mass outrage _ fighting false restraining orders

8/2/2019 Mass Outrage _ Fighting False Restraining Orders

1/18

Location:

Sunday, July 24, 2011 | Last updated: Saturday, Nov. 27, 2010 at 8:58 p.m.

Home (/)Headlines (/headlines/)Blog (/blog/)Store (/store/ma/)Contact (/contact/)About (/about/)

This Is The Bigtime.

Fighting the issuance of a restraining order is very difficult, but it can be done. THERE IS HOPE! This section will reviewthe restraining order process, and some strategies and tactics that non-lawyers can use to possibly stop an order frombeing issued or extended.

The subject is legally and politically complex, and I have been reluctant to even talk about these things, lest the peoplewho have learned how to get these orders wrongly, also learn how to stop you from stopping THEM.

These strategies and tactics suppose that the allegations against you are false or greatly exaggerated. In today'spolitical climate, most of them are. If you are the victim of false allegations of abuse, this material should be of help. It

won't guarantee success, however, and you should really consider getting a professional to help you, as you would withany specialized and difficult task.

The restraining order law is perhaps the second most unconstitutional abomination in our legal system, after ourso-called child protection (DSS) laws. The restraining order process is designed to allow an order to be issued veryeasily, and to be appealed, stopped, or vacated only with the utmost difficulty. It is the product of evil twisted minds, who

Outrage | Fighting False Restraining Orders http:/ /www.massoutrage.com/ma/restraining-order-resources/ fighting-fals...

8 7/24/2011 03


2/18

have no respect for our traditional sense of justice or of the protections provided in our Massachusetts Constitution ofdue process of law. And they like it that way, thank you very much.

The motives for this law are legion. First, it makes the Commonwealth a bunch of money, by allowing it to leveragemassive Federal grants. It makes feminist victim groups a lot of money by providing millions in state and federal grantsto stop 'domestic violence.' It makes a lawyers and court personnel a lot money as they administer the Godzilla-sizedsystem they have built to deal with these orders. It makes police a lot of money, as they are able to leverage hugegrants for arrests of violators. It makes mental health professionals a lot of money, dealing with the mandatory therapyalways required in these situations. It makes thousands of social workers a lot of money providing social services for allthe families that the law destroys. It makes dozens of mens batterers programs a lot of money, providing angermanagement treatment, ordered by courts in these proceedings.

Hmmmm. . . Do we see a pattern here? A common thread?

Not only is the almighty dollar a motive, but so is the desire by the doctinaire Marxists who run the system to destroy ourlimited constitutional government and override the rights preserved by our Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

In thousands of ten minute hearings held all over the Commonwealth, judges are now able to do what the Marxists haveonly dreamed of doing before now, and could never hope to do before they were able to use the pretext of 'domesticviolence.' However, the real violence is almost always to the rights of the defendant, and to the Constitution itself, just asthe elites intended.

Continuing on the theme of power, look who gains by the imposition of this hideous law. Feminist groups gain hugepolitical power. Angry, manipulative women can use an order to remove a spouse for a variety of reasons - want a newboyfriend, don't want to go through the tedious custody process to get kids, want freedom, want child support, wantvengeance, etc. The anti-gun wackos can disarm a huge chunk of the populace without the inconvenience of legislation.The pro-tax crowd can clamor for more money 'for the children'. The educrats can enhance their power by denyingschool records to anyone with a restraining order. The offense to families by this law is truly frightening.

In restraining order hearings, judges may ignore ALL traditional due process protections such as jury trials, the rules ofevidence, the right to innocent until proven guilty, etc. They may also usurp several other dearly held rights, such as theright to be with one's children, to occupy one's own home and property, or travel where one pleases. No one has yetcome up with so demonic a perversion of our legal system to match the breathtaking scope of the unconstitutionaldeprivations of this law.

What is the actual legal basis for getting an abuse restraining order? Many courts issue restraining orders withoutfollowing the requirements of the law (which are already so flimsy as to be a mockery.) If a person comes in to court(called the complainant' or plaintiff') and whines about feeling fear', a court will often issue an order, even though manytimes it is improper and illegal to do it.

So, what does a person actually have to prove to get an order legitimately?

The law states that the court can issue an order to protect a complainant from "abuse". Abuse is defined inMassachusetts General Laws, (M.G.L.) Chapter 209A Section 1. Here is the relevant part, defining abuse:


8 7/24/2011 03


3/18

The occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:

attempting to cause or causing physical harm; 1.placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm; 2.causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.3.

The clause which is most misused is (b) above, "placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm." Often amere allegation of fear, without showing a factual basis for that fear, is enough for a court to issue an order.

What does the law require to properly issue an order? First the harm has to be imminent', that is immediate, right there,right now. Not a vague threat to do something some day. Not a phone call from a far location. Next, it has to be serious'.The attorney general, on a ballot referendum to overturn some recent changes to the domestic violence laws, definedserious bodily injury' as follows:

"Injury that results in a permanent disfigurement; long-term loss or impairment of a bodily function, arm, leg, or organ; or substantial risk of death."

Lastly, the fear has to be of physical' harm, not emotional harm, psychic harm, hurt feelings, or any number of othernon-physical issues that people commonly get orders for.

If courts went by this definition strictly, fewer frivolous orders would be issued. However, as you likely know, judges oftenissue an order if they feel it should be issued, regardless of the law's requirements.

There is only one type of order that is issued under Massachusetts Gen. Laws Chapter 209A, with a lot of variableterms. They can be 'no contact' orders, or 'no abuse' orders. If they contain a no contact provision, they give a distancethat the defendant must stay away, such as 100 yards.

Any violation of that order can be punished as a crime, but that material is not in this sect ion. There is alwayscontroversy over whether incidental contact is a violation, such as running into the person at the grocery store. Ofcourse, the radical feminists scream shrilly that it is, but the issue is somewhat unclear. The DAs have a firm policy toprosecute every violation of an order, no matter how small. One aside to the wise - NEVER plead out. Take the jury trial,unless you really intentionally violated the order.

Orders can also be obtained by parents on behalf of children, or make orders restricting access to the children or theirschool records. Recent changes to the law have tightened this up, and prohibit records to be released unless allowed bya judge. Even then, most schools treat innocent restraining order defendants like ax murderers, and often refuse to let acaring parent be involved in a child's education. One more clear evidence that this is not about protection, but familydestruction.

Another undesirable side affect of restraining orders is an automatic deprivation of your protected right to carry arms.The anti-gun nuts are ebullient over this, because they can disarm thousands with ease. One bright spot is that a federalcircuit court in Texas has shot down (sorry) that rule, although it does not apply in this area, and may never, unless the


8 7/24/2011 03


4/18

Supreme Court makes a ruling.

If you think an order may be coming, get your guns to a friend, pronto, or the local police will steal them, and dispose ofthem.

Restraining Orders are issued by both Probate and Family Courts and District Courts. Further, the standards appear tobe quite different between 1) the initial order obtained without the other person there, called an ex parte, or one partyorder; 2) the order obtained when the defendant is allowed to be there; 3) Renewal of an existing order, usually after six

months or a year; and 4) a permanent order.

The worst feature of the restraining order law is that it allows a person to go to court and get an order, without the otherperson present. That means that any lie will do, since no one is there to rebut it. As a consequence, without any input inthe matter, a person can lose their children, their home, their money, their guns, and their freedom. This is cruelertyranny than any civilized land has ever tolerated, and approximates the tactics of one Vladimir Ulyanov, aka Lenin,during the Bolshevik Revolution.

Upon issuance, the police serve the order, boot the poor sap out of his house with barely a shirt on his back, pry hisweeping children from his legs, steal his guns, and take him to jail if he isn't terribly pleased to do as he is told.

What more can be said? Any liar can get an order by merely asserting fear. The only hope is to stop it at the returnhearing.

When the court issues an ex parte order, it sets up another hearing in about two weeks, with notice to the defendant,where he can come and argue his case. This is called a "return" day.

Many people do not realize how important this hearing is. Once it is held, usually for a pitiful few minutes, the order isrigidly set in stone for life. Courts do not warn defendants of the vast consequences of this hearing, and they are usuallyconducted quickly, without the niceties of constitutional protection in place.

If there was ever a time to get a lawyer, this is it. At any cost. Get one who will fight like your entire future depends on it,because it does. If you lose, you may never see your children again as long as you live. Yes, I have a case where sixyears have elapsed, and still no opportunity to have an actual hearing on the merits of the lying plaintiff's claim.

Why not go to the District Attorney, then, and charge the person with perjury. Well, they have covered that angle too, justlike a diabolical plot to shut off every possible means of escape. The DAs will almost never prosecute perjury.

If you are fortunate to get the judge to vacate the order at this first hearing, fall on your knees and thank God. You andyour family have been spared untold horrors.

If you are not so fortunate, and the judge issues an order, it will have a renewal date on it, usually a year later. The court


8 7/24/2011 03


5/18

will refuse to give you notice, and it will be easy to forget that date. This is yet another way that the deck is stackedagainst defendants.

Courts seem to automatically renew these orders, if the complainant wants one. You could have been perfect in obeyingit, and it doesn't matter. If the person still wants it, it is issued, without any further evidence. Another of the manyunconstitutional anomolies in the restraining order law.

After the proud owner of a restraining order doesn't want to go to the trouble of renewing it year after year, the court willusually graciously oblige, and issue a permanent order. You have no where to go then. There is no way out, except tofile an appeal, which is usually fruitless.

To appeal a restraining order, one must f ile an appeal with the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Boston. It is a verydifficult and time consuming project, ofter going past the renewal date, and costing thousands of dollars. Most peoplecannot do their own appeal, thanks to the always reliably complicated rules put out by the Pharisees who run the"justice" system.

However, if you do not appeal the INITIAL order, fuhgetaboutit, as they say in New York. You basically lose your right tochallenge the issuance of the order - forever.

That means that a restraining order that costs the plaintiff nothing, issued after a 5 minute hearing, can only bechallenged by a laborious, year long process of appeal that usually costs at least five thousand, if not ten thousanddollars. Most do not succeed. You can appeal subsequent orders, but they succeed even less frequently. Justice, where

are you?

Restraining orders are issued by both District Courts and Probate and Family Courts. There are a lot of subtle, tricky,details that get involved here, particularly if there is a divorce or paternity action in the Probate Court, but the restrainingorder is in the District Court.

Most restraining orders are issued by the District Court. If a divorce or paternity follows soon after, the Probate Court

can either take jurisdiction over the order, or leave it in District Court. Some Probate judges will, and some won't.Further, some District Court judges don't want to touch the things once there is an action in Probate. This leads to asituation sometimes where no one wants to mess with it. Obviously, that bodes ill for the defendant getting a fair hearing,if everyone is irritated about the trouble.

Wherever your order lands, is where you must fight it. It doesn't matter much what court it is in - the biggest factor iswhether you have a judge who believes the traditional concepts of justice and fair play, or some Commie hack who gother job by bribing the governor. I fear there are far more of the later than the former.

Now that you have absorbed the dreadful reality about these orders, you are in better position to understand with a


8 7/24/2011 03


6/18

sober mind, that fighting them is not easy, and never a sure thing. This material can help equip you to fight with a lotmore savvy than most, but the prospects are still daunting. However, there is hope, and you should do all you can tostrive against this evil, while pushing and praying for a change in the law itself.

The first step you must take to defend yourself against this deadly restraining order is to get a secret application andaffidavit that the plaintiff filed at the ex parte hearing. The court will not tell you that these documents exist, so you mustgo to the clerk in the court where your order was issued, and ask for two things: the "application" for the restrainingorder and the "affidavit" that the complainant filled out.

The application will have statements on it as to why the person wanted the order. An 'affidavit' is a statement in writing,made under oath, of the facts supporting the application. Usually, they are both full of perjury, exaggeration, and down

right lies.

When you go to the court to get them, give the clerk the "docket number", which is the case number on your order, andask for the two documents. The clerk at the court may give you grief, but you are entitled to those documents. They area public record, and even if they were not, you are a party to the case, so you should get them on that ground. You willhave to pay a stinking 50 cent fee per page, but it will be well worth it.

The first critical strategy to use in every case, without exception, is to see if there are indeed lies in the papers whichyou got from the court. Even if not, you have the other strategies set forth below. However, this is just about the bestone, because it exposes the tendency of the complaining witness to not tell the truth under oath. That bothers judges agreat deal.

How do you do this? Look for factual impossibilities, and objectively PROVABLE untruths. One affidavit said that adefendant threatened to blow up the world. C'mon. And yes, the order was issued.

Some common lies involve times, distances, and places.

For example, if you are accused of doing something while you were actually at work, and you have a time card to proveit, that is devastating. Perhaps an allegation puts you home far sooner than you could have been there, and you weresomewhere else, and can prove it with a credit card receipt for gas.

Phone records can often disprove false allegations. Cell phones keep records of all calls in and out, unlike residentialphones. Even so, a phone bill showing you were calling from one place, instead of the one where you are accused ofbeing, can absolutely shut down the whole scheme to accuse you.

The basis for many restraining order complaints are threatening phone calls. If that is your situation, then see if your billstell a different story.

Email can also provide verification of your whereabouts when you were supposedly abusing the person.


8 7/24/2011 03


7/18

Neighbors, friends, co-workers can be brought in as witnesses, to state that you were in a place far away, not abusing.Or, if the neighbor was standing there, witnessing the complainant beating you up, while you stood silently and didn't lift ahand, that can also turn it around.

When the person complains of injuries, were there medical records, or wounds? If it was alleged to be severe, and noone sought treatment, that may put the lie to the allegations.

If the plaintiff falsely complains that you were all likkered up or on drugs, and proceeded to act violently, you can usually

find people to refute that allegation. A minister or a family member, who would know such things, can help.

If you are in a situation where no one witnessed the situation, there were no phone calls, and you have no alibi, don'tgive up. Keep looking for some objective proof that will show the person is not telling the truth. If no such thing can befound, you should still bring out the lies at the hearing, but rely more heavily on some of the other strategies below.

This strategy, along with the one above, are the two most important ones. You can rarely win unless you have strong

proof in these two areas. The other strategies are important for backing up your case, but these two are indispensible.

The argument about the legal standard is rarely even made by lawyers, even though it is absolutely critical. The judgehas be be shown that you did not place the plaintiff in fear of imminent, serious, physical harm. The plaintiff has to proveeach of these requirements - imminent, serious, and physical - and you should try to disprove each, even though theburden of proof is on the plaintiff.

This can be done by showing that the statements in the documents, as written, don't even rise to the level of thatstandard. Inspect these two documents slowly and carefully, phrase by phrase, and compare the statements in them tothe law quoted above. Does the person allege imminent harm? Serious harm? Physical harm? If not, you have a line ofattack. Many complaining witnesses only allege fear or some vague psychic dread. That does not meet the standard

(despite the fact that judges give them out anyway.)

The point is to be very exacting, and look for evidence on each of these issues, and make notes as to questions youcould ask the witness to bring out any inconsistencies. For example, if the person alleges fear that something physcialMAY happen, that is clearly not 'imminent'. If the person alleges that you make them 'uncomfortable', that is clearly notphysical. If the person alleges that you gave her a pat on the butt, that is clearly not 'serious'.

At the hearing, you will use information and the documents to expose the plaintiff's lies, but you will also likely find thatyou have to deal with a new set of lies at the hearing, that is, what the plaintiff may say in addition to the documents.Once the complainant finds that you have studied the documents, and caught the person in lies, suddenly (and thisalmost always happens, so be ready) the plaintiff comes up with more information about what an abuser you are. So,don't be surprised; be prepared. Figure out in advance where the person is likely to shift ground, and be ready.

This also cuts both ways, sometimes in your favor. When a person comes up with new evidence of your abuse at ahearing, that were not in the affidavit, You can then question why, if these things were important, or even true, that theyshould have been included on the original papers. You argue that this is an attempt to lie to cover up the previous lies.Anything that would have helped the plaintiff's case WOULD HAVE been in there, and the judge probably knows it. So,


8 7/24/2011 03


8/18

bore in on it, and ask why this new lie wasn't in the affidavit.

Note that each court now has a victim witness advocate, paid by your taxes, who helps WOMEN (only) to prepare theseaffidavits to conform with the requirements of the law. Also, any good member of the feminist cabal of lawyers will also

have helped her client to fill out the paperwork properly. Commonly, DSS agents also coerce WOMEN to lie to getorders, and help them fill out the paperwork, in order to pump up their domestic violence statistics, since they now havea separate domestic violence department that must be fed its compliment of sacrificial men each day. These are theforces arrayed against you, make no mistake.

Often, the WOMEN'S victim shelter, therapy, a car, money, freedom, and a whole lot more are riding on the WOMANbeing willing to get an order, whether it is built upon a lie or not. Since more money comes from more victims, morevictims must be found. No one ever tallies up the cost to the poor children who are traumatized by these falseallegations, and given therapy to learn how to make proper 'disclosures' against the batterer.

The most important strategies to use in opposing an order are the ones described above. At the return hearing, you willbe allowed to cross examine the plaintiff about all these things. However, there is another critical strategy or tool for youto use to undermine the credibility of the plaintiff. That is to show the judge that there is a plausible motive, other thanfear of harm, that has motivated the person to seek an order.

Such an allegation of an ulterior motive has to be provable to really work, not just a he-said/she-said situation, or the judge will almost always believe the one who wants the order. You need documents, witness testimony from a bestfriend, or some objective way to prove the bad motive.

Let's look at some of the wrong motives:

This is a list of possible ulterior motives for which the victim' may have sought a 209A restraining order against you:

To gain an advantage in a divorce; (Some divorce lawyers routinely advise getting one.)1.To quickly get custody of your children without a hearing;2.

To keep you from your children;3.To stop you from modifying custody after your child expresses a desire to live with you.4.To quickly put you out of the house without an eviction or a Probate Court hearing;5.To allow the complainant to get a new boy/girlfriend into the picture, and you out;6.To get vengeance;7.To control or manipulate you, or get leverage in some way;8.The victim' got sucked in by a victim-witness advocate who preyed on weakness;9.To put you in jail;10.To enjoy watching you suffer.11.To get $$$$$$ and help from DSS or a victim group.12.


8 7/24/2011 03


9/18

NEVER be sarcastic or belligerent, no matter how sarcastic, belligerent, or even how dumb a question is. Rather, be

very matter of fact, earnest, and sincere, and it will often backfire on your inquisitor.

In order to successfully pursue this strategy, You must figure out which of these motives are behind the push for arestraining order against you. Then you must be able to bring some document or witness that will prove pretty stronglythat the motive you allege is the REAL reason why the person is seeking the order. This is discussed more below in the"hearing' section.

Dealing with ulterior motives also has another critical strategic advantage. It allows you to anticipate what the personmay try to do to you before it comes about, and head it off. So, you must...

For example, in Number 4 above, your child announces that "Hey, I would like to go live with Dad", you may decide to goto the Probate Court and get a modification of a divorce order to have the child stay with you. However, if you have aconniving ex-spouse, the ex may go right down to court for an order, to bypass your honorable efforts to do it the rightway - and you are cooked. The order will be issued, you will be an abuser, and your planned modification of custody willfail.

Based on that example, you can see that many of these motives require some thinking ahead to be aware of how amanipulator is going to short circuit your plans. You must be one step ahead, not just react. Because of the politics of therestraining order law, once you are accused, you are guilty.

How will thinking ahead help? In the case just cited, you need to IMMEDIATELY file your modification - that day - beforeyour 'victim' can get an order. It is literally a race to the courthouse.

How about some of the other issues? The classic one used by thousands is Number 1, to get an order to gain anadvantage in a divorce. What can you do? You file the divorce. You be the plaintiff. Then, when the person tries to get anorder, you can at least point out that it may be in retaliation. If you have not filed first, there is almost no hope.

Motive Number 2, to quickly get the children without a hearing, often presents itself in paternity or post-divorcesituations. If the ex wants to change custody, but doesn't want to go through the crushing rigamarole that the uncaringpharisees have made of the custody system, then a few minute restraining order hearing is just the ticket. You mustwatch out for signs of discontent, and head them off. It is much easier to diffuse a mad-dog ex than to fight a restrainingorder. Do whatever you must, but do not let it get to the point where there is talk about getting an order.

Numbers Three and Seven are closely tied together. Some people want vengeance, and they will use the children to getit. Using the children as pawns in a restraining order scheme, whose only motive is vengeance, is very very very verycommon. What can you do? Nothing. You can only fight fire with bigger fire, as described in the section below. A personbent on vengeance will be able to manipulate the feminist or spayed judge, because perjury is no problem for such aperson. The best liar wins, and it is usually the one bent on vengeance. You MUST have another method of defense,such as being able to objectively show the manipulation, or some other clear cut method.

Motives 5 and 6 are always no fun for the evictee. Restraining orders are quick eviction orders, and they work like acharm. When the motive is to move a new partner into your spot, it is doubly frustrating. You better have the goods onthe person so that you can show the ulterior motive, rather than the lie about abuse that will come out in court.

Numbers 8, 10, and 11 are all similar, in that the person getting the order is literally having fun tormenting you. This isoften also mixed with some of the other motives. Rarely is one's malice pure, in only one category. Such manipulatorsare so clever that they cover a lot of bases. When dealing with vengeance, the first thing you must do is see if you can


8 7/24/2011 03


10/18

diffuse it - apologize, try to undo the bad feelings, anything to stop the onslaught. If your opponent remains charged upabout hammering you, there is little you can do in advance, but you must fight it in court, and try to show the cruelty andmanipulation by hard, cold, facts that have no other interpretation other than the vengeance motive. However, you likelyknow that such facts often don't matter. Victimhood is all.

Numbers 9 and 12 frequently occur with insecure women, who are easily beguiled by the victim-witness advocate, or themany women's shelter people, or some family hating DSS agent. They will often offer to help a woman (only) if she willget a restraining order. That is the ticket to getting financial help, legal help, a place to live, a car, friends, affirmation forbeing a domestic violence hero, etc.

Number 12 is particularly problematic, since you are then fighting an even larger, very well funded (with your money)enemy, and you lose the leverage of financial need on the part of the other party. The crazed, maniacal victim groups willslobber all over a woman to get her to come to their program, because it creates statistics showing how much they areneeded, and provides the justification for getting even more money for their nefarious family destruction games.

For example, in Franklin County, there is one such institution called New England Learning Center for Women inTransition (NELCWIT), which has a $1.6 million dollar a year budget. Their philosophy is simple: Men are evil abusers;Women are victims.

When dealing with this type of Taliban-like fanatical man-hating coven, you must use a full quiver of strategies. They havehuge resources, lots of lawyers, therapists for the children, and serious inside connections. prepare for the fight of yourlife. There is a special section below to deal with this menace. I can see them smiling at my acknowledgment of theirpower - this is, after all, about power. They are clearly winning the battle, since they have managed to steal so muchtaxpayer money, cow the courts into obedience, and neuter the lawyers from saying anything, lest, like me, they bethought badly of, and not get any more plum appointments, or even that long-coveted judgeship.

In any case, when you are dealing with a number 9 or Number 12 situation, you must be on the lookout for the motives ofwhoever is manipulating the Plaintiff for their own ends: money, power, justifying their job, or the like.

To sum up: The explanations so far set forth four basic techniques that can be used at hearings to oppose the issuanceof restraining orders (detailed information about hearings is presented in another section below):

Expose the complainant's lies on the application or affidavit;1.Show that you did nothing to place the person in fear of imminent, or serious, or physical harm, and that thepaperwork does not comply with that standard;

2.

Be prepared for more oral lies at the hearing, and have proof there to refute them.3.Show proof that the plaintiff had an ulterior motive for getting the order that had nothing to do with fear of abuse.4.

If you can go prepared to a hearing to present testimony or documents which prove any, or even better, ALL, the abovethings, you have a chance of winning. There are other advanced and subtle techniques, but none are substitutes forthese four. If you don't do some combination of these, you virtually cannot win, no matter what else you do.

Here is an actual Affidavit from a real case, along with commentary on how to analyze and apply these strategies in areal world situation. The complaining witness in this case, was not married to the defendant, but was pregnant with thedefendant's baby, and simply wanted to ditch him. The defendant is a teacher, and would have been ruined if the orderhad been issued.


18 7/24/2011 03


11/18

This woman's affidavit is reprinted here word-for-word, except the name is deleted. After a hearing to consider whetherto issue a restraining order, the judge reviewed the affidavit, took testimony, and did NOT issue the order.

AFFIDAVIT

On or about September 24, 2001, the Defendant contacted me by email at my work place. At the end of August I called __ to tell him to stop calling me, stop bothering me, that I wanted nothing to do with him. We had not been in contact for

the prior 2 months at that point. I had to threaten to call the police for him to stop. He would call me up to 7 times a day.He know [sic] sends letters up to 3 a day, emails my home & emails me at work. He has written that he will not stop. I have had to change my locks (he has a key to my apartment and has not returned it.

Right now I am in fear of what might happen next. __ has only gotten more & more aggressive as the days go on. I don't want to wait until he shows up to find out. I am afraid to go home from work in fear that he may be out there watching. I have made it clear for him to leave me alone and this has seemed to make things worse. I quite simply don't know what he will do next.

This affidavit is a good study for spotting the twisted logic of the complaining witness, and applying the principles andstrategies set forth above.

First, we look for blatant, provable lies. In this case, (and the reader would not know this), there were a bunch of them,one of which hurts her own case. More about that in a minute. The lie was that the defendant did NOT call her up 7times a day. We could not prove that. However, we challenged her on it, and she backed off the untrue statement.

Second, as to whether the allegations meet the legal standard for issuing an order, that is where the big points could bemade. First, he had not been in physical contact for two months. Second, there is no allegation that he threatened her inany of these phone calls. In fact, she said, "I don't know what he will do next." However, he had not done anything. Itwas all innuendo and implication. Under questioning, she admitted that he had not come to her work, or her home, andhad made no threats. She was simply trying to spin his attempts to contact her as causing her fear. However, it did notwork. The calls and emails, without threats, does not rise to the level of placing a person in fear of imminent serious,physical harm.

Third, we came prepared for some new lies, when it became apparent that the judge was not going with her. He hadindeed sent a lot of email to her, but the messages were all calm and appropriate, and showed that he was simply tryingto get her to come back to him. I had them with me, in case we needed to show the tone of them to the judge. As itturned out, she couldn't come up with any convincing ones, but we were ready with the documents if need be.

Lastly, we had analyzed what the real motive was hear. She simply wanted a cheap way to dump her boyfriend, andkeep him away - it was that simple. We knew she would then try to exclude him from the soon-to-be-born baby's life,and hit him with an order for child support, with no strings attached.

In this case, we did use the motive, by bringing out that she was pregnant. Since the judge already saw that there wasno basis for an order, that information was not really crucial. However, if things were going badly, we would have usedthat to buttress our argument.

This was a fairly simple one. The hard ones are where they lie like a rug, and you've got nothing but your own word torefute it. Then, the best liar wins, and it is very hard to do much about it. However, in most cases, if you are mindful of


18 7/24/2011 03


12/18

the above strategies, and you prepare carefully, you have a reasonable chance of beating the false allegations, andstopping the order from issuing.

A civil proceeding is like a dance where all the steps are very carefully planned ahead of time, and when you get thereyou will feel like everyone knows the routine except you. The system really does play hide the ball', to the detriment ofnon-lawyers, and gives them very little help. This section will help you get ready for the hearing for your restraining order,keeping in mind that this is your first time doing it.

There are two kinds of restraining order hearings: evidentiary and non-evidentiary. The kind of hearing used most often isa non-evidentiary hearing, where only the two parties stand in front of the judge, and informally present their case. Youmay cross examine the "victim", but not extensively. The use of these brief hearings, without the time to really put on acase, is one of the main objections that most people have to this law, and one of its many injustices.

This section will explain how to present a basic restraining order opposition case, and the next will explain the much moredifficult evidentiary hearing. Much of what I present here can also be used in the longer form, as well.

On the day of your hearing, there will probably be lots of hearings scheduled. They over-book just like airlines, hopingseveral will be no-shows. You have to show up for the call of the list' at a certain time, which is printed on your order,usually 9:00 A.M. Go to the clerk's office to find out which courtroom you are in, if it is a larger courthouse with manycourtrooms.

Get early into the courtroom, and scope out the situation. There are two tables one for you (the defendant) and one forthe plaintiff (the complaining witness.) Look for the witness stand, because you may have to make the long journey tothat small scary piece of real estate. Many hearings are also done standing in front of the judge, rather than on thewitness stand. Find out how it is done in your court.

There may be all kinds of unidentified bureaucrats milling about, and you have no idea what role they play. The ones youneed to worry about are the judge, the courtroom clerk, who usually sits at a work station in front of the judge, and thecourt officers. The latter two can be of some help, if you will communicate with them. Some will be lifesavers, so alwaysbe polite. Lawyers often treat them with condescension, since they are obviously inferior to the lawyer's exalted status.Since you don't have that problem, be considerate, and ask all the questions possible.

The most dangerous person in the courtroom, next to the judge, it the so-called "victim-witness advocate", who is usuallya severely demented person trying to work out their own tortured past, and their gut-deep hatred of men by ruining asmany lives as possible. They rarely understand how destructive their behavior is. I give suggestions on how deal with thisspecies in another section.


18 7/24/2011 03


13/18

In any case, all this will usually seem dreadfully mysterious and spooky, but just ask the clerk a lot of questions until youget he/she to be clear with you. They often adopt the public servant' attitude, and act like everyone should know what todo, even when they know you don't. Stay patient. NEVER NEVER NEVER (got that?!!!) NEVER show an attitude' with acourt clerk. That goes double or quintuple for the judge.

My clients, who are understandably frustrated at the injustice of the system, often cop an attitude, and who can blamethem. The system which is supposed to reward truth usually rewards the best liar. But don't do it. Stay cool, byremembering that this is your future, and if you show the teensiest little bit of anger, you are proving them right that youare a big angry abusive brute. Never forget what you are dealing with - feminists and (with some exceptions) spayedmen who won't stand up to them. So, if you are any more manly than Mr. Rogers or Barney the Purple Dinosaur, theywill just know that your accuser is right about what an abuser you are.

Your hearing will not have a jury, (another gross abuse of justice), so the judge will be the one to decide whether theorder is issued or not. If the plaintiff wins, an order is issued. If you win, the order is not issued and everyone goeshome.

Don't forget to address the judge as "your honor", and to ALWAYS stand when addressing the judge. It doesn't hurt tostand when talking to the clerk either.

Once your case is called, you go up front, or wherever the court officer directs you to go. The maladjusted victim-witness advocate will go up with the 'victim' for 'support', but mercifully will not be allowed to say anything.

The complaining witness goes first. The judge will usually ask the person why an order is needed, and then you will getto hear the lullabys, legends, and lies, as the old Bobby Bare song goes. The judge is listening to see if there is any fearexpressed. If the person succeeds in sounding afraid, many judges will issue an order.

That is not the standard, however. As you know by now, (which is more than many lawyers), the plaintiff has the burdenof proving that you placed the person in fear of imminent, serious, physical harm. As we noted repeatedly above, manyplaintiffs do not do that adequately. However, if you are not right there to point that out, you may still lose.

The next thing to happen is you will then have a chance to question the plaintiff about the testimony, and about theaffidavit. This is called cross examination, and this is probably where you will make it or break it. This is your mostimportant moment, and you can win the case, if you have prepared as above, keep your wits about you, and askquestions in a gentle manner.

Yes, your mouth is dry as cotton, and you are nervous as a cat, but keep your eye on the goal. Some judges will bepretty patient with you, and others will be complete jerks. Before you can get started, the judge may ask questions of

the complaining witness if some point is unclear. That is a good sign, because that means at least the judge is listening.If you about to launch, and the judge interjects, shut up. Judges are always allowed to speak over you. It is OK to ask,"May I proceed, your honor?"

The key, as you now know, is to discredit the affidavit that no one wanted you to know existed. The complaining witnessprobably does not realize that you have seen the affidavit. A surprising number of them contain really absurd things, aswe have noted earlier. If you are lucky enough to have such a gift, launch right in and start asking questions.

Go through all the strategies set out above, piece by piece. BUT, BE GENTLE. If you come across like horseradish, the judge will believe you could be the abuser you are accused of being.


18 7/24/2011 03


14/18

After you have completed your cross examination, and hopefully you can feel the case turning your way a bit, you get anopportunity to tell your side of the story. p>Rehearse your testimony, until you can explain your story pretty smoothly.Incorporate the allegations made against you, and explain them. However, don't ONLY be on the defensive. Have apositive story about yourself to tell. Talk about your good reputation in the community, your service to others, your good

relationship with your children, etc.

Also, don't forget that the judge MUST have a plausible alternative explanation for why the person feels fear if you are tohave even a slim chance to win. Give the judge the alternative, such as one of the ulterior motives.

Don't forget to key in on the actual language of the law, and assert that you did nothing to "place the person in fear ofimminent, serious, physical harm." Break it down: No imminent harm - that is, not recent. No physical harm - not psychicharm. And no serious harm - no injuries.

To show an ulterior motive, you will have to be very forceful in accusing your accuser of that motive, and then provideproof. Otherwise, it is merely your word against the other's. That may mean bringing in a friend of the defendant whocan say that the defendant has been going all over town bragging about wreaking vengeance on you, or how easy it wasto get the new boyfriend into your house by getting an order. In this case, you are going to have to get the witness there,and do a witness examination, which is detailed below.

Most of the material in the section above is applicable to the more complicated evidentiary hearings, but is supplementedby the additional information below.

If you determine that other witnesses beside yourself are needed to prove that the complaining witness was lying or hadan ulterior motive, you need to get them there, and know what they are going to say. They don't even have to be friendlyto help you, as long as you think that they will tell the truth under oath. A friend of the Plaintiff who can explain the lies orthe ulterior motive right out of the the plaintiff's own mouth is a very effective witness.

You must prepare such a witness in advance, unless the witness is so adversarial that he or she will not talk to you. It isrisky to put such a witness on the stand, but it may save your case.

You get a witness to a trial by a witness summons, which you can get from the clerk of court, and fill in the blanks. Youthen must have it served by a deputy sheriff or constable. (The difference between them is that sheriffs work for thegubmint, and a constable runs a private business.) It will cost you about 35 or 40 bucks per witness.

How do you know when to get a witness summons? The only time you can count on not needing a summons if it is aVERY friendly witness, who you know would be there even if meant missing their own funeral, or at least wouldn't mind


18 7/24/2011 03


15/18

missing reruns of Gilligan's Island. Otherwise get a summons. Most people need them for getting out of school or work,even if they are friendly.

You want to summons the witness at least a week before the hearing, if possible. If not, just let it rip, anyway. Get asummons form from the clerk of the court, or a notary, if the clerk gives you grief. Get a constable to serve it, plusremind the person a day or two before the trial. You will need something called a "return of service" from the constable,which proves the person got the summons. If the witness was served, and doesn't show, you can have him arrested, ifneeded.

If you have summoned a witness to testify for you, you want to "call" that witness after you are done with your owntestimony. You stand up and say, "the defendant calls Mrs. Gert Gossipmonger" The clerk will administer an oath to tellthe truth (never mind that the plaintiff ignored it), and the witness is all yours for a while. What a feeling of power, and offear, too.

You should have carefully prepared questions in advance for the witness, and write them on a legal pad, in logical order.Some people can do this with jotted phrases in an outline as a reminder. Some need every word written out in order toremember. The questions must all relate to something the plaintiff testified to, something in the plaintiff's affidavit, orsomething you said. Of course, the big thing is to disprove fear, and show that it is all a sham.

OK, so Gert Gossipmonger is now on the stand. What do you do?

First, start with name and address to establish her identity, then have her explain in detail about her relationship with theplaintiff - how long she has known the person, how often she sees the person, how close the relationship is, whether herchildren play with yours, etc. The closer the relationship, the more credible it is, IF IT IS NOT A RELATIVE. (Only useyour mother, if you have to. The plaintiff's Mother is good, though, since it will be assumed that Mom would never sayanything bad about her son or daughter.) If you can get the plaintiff's best friend, and make sure that fact is known, thenyou are really cooking.

This initial questioning is critical, and a lot of people, because they are nervous, forget to lay the groundwork. Only thencan you start talking about the evidence.

Next, you start asking Gert about the evidence. However, you must again lay a foundation for whatever you ask her.That means, for example, that you need to ask her where she was, and when she was there, and who was there, if sheis to talk about something she overheard.

Another example. What if Gert heard the defendant talk about getting you put in jail so the new boyfriend can move in, orthat she read her diary, which laid out a whole plan to remove you from your children's lives using a restraining order.

Then, you should ask questions to bring it all out, in living color. A good analogy to illustrate this process is to askquestions as though you were looking at one frame of a movie at a time, and ask one question after another, to makethe frames go by. You want to cut off a very thin slice of activity for each question you ask, and get very specificanswers, not general ones.

If the witness is nervous, and can only seem to answer in generalities, help with more specific and suggestive questions,like, "what did you do then?", or "after that, what did she say?" Keep the film moving, frame by frame.

Try to only ask questions to which you know the answers. Many lawyers have been both surprised and horrified whenthey asked a witness a great question that could win the case for them, but they did not know how the witness would


18 7/24/2011 03


16/18

answer, and the witness answered it wrong for them.

If you get objections from the other side, wait for the judge to rule on the objection. If the objection is sustained', yourquestion is not allowed, and you need to ask it a different way, or go onto something else. If the judge overrules theobjection, the witness may answer.

As soon as you are done with your questions, pause, think a minute, and if you can't think of anything else to ask, tell the judge, "no further questions, your honor." Then, the opponent can cross examine the witness.

After you are done testifying, then you get to endure being cross examined.' This is where the defendant or thedefendant's lawyer tries to prove your evidence is somehow wrong, or that you have lied, or should not be believed. Ifthe defendant cross examines you, or your other witness, it may not be too bad. If Barry Cuda, Esq. steps up to thestand and opens a can of whup-ass, you may be in for quite a fight. Here are some basic rules when you are beingcross examined:

Rule One: NEVER be sarcastic or belligerent, no matter how sarcastic, belligerent, or even how dumb a question is.Rather, be very matter of fact, earnest, and sincere, and it will often backfire on your inquisitor. If you adopt a sarcasticattitude, the judge will react very negatively to you, even if you think you have been very convincing so far. You can loseall the progress you made if you get snitty.

Rule Two: Only answer the question that you are asked. Witnesses always try to explain too much. Think about thescope of the question, and only answer that question, and NO MORE. The best answers are "yes" or "no". Give briefexplanations if needed.

Rule Three: Be honest. If you don't know the answer, say so, or ask to explain the question better. The judge will be anally if you do so. That honesty must extend to answers that may look bad for you. Keep your integrity, at all costs. If you

lose it, you lose your case.

Cross examination is one of the great traditional lawyer skills. You need a lot of practice if you are going to do it likePerry Mason. However, for this hearing, you can bumble along well enough to win your case.

The purpose of cross examination is to catch your opponent in a lie, to discredit their story, or to get an admission ofsome truth which will help you. If the defendant did not testify falsely, either by stating an untruth, or omitting a truth, you

should not cross exam; Just let it go.

Cross examination works best when you can get the person to state something untrue, lead them down the primrosepath to commit to that untruth, then you pull out some irrefutable evidence to show that it was a lie. This can be a formerstatement made under oath, such as the affidavit the defendant used to get the restraining order, or the testimony of afriend, or something to refute the statement.


18 7/24/2011 03


17/18

This material can only HELP you to win. Frankly, it is a better idea to get a lawyer than to do it yourself, as with manyspecialized tasks. If you need further assistance, email me, and I will try to be of some help. May God bless your effortsto obtain justice. Read Proverbs 21:1, and Psalms 56 though 59.

The War on the Family Rages On (/headlines/2011/jun/)Quebec judge orders kids to state-run daycare (/headlines/2011/may/)Restraining-order filings unbound (/headlines/2011/apr/)

Beware the Restraining Order Immigration Scam (/blog/2011/jan/26/beware-the-restraining-order-immigration-

scam/)Supreme Judicial Court Justices Don't Shovel Sidewalks, After Ruling We Have To (/blog/2010/dec/30/supreme-judicial-court-justices-dont-shovel-sidewa/)

Outrageous New Restraining Order Case from Mass. Appeals Court (/blog/2010/sep/2/outrageous-new-restraining-order-case-from-mass-ap/)

MassOutrage wants to extend its reach across the nation. If you are a family law attorney dedicated to battling false

allegations and keeping kids with their loving parents, please contact us (/contact/) .

Why Can the State Kidnap Your Child? (/ma/cps-resources/why-can-the-state-kidnap-your-child/)What to do if DCF comes to your door (/ma/cps-resources/what-to-do-if-dcf-comes-to-your-door/)DCF Dirty Tricks (/ma/cps-resources/dcf-dirty-tricks/)DCF Law, Regulations, and Definitions (/ma/cps-resources/dcf-law-regulations-and-definitions/)DCF Policy on Placement of Children (/ma/cps-resources/dcf-policy-on-placement-of-children/)Guide to DCF Organization (/ma/cps-resources/guide-to-dcf-organization/)How DCF Does Court Cases (/ma/cps-resources/how-dcf-does-court-cases/)The DCF Snitch Network (/ma/cps-resources/the-dcf-snitch-network/)How DCF Does Administrative Cases (/ma/cps-resources/how-dcf-does-administrative-cases/)

Fighting False Restraining Orders (/ma/restraining-order-resources/fighting-false-restraining-orders/)


18 7/24/2011 03


18/18

Restraining Order Law and Definitions (/ma/restraining-order-resources/restraining-order-law-and-definitions/)Restraining Orders - How They REALLY Work (/ma/restraining-order-resources/restraining-orders-how-they-really-work/)

Outrageous Restraining Order Cases (/ma/restraining-order-resources/outrageous-restraining-order-cases/)Restraining Order Dirty Tricks (/ma/restraining-order-resources/restraining-order-dirty-tricks/)

Resentful, Greedy, Manipulative Mother's Guide to Destroying Your Children and Their Father (Satire)(/ma/divorcepaternity-outrage/resentful-greedy-manipulative-mothers-guide-to-des/)

Angry, Controlling, Stingy Father's Guide to Destroying Your Children and Their Mother (Satire)(/ma/divorcepaternity-outrage/angry-controlling-stingy-fathers-guide-to-destroyi/)

Wise Sayings about Fighting the Battle (/ma/miscellaneous-outrage/wise-sayings-about-fighting-the-battle/)Lawyer Humor (/ma/miscellaneous-outrage/lawyer-humor/)LINKS (/ma/miscellaneous-outrage/links/)Look And Act Like an Adult in Court (/ma/miscellaneous-outrage/look-and-act-like-an-adult-in-court/)Videos From Gregory A. Hession and Others (/ma/miscellaneous-outrage/videos-from-gregory-a-hession-and-others/)

Legal (/legal/)Privacy (/privacy/)Return Policy (/return-policy/)About (/about/)Contact (/contact/)

Copyright 2008-2011 Gregory Hession, JD. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The information on this website is not intended to be specific legal advice, but general information to assistyou. You should consult an attorney to advise you on your individual case. Attorney Hession cannot give advice aboutyour case over the internet or telephone unless he represents you. He is licensed to practice only in the Commonwealthof Massachusetts.


mass outrage _ fighting false restraining orders

Documents