Welcome To The Restraining Order Blog - Please Read ?

Restraining Order Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Some posters are court ordered to have no contact of any kind with the person having a Restraining Order against them. Meaning no third party contact as well. If you by chance know a person one of our posters/authors is discussing to share their Restraining Order experiences with others, we ask you to respect our rights to free speech, under the Constitution. Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, imtimidate, bring any emotional distress, stalk or cyberstalk, nor intentionally slander or damage any individual in any way. Nor is it intended to initiate any third party contact on behalf of any poster or author, or violate a current restraining order in any way. If you feel there is anything on our Restraining Order Blog that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. We will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed for removal in a timely manner. If you have a story to share, email me at ka7niq@yahoo.com, and I will add you as an author on Restraining Order Blog.






12/15/2009

protective order petitioner initiates contact with the respondent

What if the protective order petitioner initiates contact with the respondent?


A protective order does not prohibit the petitioner from contacting the respondent. If the petitioner contacts the respondent, the petitioner is not in violation of the protective order (as long as he or she is not a respondent in another case). Contact initiated by the petitioner also does not nullify or void the protective order. However, by contacting the respondent, the petitioner may make it more difficult to prosecute violations of the order. It may also decrease the petitioner’s chances of receiving a protective order against the same person in the future.

What a crock of chit ?
HTF can a court grant a protective order based on "fear "by the petitioner, yet turn the other way when she contacts YOU ?
This is a bullshit protective order law, if ever I saw one.
This is exactly the type of legal tyranny the founding fathers of our country tried to escape from in England!
Chit, why dont we just bring back "witch craft trials", and be done with it ?
Posted by chris tucker at 12:43 PM
Labels: , ,

3 comments:

  1. I disagree with this "law". I view it as extremely stereotypical and unconstitutional. The order should be against all parties not just the respondent. There are too many people taking advantage of their "petitioner" role and using it to control the respondent in cases where both parties had a previous romantic relationship and /or children. For example: My brother was always being abused by his girlfriend at the time. She was always hitting him kicking him slapping him when he had the baby in his arms. And the one day that he defends himself by hitting her back to get her off from hitting him in public, he is the one having to deal with being arrested, serving jail time, the order of protection and charges and not being able to have visitation rights with his son. She was never penalized even though she was guilty as much as he was. What is more disturbing is that the cops who arrested him at the time had witnessed her abusing him and said and did nothing to her. It's so disturbing how the law and judicial branch work in favor for women against men. The person who ends up suffering the most is my baby nephew.
    ReplyDelete
  2. I AGREE WITH THEM, I ACTUALLY HAVE A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST MY EX BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. HIS NEW GIRLFRIEND HAS ONE AGAINST ME WITH FALSE ALLEGATIONS I PROVED 2 OUT OF THE 4 INCIDENTS IN HER TRO WASN'T TRUE YET THEY GRANTED IT TO HER BECAUSE I DIDN'T PROVE MORE THAN 51%. THUS, SHE WAS GRANTED HERS. I TRIED TO GO DOWN TO FILE ONE AGAINST HER FOR 6 DIFFERENT INCIDENTS OF PYSCOLOGICAL ABUSE & VERBAL ABUSE EVEN THREATS OF HER HAVING PEOPLE TO COME & BEAT ME UP & WAS DENIED BY THE JUDGE THAT GRANTED HERS. 1DAY BEFORE & THE REASON I COULDN'T GO DOWN WAS I HAD NO BABY SITTER. THE COURT & THE CLERKS WERE ALL TRYING TO HELP ME AFTER SHE WAS GRANTED BECAUSE THEY WERE FAMILIAR W/ THE SITUATION. WELL, LIKE THE 1ST PERSON SAID SHE CLAIMED IN ONE THAT "IM GOING TO KILL HER!" YET, TONIGHT SHE SHOWS UP @ MY APARTMENTS W/IN 100YARDS OF MY HOME. WHAT IS THAT? I DON'T HAVE NO INFORMATION ON HER OR WANT TO. I ONLY HAVE MY EX'S PHONE # IN REGARDS TO OUR KIDS. YET, SHE COPIED ALL MY INFORMATION FROM HIS COPY OF MY TRO AGAINST HIM. SHE MADE THIS TRO RIGHT BEFORE OUR CUSTODY CASE & AFTER HE WENT TO JAIL FOR 8VIOLATIONS OF HIS TRO.

    I LEAVE EVERY WEEKEND TO GO TO ANOTHER TOWN JUST SO I DON'T RUN INTO THEM & RETURN EVERY SUNDAY NIGHT SO THAT THE KIDS CAN GO TO SCHOOL M-F. I DON'T SHOP @ THE SAME GROCERY STORES THAT I USE TO BECAUSE 1 IS HIS JOB. BUT, WE ARE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE JUST NO INFORMATION ABOUT ME IS TO BE ASKED BY HIM. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE, WHERE SHE WORKS, HER #, THEIR HOUSE # OR IF THEY EVEN HAVE ONE ETC. I DON'T EVEN GO TO THE TOWN THAT THEY SUPPOSEDLY LIVE IN.

    SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE INNOCENT PEOPLE? IF THEIR GOING TO VIOLATE THEN THERE SHOULD BE PUNISHMENT FOR THEM. IF THE RESPONDENT GOES TO JAIL FOR VIOLATION THE PETITIONER SHOULD ALSO. BECAUSE SOME ALLEGATIONS ARE REALLY OUTRAGEOUS & IF THEY REALLY FEEL THAT WAY OR THAT REALLY HAPPENED THEN WHY ARE THEY CONTACTING THE RESPONDENT & THEN WHEN THEY GET MAD REPORT THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATION IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CONTACTING THEM BECAUSE THEIR ANGRY OR RETALIATION. THAT'S JUST WRONG & UNJUST!
    ReplyDelete
  3. Its the most unjust law we have-- you need to get at the root cause of the problem. The violence against women act is the reason for the abuse of the protection orders which lead to all this. Sign the form to repeal and change the wording in the act.It is really a joke having to go thru all of the issues with the courts. You may have done nothing wrong and know it in your heart- but they dont care.
    VAWA Must Be Rewritten
    http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/july11/11-07-15.html#.Tv
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)