Restraining Order Abuse By Women

Restraining Order Abuse by Women against Men


Restraining orders have become the nuclear weapon of choice of women in divorce. All a woman must do 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 in Florida, 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 Restraining Orders 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 Restraining Orders 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.