Restraining
orders have become the
nuclear weapon of choice
of women in divorce. All
a woman must do in Massachusetts,
and many other states
today, is walk into a
court house and utter
the word "fear"
under oath to obtain on.
They need not have any
real fear, not fear of
prosecution for perjury,
as I am told this has
never once happened. Instantly
the man will be evicted
from his house and be
denied access to his children,
giving the woman an instant
"win by default"
in any divorce proceeding.
The family court judges
know these are handed
out for the asking without
any evidence or even a
requirement of an violence
of any kind. They are
even given out "ex-parte"
automatically without
the accused "defendant"
there.
In spite
of this knowledge the
restraining order will
hang over the man like
a scarlet letter putting
everything they say in
doubt. The family
court judge will then
use this do do what he/she
wants - which seems to
always be to give the
mother the physical and
legal custody of the children
no matter what anyway.
Lawyers
representing women encourage
women to do this, even
when there has never been
any domestic violence,
or threat of it, because
it immediately places
the man on the defensive
with no place to live
and lots of work to do
to fight back from a presumption
of guilt, when NOTHING
AT HAS has happened.
This
has gotten so bad in Massachusetts
that there are 50,000
restraining orders outstanding
at any one time now, versus
only 1,500 in the state
of Virginia with a
similar size population.
Are men in Massachusetts
33 times more violent
than Virginia males? Of
course not, this is a
case of lawyers gone wild
to abuse the laws designed
to protect battered women
to the advantage of their
clients. This is totally
unconstitutional.
It is even illegal for
lawyers to encourage this,
but we know they do every
day. Why because the case
will go on for a long
time and they will make
a small fortune off of
it. Our fundamental
constitutional rights
requires a very high standard
under the law to be taken
away. "Strict
scrutiny" this is
never applied, as there
is no jury, the only guarantee
of due process.
Just the opinion of one
judge who is afraid to
let a single person through
and would rather take
away the rights of 99
of the men than show up
on the six o'clock news
for the one hat will really
hit their wife.
JUDGES
ARE NOT JUDGING BUT ARE
DRIVEN BY SELF INTEREST
- THIS IS AGAINST THE
OATH JUDGES MUST TAKE
In other
words, judges are not
judging, they are simply
protecting their own self
personal interests by
giving these out anytime
a woman requests this.
I have no opinion of this
specific case, as I do
not know the facts, so
I do not dare draw one.
As with the Terry Schiavo
case my opinion is
held back some, as I can
not know the true facts
through the eyes of the
media and several layers
of people too. What
I do know is this:
It is a basic principal
in U.S. law that we would
rather let ten men free
than lock up one innocent
man (or woman). We will
catch that one bad guy
eventually - next time.
Judges are currently being
the "thought police"
and assuming all are guilty
until proven innocent
by passing out restraining
orders for the asking
out of pure self interest.
A judge today would go
up to a store full of
people, be told that someone
in there MIGHT steal something
based on one person's
opinion (no agenda or
bias here) and that judge
would basically lock everyone
up, finding them all guilty
- YES EVERYONE in the
store because they all
MIGHT do something. This
is literally what happens
with ROs being issued
today. Most people are
innocent and yet they
are treated like criminals
and their rights are taken
away for YEARS.
There is no evidence,
no crime, no jury and
even sometimes (as in
my case) no accusation that
any threat or violence
ever occurred.
People are having their
FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS taken away (basically
everything they
have) on the ACCUSATION
OF PERSON WITH LOTS TO
GAIN OF SOME POSSIBLE
FUTURE EVENT (coached
by lawyers who will have
the leverage from this
to get a bigger payday)
- and the judges are afraid
of what happened in this
case happening all the
time. So they decide to
find everyone "guilty
till proven innocent" to
protect themselves personally
from feminists and the
6 o'clock news headlines.
This
is OUTRAGEOUS, illegal
and un-American to say
the least.
Yes mistakes will be made
occasionally, judges must
JUDGE though! People
also need to take some
responsibility for their
own safety too. They can
leave if there is not
sufficient evidence for
the judge to issue an
RO. No piece of
paper is really going
to protect anyone from
a real criminal anyway.
Thinking that is really
the ultimate in stupidity. Do
you really think telling
them it is illegal to
beat someone up, or approach
them is actually going
to stop someone who is
in this category of violence?
I believe ROs in fact
greatly increase the total
damage done and CAUSE
violence. I believe
there is some proof to
this out there too.
How can anyone not be
enraged when their children,
home and all their possessions
are taken away from them
based on groundless charges
that something MIGHT happen
someday. This will obviously
turn normal people into
criminals more often than
it will protect anyone.
The current state of affairs is
simply a way for judges
to "wear a white
hat" and pretend
they are heroes protecting
woman, when in fact they
are breaking the law they
are paid to enforce every
single time they issue
these ROs without a credible
threat of SERIOUS, PHYSICAL,
IMMINENT (today) harm.
The statute requires proof
of ALL 3 of these, not
just 1 or 2) and
define serious as permanent
damage to the person,
not throwing a pencil. They
get political points from
woman's groups and avoid
risk - well their job
actually has no risk to
them (other than personal
image) because they have
regulated themselves not
liable for any bad decision!
These laws were instituted
to protect women from
proven batterers, not
the theoretical potential
of a husband in divorce
with a nutty wife who
will say anything to steal
her husband's children
and home. The many lawyers
I have interviewed have
told me between 45% and
90% of these ROs are TOTALLY
BOGUS and without any
merit whatsoever. That
means in Massachusetts,
with 4,166 ROs issued
per month (on average),
between 3,750 and 2,083
MEN (only men you must
note violating the equal
rights amendment) have
their home, kids and all
their possessions STOLEN
by their wives every month
and the state and federal
government are criminal
conspirators in these
acts.
This is:
tyranny
|
| DEF. |
|
a form of government
in which the ruler
is an absolute dictator
(not restricted
by a constitution
or laws or opposition
etc.) |
CPF's
bill to amend the 209
A law is Senate 965 and
will be reviewed
by the judiciary committee.
