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, and I will add you as an author on Restraining Order Blog.


Tampa Domestic Violence Charges Dropped Against Football Player!

The State Attorney in Hillsborough County has closed the case against former Bucs linebacker strong safety Jermaine Phillips, who was charged with felony domestic battery by strangulation back in January and later had that charge reduced to a misdemeanor battery in March.
Phillips’ arrest came after an alleged incident with his wife at their Tampa home. 
Per court records obtained by, Phillips’ case was closed last week after he completed 10 court-approved classes taken through the local Salvation Army as part of a diversion program for domestic violence intervention.
Jermaine Phillips, 31, played free and strong safety for the Bucs from 2002-2009

Judge accused of advocating corrective rape for lesbians.

Wow, read this article ?

An American judge has been accused of advocating corrective rape for lesbians.
Joe Rehyansky, a part-time magistrate and Vietnam veteran, wrote on conservative news site The Daily Caller that lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military because straight male soldiers could “convert” them.
The Daily Caller swiftly removed some of his remarks but not before they were picked up by other websites.
Mr Rehyansky, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, argued that men were naturally more promiscuous than women and “it fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate – a tough job but someone had to do it”.
Then, he claimed that the “promiscuity” of gay men, coupled with HIV, would have “the potential for disastrous health consequences” if gay men were allowed to serve openly in the military.
“Gays spread disease at a rate out of all proportion to their numbers in our population and should be excluded from the military,” he argued.
He continued: “Shouldn’t the overwhelmingly straight warriors who answer their county’s call be spared the indignity of showering with other men who achieve lascivious enjoyment from the sight of those lithe naked bodies, and who may be tempted to seek more than the view?”
Lesbian military personnel, who Mr Rehyansky praised for their “medical and administrative specialties”, should be allowed to serve because they apparently have low sex drives.
His final argument, which has now been removed by The Daily Caller, was as follows: “My solution would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream.”
Mr Rehyansky was accused of advocating corrective rape for lesbians by some commentators.
Blogger Amanda Hess sardonically noted: “Once all the lesbians are easily accessible in one place, an army of straight dudes will turn them all straight, presumably through that time-tested tactic of subduing and impregnating women against their will.”


I found this in a Google Search. It sure is something to think about ? Though statistics tell us that domestic violence is about 50/50 women to men, when is the last time you can remember a woman being arrested and charged with domestic violence, much less convicted ? Men are 30 times as likely to be arrested for domestic violence.

It is a basic principle of law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  However there is an a priori presumption to the contrary regarding males; nearly every cop in the country lives for the opportunity to rescue damsels in distress from predicaments with men, and prosecutors are frothing to convict.  Innocence is no defense.
On the other hand, if a woman is at fault there is a great closing of eyes and opening of hearts – legality be damned.  Women are favored from decision to arrest, to amount of bail required, to guilt or innocence in judgment, to severity of sentence, to physical conditions of imprisonment, to release on parole.  Women are charged fewer times than men for violent crime, convicted less when guilty of the same crimes as men, and are given shorter sentences or simply receive probation.  Judges are reluctant to jail women; while men are arrested 4 times as often as women, they are imprisoned 24 times as often.
A substantial percentage of all convicted male prisoners are actually innocent, scapegoated victims of ambitious, man-hating or Feminist-pandering prosecutors or judges.  This large number attests to the blatant indifference toward justice for men, and the haste of prosecutors, judges and juries to convict men merely because of their sex.
In Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler wrote of the nightmarish world of the Stalinist Soviet secret police, wherein all accused were guilty and protestations of innocence were acts of subversion.  Koestler describes how police power was used to extract confessions, and the way perfectly innocent men were manipulated into publicly declaring their crimes and their guilt.
Mark Wayne Rathbun raped 14 women around Long Beach California from 1997 to 2002.  None died or were seriously physically harmed according to newspaper accounts.  In September 2004 he was sentenced to 1,030 years plus 10 life terms.  Contrast that with the sentences given Andrea Yates and Susan Smith for murder of their children by drowning (Yates – 5 children, Smith – 2).  They each got one life sentence and, as everyone knows, will be home in a few years.  Incredibly enough, on January 6, 2005, a 3-judge Appeals Court panel overturned Yates’ conviction because the prosecution’s psychiatrist was confused regarding an episode of TV’s Law & Order.  Out on bail, she will get a new trial or be allowed to plead down.  Both Andrea’s husband and Susan’s ex-husband chivalrously ran to their defense.
Society has lost its sense of proportion.  A woman can murder a man and receive less punishment than a man who cannot pay his alimony or who urinates in the street.  Women who kill their spouse, even while not in immanent and immediate danger, need only murmur “brutality” and hearts begin bleeding.  No rebuttal is possible; the victim is dead.  It happens so often I no longer keep files on it.
In The Myth of Male Power , Warren Farrell  outlined the 12 female-only defenses that let women off the hook for murder.  Many who were found guilty have convinced governors of their states that such actions are acceptable and that they should be pardoned.  A Milwaukee Journal writer, Beth Slocum, termed it “progressive” when a woman convicted of killing her husband spent only 12 hours in jail; then returned home to live with her children.
Jilted actress Claudine Longet, who killed live-in lover Spider Sabitch because he found a new girlfriend, was convicted and sentenced to 30 days, the same sentence a young Wisconsin lad served in l984 for playing hooky, and a Cheyenne, Wyo. man for violating a local ordinance by fishing with a worm instead of a fly.  She served the time at her convenience in a specially redecorated cell.
Doris Keningale of Risca, South Wales, in the U.K., stabbed her husband to death with a eight-and-a-half-inch knife blade.  Judge John Griffith Williams QC, of Cardiff Crown Court, was told the knife accidentally “entered her husband’s chest.”  The chivalrous jurist sentenced her to three-years of community rehabilitation.
In February 2005, Carisa Ashe, a 34-year-old Atlanta woman who had 8 children by 8 different men, plead guilty to brutally killing her five-week-old daughter.  Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard agreed to a plea bargain that would allow the woman to avoid a murder trial and possible prison sentence if she would agree to be surgically sterilized.  Such agreements are not uncommon.  Some common sense Georgians initiated a move to recall Howard from office.
Acquittal, token punishment or forgiveness of women who murder and maim men signals open season on men.  This is a license to kill.  Women premeditate over half of the domestic murders they commit, and yet half of them claim self-defense quite successfully.  They are convicted of between l5 and 26 percent of the homicides in this country, but suffer less than l percent of the executions, proportionately 50 times less than men in relation to their murder conviction rate.  Between 1930 and 1995, 3,313 males have been executed and only 30 females.
Men are assumed to deserve capital punishment and death because they are perceived to have less value than women.  Thirty eight states and the Federal government have the death penalty.  While that penalty is eminently appropriate in many cases, because of the haste to condemn males to death perhaps it ought to be suspended unless and until justice prevails.  Admittedly though, in recent years the lengthy appeals process has greatly minimized chances of executing the innocent.
In battered baby cases, guilty fathers are fined heavily or jailed.  Mothers, guilty of more and worse cruelty, are usually put on probation and ordered to get psychiatric help.  In other words, if the father does it, he’s a criminal: if the mother does it, she is mentally ill and needs help.
Alba Ingrid Scarpelli, of Germantown, Alabama, was convicted of multiple counts of child abuse for tying up and torturing her 5-year-old son, Richard.  Her sentence?  18 months on work release.  The boy’s father, Alan Lee Holmes, merely stood by while girlfriend Scarpelli committed the abuse.  His sentence?  EIGHT YEARS in prison.  She does the crime; he does the time.
The Galahad that presided over both the Ashe (previous page) and Scarpelli cases and perpetrated the outrages was Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge DeLawrence Beard.  His “reasoning” in the second case?  Holmes was the father; he had a “higher duty” to protect his son.  Quoth Beard, “You are going to receive a substantially more severe sentence because you were substantially more culpable…  You were in a superior position to intervene and stop this.”  Beard pointed to Holmes’s former job as a volunteer firefighter and certification as a medical technician as reasons the father should have seen the signs of abuse.
In Will County, Illinois, near Chicago, forty-four year old Fred M. Flynn and his thirty-four-year old wife, Rita, were convicted of selling their twelve-year-old daughter in 1972 for marriage to a wealthy man for $28,000.  Although they both pled guilty to the identical charge, the man got a five-month jail sentence and the wife got probation.
Heiress Patty Hearst  joined the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974, become a gun-wielding revolutionary called Tania and held up banks.  Bobbi Parker left her family and ran off with escaped convict and murderer Randolph Dial, helping him hide for 10 years.  Lord knows how many similar stories exist.  All with no penalty, because they were initially coerced.
In October of 2005 Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib fame was sentenced to 3 years for mistreating prisoners.  Her equally guilty male co-operative, Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., is serving 10 years in Leavenworth.
Male defenders of U.S. borders are treated more harshly than a female saboteur.  Border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alanso Compean shot and slightly wounded a drug smuggler fleeing back across the Mexican border.  They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively, despite their claim of self-defense.  A woman in their shoes probably would have been hailed as a hero.  In the same week, attorney Lynne Stewart, who smuggled messages from imprisoned terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to his co-conspirators in Egypt, had her wrist slapped with a 28 month sentence.
Practically every time a man and woman get into a physical fight, regardless of who is the aggressor, the man is blamed.  If married, police usually throw him out of his house.  As 17-year Seattle family law attorney Lisa Scott explains, “From top to bottom the current domestic violence system won't let women be anything but victims and can't see men as anything but batterers.  And from the moment a 911 call is made there is practically no such thing as an innocent man.  It doesn't matter that you're actually innocent.  Or that she attacked you first.  Or that you both went over the line and that both of you want to put it behind you and work it out.  The system will prosecute you and persecute you until you've confessed your sins — even if you've none to confess.  And you're not cured until they say you're cured — even if you were never sick to begin with.”
If a man is caught looking into a home in which a woman is undressing, he will be arrested for voyeurism.  If a woman is looking, again the man will be arrested; this time for indecent exposure.  It happened; the Mississippi Supreme Court rationalized the verdict, as did courts in Delaware County Pennsylvania and Portsmouth, Virginia.  There are hundreds of such cases.  In Texas a man and woman violated a local ordinance by swimming in the nude.  Police arrested only the man.
There was great umbrage when Judge Edward Cashmen of Vermont handed down a 60-day sentence to Mark Hulett in January of 2006 for raping an 11-year-old girl; as well there should be.  But where is the umbrage when the sexes are reversed?  25 year-old Tampa Florida schoolteacher Debra Lafave pled guilty to repeated instances of sex with a 14-year old boy.  Playboy pretty, her lawyer argued that she was “too pretty” to go to jail.  Charges were dropped when the boy refused to testify.  That is but one of many such instances.  43-year-old Pamela Diehl-Moore, a middle school teacher, had sex with a 13-year-old male student.  Considering all the intense media coverage of male sexual predators victimizing female children, one might expect a stiff prison term, accompanied by a withering rebuke.  Not so; New Jersey Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Gaeta slapped her hand with a five years probation, and all but suggested that sentence was too harsh.  In yet another recent court case, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten in Kansas also questioned whether sex with kids was really bad.  Shades of Mary Kay Letourneau.  Imagine the sentence if the sexes had been reversed.
In 1997 female B52 pilot Kelly Flinn committed adultery with the husband of an enlisted woman, lied to her superiors and refused to follow orders.  She was allowed to resign from the Air Force instead of being court-marshaled as would have been the fate of any male officer.
Prostitution  is another example of the double standard.  It is the only transgression in which the buyers of an illegal commodity are considered as culpable as the sellers, or more so, because they are men.  One might expect the prostitute to be a more socially undesirable creature than her customer; evidently not.  In Sweden (does this surprise you?) the clients of prostitutes are prosecuted, but the prostitutes are not.  Extending the logic of this nonsense makes buyers of stolen goods and of drugs as culpable as the fences and pushers, which might rationalize the consideration by prosecutors and the media that Rush Limbaugh was more culpable than his female supplier.
Police officers around the country dress as women or use policewomen to entrap men, then arrest those who respond.  Yet a man who with a detective watched his wife have intercourse with another man was denied a divorce on grounds of adultery because of “entrapment.”  The court rationalized he could have stopped her (It might be interesting to attempt citizen's arrests of policewomen shills for soliciting).  In a 15 month study, men were defendants in 63 percent of prostitution cases prosecuted by the St. Paul, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office.  Ponder this convoluted logic: some years ago Minnesota prostitution laws were held unconstitutional by Judges Ledbodott and Riley because they discriminate against women.  Yet laws which explicitly punish only males for non-support have been held to be constitutional.
A man stealing thousands of dollars is a felon.  A woman defrauding the welfare department of the same amount is winked at.  California’s “three strike law” incarcerates men for 25 years to life, with over half (57%) of its subjects guilty of non-violent offenses.  In one case, Santo Reyes was sentenced to 26 years to life for trying to take the written portion of a driver’s license test for his illiterate cousin.  Previously, Reyes had a juvenile burglary conviction in 1981 and an adult robbery conviction in 1987.  Kentucky’s “three-strike law,” which includes even minor offenses, increased their prison population by 600 percent.
This writer was successful in obtaining the release of a perfectly normal man who was locked in a Minneapolis psychiatric ward at the request of a wife from whom he wanted a divorce.  His “abnormality” was having a girl friend.  The wife coaxed him to a purported marriage counselor, actually a psychiatrist, who, deeming his behavior to be “inappropriate,” signed commitment papers.  One call from the Men’s Defense Association to that psychiatrist, and the man was released.  Can you imagine the jailing of an unfaithful wife?
Queens New York Judge Duane Hart sentenced John Modica to 30 days in jail (the same as Claudine Longet ’s sentence for murder) because Modica peacefully approached the judge in a parking lot asking for a continuance to attend his son’s soccer game.
Evidently the right of an accused to have a speedy trial applies only to women: Charles Thomas Sell, once a successful dentist in St. Louis County Illinois who treated many indigent patients, was accused of Medicaid fraud in 1997.  He has spent nearly eight years in prison without a trial.  Although Sell has never hurt anyone, and a federal court held that he poses no danger to those around him, prison officials frequently placed him in solitary confinement for nearly two of those years.  Mr. Sell is kept locked up under the pretense that his unwillingness to admit his guilt is evidence that he is mentally incompetent.  Seventy-year-old Roy Chuster was confined for 30 years in a New York hospital for the criminally insane because he complained about jail corruption.  U.S. Appeals Judge Irving Kaufman called it a “shocking story.”
If a man kills a fetus against the mother’s will he has murdered a human being.  If her abortionist does it, it’s her “right” and the fetus loses human status, even if already 4/5ths out of her body.  A glaring, example of this is the conviction and life sentence of 18-year-old Gerardo Flores of Lufkin, Texas.  His pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend, Erica Basoria, tried unsuccessfully to induce miscarriage then asked Gerardo to kick her in the stomach, causing the death of their twins.  The equally guilty Basoria was not charged.  Another example is the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor.  Her husband Scott was convicted of killing both, of 1st degree murder of Laci and of 2nd degree murder of Connor.  He received the death penalty.  Yet she and an abortionist could have killed Connor without danger of conviction.  Woman who damage their babies during pregnancy by fouling their bodies with poisons (nicotine, alcohol, dope, etc.) are seldom prosecuted.
If these were unusual situations, I would have little reason to write about crime and punishment, and could stick to my original concern about anti-male discrimination in divorce, which is more prevalent if not more shocking.  But the plight of such men isn’t unusual.  Similar outrages are happening in courts across our land every day.  If the objects of this pogrom were women, or even real criminals, any number of individuals and organizations would be loudly defending and inventing their rights and stretching the Constitution incredibly to protect same.

Football Player Arrested For Domestic Violence

 A Domestic Violence arrest can be devastating! Look what happened when a NFL Football Player was arrested for suspicion of Domestic Violence ?

NFL football player Junior Seau was arrested early Monday on suspicion of domestic violence, then drove his Cadillac SUV off a cliff in southern California after being released from jail, authorities said.
CARLSBAD, Calif. -- NFL football player Junior Seau was arrested early Monday on suspicion of domestic violence, then drove his Cadillac SUV off a cliff in Carlsbad after being released from jail, authorities said.
Emergency crews responding to a 911 call received at 8:42 a.m. found Seau, 41, on the beach below Carlsbad Boulevard and Solamar Avenue, according to Carlsbad police Lt. Paul Mendes.
Photo Gallery: Pictures from the accident scene
Seau, the sole occupant of the white 2004 SUV, was taken to Scripps La Jolla Hospital for treatment of apparently minor injuries.
Earlier in the morning, Seau was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. Seau's 25-year-old, live-in girlfriend told authorities that Seau assaulted her during an argument at his Oceanside home, according to Oceanside police. She appeared to have minor injuries and did not require medical treatment.
He was taken into custody, and the San Diego County Sheriff's Department confirmed Seau was released at about 3:20 a.m.
"At this point we think he's fine, but we really don't have any comment," said Richard Doan, who answered the cell phone of Bette Hoffman, who works for Seau's foundation. "There are no injuries but he seems to be a little shaken up."
Details of the arrest, which was first reported by, were not immediately available.
Sometime after his release, Seau drove his vehicle off a cliff in Carlsbad. A witness told our sister station CBS News 8 that he was seen driving about 70 miles per hour and made no attempt to brake or slow down.
The cause of Seau's solo traffic crash was unclear, though police said there was no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time and apparently was not in a suicidal state of mind.

The Booming Domestic Violence Industry

OK , we all agree that Domestic Violence happens, and has been happening since the dawn of mankind. So has Terror. The question IS, just how much government control or intervention do we want in our Lives ?
I really don't think our founding fathers would approve of the current Domestic Violence Laws, do you ?
Here is an article I found that exposes the MONEY behind the current Domestic Violence Movement. Looks like we have another Big Government Monster on our hands ?

The Booming Domestic Violence Industry   
The Social-Work Movement that Fights Domestic Violence has Grown Large on State and Federal Tax Monies  

Massachusetts News 
By John Maguire 

August 2--All across Massachusetts, the social-work movement that fights domestic violence is booming. 
Only ten years ago, the women's safety-advocates were a small group of idealists, operating on pennies. Today the movement has grown large on state and federal tax monies. 
Every month, it seems, it spawns new sub-programs, clinics, shelters, research institutes, counseling centers, visitation centers, poster campaigns. The state disbursed about $24 million for domestic violence services last year, but that certainly is not all the money spent. Today domestic violence is a big industry in Massachusetts. 
Mapping the full extent of the domestic-violence industry is not easy, because it's a cottage-industry, spread out in hundreds of places. State and federal money goes to well over a hundred institutes, clinics, programs for counseling or outreach or coordination or training, computer databases, coalitions, shelters, PR agencies and other groups. 
Most would say that's just fine: Domestic violence is ugly and ought to be dealt with. But others are beginning to wonder if the huge industrial cure is as bad as the disease. 
One of many critics is John Flaherty, co-chairman of the Fatherhood Coalition. "This industry is an octopus," he said recently. "It's got its tentacles in more and more parts of everyday life. It's a political movement. Many of its employees are, directly or indirectly, damaging children. This industry doesn't answer to anybody. They're in it mainly for the money -- and the children be damned." The industry's problems may be about to increase, because it is becoming clear through scientific research that the whole premise of the movement and the industry it spawned -- that "domestic violence" means bad men hitting helpless, innocent women -- is just plain wrong. 
The truth about violence in the home is that it's pretty much a 50-50 thing. Respected social scientists Murray A. Straus and David Gelles have been publishing research for years that shows the standard Only-Men-Batter story--probably visible on a billboard near you -- just doesn't match reality. 
Women and men attack each other about equally in the home. Solid research now shows that women begin the physical fighting in their homes about half the time. Equally solid research shows that mothers are responsible for 65 per cent of physical abuse of children. 
Although the words "domestic" violence are commonly used, some commentators say that a better description would be "shack-up" violence, because violence is most common, especially where children are involved where the woman is living with a boy friend. In a piece in the Weekly Standard last December by John A. Barnes, he cited four studies which show "that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in a stable nuclear family." 
The uncomfortable truth is spreading. The very liberal, if not PC magazine Mother Jones ran a news story last month admitting as much.  "A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence," reported Nancy Updike. She wrote: "Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men. The research disputes a long held belief about the nature of domestic violence -- that if a woman hits, it's only in response to her partner's attacks." 
The writer admitted that 20-year-old myths in the movement were starting to fall. The study of 860 men and women, she said, "suggest that some women may be prone to violence -- by nature of circumstance -- just as some men may be." 
Looking at the Bottom Line $$$  
In 1999, the state spent $24 million of its own and federal tax dollars 
"fighting has grown large on state and federal tax monies violence." The budgets have risen steadily every year. Slightly more than half of that money ($13.6 million) goes to pay for 37 battered women's shelters and to pay their staff. There are no shelters or services for men who are victims of domestic violence -- only women or homosexual men get these services. 
About a fifth of the money ($5.3 million) is spent in and around the courts, paying for prosecutors, legal representation for women, and training for court personnel. 
Of the remainder, at least $1 million goes to posters, ads, and other "outreach" campaigns telling people not to be violent. The high-school campaign gathers teen-agers to watch a play called "The Yellow Dress." Its point is that dating can end in murder, and men should not be trusted. It costs the state $500,000 each year. 
"Massachusetts and the Boston region have been very successful in winning federal money," said Clare Dalton, of the Northeastern University Domestic Violence Institute. 
"We've got some federal money here. The Police Department has also been very successful in getting federal money." 
Federal money for domestic violence programs flows into the state in several streams. One large source is the Victims of Crime Act money, which is disbursed by the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance. Another source of big federal dollars is the federal Violence Against Women Act, which is administered by the Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS). Both MOVA and EOPS are located in state offices at 1 Ashburton Place, next to the State House. MOVA's on the 11th floor, EOPS is on the 21st. 
Getting answers even to simple questions on how much money is being spent is not easy. Three weeks of repeated calls and visits to staffers in the Cellucci administration brought sluggish or no response. Jean Hurtle, the Executive Director of the Governor's Commission on Domestic Violence, when asked repeatedly for a fact sheet on how much money was being spent in this field produced nothing. Jason Kauppi, an executive office press aide, failed to respond to roughly ten phone calls requesting information on the domestic violence budget. The figures above and in the accompanying box came from the staff of Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell. 
According to Cam Huff of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, budgets at the Department of Social Services have risen almost seven per cent per year, since 1993. Compared with the overall budget, he says, this is "significantly higher than average." 
Restraining Order --How Many is too many? 
If the domestic violence industry were an old-fashioned textile mill, the central  power-shaft turning all its machinery would be the 209A restraining order. Judges issue them at the rate of 145 a day, according to the Boston Globe. Without the steady roll of restraining orders, all the machinery of the domestic violence industry would grind to a halt. 
To the activists, the 209A law is almost a magic sword that saves women's lives. "There's almost a religion of restraining orders among women's advocates," commented Ray Saulnier, a fathers' rights activist from Maine. 
But a growing number of men, their relatives, and lawyers find the 209A law grossly unfair -- almost a police-state tool that destroys families and saves very few. Recent efforts to reform the law have gained sympathetic hearings in the Legislature. 
On the books for 20 years, 209A became the tool of choice for the activists in the early 1990s. Almost every year since then, that scope of the law has been expanded, and the grounds for defense diminished. Activists have sought and gained almost draconian powers for women, on the argument of a "crisis" in domestic violence. 
As the law has expanded, its enforcers have multiplied. Today this state has hundreds if not thousands of 209A specialists who have been trained. Training in getting restraining orders, and in helping and urging women to get them occupies a significant amount of the curriculum at Northeastern University's Domestic Violence Institute internship program. Federally paid advocates in many if not all district and probate courts in the state are also trained to assist women in getting restraining orders. To the movement/industry, the restraining order is a shining sacred sword of power that can never do harm, but magically protects women and children at all times. 
The restraining orders bring the police power of the state immediately to the woman's protection, and the man she says she is afraid of is immediately thrown out of his house, if not arrested. 
Tool of Police State? 
But to others, a restraining order looks an awful lot like the tool of a police state. Attorney Sheara Friend, of the Wellesley firm Kahalas, Warshaw & Friend, estimates that about half of all restraining orders are merely legal maneuvers, where there is no real fear of injury on anyone's part. If she's right, about 20,000 of this state's restraining orders each year have nothing to do with domestic violence -- other than to claim it. If each of those phony orders harms seven people (a father, two kids, two grandparents and two other relatives) then 140,000 Massachusetts citizens suffer needless disruption and emotional pain each year. 
About ten years ago, some evidence was required. Someone had to show bruises, or bring in testimony to support the accusation. 
The legislature has loosened the standard. Now the person seeking the order need only state he or she is "in fear" of the other person. 
It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under 209A, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house. 
"Mediation and communication counseling are critical in a divorce," says Sheara Friend. "The 209A non-contact order prevents that. Especially if it's a divorce that involves children, you need the parties talking with each other. The 209A completely stops that. It's a very divisive thing to do right at the time the parties need to talk. You can't even get the parties in the same building." 
Bad For Fathers & Children 
Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order, she says. 
"A man against whom a frivolous 209A has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." 
This is a different era from the 1950s, she points out, and many fathers are very close to their children, and bond closely with them from an early age. 
"In this day and age, we have fathers who take an extremely active role in parenting -- sometimes more than the mother." 
"I call them mother-dads," she says. In many restraining-order cases, she says, "These fathers are completely frustrated because they can't co-parent their child because of a restraining order. They have been raped of their parenting relationship with their child." 
While Friend and others see false restraining orders as enormously destructive, and permanently traumatizing, the $24 million domestic violence industry is built on the restraining order. Most of the activities that people get paid for in the domestic violence industry cannot start until a restraining order has been issued. 
Permanent Lifetime Record 
The restraining order is entered into the state's restraining order registry on a computer in downtown Boston. It is never deleted. Police officers, probation officers and judges have the right to check the database. 
What will it do to someone's career if they are in there indefinitely and an employer somehow calls in to check? "We can't respond to that question," said Coria Holland, press person for the Mass Probation Service. "Probation is just the conduit for getting the information into the system. We're just the recording arm." 
Supervised Visitation: Paying $120 for 90 minutes with your kid 
"Supervised visitation" is a booming part of the industry today.  In 1994, only three visitation centers existed -- they were pilot projects in Springfield, Roxbury and Brockton. Today, there are 13 state-funded centers absorbing nearly a million dollars a year. These centers not only get state funding, they also charge fathers for the privilege of seeing their own offspring. Rates go as high as $120 for ninety minutes. 
The assumption "is that a lot of dads are abusing their children and their access to their children must be supervised," declares Michael Ewing, a fatherhood activist. Though research suggests this assumption is completely false, the supervised visitation industry has skyrocketed anyway. 
The centers strongly assume that children's fathers are guilty of some unnamed crime. Caring fathers with the bad luck to be accused often endure insulting, exploitative treatment to see their children. They complain rarely, because the social workers can and do end visitation for little or no reason. 
Pamela Whitney, a social worker who came to the Massachusetts Department of Social Services in 1986 as a consultant, has been Director of Domestic Violence and Family Support Services since 1994. Her office is at 24 Farnsworth Street in Boston. She supervises a budget that was $13.6 million last year, and may go higher. 
She says supervised visitation is recommended "where there has been a separation between the parents and a history of domestic abuse." 
When challenged, she backtracks and admits she meant to say "accusation of domestic abuse." 
She says her department pushed for visitation centers, beginning with three pilot centers in the early 1990s. The department recommended expansion, "because the courts found it so helpful and useful." Now there are 13. She said her goal was to have at least one in every county. More are probably coming. 
"The feeling on the part of the courts and others was it was often unsafe for children to visit with their offending parent," she said. She acknowledged that when she said "offending parent" she meant a parent who had been accused of an offence. 
Each state-supported visitation center is funded by D.S.S. to such a level that it has at least $75,000 to work with. The money goes to fund staff and a "budget coordinator." The coordinator "does outreach to the courts and other agencies." D.S.S. funds also pay, she said, for "the people who are actually doing the visit between the parent and child." 
"Some visits don't need to be supervised," she said. "But in other cases where there is higher risk involved...this provides supervision for those who are doing the actual visit." The observers are trained according to "guidelines" developed by the central nexus for DV policy in the state, theGovernor's Commission on Domestic Violence. 
She acknowledged that the same accusation that forces a man into a center, also forces him to pay both his and his wife's fees. "If A says that B is abusive, then B has to pay the money," she said. 
Ms. Whitney said she thought the sliding scales ranged from $1 to $5, and that an indigent parent could do community service to pay for his visitation time. 
But in reality, at least in Robert Straus' center in Cambridge, the sliding scale runs from $20 to $40 or $80 per hour, and any parent who cannot pay cannot see his children. 
Asked her reaction to the case of the father of three who recently had to pay The Meeting Place $120 to see his children for 90 minutes, she said, "I've never heard of such a thing. One hundred twenty dollars a visit is extraordinary." 
"All these visitations have been ordered because the children involved are at risk," explains Robert Straus, a lawyer and social worker, and currently director of the Meeting Place, in Cambridge. Straus has been a key figure in our state's development of professional supervised visitation. Asked to explain "at risk", he says: "You have a range of physical and sexual abuse situations where the parent is either alleged to be, or been proved to, abuse the child." 
"As you know," he adds, confidentially, "there have been a number of deaths in Massachusetts." When asked to name an actual child's death he was referring to, however, he said he could not remember. 
Straus has been part of an informal matrix of lawyers, judges, social workers, academics and domestic violence activists since the early 1990s. These people, some idealistic and some merely pragmatic, have networked, talked with each other, served on various commissions, boosted each other' s careers, and helped to expand the definition of domestic violence, and the size of state and federal funding massively. 
Straus is a leader now, and heads what is called the Supervised Visitation Network. He described the growth of that group in glowing, emotional terms during a phone interview. 
"The Supervised Visitation Network started in 1992. A group of people met in New York through the Ethical Culture Society, which had started a supervised visitation program in New York City. At that point it was just 30 people from around the country, most of whom had never met anyone else doing supervision. We had all been working in isolation. It was an extremely high energy meeting. It was very much an informal association of people helping each other out. It began with a handful of members and now has over 400 members throughout the U.S., Canada, and Australia. It's a fascinating field...because when it began it was virtually without funding." 
But not any more. Though The Meeting Place began in 1991 with only a grant from the Boston Bar Foundation, and continued to 1998 "without a penny of public money" that public money is starting to flow now, Straus admits with a tone of satisfaction. 
The major state source is through the state DSS Domestic Violence Unit, whose budget of over $900,000 "has been an immense advance over the last few years.." 
What if the father doesn't have enough money to see his kid in a given week? "Difficult question," answers Straus, who pauses and then says the father gets "a week's grace" and then the child-father contact is cut off. 
His program never tries to get husbands and wives to talk out their problems privately, he said, but urges them to go back to court instead. He said children are in visitation for long periods, from nine months to many years. He said that no matter how well, how happily, the father-child interaction is going, his program never recommends to the judge that supervision should end and normal parent-child contact resume. 
These programs have sprung up all across America " entrepreneurial tricks and ideas spread easily each summer at this industry's conferences. Wherever supervised visitation has appeared, criticism has followed. 
In Virginia, Michael Ewing, president of the Virginia Fatherhood Initiative, has an unusual perspective. He is one of the few pro-father people ever to run a "visitation center." His non-profit organization applied for and got a federal grant to negotiate access and visitation issues between divorced parents. He hoped to show that in situations of conflict between divorced parents, supervised visitation was not necessary. He sees such programs as "designed to humiliate men." In his program's first year, the Norfolk area courts made more than 700 case referrals. "We solved all of the problems but two," Ewing said. "Only two families required supervised visitation." 
"There are many ways to handle the exchange of children without having parents supervised. We ran a neutral pickup and drop off program and there were no problems. We made clear to parents that they had to be 'model citizens' during drop off, or they would be reported to the court." 
He said the supervised visitation idea has been " beefed up with phony statistics" and there is very little need for it. 
Solid research shows that most physical child abuse is done by mothers, or by mothers' live-in boyfriends. Ewing is one of many in the fathers' movement who wonder why natural fathers " who in reality are quite unlikely to abuse their own children " are targeted for the humiliation of supervision "I think there's another agenda here," he says. "Some special interest women's groups think that males in general are disposable. We're great sperm donors and paychecks " but beyond that there's not much need for good fathers or good men." 
He said he thinks supervised visitation came about "because women wanted to con- trol the dad's access to their children, and to humiliate them by making them see their children in the presence of a social worker and pay for the privilege of doing so." 
Perhaps because of its success, Michael Ewing's non-visitation-center approach to family conflict lost its funding in the second year. He said he thinks a local social worker who had lost clients due to Ewing's success complained to an influential state senator. 
How many of these supervision cases really require supervision for the safety of the children? Michael Ewing doesn't think very many: he found two cases out of 700. 
But the domestic violence entrepreneurs and state officials live in a different world from us. A sense of nameless vague threat is always in the background. To hear the pros talk, all the men they deal with are batterers, sexual abusers, or virtually time bombs of violence. Repeated cliches like "at risk" and "a safe place" and "maintaining safety" pepper their sentences. Yet, in many cases, there is no evidence of violence or any kind of serious harm to children " merely an accusation by the mother. But in the DV industry, when the accusation is made, the case is closed. 
At least some of the men interviewed for this story are devoted fathers. It is clear that some have heroically maintained contact with their children over a period of years, despite having to pay a small fortune in cash and endure repeated harassment by petty, vindictive state officials. During a dozen hours of telephone interviews, not one supervised-visitation official spoke any word of praise for any man's love of his children.


Florida Man Files For Restraining Order Against Obama, Jesus Christ, and Tim Tebow

Here is a good article I found on the Internet about the misuse of restraining orders! 

Florida Man Files For Restraining Order Against Obama, Jesus Christ, and Tim Tebow

Published on: 10th November, 2010 @ 2:09 am by JeffG

What do President Obama, Jesus Christ, and Broncos QB Tim Tebow have in common, other than they are three people who have never been in my kitchen?
Answer:  All three were named in petitions for injunction for protection against repeat violence last week by one man, John D. Gilliand of Gainesville, Florida.
Gilliand claims, and quite sensibly I might add, that he feels threatened by Obama, Jesus, and Tebow, and that all three are in gangs and/or have made gang symbols at him.  I knew there was more to the sign of the cross than those dastardly priests were letting on.
Filing for a restraining order against Obama can maybe be understood, especially if Gilliand is a staunch Republican, and even seeking protection against Christ might make sense if our man is an atheist…and certifiably insane.
But Tebow?  He’s as pure as new fallen snow, and as fine and dandy as sour candy.  I mean hell, the guy circumcised hundreds of Filipino infants while in college.  Why him John?
Why him indeed…
Gilliand explained in Alachua County court records that he felt threatened by Tebow, Obama and Jesus.
“I was trespassed from the Kangaroo Gas Station on University for saying T-Bo sucks,” Gilliand wrote in the petition for injunction for protection against repeat violence against Tebow.
Unfortunately for Gilliand some irrational judge denied all three petitions the same day they were filed.  But fear not, for our man Gilliand has filed a supplemental affidavit against Tebow and Obama to get the court to reconsider a restraining order.  Apparently Gilliand considers it redundant to file another restraining order against Jesus, what with Tebow being Christ’s Earth-bound equivalent and all.
John D. Gilliand, keep fighting the good fight, no matter how ridiculous and misguided it is.
[Orlando Sentinel via Deadspin]

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. Our Restraining Order Blog Legal Staff will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed and possibly removed in a timely mannner


Extreme Gender Bias in our Court System

Extreme Gender Bias and Lack of Truth and Justice  in our Court System
I have read many blogs from both Fathers and Attorneys, all just relating their personal and professional experiences. After a while they all seem to be the same, and basically ending up the same, abused by the court system, the same court system that is presumably there to protect us equally as citizens.
I grew up thinking that we had one of the best legal systems in the world, not perfect but one of the best. I have learned since that “innocent until proven guilty” is only a catch phrase; "preponderance of the evidence" is another one. I have heard that being a man in the probate court system can be somewhat compared to being a person of color during the civil rights movement. I certainly do not intend to downgrade the struggle those “American citizens” had to endure to get the rights that they so rightly deserved. However I feel like I can completely relate on some level to the experience of a complete double standard when it comes to men vs women in our probate court system. The woman has to just cry “abuse!” and without any proof or evidence against the accused she is suddenly surrounded by an army of “advocates” tasked to condemn the accused. But where is the army to protect the wrongly accused? Where is the system that has stated since the beginning of our democracy that it will protect the innocent and guard the wrongly accused from any wrongful persecution, to uphold justice? The answer is that it doesn’t seem to exist. In fact what is in place is a system that allows the woman to abuse the legal system and in turn ruin an innocent man and tear children apart from a loving father, motivated solely by bitterness and vindictiveness and not a valid legal position.
Because all the stories out there start to sound the same, i.e. “she lied”; I am not going to go into my story.  I would however like to relate some of the facts that one would think were enough to at least raise an eyebrow in our court system.
  • Textbook parental alienation reported by the children and me to a mandated reporter and the court.
  • Even in the face of overwhelming need a request for a GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) by me, the Father, was refused.
  • Verbal and physical abuse reported on several occasions by the children and me to a mandated reporter and the court.
  • Statements to the police by the children stating that they are afraid of their mother, and that the mother falsified a police report stating that the father assaulted the mother. That in fact it was the mother who attacked and struck the father.
  • Two separate anonymous reports made to the DCF (Department of Children and Family) about the mother that were “screened out” (ignored). In both of the reports the physical abuse and the children’s fears were reported.
  • The mandated reporter is an unlicensed, non-degreed “therapist” that is associated with a victims rights group. The highest degree held is one in art. She has allowed coercion on the part of the mother and in fact has allowed herself to be wrongly influenced by the mother by having many “sessions” with the mother and the children while have only a couple with me, the father. The results of the sessions have been “opinions” written to the court without checking any of the “facts” the mother presented. When the real facts were documented and presented to the “therapist” by me AND the children they were ignored and I was labeled as manipulative and coercive.
  • After requesting two “well being” checks for my children because I received suspicious phone calls in which one of my children was hysterical and the phone call was abruptly ended, the “therapist” requested a DCF investigation on me that has now not been “screened out”.
  • A Restraining Order was issued against me because I tried to file one against the mother for assaulting me, and I requested to police to check on the safety of my children. Despite not satisfying the statue which states “that the elements must be three incidents of harassment intended to incite fear or intimidation” and that “Abuse” means causing or attempting to cause physical harm, or causing fear of imminent serious physical harm. The conduct of the defendant must in fact cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property”. Based primarily on the fact that I asked for the local police to do two separate “well being” checks on my daughters. I have tried to involve the police when I had legitimate concerns for my children’s safety instead of personally getting involved. In other words doing exactly what the law expects me to do.
I understand that there are “father’s rights” advocates out there trying hard to get some sort of justice incorporated into our system. Our elected officials are supposed to be there to help the citizens who are unjustly treated by our court system. The problem is that when they try to enlist the help of those elected officials those officials are then faced with handling a political football. They are assailed by women’s rights advocates screaming discrimination and accusations of trying to protect “wife beaters” so in affect very little is done. The fact is that there are mountains of studies that report that single mothers are more likely to commit physical abuse than are fathers. In fact there are overwhelming studies done throughout the world the results of which directly conflict with the current opinions and practices of our courts, but they too are ignored. Hostile-Aggressive Parenting (HAP) Published by Family Conflict Resolution Services, Ontario Canada July 25, 2004, White House Council on Boys to Men/Dr Warren Farrell, 415-259-6343, July 2, 2010 (Obama administration) just to name two.
The result as I see it is that there is very little truth or justice in our legal system. As a famous comedian once said, “We go to court looking for justice and that’s just what I see, just us!” Men and Fathers trying to exercise their legal rights, protect their children, and seek justice. Instead are faced with a system that has extreme gender bias, a bias that is overwhelmingly admitted to by those in the legal profession and observers from the outside. Where are the Fathers and husbands advocates? Where are the ones that are there to insure that fairness and truth be administered to the men and Fathers as well and the wives and Mothers?
I know that there are those that would say that the system errs on the side of safety. That if the system lets one truly dangerous man “slip through” that the result could be a life or death situation for the woman. I agree whole heartedly that every person should be able to be protected by the system, but the protection should be afforded to every person. I do not believe that an overwhelming number of men and Fathers should have their lives ruined; Fathers and children torn apart simply because the system has left itself open to abuse and manipulation by bitter and vindictive people. These same people recognize that they can now avail themselves to a system that has allowed it to be used as a tool to destroy rather than protect.
We are taught that truth and justice is what we can expect from our court system but we find very little of each once we are in need of the court system.


Hillsborough County Judge Christine Vogel

 We received this email about a citizens experience with Hillsborough County Judge Christine Vogel. 
Click the link above, and you can share your opinion of Judge Vogel, good or bad.

I just got out of Hillsborough County Judge Christine Vogel's courtroom at about 7 p.m tonight, 11/1/10.  Here is my my UNBELIEVABLE experience . . .

I was trying to get a Hillsborough County restraining order to protect my daughter from my ex-wife's boyfriend.  I have 1 daughter.  My ex and I have 50% rotating custody.  My daughter spends 1/2 of her time with my ex.  Over the last 5+ years, I have had many experiences with my ex's boyfriend initiating verbal and physical assaults against me, in my daughter's presence.  There has also been several instances where my daughter would come to my house with burns, scratches, and bruises for which her explanations did not make sense.  I have suspected abuse for 5+ years, especially considering my many run-ins with this man.  HCSO, DCF and the courts never do anything - I've tried many times.  For the rest of this account, I will refer to my ex as M and her boyfriend as J.

M and J have 2 children in common and M has my daughter every other week.  Some time around March or April of this year (2010) M broke up with J because he was abusing her.  She claimed he even threatened to bury her in the yard.  M filed several court documents in April and May, including an Injunction for Protection, in which she repeatedly claimed abuse against herself and the children.  She very clearly stated, multiple times, that she feared for the lives of herself and the children.  She also stated that she was too scared (of J) to tell HCSO and DCF the truth about the abuses when they came to investigate (multiple times).  She had a domestic violence hearing in front of Hillsborough County Judge Vogel in which she testified to these abuses.  Her case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

This September, out of the blue, M emailed me that she was back together with J again (I'm sure it is for financial reasons as M refuses to work and can't live the lifestyle she wants just from welfare money), and that he was going to be around her sons AND my daughter again.  She told me that if I don't like it, that's too bad.  I warned her that if she brought him back into my daughter's life that I would have to take legal action - notify DCF, Injunction for Protection & attempt to get FULL custody of my daughter with M having as little part in her life as possible.  We went back and forth arguing via email and I continued to warn her that I would take legal action.  All of this email traffic occurred after 9/3/10.

Today in court, Hillsborough County Judge Vogel refused to consider the many verbal and physical assaults by J against me, in my daughter's presence, dating back to 2005, as legitimate acts of domestic violence against my daughter.  I read to her verbatim from the statute that the state of florida considers domestic violence to include acts against a family member or household member.  She also said my daughter's statements of abuse and intimidation against her, by J, made to me on 9/13/10 were pretty much irrelevant as she (7 years old) was not there to testify.  I've sat in her courtroom for 3 days (including today) and listened to her accept and consider many parents' (mothers) testimony of their children's statements, even after hearsay objections.  Yet for some reason, it wasn't OK for me.  She then refused to allow me to complete my testimony.  She didn't even allow me to establish a timeline for the most current events that led to the injunction.  Judge Vogel called my witness as I objected, pleaded with her to allow me to finish my testimony.

My witness was a hostile witness that I had to subpoena to appear.  My witness was M.  I had subpoenaed her to appear on 10/7/10 and again on 10/20/10.  She avoided HCSO and Mercuryserve for 8 combined attempts to serve her.  I had to get 2 continuances.  Finally, she was served for the hearing today.   That is why I sat in the Hillsborough County courtroom for 3 days.

So, M testifies, in contradiction with her previous allegations made in 3 court documents and in her court appearance against J that J has never abused her nor any of the children.  I read, verbatim, many of the allegations of abuse and she denied all of them.  I asked M if those allegations, documents and previous testimony were made honestly and truthfully because her testimony today was quite contrary.  M then claimed that I coerced her to do all of that by threatening the legal action stated above.  Then J started testifying IN FRONT OF THE WITNESS, during my examination of the witness, about my motivations and that I was making her do things and he offered the emails mentioned above.  M, a witness actively being questioned, then reiterated what J said.  Judge Vogel read the emails, one of them aloud.  During all of this I was trying to object repeatedly for hearsay, speculation, speaking out of turn, testifying in front of the witness, not being afforded reasonable time to review the emails being presented and for both M and J making allegations about me and calling to question my character.  Judge Vogel repeatedly told me to shut up.  Judge Vogel then admonished me for the emails and stated that she was going to accept M's testimony from today because she believed that I coerced M into making the allegations, filing the documents and testifying against J previously.  The emails that supposedly "coerced" M began on 9/3/10.  All of M's previous allegations, court documents and testimony were from APRIL and MAY . . . 4+ months before my emails.  I had no idea about those things at the time they were occurring.  Furthermore, Judge Vogel refused to allow me to sufficiently review the emails that were not previously entered as evidence, stating that I could take as much time to read them as I wanted when I got home!  It was only on the way home that I realized the time disparity and that those emails could have in no way possibly effected M's actions from MONTHS before.  And apparently as a Father having 50% custody of my daughter, I cannot tell M that I will take legal action if she allows my daughter to be around a person that abuses her . . . at least not in Hillsborough County Judge Vogel's courtroom!  

So basically, Judge Vogel refused to allow me to complete my testimony, had different rules for me than for other petitioners, allowed a witness to perjure herself with no repercussion, allowed a defendant to testify in front of the witness and in the middle of the witness' testimony (allowing the witness to testify further afterwards), refused to allow me sufficient time to review newly presented "evidence" and threw out my petition because somehow my emails coerced a key witness' actions 4+ months before they were ever written!  Judge Vogel said she didn't like the "tone" of my emails . . . well, I wasn't on trial here and that should have no bearing on this matter.  I was well within my legal rights to inform M that I would take LEGAL action.  And my "tone" is specific to the relationship between M and I and has nothing to do with what the hearing was about.  M was a WITNESS, not a PARTY.  She also didn't consider the entire string of email traffic between the 2 of us that those emails were part of and the gravity and context of the situation in which they were written.  She may not like my personality or the relationship I have with M, but it is entirely unprofessional to base her judgment on this!  She is supposed to judge whether my daughter is in danger, not what kind of person I am based on a few emails with a person who I feel is endangering my daughter.

I will stop short of making certain charges here, but I will say that I went through hell to just be a part of my daughter's life.  I rarely saw her for the first 2 years of her life because her mother made many (false) allegations against me and the family law judge just accepted them as gospel without a shred of proof.  It took me 2 years to PROVE MY INNOCENCE in Hillsborough County.  Today's fiasco is just more of what I, as a FATHER in "The Great State of Florida", have been dealing with continuously since 2003.  

So, my daughter gets to continue to spend time with J because I had a negative tone while threatening LEGAL action against M for allowing a person she swore, under oath, is a child abuser to come back into my daughter's life and that "threat" of LEGAL action time traveled 4 months into the past and forced M to make allegations very similar to my own and my daughter's!  UNBELIEVABLE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  

I am a disabled Marine Corps veteran.  It's nice to know that this is the kind of legal system in Hillsborough County Florida I defended and sacrificed for!


Vote Pam Bondi Florida Attorney General

Vote Pam Bondi Florida Attorney General

This Blog endorses Pam Bondi for Florida Attorney General. Domestic Violence is an awful, often under reported crime. We are not opposed to tough laws against those who cause REAL Domestic Violence to happen. We are just tired of the current "he said, she said" domestic violence laws that are being used and abused by people playing the legal system for their own questionable motives. Here is Pam Bondi's stand on Domestic Violence.

Pam Bondi Vows to Fight Domestic Violence

On Tuesday, former Assistant State Attorney Pam Bondi, the Republican candidate for attorney general, focused on domestic violence issues.

Bondi played up her experience as a prosecutor and stressed that the next attorney general would lead the Statewide Domestic Fatality Review Team which reviews fatal and near-fatal domestic violence incidents.

"I spent nearly 20 years as a prosecutor in this state, and I think it is significant that the first homicide I tried was a domestic violence murder and the last case I was working on when I left the state attorney's office was domestic violence murder," said Bondi. "Domestic violence is a serious and often deadly crime which impacts more families than many people realize. I care deeply about the victims of this violent crime, and as attorney general, shining a spotlight on this issue will be an important goal of mine.

"I am committed to intensifying the effort to change the culture of domestic violence crime in our state through increased education and awareness efforts, leadership, and continuing to partner with our great law enforcement officers who are already doing everything they can to stop this awful trend,” added Bondi. “People's lives are at stake, and I will step in and do anything in my power to protect them."

Vote Pam Bondi Florida Attorney General

Pam Bondi for Attorney General
• Fully supports 2nd Amendment rights; A-Rated by the National Rifle Association.
• Committed to standing up against Obama-Pelosi healthcare legislation.
• Committed to stopping illegal immigration.

Pam Bondi is running for office for the first time. Her background is as follows:

- A graduate of the University of Florida and Stetson Law School. Bondi served as a front-line prosecutor for the past 18 years.

- As an Assistant State Attorney, Bondi served under five State Attorneys in the 13th Judicial Circuit, a department of more than 100 attorneys.

- Bondi’s investigative and courtroom experience came into play with nationally celebrated cases, including putting Adam Davis on death row for the murder of Vicky Robinson and convicting Melvin Givens of first degree murder for the stabbing death of local NBC-News Producer Danielle Cipriani.

- Bondi regularly traveled to Tallahassee to oppose the parole of convicted murderers and rapists.

- Bondi served as Felony Bureau Chief and a key member of internal homicide, vehicular homicide, and DUI manslaughter committees. She also sat on the Executive Committee responsible for budget, personnel and legal strategies.

- Bondi has served as the Vice Chair of the Florida Bar Grievance Committee, and in Tampa Bay United Way, the Children’s Board, Junior League, and on the University of Florida Gator Club Board of Directors.

- Bondi received the Tampa Bay Review’s 2001 “Lawyers of Distinction” and has also received the Italian “Woman of Excellence in Government” award.
A native of Tampa, Bondi is a fourth generation Floridian, and hails from a family dedicated to service, including three generations of educators.