Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Restraining Order Abuse

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.


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:
 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. 

 Joint judiciary members:
    Creedon of Second Plymouth and Bristol
    Baddour of Essex
    Antonioni of Worcester and Middlesex
    McGee of Third Essex and Middlesex    -- You have a chance with Tommy.  Say Hi
    Creem of First Middlesex and Norfolk   --  You have NO NO NO chance with Cynthia
    O'Flaherty of Chelsea
    Bradley of Hingham
    Khan of Newton
    Murphy of Burlington
    Leary of Worcester
    Murphy of Weymouth
    Costello of Newburyport
    Peisch of Wellesley     No chance here.  Tom Peisch  -- her hubby, I think --  just got off the BBO board.  Is in with the big boys -- former judges the SJC, etc.  And she went to Smith.....
Keenan of Salem


----- Original Message -----
From: Bill
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:10 AM
Subject: Virginia Report of DV AND SHELTERS

Someone asked me recently about Viriginia restraining orders.  Here is a combined organization report showing various statistics prepared by an number of public and private agencies.  
Briefly for 2003    1612 restraining orders were reported in the group surveyed of hotline callers, advocacies DV, advocacy sexual violence,  stalking for a total of about 17,500 surveyed.   Note this may not be all the orders issued .   But it does suggest only 10% had orders issued compared to the Massachusetts percentages.
18% of emergency orders were denied
9% of temp orders were denied
14% of long term orders were denied
Perpetrators of violence among surveyed persons:  94% male  6% female -  a tricky statistic which will get the standard "obvious" treatment from grant seekers
There appears to be a real scarcity and dirth of services offered for men.  I have not studied the numbers enough to figure out why there are so few men victims but I must guess the men are denied services, not reported in the stats as receiving advocacy, offered housing etc.
I would suggest people support the DAHM Domestic Abuse Hotline and Shelter for Men as there does not seem to be other help around. 
There is something definitely perverse in doing I had to do.  When I was tossed out by the cops after my EX assaulted me,  I had to spend the night in the local gun club which was heated in the winter and open 24-7!  I guess that's an example of the law of Unintended Consequences.
Bill From VA


The House bill submitted by CPF to amend Mass General Law 209A is House Bill # 833 (The Senate Bill # is 965)...to be heard in the judiciary committee. Text of the amendments with original law are on the CPF website: http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/