Author Topic: Laughing At Restraining Orders  (Read 3066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Professor

  • Guest
Laughing At Restraining Orders
« on: October 11, 2006, 05:40:17 PM »
Laughing At Restraining Orders

Borrowing the title of a famous George Gershwin ditty, "they all laughed" when a Santa Fe, New Mexico family court judge granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against TV talk show host David Letterman to protect a woman he had never met, never heard of, and lived 2,000 miles away from. Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network TV broadcasts.

That ridiculous TRO was dismissed last December, but according to a new report released this week by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), the case was not a judicial anomaly but "the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence." RADAR is a Maryland-based think tank that specializes in exposing the excesses of the domestic violence bureaucracy.

The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing "severe emotional distress." That definition was met when Ms. Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman's actions.

The New Mexico statute appears to limit domestic violence to "any incident by a household member," and Letterman, who lives in Connecticut and works in New York, had never been in Ms. Nestler's household. But New Mexico law defines household member to include "a person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship," and Ms. Nestler's charge that Letterman's broadcast of television messages for eleven years qualified as a "continuing" relationship and thereby turned him into a "household member."

The family court judge who issued the TRO, Daniel Sanchez, may have been predisposed to believe any allegation presented to him by a complaining woman even though she had no evidence. His own biography lists him as chairman of the Northern New Mexico Domestic Violence Task Force.

RADAR reports that only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The rest of the states have broadened their definition to include fear, emotional distress, and psychological feelings.

The use of the word "harassment" in domestic violence definitions is borrowed from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's definition, which is based on the "effect" of an action rather than the action itself. In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously "annoys" a woman.

The 1999 book by University of Massachusetts Professor Daphne Patai, "Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism," powerfully indicts what she labels the "Sexual Harassment Industry." The feminists have created a judicial world in which accusation equals guilt, and the distinction between severe offenses and trivial annoyances is erased.

RADAR's report explains that the definition of domestic has also been expanded. Originally, domestic meant a household member, but now it means a person with whom the woman "has been involved in an intimate relationship" (Colorado), persons who are in a "dating or engagement relationship" (Rhode Island), or "any other person . . . as determined by the court" (North Dakota).

How did it happen that state laws against domestic violence are written so broadly as to produce such absurdities? Family court judges issue two million TROs every year, half are routinely extended, 85 percent are against men, and half do not include any allegation of violence but rely on vague complaints made without evidence.

Follow the money, both at the supply and the demand ends of the economic trail. The supply of 1,500 new domestic violence laws enacted by states from 1997 to 2005 is largely the handiwork of targeted lobbying by feminists funded by the multi-million-dollar federal boondoggle called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA is blatantly gender discriminatory; as its title proclaims, it is designed to address only complaints by women. VAWA provides taxpayer funding to feminists to teach legislators, judges and prosecutors the stereotypes that men are batterers and women are victims.

The demand end of the economic chain is the fact that women know (and their lawyers advise them) that making allegations of domestic violence (even without proof or evidence) is the fastest and cheapest way to win child custody plus generous financial support. The financial incentives to lie or exaggerate are powerful.

Due process violations in the issuing of TROs include lack of notice, no presumption of innocence, denial of poor defendants to free counsel while women are given taxpayer-funded support, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, no need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, denial of the right to confront accusers, and denial of trial by jury.

Assault and battery are already crimes in every state without any need of VAWA. TROs empower activist family court judges to criminalize a vast range of otherwise legal behavior (usually a father's contact with his own children and entry into his own home) which are crimes only for the recipient of the order, who can then be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2006, 06:16:29 PM »
Is this here for objective discussion ?

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2006, 06:21:08 PM »
Sure, why not? Celebrities are requently being harassed with these type of actions. Does anyone have a right to privacy? If so, do celebrities have a subset or full privacy? If not, why? Because they are in the public domain? Should celebirites be able to sue for damages due to the time and costs involved in refuting these actions? and so on...


BTW, this was not directed at anyone in the Forum, just put up for general discussion purposes.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2006, 07:30:00 PM by The_Professor »

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7930
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2006, 06:57:01 PM »
it does hit on something I would realy like to know if it`s true or not

I know those laws tend to favor females,but does the actually wording of those laws actually say that??

I never really hear anyone saying men are protected also
in fact I heard they should be excluded to not dilute the few laws that protect women .
in this forum even.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2006, 06:57:58 PM »
Sure, why not? Celebrities are requently being harassed with these type of actions. Does anyone have a right to privacy? If so, do celebrities have a subset or full privacy? If not, why? Because they are in the public domain? Should celebirites be able to sue for damages due to the time and costs involved in refuting these actions? and so on...




I had a good freind die by the hand of the guy she had put a restraining order on back in 84.


I am not aware of an effectiveness rateing for such things , but if there is a scale restraining orders must be low on it , they can't work on someone unless he has reason to respect the law .

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2006, 07:17:32 PM »
And I have known people who were served with restraining orders who really didn't deserve them, and people who deserved them didn't didn't get served. It does appear that the rationale is not consistent.

Perhaps it all comes down to having a good lawyer? I would hate to believe this, but is that all it requires?...

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2006, 07:23:16 PM »
And I have known people who were served with restraining orders who really didn't deserve them, and people who deserved them didn't didn't get served. It does appear that the rationale is not consistent.

Perhaps it all comes down to having a good lawyer? I would hate to believe this, but is that all it requires?...


If you were a judge , on what grounds would you turn down an applicant for a restraining order?

If this person turned up injured or dead later you would be impeached , no matter how flimsy the evidence or unlikely the accusation.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2006, 07:24:12 PM »
<<That ridiculous TRO was dismissed last December . . . >>

Isn't that proof right there that the system works?  Some TROs are really needed, others not.  If nobody gets a restraining order in the first instance, everyone who really needs one is left at risk.  If everybody gets one the first time, some poor bugger is unjustly inconvenienced.

So faced with a choice between a system which can be structured so that it leaves some vulnerable women and children at risk, and one which (at least theoretically) leaves no women or children at risk, but some adult males unjustly inconvenienced - - it's a no-brainer.  If some woman doesn't get the restraining order and she then is killed by a vengeful spouse, what are we going to say?  "Oh well, at least some poor innocent guy somewhere wasn't inconvenienced?"

Now that's the theory of the thing.  In practice, as we all know, those things often aren't worth the paper they're printed on, as deterrents.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2006, 07:29:37 PM »
"...In practice, as we all know,..."


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Is this knoledge truely widespread?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2006, 07:45:37 PM »
I was speaking from a purely Canadian POV, but I'd be surprised to find out that it's any different in the USA.  A guy who's crazy enough to want to kill his wife or GF is just not gonna be deterred by the restraining order.  The only people it deters are those who just want to hassle somebody.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7930
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2006, 08:04:36 PM »
it better than nothing at all
but  it shouldn`t be called unjustly inconvenienced.
this can seriously do damage to a person.
ex. loss custody to his/her child.
false accusation should never be considered a minor thing.
remember a earlier post about getting  on the sex offender list by being arrested,but not convicted.
we shouldn`t be so lazy as to not care if someone get falsely accused.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2006, 08:11:53 PM »
Plane
Moderator
Sr. Member

Posts: 370


     Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #1 on: Today at 05:16:29 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this here for objective discussion ? 
 
 Report to moderator    137.244.215.19 
 
 
 
The_Professor
Full Member

Posts: 156


     Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #2 on: Today at 05:21:08 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, why not? Celebrities are requently being harassed with these type of actions. Does anyone have a right to privacy? If so, do celebrities have a subset or full privacy? If not, why? Because they are in the public domain? Should celebirites be able to sue for damages due to the time and costs involved in refuting these actions? and so on...


BTW, this was not directed at anyone in the Forum, just put up for general discussion purposes.
 
 
« Last Edit: Today at 06:30:00 PM by The_Professor » 
 
 
 
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

  Oh well then ,...

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2006, 09:19:59 PM »
<<this can seriously do damage to a person.
<<ex. loss custody to his/her child.
<<false accusation should never be considered a minor thing.
<<remember a earlier post about getting  on the sex offender list by being arrested,but not convicted.
<<we shouldn`t be so lazy as to not care if someone get falsely accused.>>

I didn't say I didn't care about someone being falsely accused.  That's always wrong.  But it's the lesser of two evils (the greater one being that someone is harmed or killed because the restraining order wasn't issued.)  There's only two choices here:  make 'em easy to get or make'em hard to get.  The third alternative - - only issue where really needed - - does not exist.  You'd have to live in a perfect world where every restraining order granted is correctly granted and every restraining order refused is correctly refused.  We don't live in that kind of world.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2006, 09:44:16 PM »
<<this can seriously do damage to a person.

Quote
I didn't say I didn't care about someone being falsely accused.  That's always wrong.  But it's the lesser of two evils (the greater one being that someone is harmed or killed because the restraining order wasn't issued.)  There's only two choices here:  make 'em easy to get or make'em hard to get.  The third alternative - - only issue where really needed - - does not exist.  You'd have to live in a perfect world where every restraining order granted is correctly granted and every restraining order refused is correctly refused.  We don't live in that kind of world.

Quote
Now that's the theory of the thing.  In practice, as we all know, those things often aren't worth the paper they're printed on, as deterrents.


So who actually gets satisfaction and who actually gets detered and who really gets harmed?


(I have several personal experiences that influence my attitude)

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2006, 11:27:33 PM »
Plane
Moderator
Sr. Member

Posts: 370


     Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #1 on: Today at 05:16:29 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this here for objective discussion ? 
 
 Report to moderator    137.244.215.19 
 
 
 
The_Professor
Full Member

Posts: 156


     Re: Laughing At Restraining Orders
« Reply #2 on: Today at 05:21:08 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, why not? Celebrities are requently being harassed with these type of actions. Does anyone have a right to privacy? If so, do celebrities have a subset or full privacy? If not, why? Because they are in the public domain? Should celebirites be able to sue for damages due to the time and costs involved in refuting these actions? and so on...


BTW, this was not directed at anyone in the Forum, just put up for general discussion purposes.
 
 
« Last Edit: Today at 06:30:00 PM by The_Professor » 
 
 
 
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

  Oh well then ,...



I am unclear what this post means...