownership, Mr. McDonald would have to have been in an “intimate” relationship with Ms. Reynolds.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Probably unsurprising to a reader here, Ms. Reynolds, the plaintiff in the case, called applying for a protective order, which requires filling out some forms and appearing in court for a brief hearing, “very difficult, both timewise and emotionally.” In contrast, proponents of the process argue that being publicly accused (and having one’s name indefinitely registered in local and federal police databases) is no big deal at all.

Low and Outside: An Umpire’s Story of Restraining Order Abuse (by an Underhand Screwball)

Moderator 11 Comments

As the story in this post shows, the phrase “America’s Game” has taken on a new meaning.

The common assumption—one that’s been vigorously enforced by advocates of the “abuse industry”—is that restraining orders are used to protect “victims” from “abusers.” So-called abusers are represented as violent husbands or boyfriends, or as stalkers, representations that account for the ubiquity of restraining orders and the ease of their procurement.

The man whose story of restraining order abuse appears below reports that restraining orders can be obtained by drive-thru in his state (California), like milkshakes and onion rings.

The restraining order against this father and family man was petitioned by his sister-in-law on behalf of her son, his nephew. The man affronted his sister-in-law by umpiring two of her son’s games (his job), contrary to her wishes. That’s the basis of her complaint to the court.

Fighting that complaint has now cost the man and his family some $15,000 (besides money he would have earned as an umpire), and his life’s on hold while he awaits an appellate court ruling that won’t emerge for six to 24 months.

Here’s his story, as he tells it:

I am a victim of restraining order abuse.

At the age of 37, I married the love of my life. It wasn’t until after we were engaged that I found out that most of my wife’s family didn’t like me. This is the foundation of my story.

I am a little league, travel ball, and high school umpire. I umpire because I love the game and to make some additional money on the side. I have been umpiring baseball for close to 25 years without any incident whatsoever, and most reviews of my performance have been complimentary.

When my wife and I were married, we resided in Orange County, California. Our residence was far from the rest of her family, which limited our exposure to her parents and her sisters. My wife has two sisters, one older and one younger. Her elder sister is a lawyer, and her younger sister is a stay-at-home mom.

The eldest sister and her family and I have a great relationship. The problem is with the youngest sister, who is a control freak. She likes to control everything, including how many cups of coffee her husband has a day, and if she’s denied control, she will go to whatever lengths she has to to get it.

Two years or so ago, my wife was offered a job that would move us nearer to the younger sister. This was something that excited my wife, because she loves her family very much and wanted to be closer to her nieces and nephews. When she decided to take the job, she contacted her sister and told her the good news. Her sister was excited and worked with my wife to find a house that was near hers, and she found us a great one.

After moving in, we were visited quite frequently by my wife’s little sister and her family. Every time she visited, however, she pointedly let my wife know about her displeasure with the way we parented our eight-year-old little girl. As a stay-at-home mom whose entire existence revolves around her four kids, she has read every book on parenting and considers herself an expert in child-rearing. I had even caught her entering my house and administering medication to my daughter without our consent, which I firmly put a stop to.

Back to baseball.

After we moved, I enlisted with the local little league to umpire. I worked for a local umpire company that was very pleased with the service I provided to them. It considered me one of its better umpires. One day, I was assigned to umpire one of my wife’s younger sister’s kids’ games. I checked with the league to see if there was an issue and was told no and that it had people umpiring their relatives’ games all the time. Just be neutral, I was told, which I always am.

My wife’s younger sister found out that I was going to be umpiring her son’s game and called my wife to tell her to have me remove myself from the game. When asked why, she stated she just wanted to keep things separate. My wife didn’t understand why and told her to not worry, that I would not show any bias toward her kids and everything would be great. He sister repeated that she just wanted to keep things separate. My wife still didn’t understand why, because her son and I had a great relationship, with no problems at all. At this point, the woman became hysterical and said, “Keep your husband away from my son.” My wife got very upset and hung up on her. After that, we found out that the younger sister called the older sister and asked what she should do to repair things with my wife because she had upset her.

Well, because there was no good reason for my sister-in-law to be upset, and because the umpire company needed me to cover the game, I did. There was no issue with the game, and I received many compliments afterwards. I ended up working another one of my nephew’s games a couple of weeks later, again with no issues. The next week, I got a call from my umpire assignor reporting that my sister-in-law filed a complaint with the league saying her son was “uncomfortable” with my working behind the plate.

At that point, I banned her and her son from visiting my house. This really angered her and inspired her to get back at me.

Meanwhile, my assignor and I got together and agreed I should no longer work any of her kids’ games because she was clearly sick. So I was assigned to other games at the park that didn’t involve her kids.

This wasn’t acceptable to her. She didn’t want me at the fields at all. So she took pictures of me there on the days I was scheduled to work and created a story that involved my hunting and stalking her kids, and affecting their mental well-being.

She went to court and was granted an ex parte restraining order.

When I was served the restraining order, the deputy sheriff told me that he had read it and thought it was the funniest thing he had ever seen. He said he had no idea why it was issued and told me to just stay away from my sister-in-law.

When the time came for me to appear in court to fight the order, I had an attorney and she did not. The judge clearly stated that he would not give her preferential treatment, even so.

This turned out to be completely false.

My attorney laid out a solid case to have the order dismissed, presenting facts that showed there was no proof of any stalking or harassment, and that up until the time of my sister-in-law’s going crazy, her kids and I had had a great relationship.

After about a two-hour hearing, the judge ruled against me. He stated that because my wife informed me that her younger sister had told her to keep me away from her kid that I was put on notice…yet persisted in showing up at the fields to work. Never mind that I was told two months after their conversation (my wife didn’t tell me right away because she thought it was just her sister acting crazy). The judge then went on to say that a mother had the right to determine who got to be around her kids and didn’t need a good reason.

Now since the restraining order was made permanent, my sister-in-law has been using it to harass me and my family.

She went to the elementary school and instructed staff there that I was only to be allowed to pick up and drop off my daughter, and she warned them that if I dared to attend any of my child’s awards ceremonies, school performances, science fairs, or other school functions, she would call the police and have me arrested. She has also been sending letters with false claims about police reports and bullying to the little league administration that regulates all of the local little leagues, and has effectively had me removed from umpiring any games at any of the area little leagues, even ones in which her kids don’t participate.

Her family has been following me and my daughter to public parks and then approaching me to tell me I am in violation of the restraining order. Also, they have changed their walking routes to school so they walk by me and my daughter, or by me as I walk home after taking my daughter to school, to accuse me of “pushing the envelope.” They constantly photograph me when I am waiting at school, and make up stories about me doing things to harass them or their kids.

We have filed a motion for a new trial with compelling evidence. It was denied by the same judge. We have also filed a motion to modify the order to allow me to attend my daughter’s school events since I am her primary caregiver while my wife is at work (I own my own business), and this too was denied, because the judge thought it would be too hard for the school and the police to enforce.

We have filed an appeal, and briefs have been submitted. We are currently waiting for the appellate court to consider the briefs and issue a ruling. We were informed that it can take anywhere from six months to two years for this to happen. Now we are investigating whether we have proper grounds to file a motion asking for expedition to move our case closer to the front of the queue.

To show you just how crazy this restraining order is, the local police department asked, when we dropped off our guns, what clown would sign such a stupid restraining order? They said they would hold our guns for as long as needed to get this thing appealed.

This is my story, which has been my life for a year…and counting.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*From “High Conflict Family Law Matters and Personality Disorders” by attorneys Beth E. Maultsby and Kathryn Flowers Samler:

high_conflict_indicators

A Word on Restraining Order Statistics and the Rate of False Restraining Orders

Moderator 5 Comments

I responded to a paper published last year by law professor Kelly Behre, who took umbrage that so-called FRGs (father’s rights groups) were promulgating the statistic that 80% of restraining orders were frivolous or false. This conjectural statistic (60 to 80%) was, I believe, postulated by Save Services based on its studying available information, which is scant. I don’t know that the estimate is unimpeachable, but I don’t believe its authors ever asserted it was conclusive.

Speaking conclusively about figures like this is impossible. Even estimates of how many restraining orders are issued every year in the United States is speculative (and informed guesses I’ve read range from 900,000 to two or three million).

The posited “80%” statistic was seized upon by critics of the restraining order process and bruited broadly on the Internet. I published it myself, and this blog, accordingly, was cited in Prof. Behre’s paper as the product of an “FRG.” It’s actually the product of a single tired and uninspired man who knows that false accusations are made.

Is the statistic wrong? Who knows. Who can say, even, what such a statistic purports to refer to? Does it mean most restraining order petitions are false? Does it mean most temporary restraining orders are dismissed as insufficiently founded? Or does it mean most restraining orders that are finalized have bogus grounds?

There are three phases to the process. A petitioner files an application, which may be approved by a judge or may not be. If it’s approved (ex parte), a temporary order is issued. This order is then supposed to be subjected to review by another judge before being affirmed and made “permanent.” (The word permanent is misleading. A “permanent” order typically has a duration of one year—though, to compound the confusion, some orders may actually be permanent and never expire. What isn’t misleading is that the public record of a restraining order is permanent.)

Three phases: application, temporary order, “permanent” order—got that?

What people invested in exposing this travesty of justice must understand is that it’s possible an unknown (and significant) number of applications for restraining orders are rejected at the outset. Their petitioners are refused. Is this number recorded someplace? Maybe, maybe not. We’re a federation of states, and every one of those states has its own budget, recordkeeping practices, and priorities.

Perhaps even its individual courthouses do.

Putting aside the fact that the number of applications that are rejected may not be recorded, there’s also the question of how many orders are preliminarily approved by the court and then dismissed on review.

I recently quoted a statistic reported in The Denver Post: “In fiscal 1998, about 18,000 temporary and 3,300 permanent domestic-violence-related restraining orders were issued in Colorado counties.” This statistic itself suggests that over 80% of restraining orders are determined to be frivolous, flimsy, or false. It says that of some 18,000 initially approved (i.e., temporary) restraining orders, only a fractional 3,300 were found meritorious on review.

It says the “80%” statistic is, in one sense at least, right on the money, if not conservative.

If comprehensive statistics for all courts were available that showed how many restraining orders were petitioned, how many of those petitions were rejected outright, and how many of those petitions were rejected on review, the proper statistic for restraining orders determined to be unfounded or indefensible by the court might prove to be in the 90th-percentile range.

And that’s ignoring that a goodly number (and maybe a majority) of the restraining order petitions that “pass muster” and are affirmed by judges may themselves be based partly or wholly on BS claims.

Even what “false” may mean in respect to restraining order allegations is ambiguous. Does “false” mean misrepresentative of the truth, i.e., misleading? Does it mean inclusive of true and falsified allegations? Or does it mean fabricated wholesale, i.e., purely and maliciously untrue?

James Thurber: “It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.”

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com