This 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 experiences with others, we ask you to respect our rights to free speech, under the United States Constitution. Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, intimidate, 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 either. If you feel there is anything here 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.












7/22/2010

Florida Domestic Violence Restraining Order Not Granted

 This is a repost of an interesting domestic violence restraining order attempt in a Florida Court.

The Florida Judge ruled for dismissal of the injunction, here is what was said " I don't find that it's been established that Miss Fowler has been the victim of domestic violence or has reasonable cause to believe that she is in danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, and I dismiss the petition."




 Domestic Violence Restraining Order? Nope.

Domestic Violence Restraining Order? Nope. by A Florida Studio.

Mid December I posted the above on my Facebook Page. Five days later my x raised a stink about it so I removed this post. Then a few days later the sheriff came to my door to let me know a domestic violence restraining order had been requested by my x. It was an invitation to a hearing because the judge could find nothing in the complaint to issue a restraining order.
So we had a hearing and guess what? The judge dismissed the petition for a restraining order because after hearing the testimony he came to the conclusion that nothing in the complaint met the standard of stalking or domestic violence.
Cost me two thousand bucks a few nights sleep.....
On the stand she fabricated a story that the first time I had seen her in 6.5 years I lost all self control and at noon, in the middle of a crowded restaurant (Boss Oyster) I allegedly "grabbed" her by the shoulder causing a bruise. Then she produced 2 photographs of a "bruised" shoulder. The alleged incident happened in April 0f 2009, and EIGHT months later she decided to file for a restraining order?
Thank goodness I had an art director with me at the time of the alleged "grab", in a crowded restaurant, at noon and she could not produce a witness, even though a friend of hers (Amanda Collar) was sitting at the table with her. I was very lucky that the art director agreed to appear on my behalf as a witness, otherwise I would have been slapped with a domestic violence retraining order that would have stayed on my record forever.

The witness testified that I had not even touched or been close enough to touch my x.
Yes, my X made up a story and fabricated photographs/evidence in order to try and "get me".




So the moral of my story? Facebook is fun, but can be expensive!

I LOVE my lawyer, Patricia Fournier rocks!!!

Case # 09-000675-DR Jan 11, 2010
Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District Franklin Co, Fl

If you don' believe me check the facts!

For an audio recording (public record) of the hearing please forward your address..

Judge Hankinsons last comment was:

" I don't find that it's been established that Miss Fowler has been the victim of domestic violence or has reasonable cause to believe that she is in danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence, and I dismiss the petition."

18 comments:

  1. This case is a wonderful example of the lengths that one can go to in victimizing someone else when they are a semi celebrity. I believe that Ms. Fowler would never have gotten this case so far along (and in turn, caused Mr. Fowler to be victimized financial and reputation-wise) had she not had some minor level of notoriety. Interestingly, this supposed incident coincided with the release of her latest book, that was (oh my gosh) about a woman being abused by her husband. Is it possible that Ms. Fowler manufactured this whole episode as a publicity stunt to raise her own visibility since it had been so long since her last book? No, surely not!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course not, Women never Lie when trying to obtain restraining orders, LOL
    America of 2010 is almost like Medieval England during the witch hunt days. All you had to do back then was allege your neighbor was a witch. The authorities took her into custody, and tortured her. To make the torture stop, she admitted she was indeed a witch, and was killed.
    If she did not admit to witchcraft, she was tortured to death. Women today claim fear. Many lie for various means, to get restraining orders.
    This is a rare instance of a judge NOT granting a restraining order, and thus of interest to our readers. I don't know Mrs Fowler, anything about her, or any book.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Connie May Fowler was born and raised in Tampa and has written several books. I'm amazed her X did not get slapped with a restraining order. He was VERY fortunate to escape the wrath of his X and the courts. Lucky guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are many legitimate instances of sexual and physical abuse and women need to be taken seriously when it does, in fact, happen. Women were once ignored when even the most abusive offenses had occurred. Now it is men who often pay the price when an illegitimate claim is made against them. I do appreciate Connie May Fowler's identifying abuse in her own childhood and in the world. But I happen to believe in Mika Fowler's innocence in this instance. I have other friends who were also in Boss Oyster when this was alleged to have occurred, and they said they saw nothing of the sort. I worry sometimes that when one identifies onself as a "victim," one takes that identity on as a brand. Some all-round counseling might be useful here, so these two can live in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I understand that women are being abused, and domestic violence is a very real thing. However, under the current domestic violence Laws, all a woman need do is claim fear, and restraining orders are handed out like candy. Once a restraining order is in place, a woman can lie again, and have a Man arrested, especially if she has a co conspirator. I had a male friend who did abuse his wife. She started taking shooting lessons and bought a handgun, after obtaining a concealed weapons permit.
    Not surprisingly, the domestic abuse stopped!
    Our founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms so we did not have to rely on the Police to protect us. In order for the Police to protect us, they need laws that restrict our constitutional right to due process, and unreasonable arrest. Restraining Orders are a prime example of government gone wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Connie May Fowler actually believed she'd get away with her premeditated plan to boost the sales of her latest book, or else she wouldn't have tried it. She never considered how much it would hurt her reputation if her plan backfired. What goes around comes around. Her friend Amanda knew it.

    Connie's notoriety affected the motive, but not the outcome. Her stupidity, not the truth, was the real reason that Mika won the case. An equally vindictive yet cleverer woman could have nabbed him on a 1-on-1 "her word against his" domestic violence charge. Be careful.

    Note: I'm referring to both of them specifically here, not their gender. Not all relationships occur between opposite genders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like I said before, I don't know Connie May Fowler, or anything aboout her, except what I have read here. My concerns are men getting screwed with domestic violence charges that are contrived by vindictive women. You are correct that a her word against his domestic violence will usually favor the woman.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Glad you beat it, I just did too. Granted, she buried herself....but that's what happens when you come into court with a pack of lies and an agenda that has nothing to do with protection.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here in Hillsborough County Florida, usually a pack of lies will get you a restraining order. Judges here will grant a restraining order pretty much just for the asking. Tampa Judges are scared that if they don't grant a restraining order, and someone gets hurt, that their career as a judge will be over. So, they grant almost every restraining order that comes before them. This makes the system ripe for abuse, like to get even, or gain an advantage in a divorce.
    Maybe the State of Florida should consider gun training for those who really are in fear ?
    I think if the State Of Florida paid for handgun training, and women had concealed weapons permits, it will protect them far better then this corruption of the constitution called restraining orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This guy is now a felon for stalking a different woman entirely.

      Delete
    2. Wow. Glad he beat it? Yeah he beat it alright - just like he beat my friend up after he got away with this.

      Delete
  10. http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Florida/Leon-County-FL/Mika-A-Fowler.8083231.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.wtxl.com/media/lib/159/f/7/2/f72f2643-48ae-4bc1-9035-64c9349a054f/LCSO_Daily_Booking_Report__7_.pdf

    Mr. Fowler wrote:
    "The judge dismissed the petition for a restraining order because after hearing the testimony he came to the conclusion that nothing in the complaint met the standard of stalking or domestic violence."

    Legal standards change. Too bad Mr. Fowler didn't....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mika Fowler was convicted this morning of aggravated stalking and extortion by threats and four instances of violating the conditions of bond. He received four years probation, five years of electronic monitoring, and if he violates any part of the agreement he will go back to jail without bond. His cameras and computer equipment were surrendered to authorities. Seems Lady Justice finally prevailed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What percentage of restraining orders are issued without sound basis? Restraining orders are designed to protect individuals from physical harm. So, by any reasonable standard, a restraining order—especially when issued on an emergency ex parte basis—that does not even allege violence, or at least a credible threat of imminent violence, is non-meritorious.
      A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court reviewed the domestic restraining orders issued in that state. The study found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence.24 In other words, the order was issued on the basis of alleged fear or emotional distress, not because of actual or imminent violence.
      A subsequent analysis examined the allegations listed in 298 abuse prevention orders that were requested by women and issued in the Massachusetts Gardner District Court in 1997. In 41% of these cases, fear was the sole allegation listed, and in 64% of the orders the woman indicated no harm had occurred.25
      In a 2005 study of couples involved in custody disputes, domestic violence allegations were made in 55% of the cases. Of these allegations, 59% could not be substantiated by the courts as true.26 A more recent analysis of domestic violence restraining orders issued in 2006 in Campbell County, West Virginia concluded 81% were unnecessary or false.27
      Based on these studies, it is estimated that about 60% of the 2-3 million restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. This translates into 1.2-1.8 million persons who are wrongfully accused of domestic violence each year.

      Delete
  13. Usually it is very difficult to tell the difference between a troll and somebody who is simply an asshole or an idiot. It is important to note that a troll doesn't always resort to insults. Some of them pretend to hold ideals that are unpopular on a particular website or forum. For example, if one signs up for a forum that is predominately pro-choice and pretends to be anti-abortion and makes posts in favour of that position that alone could get the same result as just insulting everybody. The best way to spot a troll is to take into consideration how long its posts are. If its posts are short then more than likely you are dealing with a troll. A good troll also doesn't show any signs of anger in their posts so it would be best to keep an eye out for that too. On social networking sites it is much easier to spot trolls. The first way is to look at their profile: if the user has no picture of him/herself then it is most likely a troll. It's also useful to take a look at how old the user's account is. The newer the account is, the more likely it is that they are a troll. Also if this user has contacted you directly on your own page as opposed to a group you are a member of then take that as a tell-tale sign.Although originally a non-offensive reference to fishing by trolling for input/feedback on ideas, people quickly viewed this as spam which led to personal attacks later leading to the more common and largely incorrect view that a troll, in Internetspeak, refers to an entity which involves itself in discussions purely for the purpose of disturbing other users and making itself feel important. Because trolls take away from productive work, the standard response is to starve the troll of attention by ignoring it and going about your usual business.
    A troll usually has little or no interest in contributing to the development of the site in question and is interested in :
    ▪ Deliberately angering people.
    ▪ Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion.
    ▪ Disrupting the smooth operation of the site.
    ▪ Deliberately being annoying for the sake of being obnoxious. For instance, using abusive names to refer to all the members on the site.
    ▪ Making itself the main topic of interest or discussion.

    It is probable that, for the troll, the last point is the most important. To this end it will post deliberately inflammatory messages which generate inflammatory responses; complain about being the victim of the inflammatory responses; endeavor to obtain allies against the discrimination it feels; turn on those same allies, etc. etc. The whole objective of the exercise is to disrupt or make someone do something you wanted them to do for laughs.
    If a poster begins to post comments along the lines of, “Can’t you see how stupid you all are?” or “I keep laughing at all of you,” there is high probability that the poster is a troll.
    Some users engage in "Troll Baiting." In this unkind sport the objective is to turn the tables on the troll so that it becomes enraged. While mildly amusing in the short term it is rarely successful in driving the troll away.
    Most importantly, trolls take away from productive work. The only ethical way to avoid this is to stop feeding the troll and go about your usual work
    It is, of course an improper argumentum ad hominem (personal attack), when you accuse a user of being a troll just because you don't like what they are saying or the way they are saying it. Don't accuse someone of being a troll just to dismiss their argument. Just because you disagree doesn't necessarily mean the user is trying to be disruptive, so it is necessary to measure the suspected troll against the description given above.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Domestic violence is a murky world and our judicial system is flawed. Mistakes are made, and people are wrongly convicted. It is doubtful, however, that the OP is innocent. Factual evidence is clear. He was accused of committing acts of domestic violence against two separate women within a three-year period of time. He was exonerated the first time not because of innocence, but because the law did not define his acts as criminal. The second time, Florida law had been rewritten, and he was convicted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. not true, anonymous. he was not "convicted."

    ReplyDelete