Tag government waste

The Potency of Restraining Orders to Destroy

Moderator 9 Comments

“Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders.”

—Justice Milton Raphaelson (upon his retirement)

As shields to deflect fists or bullets, court injunctions are no more effective than the paper they’re printed on. When they’re taken out for the purpose for which they were enacted—which they are about 20% of the time—they may even turn volatile situations into tragic ones, making the protection they afford iffy at best (to paraphrase Judge Raphaelson: trusting in them may get their applicants killed).

As instruments of malice, however, they can’t be beat.

Consider: The best you can hope for from a thug is that he’ll intimidate the target of your wrath (and maybe break an arm or a leg). Besides having to pay him, you hazard the possibility that he’ll brace you for hush money or rat you out and get you thrown in jail. The risk-to-benefit ratio isn’t favorable.

Swearing out a false restraining order fraudulently alleging violence or fear of violence has substantially more to recommend it:

  1. It’s quick, easy, and painless (half an hour, tops);
  2. You shame your victim and permanently foul his public record;
  3. You get the nanny state to intimidate him for you;
  4. You may induce him to get himself arrested and fired from his job if you can rile him sufficiently with a few well-honed aspersions;
  5. And if he’s someone you share a home with, you can claim his property, custody of children and pets, and possession of the house to boot (he could even end up living out of garbage cans in a cardboard box).

This alternative neither risks nor costs you a thing—it’s all covered by the taxpayer—and you have the full and sympathetic support of the court and, by its mandate, the police.

A deal this good should be criminal. No, really.

Copyright © 2012 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

Shaming the Innocent (A Wake-Up Call to Judges, District Attorneys, Lawmakers, and Administrators)

Moderator 4 Comments

Restraining orders may be obtained by anyone on a modicum of evidence—sometimes a vague claim of fear suffices—and for the modest outlay of a few minutes’ time. The application takes about 15 minutes to fill out and possibly even fewer to “substantiate” in an interview with a judge (you sit in a wooden pew or a molded plastic chair and wait for your number to be called—like at the DMV). The worst that happens is the judge says no and you have to apply again another day. (It’s not unheard of for someone to obtain restraining orders against the same person in multiple jurisdictions.)

Applicant’s cost to prosecute: as much pocket change as the parking meter outside the courthouse requires.

Restraining orders may be quashed by virtually no one who isn’t represented by legal counsel. And then it can be a coin toss. (You get served by a county constable who comes knocking on your door—or politely informs you you’ll be arrested if you don’t respond promptly to the yellow notification he hangs there.) Contesting a restraining order demands of defendants weeks of sleepless nights; frantic calls to lawyers; assembly of documentation (possibly to refute nothing that can be refuted); disclosure of intimate, personal details to strangers; stammering, red-faced appeals to friends for corroborating testimony; and a lot of cash. (These stresses are exacerbated in many cases by denial of access to shelter, property, and possibly money, clean clothes, and transportation, too, after being forcibly ejected from your home by the police.)

Appellant’s cost to successfully defend: around $5,000.

Does this mean someone who bears you a grudge or gets off on a little arbitrary cruelty can waltz into a courthouse in the Land of the Free, shed some crocodile tears, and dismantle your life? Totally. Yours and anyone else’s.

I’ve corresponded this week with a former public official who’s a vegetarian animal philanthropist and mom (she and her daughter donated $100 to a fundraiser for a surgery needed by my dog). She grows her own vegetables and walks dogs to raise money for animal shelters. She re-homes spiders and worms. Four years ago she offered to donate one of her kidneys to save the life of a boy she wasn’t even related to. She stands accused of domestic violence by a former boyfriend she’s scarcely seen in decades. The closest she’s come to battering him is giving him a hug at a class reunion. And she’s not the only one this man and his wife have fingered.

(Not only does the court liberally allow anyone to apply for a restraining order on the taxpayer’s dime; there’s also no ceiling on the number he or she can swear out. The cost to the state is estimated at $1,300 to $2,000 a pop. The total cost to the nation is reckoned at $4 billion a year.)

Restraining orders, which are an obvious invitation to wreak utter havoc, are defended as civilizing and litigated in civil court. Jurisdictions may even pride themselves on the number they issue, expecting it to proclaim their intolerance of domestic abuse. They may besides be rewarded with federal subsidies for their “diligence.”

My friend Annie has been pulling her hair out and medicating herself to sleep (I’ve done the same since I was falsely accused years ago—god bless Benadryl!). She’s even had to resort to applying to the mayor, a former colleague, for a character reference: this to combat allegations that wouldn’t bear up under the scrutiny of a schnauzer. If she successfully prosecutes her appeal, she’ll have had to forfeit enough money for a decent used car, will be remembered for having unsavory associates, and will be subject to the idle speculations aroused by the phrase restraining order. And even if she’s exculpated in the minds of everyone she knows and has had to share this with, the stigma will linger with her in her own psyche (which will itself be only a shadow of what she’ll have to live with if the judge finds for her accuser). This public shaming promotes alienation, bitterness, and depression (besides an abiding distrust of government).

Agents of the nanny state tolerate and even defend the restraining order process, either blind or indifferent to its casualties. The members of the fundamentalist feminist establishment the state answers to curl their thumbs around their suspenders, puff their cigars, and gleam with self-satisfaction.

Where the shame belongs is on them.

Copyright © 2012 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com