Restraining orders can be issued without prior notice or hearing.
When Congress first enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), some had believed that a new federal law that was unnecessary. Their reason was that every state had made assault and battery a crime. However others wanted to ensure that every man accused of abuse would suffer severe penalties although they were innocent. That was the genesis of the mandatory arrest laws and the ‘no drop’ policy. The result was the greatest transfer of wealth in history and many women profited by lying.
All restraining orders are temporary and they are prepared without notice or hearing. They demand the preservation of the status quo until a hearing can be convened to determine the necessity of injunctive relief. Most orders in family law are of the type that prevents the respondent from protecting his or her assets. This means that the accused does not have access to evidence that would prove their innocence and they have only a short time to respond. In addition, an order of this particular kind, requires a person to vacate their dwelling and enjoins them from taking their own property. In doing that, the restraining order unjustly enriches the accuser without any safeguard for the defendant.
What a restraining order is supposed to do is to stop some activity so that a court may hold a hearing on the matter. Meanwhile, the opposing party may find himself having to pay rent or the mortgage on his home now inhabited by people who do not belong there. This is why most restraining orders do not protect men from false claims of abuse because Ex Parte orders take no notice of the elements of due process, including the opportunity to refute the allegation. Moreover, the courts deem these orders acceptable because some judge had issued them as a temporary measure under civil law. Yet if someone accused a person of violating these orders, the matter would become a criminal case. This means that the defendant must have full due process of law, from the beginning to the end of the entire matter.
The notion of ‘due process’ does not have a fixed meaning. However, ‘substantive due process’ requires that all state and federal legislation must have a legitimate government purpose. The Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot deprive a person of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment protects persons from state laws that would deprive persons of their life, liberty, or property without equal protection of the laws. So together, the Bills of Rights and the Due Process requirements make Federal and State obligations the same.
Those who lied to Keep Men in their Place
The origin of the ‘Big Lie’ had its roots in the 1940s and was first included in our lexicon in 1946. A ‘Big Lie’ is a deliberate gross distortion of the truth used especially as a propaganda tactic. Some Bar Associations and their members admit that the courts grant restraining and vacate orders to nearly all women so that they would gain a tactical advantage in court. These offenders include the Illinois Bar Journal, the New Jersey Law Journal, the American Bar Association, and the list goes on. They may as well have created a fancy marquee outside their offices, with irrelevant statistics. The Super Bowl Hoax of 1993 proved that
The California State Bar has admitted that judges issue secret orders against men although no evidence of wrongdoing exists. Common sense tells us that when somebody makes a claim, they must produce some proof that goes with the claim. That means that when a woman claims that her husband has abused her, then proof must exist that he did. That means that the proof always lays with those who make the claim. However, those who opposed this standard designed a policy where a person could not demand testing to prove their innocence and that lead to the enrichment of those who had lied.
Over the years when a man reported abuse to local law enforcement, the predictable response was his arrest. The no-drop policy means that a woman cannot withdraw her claims although they are false and these leads to her husband’s arrest. Moreover it means that if she refuses to appear in court, the prosecution can ‘prove’ their case by her mere absence, phoney photographs, dubbed tapes, and hearsay evidence. That is how a man can lose his home, possessions, savings, and contact with his children, and his job. Moreover, some employers and government agencies require that a person reveal arrests though they are innocent and a court has sealed or destroyed the records. In addition, many employers will not hire a person with an arrest record for a violent crime although a court found that person factually innocent.
Restraining Orders and Mandatory Arrest
The real issue is that women use restraining orders to gain a tactical advantage in court and that explains their precedence to treachery. Her papers are always in order while his are not and this is so to ensure that she has that tactical advantage. No one knows the exact prevalence of false allegations of spousal abuse made by wives. The current statistics on false claims by women of domestic violence exceeds 80%. The problem is that the number of false claims of spousal abuse could be much greater because women lie and the courts rarely punish them. So in this vein, Gerry Spence expressed this notion about police, if they do not have a clue, they charge the husband. This is why more than 80 percent of claims of spousal abuse are false and their objection to DNA testing is the proof. Once a person lies about an important fact, then it is probable that they would lie again. The only reason for supporting mandatory arrest is to insure that the victim has no means to fight these personal attacks against them. Meanwhile, women’s groups still claim that 90 percent of the victims of abuse are women. However, if lying is factored into statistics, men are more likely to be victims of pivotal abuse than women. That is why the potential risks of exposure and punishment are minimal for women who lie.
Over these years, the Violence Against Women Act has received billions of dollars in funding. Most of that funding did not go to proving guilt or innocence. It went to deprive men of their homes, savings, and liberty. So when a man reported spousal abuse to local law enforcement, the predictable response was mandatory arrest. That meant that he cannot possess any firearms or other weapons, so who got those weapons? His wife got them along with all of his other possessions. So the police began to realize that they were also the targets of those that received Federal funding.
Many employers and government agencies require that a person reveal arrests though they are innocent and a court has sealed or destroyed the records. In addition, many employers will not hire a person with an arrest record even though a court found that person factually innocent. In the past four decades this was the response that many abused men faced when they reported abuse by their wives. It did not make any difference that he always told the truth and had a good reputation.
Those who make a claim must have to prove it
This is the reason that the mandatory arrest doctrine ignores the likelihood that a person who has been law-abiding would not change. However, his wife who made those false allegations had lied and that the reason that their wives falsely accused these men. They wanted to continue their illegal and abusive activities. So the mandatory arrest laws only fostered the false belief that men were the abusers but ignored the salient evidence that wives and female partners were the actual abusers.
This meant that these men had to prove their innocence that is much more difficult than proving guilt. So the issue is that she made an allegation of abuse and she has to prove it. Nevertheless, the courts do not see it that way because they claim that she is not on trial and they are wrong. That is why this is especially true when the accuser lies and the real victim cannot confront their accuser although this is a Fourth Amendment right. So the issue becomes a matter of equal protection under the law and this edict is what the prosecutors are trying to subvert.
Common sense tells us that when somebody makes a claim, some proof must be presented that goes with the claim. The problem with false allegations is that there usually no witnesses and even if they were present, they would not notice any abusive conduct. The reason for this is that the instigator is not going to abuse their spouse in the presence of others. Nevertheless, if they do, most people would believe that the victim deserved it, especially if he is male, and that is the problem with the mandatory arrest laws. They do not encourage the collection and the analysis of physical and biological evidence.
Nevertheless, it does not stop there because she still has his property and the courts will not protect his rights. Their attitude is that he should have had insurance. The problem with that is most insurers will cover the house and its contents but will not cover damages made by the occupant. Moreover, they will not cover the loss of property stolen or destroy by one of the insured and that ‘s usually the wife. So he is up a creek without a paddle and this means that he is in trouble and he is unable to do anything about it. The politicians made the law to work this way. Now innocence is becoming much more difficult that proving guilt because is much like riding a mule walking backwards. This is why the idiom (turning the blind eye) describes the tenable process of ignoring inconvenient facts that lead to the truth. So the issue is that she made an allegation of abuse and she has to prove it. Nevertheless, the courts do not see it that way because they claim that she is not on trial and they are wrong. That is why this is especially true when the accuser lies and the real victim cannot confront their accuser although this is a Fourth Amendment right.
So the issue becomes a matter of equal protection under the law and this edict is what the prosecutors are trying to pervert. The problem with false allegations of abuse is that there usually no witnesses and even if they were present, they would not notice any abusive conduct. The reason for this is that the instigator is not going to abuse their spouse in the presence of others. Nevertheless, if they do, most people would believe that the victim deserved it, especially if he is male, and that is the problem with the mandatory arrest laws. They do not encourage the collection and the analysis of physical and biological evidence (DNA). In other words, those who make a claim against another must have to proof it. Unfortunately, current law does practically nothing to stop abuse or stop false allegations.
Moreover, it promotes waste through fraud and curtails the rights of the real victims. So the question is this, are these persons safer today then they had been in the past? Tell that to the men who have lost their home. Since 1994, Congress has spent billions of dollars on schemes that has done little or nothing for the real victims of domestic violence. These are the men that women have falsely accused. So in their own words, men are always guilty and women must free without fear of being punished for their perjury. So their definition of domestic violence is whatever a woman alleges it to be. At present, no record exists that the courts have punished a woman for lying. The other part is that California courts can change a court order after it had been signed by the litigants and this can result in an unforeseeable conundrum. No one has the right to alter what person had originally agreed to.
Edward Steven Nunes