Consider the following allegations:
“She has repeatedly exposed herself to me.”
“She told me on multiple occasions that if I wouldn’t have sex with her again she would tell the police I raped her.”
“She has stalked me since I met her. I’ve kept a dated log of all of the instances when she appeared someplace where I was. I’ve told her to leave me alone but she won’t. She says I’m her ‘destiny.’”
“She grabbed my crotch. When I pushed her hand away and ran, she laughed and called me a ‘pussy.’”
“I loaned her money. She told me if I asked for it back one more time, she and a friend of hers would hurt me. She bragged that they had killed someone before.”
“She has sent me panties covered with blood, urine, and feces. I threw them away because they were disgusting.”
“She showed me a knife and said that if I didn’t leave my girlfriend she would ‘cut her good.’”
“She said she wanted to drink my blood.”
An affidavit on a protective order application could include any or all of these statements and any number of others, including, say, alleged confessions of any act conceivable by the imagination of the accuser.
An affidavit, that is, a statement of facts alleged and sworn to be true, can usually be of any length and could include detailed descriptions of the accused’s anatomy, commentaries on his or her hygiene, and judgments of any variety, besides including an account of “what happened.”
There are no rules, and the court cannot retroactively censor what is effectively a complainant’s testimony.
Note that none of the accusations listed above could ever be ascertained as true or false, and a judge, accordingly, has no particular investment in “the truth.” His or her job, as prescribed by the law, is to decide whether the accuser is convincing.
An even cruder fact is that a judge may never read a complainant’s affidavit at all but simply ask for a verbal accounting, that’s if s/he does anything more than make sure the paperwork is filled out correctly. Once validated by a judge’s signature, unless contested and successfully quashed during a hearing that may be afforded 30 minutes on a judge’s docket, the order is a binding instrument of law and an indefinitely preserved public document that can be quoted or published.
Restraining orders are typically issued ex parte. That means based on the accuser’s say-so only. The accused may know nothing about it until a law enforcement officer or agent of the court appears at his or her door, possibly in the presence of friends, family, and/or neighbors.
The whole application and approval process may take from a few minutes to a few hours.
The latitude granted to judges in this arena of law is virtually boundless, as the politicking behind so-called “women’s law” intended it to be. A single statement from the list that heads this post, delivered persuasively enough, could suffice to make any number of allegations “stick” (whether relevant or not). Or repeated emphatic claims of terror and violation could. Or the testimony of a crony witness. Or a real or faked series of text messages or emails. Or a real or spoofed series of calls on a phone (which, if real, could have been about anything).
As Ralph Nader said, “Power has to be insecure to be responsive.” To judges, this business is just quotidian paper-shuffling, and they have no liability for their rulings, which are issued without oversight (including by judges who aren’t even judges but merely seasonal temps). Grounds for appeal, furthermore, are almost none (and “lying” is not among the few).
A reasonable person would conclude that anyone who supported laws that would allow a woman to be falsely accused of molestation, rape, or murder would have to be a monster.
The left-leaning feminist humanists and self-styled social justice advocates who do militantly support these laws emphasize their virtue: bringing relief to women in abusive relationships. This is somewhat like explaining communism’s goal is the protection of the working class citizen—while ignoring that tens of millions of working class citizens have been killed in the name of an idealistic social experiment.
Perhaps social justice crusaders who promote “women’s law” would say they’ve only ever meant for it to treat men monstrously.
Copyright © 2022 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*In civil lawsuits that aren’t filed for free, as restraining order applications usually are, a defendant could move the court to strike inflammatory statements that weren’t relevant and that could only serve to damage (his or) her reputation and, for example, professional standing (and health, security, interpersonal relationships, etc.). Whether this would fare any chance of success in drive-thru procedures conceived to permanently document misdeeds is less than iffy. (It would require redacting, or “blacking out,” parts of the original order, which is contrary to its purpose.)
I grudgingly constructed a page this week on Facebook, which confirmed to me two things I already knew: (1) I really hate Facebook, and (2) women are more socially networked than men.
Notice that 200 to 400 times greater interest in bonding with people concerned with women’s rights has been shown than interest in bonding with people concerned with men’s rights. That’s a lot…A LOT a lot.
Its introduction, at least, was gripping to read: “At what was billed as the first annual international conference on men’s issues, feminists were ruining everything.” I was keen to hear about how the meeting was disrupted by a mob of angry women swinging truncheons.
I’m sympathetic to men’s plaints about legal mockeries that trash lives, including those of children, so I found the MSNBC coverage offensively yellow-tinged in more senses than one, but I’m not what feminists call an MRA or “men’s rights activist.” I don’t think men need any rights the Constitution doesn’t already promise them. What they need is for their government to recognize and honor those rights. The objection to feminism is that it has induced the state to act in wanton violation of citizens’ civil entitlements—not just men’s, but women’s, too.
To illustrate, take the 
Women I’ve corresponded with in the three years I’ve maintained this blog have reported being stripped of their dignity and good repute, their livelihoods, their homes and possessions, and even their children according to prejudicial laws and court processes that are feminist handiworks. These laws and processes favor plaintiffs, who are typically women, so their prejudices are favored by feminists. Feminists decry inequality when it’s non-advantageous. They’re otherwise cool with it. What’s more, when victims of the cause’s interests are women, those victims are just as indifferently shrugged off—as “casualties of war,” perhaps.
A theme that emerges upon consideration of 
It’s ironic that the focus of those who should be most sensitized to injustice is so narrow. Ironic, moreover, is that “emotional abuse” is frequently a component of state definitions of domestic violence. The state recognizes the harm of emotional violence done in the home but conveniently regards the same conduct as harmless when it uses the state as its instrument.
Here’s yet another irony. Too often the perspectives of those who decry injustices are partisan. Feminists themselves are liable to see only one side.
Now consider the motives of false allegations and their certain and potential effects: isolation, termination of employment and impediment to or negation of employability, inaccessibility to children (who are used as leverage), and being forced to live on limited means (while possibly being required under threat of punishment to provide spousal and child support) and perhaps being left with no home to furnish or automobile to drive at all.
The biggest challenge to sensitizing people to abusive restraining order policies that are readily and pervasively exploited by malicious litigants can be summed up in a single word: sex.
Some feminists categorically can’t be reasoned with. They’re the equivalents of high-conflict courtroom litigants who reason with their feelings. But I don’t get the impression that the author of this blog is one such, and I think there are many self-styled feminists like her out there. She seems very much in earnest and without spiteful motive. Her intentions are well-meaning.
It must be considered, for example, that the authority for the statistic “1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime” cited by this writer (and which is commonly cited) is a pamphlet: “
What everyone must be brought to appreciate is that a great deal of what’s called “domestic violence” (and, for that matter, “stalking”) depends on subjective interpretation, that is, it’s all about how someone reports feeling (or what someone reports perceiving).
The zealousness of the public and of the authorities and courts to acknowledge people, particularly women, who claim to be “victims” as victims has produced miscarriages of justice that are far more epidemic than domestic violence is commonly said to be. Discernment goes out the window, and lives are unraveled based on finger-pointing. Thanks to feminism’s greasing the gears and to judicial procedures that can be initiated or even completed in minutes, people in the throes of angry impulses can have those impulses gratified instantly. All parties involved—plaintiffs, police officers, and judges—are simply reacting, as they’ve been conditioned to.
So enculturated has the belief that women are helpless victims become that no one recognizes that feminist political might is unrivaled—unrivaled—and it’s in the interest of preserving that political might and enhancing it that the belief that women are helpless victims is vigorously promulgated by the feminist establishment that should be promoting the idea that women aren’t helpless.
Those who profit politically and monetarily by the misery inflicted through court processes that are easily abused by the “morally unencumbered” love all this conflict and misdirected rage, which only ensure that these corrupt processes continue to thrive.
The answer to these questions is of course known to (besides men) any number of women who’ve been victimized by the restraining order process. They’re not politicians, though. Or members of the ivory-tower club that determines the course of what we call mainstream feminism. They’re just the people who actually know what they’re talking about, because they’ve been broken by the state like butterflies pinned to a board and slowly vivisected with a nickel by a sadistic child.
The 148 search engine terms that appear below—at least one to two dozen of which concern false allegations—are ones that brought readers to this blog between the hours of 12 a.m. and 7:21 p.m. yesterday (and don’t include an additional 49 “unknown search terms”).
Since restraining orders are “civil” instruments, however, their issuance doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of anything at all. Approval of restraining orders is based instead on a “preponderance of evidence.” Because restraining orders are issued ex parte, the only evidence the court vets is that provided by the applicant. This evidence may be scant or none, and the applicant may be a sociopath. The “vetting process” his or her evidence is subjected to by a judge, moreover, may very literally comprise all of five minutes.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 