You may
not have figured it out
yet but sooner or later
your wife is HIGHLY likely
to hear something she does
not like and file a criminal
complaint that you violated
your restraining order.
It seems that, and there
is case law, that you can
contact your children at
"her" (or most
likely your old home). In
fact you can but the standard
for criminal charges is
that she SAYS something
happened. You may need to
hire a separate criminal
attorney to defend yourself
at a cost of $4,000+. This
drains your resources and
not her's because it is
the district attorney who
prosecutes you because this
is a criminal, not a civil
matter!!!! This just
continues to accelerate
the vindictiveness and sets
you up. As usual you will
see it comes back to money.
Yesterday
while at a meeting of the
Liberty Bell Union a couple
Framingham cops came into
the building because it
was a holiday and the alarm
was set off. We had a nice
discussion about how unfair
the restraining order were
- they told us their chief's
policy was to "always
arrest the man" and
they had no choice. Talk
about sexist, unconstitutional
behavior and policies!!!
As usually
it always comes down to
money somehow as you will
see below.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I am not on your list,(
FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM)
but as you can see, Bill
did sent this to me.
about me, a father who has
been through the ringer,
and has had 5 RO criminal
complaints dismissed, a
permanent RO vacated.
An order of no contact,
is how the courts go about
separating the father from
the child.
Yes, visitation with the
kids is allowed but the
first time "SHE said",
you said something, you
are on your way to jail.
Then visitation is suspended.
the standard of review is
the "she said standard"
What I will tell you, is
DO NOT, NOT NOT, plea out.
Do NOT NOT NOT have a judge
decided the merits of the
complaint, or you will go
to jail.
As long as you are out on
bail, or personal, you are
subject to 60 days in jail
on a phone call. A continuance
without a finding, also
put you in jeopardy of going
to jail for 60 days on a
phone call. SHE SAID STANDARD
so I would recommend that
if you have friends, let
them baby sit you 24/7,
so you have witnesses that
when she said comes up you
have people to support you
that it never happened.
go for a jury trial, stall
as long as you can, so you
can follow the money trail.
learn as much as you can
about the federal money
coming into the state/courts
VIA "WAWA",
you might want to start
with discovery, by sending
a list of questions to the
chief justice of the district
courts, directly asking
for financial information
concerning judges retirement
funds, i.e. where does the
money come from. what sources,
As you file request under
rule 34 MRCP, at the same
time, use FOIA FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
RE: REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION
AND ACCESS
1. This is a request under
the Freedom of Information
Act, 5 USC 552.
there are a few of the sources
you can cite in you requests:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651
through 658, 664, 666,(b).
(b) 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25),
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p)
and 1396(k). Authority:
42 U.S.C. 651 through 658,
660, 663, 664, 666,(b).
(b) 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25),
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p)
and 1396(k).
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651
through 655, 657, 1302,
1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2),
1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k)
Authorized under title IV-D
of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)
Authorization: Social Security
Act, Title IV-D, as amended,
Public Laws 94-46, 94-88,
94-365, 95-30, 95-59, 95-171,
95-598, 96-178, 96-265,
96-272, 96-611, 97-35, 97-248,
98-369, 98-378, 100-485,
and 101-508; 15 U.S.C. 1673;
26 U.S.C. 6103(i); 26 U.S.C.
6305; 26 U.S.C. 6402(c);
29 U.S.C. 49b; 42 U.S.C.
651-667; 42 U.S.C. 1310;
42 U.S.C. 1315.
Once the court sees you
are going to try and show
a jury the racketeering
scam that gives every appearance
of creating a conflict of
interest and just how corrupt
the mass courts are, the
court, police and district
atty. will back off.
But if you flinch, you will
be on your way to jail.
Good luck, and try to have
fun doing it.
In a message dated 5/31/05
2:05:04 AM Eastern Daylight
Time, XXXXXXX writes:
here is more help
for you on contacting the
wife to reach the kids.
From Commonwealth
v Silva SJC-08191
COMMONWEALTH vs. ANTHONY
P. SILVA.
Plymouth. March
7, 2000. - April 11, 2000.
A no-contact order
like this one would not
be violated when a father
has to speak on the telephone
with a protected woman,
in order to speak with his
children, and he does so
briefly, and in a direct
and nonabusive way. Such
contact would be a lawful
incident of the order because
there may be no other way
for the father to exercise
his right to reach his children.
[3] This brief and inevitable
contact, however, cannot
be used as an occasion to
harass, threaten, or intimidate
the protected party. That
form of conduct crosses
the line between lawful
incidental conversation,
permitted by the order,
and a substantive violation
of its terms.
The line was crossed in
this case. The order prohibited
the defendant from making
contact with his former
wife, either "in person,
by telephone, in writing
or otherwise, either directly
or through someone else,
and to stay at least 50
yards from [his former wife],
even if [she] seems to allow
or request contact."
The order was not ambiguous
to a person of ordinary
intelligence. A reasonable
man, in the defendant's
position, could not have
believed that paragraph
13 of the order, allowing
telephone contact with his
children, would have sanctioned
the angry outbursts that
occurred here. See Commonwealth
v. Butler, 40 Mass. App.
Ct. 906, 907 (1996). The
evidence was susceptible
only of the conclusion that
the defendant understood
that his behavior violated
the terms of the order,
because, on being asked
not to call anymore, the
defendant told his former
wife that he would call
"any f'in time he want[ed]."
it would be appreciated if
you would also post this to
the
FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM,
as to allow others to learn.
You need not delete my name
or E mail address. Many of
the web pages I once had posted
into cyberspace have been
introduced in court, during
a hearing to reconsider a
permanent 209A.
i don't fear reprisal from
the scum that are running
the racketeering syndicate
in MA
My problem seems to be a little
different though. I think
I am caught in ambiguity.
I have been under the impression
that the Family court order
overrides the RO order when
it is around communicating
about the visitation and other
children issues. I have asked
3 attorneys now and gotten
3 different answers as follows:
1) If she initiates I can
have the discussion (prior
to my family court order)
What I was told by a few of
the people, friends, who just
happen to be police, that
under any circumstance, if
there is an RO in place, I
need to run away, stay away,
and never speak to her, or
even have a third party make
contact with her, or I will
be arrested.
The Ambiguity is by design.
It helps generate work for
Attys. generating billable
hours for lawyers, bring in
revenue to the court under
WAWA.
2) Greg Hession an RO specialist
- "record all calls with
her" - implying I can
have these calls
Yes, Record everything, but
let her know right up front,
" ever call" that
you are recording the conversation.
3) My attorney
- "Recommends" I
don't contact her at all but
does not ever say it is a
violation of the order - self-serving,
of course, because all contact
would need to go through him
and the other attorney making
them many thousands of dollars more
for writing letters at $250/hour.
The Ambiguity is by design.
It helps generate work for
Attys. generating billable
hours for lawyers, bring in
revenue to the court under
VAWA.
The family court judge clearly
knows these contacts are happening.
Her attorney moved to prevent
me from taping calls with
her to protect myself and
this was granted recently.
So how can I be in violation?
Where is the line? How can
I possibly know what I can
and can't do
try filling a motion for
clarification do this as
a pro se, do it on your
own.
try and set out a stipulation
with the motion designating
a few other people to act
as go between. lay out in
your motion an argument
on the issue of ambiguity,
by design, the need to put
in place third parties to
avoid your unnecessary arrest,
wasted prosecution time
for frivolous criminal complaints
meant only to interfere
with the parent child relationship,
and the fragrantly bring
in federal tax dollars to
the state
I am thinking of asking
the judge for a letter to
the DA saying I do in fact
have his permission to contact
my wife, as long as it is
concerning the kids in the
hope this would force the
DA to drop the charges and
save thousands in attorneys
fees. What do you think
about this strategy.
That is what a motion
for clarification is for.
But to save you money? it
is important that you be
driven into bankruptcy.
By driving you into the
poor house, then the P &
F can go after you for not
paying child support.