mkg4583

Posts Tagged ‘Restraining Orders’

Pajamas Media » The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men

In Activism, Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Brainwashed Children, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, Feminism, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, kidnapped children, Liberty, Marriage, National Parents Day, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine on January 22, 2010 at 2:53 pm

The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men

By painting all males as brutes, feminists hope to reduce half the population to a state of dhimmitude.

January 21, 2010 – by Barbara Kay

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

The industry that has grown up around domestic violence (DV), or, as it is more precisely situated these days in research circles, intimate partner violence (IPV), began in good faith decades ago as a legitimate campaign to help women trapped in abusive relationships.

Over the years, as the triumphalist feminist revolution’s long march through the institutions of the West proceeded with eerily unchallenged vigor, DV emerged as a highly politicized touchstone justifying women’s entitlements — legal, economic, familial — at the expense of boys’ and men’s human rights.

A tipping point in the DV chronology, when the focus amongst militant feminists shifted from helping individual women to the more totalitarian ambition of reducing the male population to cultural dhimmitude, can be traced back in time to December 6, 1989, and in space to a school two miles north of my front door.

December 6, 2009, marked the 20th anniversary of a unique tragedy in Western history, the systematic massacre of 14 women engineering students, with injury to 13 others, at Montreal’s École Polytechnique by a lone young gunman, Marc Lepine, who killed himself at the end of his shooting spree.

As an act of violence against women, the Montreal Massacre had no prequel or sequel. Lepine — his real name was Gamil Gharbi, but Lepine chose to identify with his québécois mother rather than his brutal, misogynistic, Algerian-born father — was a sociopath, unaligned with any faith, political movement, or identity grievance group. He was no jihadi. Although one could argue that the massacre presented elements of an honor killing, Lepine’s crime was essentially sui generis.

Ironically enough, if he were a jihadi, feminists would have been stymied in their rush to collective judgment, for the standard reflex following jihadist incidents is to repudiate any linkage of the act with Islam and to warn against expressions of Islamophobia.

But in the case of the Montreal Massacre, a diametrically opposed instinct prevailed. Because Lepine’s only distinguishing feature was his maleness, the tragedy sanctioned unbridled hostility toward all heterosexual men. Indeed, for elite feminist apparatchiks, then in their most muscular and misandric phase, bliss it was in that bloody Montreal dawn to be alive.

Brazenly, without bothering to adduce any substantiating chain of evidence, there being none, feminist spokeswomen linked the horrific crime of a lone sociopath to the general phenomenon of domestic violence against women. Marc Lepine “became” all men who want to control women — eventually all heterosexual men — and December 6 achieved instant sacralised status as a day of national mourning that, for fevered rhetoric and solemnity, eclipsed even 9/11 memorials.

As I wrote in a December 2007 National Post column:

By contrast [to Americans’ lessening interest in 9/11 memorials], the Canadian public never seems to weary of the annual December 6 tribute to the 1989 Montreal Polytechnique shooting massacre of 14 women. Indeed, 12/6’s branding power burgeons with every anniversary: The theme of violence against women dominates the media; new physical memorials are constructed; additional programs decrying domestic violence against women are entrenched in school curricula; masses of white ribbons are distributed; more stringent gun control is more strenuously urged. Their cumulative effect is to link all Canadian men to a global conspiracy against women of jihadist proportions.

Feminists everywhere in the West appropriated its emotive themes to lend greater credence to an already widespread pernicious tripartite myth: namely, that all men — the “patriarchy” — are inherently prone to violence against women, that all women are potential victims of male aggression, and that female violence against men is never unprovoked, but always an act of self-defense against overt or covert male aggression.

The unspoken corollary to these falsehoods is that violence perpetrated against males, whether by other males or by females, is deemed unworthy of official recognition or more than minimal legal redress, and that while female suffering must be acknowledged as socially intolerable, male suffering may not make a parallel moral claim.

In fact, as any number of peer-reviewed research and government statistics make clear, although women are far more likely to report domestic abuse, equal numbers of men and women experience some form of DV during their lifetimes; men and women initiate abuse in equal measure; and far from any inherent “patriarchal” instinct to control women, DV — in Judeo-Christian culture at any rate — is almost always attributable to individual psychological dysfunction (see citation for Abusegate RADAR report below).

Page 1 of 2  Next ->

Barbara Kay is a weekly columnist in the comment pages of Canada’s National Post newspaper.

// Bookmark and Share

Email

Pajamas Media » The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men.

Advertisements

A woman admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months. // Current

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody for Mothers, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Civil Rights, deadbeat dads, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment on January 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm

A woman on Dr. Phil show admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months.

http://www.drphil.com/videos/?Url=/house/flv/8041_1.flv&background=header_drphil_video.jpg

A woman admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months. // Current.

http://current.com/items/91870358_a-woman-admits-lying-about-domestic-violence-to-jail-her-husband-for-10-months.htm

Spread the Word: Domestic Violence Laws Violate Civil Liberties

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fathers rights, Foster Care, Foster CAre Abuse, Foster Care Scam, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Protective Dads, Protective Parents on October 13, 2009 at 6:10 pm

At her recent keynote address at the annual conference of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Amanda McCormick, an employee of Praxis International, showed overt disdain for male victims of domestic violence. As reported by Trudy Schuett, McCormick announced, I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten.”1

Praxis International, according to their website, “is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children…. Since 1996, [they] have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.”2

Over the last fifteen years, in the name of combating domestic violence, an entire area of law has been carved out in which those rights and liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights no longer apply. Discrimination against male victims is just one of the many ways domestic violence laws violate civil liberties.

RADAR has identified that the laws:

  1. Fund education and training programs that stereotype all men as abusers;
  2. Expand the definition of “domestic violence” to include minor verbal disagreements, thus inviting heavy-handed state intervention into private family matters;
  3. Short-circuit due process protections and remove the presumption of innocence;
  4. Provide incentives to file false allegations;
  5. Encourage the issuance of restraining orders, even in the absence of physical violence;
  6. Promote mandatory arrest policies, even for minor violations of civil restraining orders;
  7. Fund “predominant aggressor” policies that profile men as abusers;
  8. Support mandatory prosecution policies;
  9. Refuse legal assistance to persons falsely accused of domestic violence; and
  10. Discriminate against male victims.

RADAR has prepared a flyer for distribution to help you inform the public. See http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-DVAM2009-issues.pdf

Commenting on the flyer, vlogger Bernard Chapin points out that the mainstream media will not cover this story.3 It’s up to all of us who know the truth to spread the word as best we can. Let’s get to it!



Date of RADAR Release: October 13, 2009

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org

NJ Attorney Challenges Constitutionality of Restraining Orders

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, fatherlessness, fathers rights, judicial corruption, Liberty, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Protective Dads, Restraining Orders on September 29, 2009 at 9:32 pm

from R.A.D.A.R.

David Heleniak, a Morristown, NJ attorney, has filed a motion on behalf of his client, John Paulsen, to vacate a final restraining order (FRO) on the ground that it violates Paulsen’s constitutional rights.

Heleniak gained recognition on the issue of domestic violence restraining orders with his 2005 law review article The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.” More recently, in Crespo vs. Crespo, Heleniak won a landmark decision in which the Honorable Francis Schultz of Hudson County ruled that the criteria for a FRO must be “clear and convincing evidence” rather than a “preponderance of the evidence.” That verdict made Crespo vs. Crespo a glimmering hope to anyone who was ever hit with a frivolous restraining order – until it was recently overturned by the New Jersey Court of Appeals.

“They were dismissive of the whole idea [that the NJ domestic violence statute could be unconstitutional]” said Heleniak. “In fact, they dealt with some of our best points in a footnote [7], in which they said they were unworthy of discussion. I think they’re hoping the issues go away.”

Heleniak, disappointed with the decision of the Appellate Division, has asked the NJ Supreme Court to take the Crespo case and has forged ahead with Paulsen in a similar action with a motion to vacate a domestic violence restraining order on constitutional grounds in the local Morris County family court.

“I believe their [the Appellate Division’s] refusal to address some of the issues head-on affects their credibility. It just looks like they were ducking,” said Heleniak. “But at some point the issues will have to be addressed at a high level. There are just too many cases out there with the same story – a restraining order handed down without sufficient evidence that ruins a man’s life and the lives of his children.”

Paulsen said that the FRO against him was nothing more than a tactical maneuver to gain an unfair advantage in the litigation process.

“The allegations of abuse against me that gave rise to the FRO were manufactured by my wife to gain a tactical advantage in a divorce that she had decided she wanted months before the allegations were made,” said Paulsen. “In fact, she had surreptitiously had several meetings with her divorce attorney and was using the threat of a restraining order as a means of intimidation within our marriage for over a year before she used it as a first strike weapon in the divorce.”

A recent analysis notes that unwarranted restraining orders create a “ripple” effect that can persist for many years, harming the alleged person’s reputation, legal standing, security clearances, career prospects and financial status. In many cases, it also affects the person’s relationship with their children, often causing devastating and permanent harm to that relationship. (A Culture of False Allegations, http://www.radarsvcs.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf.)

False allegations not only damage the individual falsely accused, they also affect other family members who may be barred from seeing a grandchild, nephew, or niece.

Special reports regarding domestic violence restraining orders can be viewed at http://mediaradar.org/radarServices_special_reports.php.


Date of RADAR Release: September 28, 2009

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence. http://mediaradar.org

CA. Attorney–‘Assembly Line’ Justice in Domestic Violence Cases – GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive

In Child Custody, Child Support, Children and Domestic Violence, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Marriage, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Restraining Orders, state crimes on August 25, 2009 at 4:28 pm

CA. Attorney–‘Assembly Line’ Justice in Domestic Violence Cases

August 24th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families

California attorney Chuck Tarr, a reader and supporter since 2004, has an interesting commentary on California’s Domestic Violence laws. Tarr writes:

Although on it’s face, California’s Domestic Violence laws would appear to be gender neutral, in practice, I think there is great disparity in attitudes. The DV calendar reminds me of an assembly line.

PC 273.5, the basic DV (domestic violence) statute, is a “wobbler”, that is, it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Hence, the “assembly line” procedure is that even in the most minor of situations (as the police must take away the “primary aggressor regardless of the “victim’s” wishes), a DV defendant is arrested and booked on felony charges.

Those charges carry high bail. If this takes place on a Thursday or Friday, they will sit in jail, usually until the following Monday.

They are humiliated and missing work. The first thing they want to do is get out of custody (assuming they could not afford to post bail). At the DV calendar for first appearances, when presented with the pitch that if they plead guilty they will be released with no further jail and just “probation,” many defendants do so, as they can’t afford to risk losing their job or staying in custody any longer.

Then, there is a mandatory one-year “Batterer’s Program” and repeated progress reports to the court during that year. A DV conviction, even if no weapons were involved, carries a 10-year firearm ban in California, and arguably, a lifetime ban federally.

What has happened in these types of cases and on many others is that in reaction to perhaps one heinous or outrageous case, some legislator introduces a bill (pandering to the electorate) changing the rules of evidence, changing penalties, changing procedures, etc. It’s a complex subject.

GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » CA. Attorney–‘Assembly Line’ Justice in Domestic Violence Cases.

My take on Intimate Partner Violence Domestic Violence – Communicationhelper

In child trafficking, children legal status, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders on July 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Put Dads back in the Family?  Someone Needs to Talks to Obama About Why man-hating Feminists have lied to create Legislation that Abuses Children

My take on Intimate Partner Violence Domestic Violence

I read with interest the three letters in the Wednesday July 22nd Boston Globe, “Domestic Violence Victims.” It is true that both men and women are victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) and that women initiate IPV as much as men, but women are killed at a much higher rate than men. All IPV is unacceptable, against men and women.

David Adams in his letter correctly details that “over the 30 year period ending in 2005, the proportion of American female victims relative to males increased from 55 percent to 78 percent. The question we all need to ask is; what has caused this spike over the past 30 years and what has changed in society to cause this rise?

I believe I understand what has fueled this rise. Commensurate with the rise in IPV, has also been the rise in kids raised without a father in the home.


Over those same 30 years, according to the CDC, we went from 9% of households without a dad in the house, to today’s number of over 28%, some 20 million of our nations children without a dad in the house.
Now these numbers, and the rate of IPV, are about to explode, with in 2007 40% of all new births were to unwed mothers.

If we truly want to reduce IPV in this country, we have to bring back stable families and bring fathers back into kids lives.

It will take more than Dr. Prucell Jr’s suggestion to modify male behavior. The behavior of boys and girls who become men and women, can’t be modified without having the opportunity to have a true male role model in the house, rather than outside the home.
The social experiment of demonizing men and fathers and throwing them out of kids lives has back fired on the woman, and men, who we want to protect.

Till everyone recognizes the role that a man plays in a kids developing lives, both women and men, as adults, will no longer be safe.

We need to bring back dads. NOW.

Dr. Peter G. Hill
687 Wellesley Street
Weston, MA 02493
781-772-2501
cell 617-763-3370

Boston Copley Square Chiropractic304 Columbus AvenueBoston, MA 02116617-536-9119www.chirohill.comTwitter: Chirohillwww.communicationhelper.comwww.blogspot.communicationhelper.com781-325-1848Twitter: Commhelper
What’s for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas

Communicationhelper: My take on Intimate Partner Violence Domestic Violence.

ABA’s Predatory Feminist Lawyers

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Civil Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, Marriage, motherlessness, mothers rights, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights on July 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Posted: June 04, 2008

1:00 am Eastern

By David R. Usher

© 2009

Respecting Accuracy In Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, has released a searing report titled “Myths of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence,” revealing the American Bar Association’s methods and practices applied in cases of domestic violence nationally.

These reports demonstrate that core ABA thinking, standards of practice and methodology for handling domestic violence cases is fraudulent, unethical and strongly discriminates on the basis of sex.

The ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, or CODV, bases its approach to domestic violence on a widely distributed document it created titled “10 Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them.” RADAR’s careful scrutiny found that the “facts” propounded by the ABA to counter alleged “myths” are myths themselves not backed by any credible science.

In the Executive Report, RADAR found that:

“10 Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them” is inadequate, confusing and suggests policy directions contraindicated by science. … Seven of the purported 10 myths are either misleading or found not to be myths. Ten of the 19 claims are actually false. And the quality of nine of the 20 cited documents is poor or very poor. In its quest to debunk a series of custody and domestic violence misconceptions, the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence ironically has ended up reinforcing old misconceptions.

The [ABA report] is profoundly and systematically biased. It is unworthy to be used as a foundation for legal practice or public policy.

via ABA’s predatory feminist lawyers.

The ABA has systematically substituted symbolism for science in family law for many years. With the passing of time, evanescent jurisprudence in the courts, legislation and training has been replaced with increasingly risible shibboleths invented by feminists strategically perched up and down the legal profession.

Profoundly biased standards of practice

The ABA Domestic Violence Standards of Practice displays overt sex bias obvious to even an untrained individual. The victim is repeatedly defined as female. For example: “The lawyer should discuss with the client her wishes regarding temporary custody and visitation, keeping in mind jurisdictional issues.”

The additional commentary attached to ABA Standards of Practice document extends sex biases even further: “May a client flee for safety to another state with her children without being charged criminally?”

Justice is not served by pre-defining victims as female. The wide body of 209 empirical reports measuring both female and male-perpetrated violence indicate women are at least as likely as men to be perpetrators of serious domestic violence. In cases of non-reciprocal IPV, women are the initiators of 70.7 percent of domestic violence.

ABA Standards fail to assess whether the accuser may be the abuser. The Standards requires no disclosure of evidence to opposing counsel when self-nominating victims make false allegations of abuse. One credible study of couples involved in adjudicated custody disputes found that DV allegations were made in 55 percent of the cases studied. Of those allegations, 59 percent could not be substantiated as true.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in divorce courts and that restraining orders are doled out “like candy. … In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”

Despite the probability that over half of domestic violence allegations in divorce and custody situations are not true, the ABA Standards of Practice Document provides no guidance for attorneys about how to handle cases where allegations are patently false. The results are astonishing: Mothers get primary residential custody in 93.4 percent of divorces, men only 2.5 percent of divorces.

Children pay dearly for the ABA’s mishandling of family law policy. Children of single parents are 90 percent more likely to sustain moderate injury or harm than children in married families, 120 percent more likely to experience some type of child abuse or neglect, and 220 percent more likely to be educationally neglected.

Is ABA culpable for commission’s actions?

The members of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence must be held responsible for executing feminist policy while ignoring well-known scientific fact and truths about human nature.

Framing the ABA Standards of Practice requires at least the same level of thoroughness and balance as prosecution of any individual case. Prosecutor Mike Nifong followed the CODV’s recipe to the letter pursuing the Duke rape case and was disbarred for it. Like the CODV, Nifong made wild public accusations while concealing material facts and evidence to achieve a slam-dunk. Like Nifong, the CODV made wild accusations while concealing material facts and evidence to achieve its nationwide slam-dunk.

The president of the ABA recently endorsed the CODV legislative agenda that would lead to billions in federal funding and much work for predatory feminist lawyers.

WND columnist Phyllis Schlafly points out the obvious conflict of interest involved: “Attorneys are a special-interest group just like any other group that aggressively lobbies for the interests of its members.”

Judge Robert H. Dierker points boldly to the larger core issue involved: “The femifascist confluence with liberalism has spawned a truly horrible jurisprudence. Concluding that the law should not treat men and women equally, but should treat women better than men to ‘compensate’ women for centuries of oppression, radical feminists exclude men from any reproductive rights and attack traditional marriage, with its implied contractual rights of both men and women.”

When Richard B. Teitelman (now a Missouri Supreme Court judge) was executive director of Legal Services of Eastern Missouri in the 1990s, he adamantly refused requests to provide free legal services to poor men falsely accused of domestic violence or child abuse.

Despite the fact that Legal Services Corporation aggressively prosecutes allegations by women, and is not known to defend poor men falsely accused of it, ABA President William H. Neukom recently urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to increase LSC funding to enable even more false prosecutions. Additional LSC funding will buy only two possible outcomes: more broken families and a lot of self-aggrandizing work for attorneys.

The ABA strongly supports Sen. Joe Biden’s plan to establish a volunteer army of “100,000 Domestic Violence Lawyers” (S.1515). In a press release, the ABA “applauded” the Senate Judiciary Committee for passing S.1515 out of committee.

S.1515 would cost $55 million annually – partially for college loan reimbursements for LSC lawyers. Since the Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994, domestic violence rates (which declined steadily between 1974 and 1994) have flattened. VAWA-related cases are largely handed by lawyers of LSC grantees.

Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh instinctively knew that the prosperous legal profession does not need pork for feminist law school students. Commented Limbaugh: “What a scam. So the hundred thousand lawyers are paid off with a 20 percent reduction in their student loan outstanding balance. Look, none of this surprises me. This is something that Democrats, people like Joe Biden, are entirely capable of.”

The absence of due diligence and consistent aggressive misrepresentation of science and policy demonstrated by the ABA cannot be written off as mere complaisance or oversight.

The ABA Code of Ethics Rule 8.4 states that “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. …” The ABA, in its entirety, appears to have violated this rule in its handling of domestic violence jurisprudence.

The public is becoming keenly aware about the ABA’s mishandling of justice in American family law. Respect for the rule of law is diminishing as we speak. Only one question remains: Is the ABA willing to reform its practices willingly or unwillingly?

via ABA’s predatory feminist lawyers.

Laughing At Restraining Orders

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes on June 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm

by Phyllis Schlafly, September 13, 2006


Borrowing the title of a famous George Gershwin ditty, “they all laughed” when a Santa Fe, New Mexico family court judge granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against TV talk show host David Letterman to protect a woman he had never met, never heard of, and lived 2,000 miles away from. Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her “mental cruelty” and “sleep deprivation” for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network TV broadcasts.That ridiculous TRO was dismissed last December, but according to a new report released this week by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), the case was not a judicial anomaly but “the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence.” RADAR is a Maryland-based think tank that specializes in exposing the excesses of the domestic violence bureaucracy.

The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing “severe emotional distress.” That definition was met when Ms. Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman’s actions.

The New Mexico statute appears to limit domestic violence to “any incident by a household member,” and Letterman, who lives in Connecticut and works in New York, had never been in Ms. Nestler’s household. But New Mexico law defines household member to include “a person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship,” and Ms. Nestler’s charge that Letterman’s broadcast of television messages for eleven years qualified as a “continuing” relationship and thereby turned him into a “household member.”

The family court judge who issued the TRO, Daniel Sanchez, may have been predisposed to believe any allegation presented to him by a complaining woman even though she had no evidence. His own biography lists him as chairman of the Northern New Mexico Domestic Violence Task Force.

RADAR reports that only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The rest of the states have broadened their definition to include fear, emotional distress, and psychological feelings.

The use of the word “harassment” in domestic violence definitions is borrowed from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition, which is based on the “effect” of an action rather than the action itself. In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously “annoys” a woman.

The 1999 book by University of Massachusetts Professor Daphne Patai, “Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism,” powerfully indicts what she labels the “Sexual Harassment Industry.” The feminists have created a judicial world in which accusation equals guilt, and the distinction between severe offenses and trivial annoyances is erased.

RADAR’s report explains that the definition of domestic has also been expanded. Originally, domestic meant a household member, but now it means a person with whom the woman “has been involved in an intimate relationship” (Colorado), persons who are in a “dating or engagement relationship” (Rhode Island), or “any other person . . . as determined by the court” (North Dakota).

How did it happen that state laws against domestic violence are written so broadly as to produce such absurdities? Family court judges issue two million TROs every year, half are routinely extended, 85 percent are against men, and half do not include any allegation of violence but rely on vague complaints made without evidence.

Follow the money, both at the supply and the demand ends of the economic trail. The supply of 1,500 new domestic violence laws enacted by states from 1997 to 2005 is largely the handiwork of targeted lobbying by feminists funded by the multi-million-dollar federal boondoggle called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA is blatantly gender discriminatory; as its title proclaims, it is designed to address only complaints by women. VAWA provides taxpayer funding to feminists to teach legislators, judges and prosecutors the stereotypes that men are batterers and women are victims.

The demand end of the economic chain is the fact that women know (and their lawyers advise them) that making allegations of domestic violence (even without proof or evidence) is the fastest and cheapest way to win child custody plus generous financial support. The financial incentives to lie or exaggerate are powerful.

Due process violations in the issuing of TROs include lack of notice, no presumption of innocence, denial of poor defendants to free counsel while women are given taxpayer-funded support, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, no need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, denial of the right to confront accusers, and denial of trial by jury.

Assault and battery are already crimes in every state without any need of VAWA. TROs empower activist family court judges to criminalize a vast range of otherwise legal behavior (usually a father’s contact with his own children and entry into his own home) which are crimes only for the recipient of the order, who can then be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.
Laughing At Restraining Orders.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum