protected speech | TALKING BACK to restraining orders

I recall that some years ago I posed the question on this blog, Have we forgotten what restraining orders are for? I also postulated that men would learn to exploit them.

Well, here’s a little validation out of Moreno Valley, California, dated August 9, 2023, concerning, yessir, two dudes, one of them a politician.

He’s the accuser.

The mayor of Moreno Valley, Ulises Cabrera, obtained a restraining order against resident Elmer Thomas. Cabrera says Thomas shoved him and made rude comments and threatening gestures during an event commemorating the end of slavery. (Those who’ve felt the yoke of allegations to the court might find a certain irony in the latter detail.)

Moreno Valley Mayor Ulises Cabrera

Thomas, the defendant, says that Cabrera brushed inches past his daughter then followed her to the toilet, while “smirking” at him.

Cabrera says that never happened and alleges Thomas bumped his shoulder.

A witness for Cabrera, a friend or relative, presumably, told the court that Thomas (at some point) stepped in front of a pickup Cabrera was in and flipped him the bird. The witness says Thomas then reached for his waistband, as if going for a gun, and made gestures urging Cabrera to get off the truck and duke it out.

The story does not indicate that there were any disinterested bystanders who saw the alleged “threatening” hand motions nor does it report that any actual gun was seen or drawn.

Thomas said he raised his middle finger at Cabrera after he threw candy at Thomas’s face.

Cabrera countered that he “absolutely did not throw candy.”

Thomas, who says he doesn’t even own a gun, denied that he “reached for his waistband.”

Background detail: The story reports that Thomas had criticized Cabrera while Cabrera was a city council member. Cabrera was censured by other council members for allegedly mistreating a former city employee.

Responding to the allegations brought against him last November, Cabrera said they were “essentially hearsay.”

Review the sketchy “witness” testimony above and see if the characterization isn’t equally applicable to it.

This infantile bullshit will be tried in a court of law later this month on the taxpayer’s dime.

*The right to criticize those in government is what the First Amendment is in place to protect foremost. Rude hand gestures are also protected expressions.

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.

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

TALKING BACK to restraining orders

THEY’RE NOT JUST ABUSED BUT ABUSIVE

Tag protected speech

A Playground Restraining Order Petitioned by a California Politician That Validates the Blog Author’s “Oracular Foresight”

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