Fathers False P Orders

8/3/2019 Fathers False P Orders

1/7

Abuse Of Protection Orders by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal JusticeFoundation.| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters || DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index |Bibliography |

| Chapter 2 Protection Orders || Next Restraining orders out of control by Gregory Hession, JD || Back Letterman case shows problems with restraining orders |The highest purpose of law is not to punish the guilty, but to protect theinnocent. This must include protecting the innocent from the law.Steven William RimmerEstimates of protection order abuse in ColoradoAllegations of family violence are the weapon of choice in divorce strategies.Lawyers, and paralegals in women's shelters, call them the "Silver Bullet." Falseabuse allegations unquestionably work very effectively in removing men from theirhomes and families. However, society is paying a dreadful price by removingchildren from their fathers and destroying families.Conversely, women derive very little actual protection from violence by usingprotection orders, and probably place themselves in greater danger by enraging themale.It is undetermined what percentage of protection orders in domestic violence andabuse cases are based on false claims. Estimates range from a low of 5% (byfeminists) to more than 90% (men when used in a divorce or child custody dispute).We have attempted a more quantitative estimate based on demographics in Colorado ina later chapter. These figures suggest a statewide abuse of process on the order ofat least 35%. For some areas, like El Paso County, probably 75% of all protectionorders were issued without reasonable basis.Even if the lowest estimate of 5% were used, about 1,300 men in Colorado wereunjustly accused and falsely convicted in the year 2000. That unreasonably lowestimate is hardly an insignificant figure when it is a matter of people being

evicted from their homes, cut off from their children, sometimes jailed, branded aswife beaters, and their names entered in the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI)and FBI databases for life all without the safeguards of a criminal trial orany other protection of their civil rights.However, the actual level of misuse is plainly much higher than 5%. Evidencecontinues to mount that upwards of 75% of these protection orders may be an abuseof process. And these arguments ignore the civil rights violations inherent inevery one of these orders. This for a system that clearly does not provide theintended protection.In an Independence Institute issue paper dated September 17, 1999, attorney EdLederman examined in detail the operation of protection orders in Colorado. One ofthe abuses he noted is that a man can be forced to leave his home simply because ofallegations about the potential for future emotional (not physical) abuse. He also

notes, as do we, that protection orders are improperly used in Colorado as tools inchild custody battles.In our personal experience protection orders have also been abused in divorces tokeep assets. What better way to get the house, or anything else she wants, than tohave the police, with the assistance of the courts, take the man by force and keephim away? And the "no contact" provision ensures he cannot investigate withoutviolating the protection order.Additionally, much of the testimony, political pressure and rationale supportingColorado's extensive domestic violence legislation is based on misinformationpropounded by the very same special interests that now find themselves on thereceiving end of business generated by that legislation. The predictable result is


2/7

a booming domestic violence industry that has very little to do with actuallyreducing family violence. Reducing family violence would put them out of businessand no bureaucracy works toward that goal.Lederman also pointed out that:"Much of Colorado law is based on the 'research' of Denver psychologist [note thather doctorate is in education, not psychology] Lenore Walker. Dr. Walker wasexposed as a fraud for perpetrating the 1994 Super Bowl hoax, in which she claimedthat the Super Bowl was the number one day for domestic violence in the U.S. The

Washington Post investigated, and found that Dr. Walker had no evidence to supportthe claim.Dr. Walker and her cohorts condemn marriage as the supposed source of domesticviolence, even though domestic violence is six times more likely outside a marriagethan inside."And Richard Bennet comments that before Ms. Walker's husband, Dr. Flax, committedsuicide: "People close to the couple have described Dr. Flax as a 'battered man'."The stated goals of the proponents of domestic violence laws in Colorado include anend to marriage and families. One of the results of law based on such goals is thatColorado rigidly forces anyone with a "domestic violence" label into a therapeuticprograms of the type supported by Dr. Walker, commonly known as the Duluth model regardless of whether therapy is appropriate in the individual case. Note thatthe therapy, part of the typical punishment if found guilty, may be ordered priorto trial .C.R.S. 16-4-105As noted elsewhere, multiple Temporary Protection Orders (TRO's) can, and do, pileup in particularly nasty divorces in Colorado. While a divorce is going on indistrict court, the woman may go to county court to get a TRO against a man andsubstantial game playing is possible. If a woman does not like results obtained infront of the county court judge she can try again in district court, or file againin another county. We have personal experience with that form of abuse of process.One of the most serious problems with current Colorado protection orders is theissue of whether defendants, almost always husbands, may be kicked out of thefamily home, when there are no physical threats or abuse. C.R.S. 13-14-101defines "domestic abuse" as "...any act or threatened act of violence that iscommitted by any person against another person to whom the actor is currently orwas formerly related, or with whom the actor is living or has lived in the samedomicile, or with whom the actor is involved or has been involved in an intimate

relationship. "Domestic abuse" may also include any act or threatened act ofviolence against the minor children of either of the parties." (emphasis added). Inother words, a man can be ordered to vacate his home simply because of allegationsthat he might cause emotional harm.Emotional harm? Does the law require some sort of physical threats or abuse inorder to make such a showing? No! A woman can kick a man out of his home simplybecause it would be awkward for him to remain. For example, he would probablyobject to her new boyfriend moving in.Under the non-violent-but-awkward circumstances, the law encourages the woman tolie; to fabricate some sort of physical abuse in order to bootstrap "emotionalharm," or to demonize the man so that the "emotional harm" could be more palpable.And there are absolutely no penalties if she does lie or fabricate the charges.Lederman does not seem to think this is such a bad thing. As he puts it: "Divorces

are tough enough. When one is pending it might very well be best that the husbandbe required to vacate the premises even when there is no domestic violence."However, we still believe in the Fourth Amendment and note that in a divorcepossession of the house and kids is ten-tenths of the law.Once a man is out of his home it is almost certain he will never get back in. Shewill almost certainly get permanent custody of the kids once she has obtainedtemporary custody under a protection order.To his credit, Lederman pointed out that:"One of those abuses is that often pro se [women acting on their own behalf]complainants can and do use retraining orders to, in effect, make de facto custodydeterminations that either stand permanently or have a telling impact throughout


3/7

subsequent litigation.Another problem is the inherent confusion surrounding the question of whether ornot 'emotional harm' is sufficient to issue an order. This confusion, by the way,may be traced directly to the philosophy of many of the proponents of these laws,specifically Dr. Lenore Walker, whose work argues that there is a seamlesscontinuum between physical and emotional abuse. While HB 1204 has gone a long wayin clarifying the need for 'imminent danger' before a protection order is issued byCounty Courts, there still is much to do at the District Court level, both in

regards to 14-4-104 (Domestic Violence) [ Ed. Note: C.R.S. 14-4-104 was repealedin 2004 but currently the same provisions are provided in 13-14-101 et seq.] andC.R.S. 14-10-108 (Temporary Orders).By far, however, the most disturbing problem surrounding the edifice of domesticviolence laws and enforcement is the incestuous relationship between thetherapeutic providers who are now hardwired into the process and existingassessment mechanisms. A large chunk of our criminal justice system now force-feedstherapy (or at least evaluation) to defendants. Just how effective is all thistherapy? Would incarceration be more effective? Are defendants being railroaded?"and our personal experience shows that defendants are "being railroaded" wholesale.The common sense approach to imminent danger is to leave the area or dwelling whereit is present. The emotional response is the 'fight or flee' paradox. But if thereis time or opportunity to call and then wait for the police, for example, then areasonable person should opt to flee and seek a safe place if they are not involvedin, or did not initiate, any resultant violence or danger.Given the present widespread availability of shelters for battered women, thanks tothe pioneering work of Erin Pizzey, we feel the rational approach for a woman inimminent danger is to seek, or be given such shelter. That is the only approach wehave found that protects both the civil rights of the man and protects the woman.Otherwise, protection orders can, and will be used, to "...make de facto custodydeterminations that either stand permanently or have a telling impact throughoutsubsequent litigation."Once a man is served with protection orders any violation will result in his arrestunder C.R.S. 18-6-803.5. For a first violation, the minimum sentence is threemonths in jail. A second violation is a minimum of six months. This for anallegation (any lie will serve) that you might cause her "emotional harm."Conversely, she can kill you, claim "self defense," and never even be arrested. For

a recent (November, 1999) example of that, see the case of Forrest Potts. Examplesof protection order violations that have resulted in jail terms for men are givenbelow, and examples of women killing men in Colorado with little or no penalty aregiven in another section.Another glaring shortcoming of protection orders in Colorado is that, once issued,they cannot be modified to allow the parties to communicate with each other. Thatis a major problem in a divorce when discussion between the parties is necessaryfor the exchange of information but is precluded by the domestic abuse order. Manydivorces, especially of working class people, are made infinitely more difficultand expensive because all communications must then be carried out through theattorneys. Such laws make lawyers rich and encourages attorneys to protract thebattle between the man and woman.In effect, the intent of the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act is

negated once domestic violence or abuse is alleged. The apparent advantages to awoman of alleging abuse are so great, however, that the temptation may well beirresistible. But given the "no drop" provisions of current law, the woman islikely to be trapped in a morass of feminist-inspired laws that are locallyfomented by feminists such as Dr. Walker and groups such the NCADV. Likely theindividual filing the charges was totally unaware of the implications of heractions, or the repercussions from which there is no escape for her or the man shehas accused.California schemingTopColorado is not the only state, by far, where restraining orders are grossly


4/7

abused. In a 2006 article attorney Jeffrey Leving and activist Glenn Sacks notedthat nearly 250,000 domestic violence restraining orders are currently active inCalifornia. They referred to a recent article in the Family Law News, the officialpublication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that thebar is concerned that "protective orders are increasingly being used in family lawcases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." The authors notethat protective orders are"...almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there

is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrainedperson...it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently forretaliation and litigation purposes."Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and withno opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the manis booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his ownchildren. His first chance to defend himself against the charges is usually twoweeks later, at the hearing to make the order permanent. Yet these hearingsgenerally last no more than 15 minutes. The due process they afford the men can begauged by the State of California's advice for men contesting restraining orders:"Do not take more than three minutes to say what you disagree with. You can bringwitnesses or documents that support your case, but the judge may not have enoughtime to talk to the witnesses."Restraining orders turn ordinary men into criminals by forbidding many routinebehaviors. Men are being arrested for violating their orders by such acts as:returning their children's phone calls; going to their children's school orathletic events; sending their kids birthday cards; or accidentally running intothem at the park or the mall.Research shows that these orders often do not even involve an allegation ofviolence. Usually all that's needed is a claim that the person to be restrained"acted in a way that scared me" or was "verbally abusive" what's known as"shout at your spouse, lose your house." Yet under a 1999 California law thesefarcical orders can be used to deny these so-called "batterers" joint custody oftheir children. If ever a law was designed to incite violence it is these ordersthat rob men of their children.Using protection orders to smear candidates in political campaigns

2008 race in House District 30 Republican Kevin PriolaTopAbstracted from article in October 22, 2008, Denver PostIn 2007 a deadbeat tenant filed a restraining order against Adams County smallbusinessman Kevin Priola to avoid eviction. Shortly afterward a judge dismissed theorder for lack of any actual threat. And this is far from the first case the EqualJustice Foundation has heard of protection orders being used by deadbeat females inorder to avoid being evicted or paying a debt to a man.Flash forward to the 2008 election cycle, where a mailer featuring a grainy, black-and-white photo of Kevin Priola suggests he's not only an "imminent danger" but athreat to judges' future abilities to issue restraining orders.The mailer is regarded as one of the more egregious examples of baseless attacksflying at candidates and bankrolled by a "527" soft-money group, Accountability for

Colorado, who paid for the mailer."It's completely meritless. It's wrong," state GOP coordinator Alan Philp said."What's to stop me or someone else from going and filing a restraining order onevery Democratic candidate so we can use them in a mailer in the future?" Perhapsafter this politicians will realize what a danger perjury and false reporting areto citizens as well?2008 race in House District 56 Republican Ali HasanTopNote: The term "redfems" is used as a synonym for neo-Marxist radical feminists asdescribed by the essays here.In March 2008 the former girlfriend and publicist for Republican Ali Hasan, who was


5/7

running in House District 56, sought a temporary restraining order against him. Nodoubt the usual redfem script was used to claim she was "in fear of him" and othernonsense. A check of Colorado court records shows no more than a traffic offense in1994 for Hasan and no record is currently found in the Colorado Bureau ofInvestigation database for this restraining order. Clearly the temporary order wasdismissed and the record sealed.2008 race in Senate District 23 Democrat Joe WhitcombTop

Abstracted from article in October 11, 2008, Rocky Mountain NewsNote: The term "redfems" is used as a synonym for neo-Marxist radical feminists asdescribed by the essays here.Lovestruck Army Ranger given three restraining orders but woman fails to show atany hearingsDuring the 2008 campaign of Joe Whitcomb for a seat in the Colorado Senate itemerged that while serving with the Army Rangers in Alaska a woman he had beenshacking up with obtained three ex parte temporary restraining orders against him.Whitcomb described his behavior in the affair as "dumb" rather than malicious.The orders dated October, November and December of 1995 are short ondetails. When contacted by the Rocky Mountain News the woman said Whitcomb neverthreatened or harmed her in the course of their two-month relationship. In atelephone interview the woman said: "He would not stop calling me. He would notstop following me...He sent unwanted gifts that were returned. He was toldrepeatedly to leave me alone and that didn't work." However, Whitcomb said he neversaw her after they broke up.According to one of the orders, the woman said that she feared for her safety [astandard part of the redfem script for obtaining a restraining order].Whitcomb was an Army Ranger stationed in Alaska at the time and said he was goingthrough a divorce with his first wife, who he married in 1991 and their divorce wasfinal in 1996.Whitcomb said the woman he began living with was also coming out of a marriage andthat they were together two months.Then, Whitcomb said, he left for Louisiana for a month on Army business and when hecame back, the woman was gone. Whitcomb said he didn't know why and, after tryingto talk to her about it and not succeeding, he left a rose and note on thewindshield of her car.

That was when the first restraining order was issued [for leaving her a note and arose] . About this incident Whitcomb commented:"When you're 25 and you're certain you're in love with somebody, you might dosomething silly like put a rose on their car. When you're 25, you might make baddecisions about who you want to be with. But I didn't do anything at all that wasremotely threatening to anybody to warrant a restraining order against me. I was alovestruck kid at 25-years old trying to win back a girl he cared about."The second restraining order apparently resulted from his efforts to get rent moneyshe owed him from the time they were shacking up together.The third restraining order was issued just before Whitcomb left Alaska. He wastrying to return some things to her and dropped them off at her work when shewasn't there.Whitcomb said when he showed up in court for each of the temporary restraining

orders the woman did not. According to court records each was dismissed.Nonetheless, in 2008 the woman still claims Whitcomb was stalking her. Thenewspaper didn't bother to report how many other restraining orders this lunachicmay have obtained against other men before or since then.Abuse of protection ordersExamples of how protection orders are abusedTopProbably the best way to illustrate how protection orders are abused is to presentwhat a domestic violence victim advocate has told us: I have witnessed TRO's issued just because a family member gave another


6/7

family member "the look of death." I am also seeing law enforcement officers seeking TROs just to get thegirlfriend exited from the shared living space or simply out of their life. I also observe real abusers turning the system on their victims by gettingthe TRO first. The consistent percentage of domestic violence plaintiffs by male/ female is22% male 78% female. Men also abuse the system as well. One of my memorable cases was a woman who had filed a TRO against a law

enforcement officer. They had a history of drama (not all co-drama relationshipsare domestic violence). When I interviewed her she played the victim role well. Thedefendant brought an attorney with him, the victims demanded $5,000 to drop therestraining orders. She also wanted additional money awarded if he ever contactedher again. The TRO was dropped by the plaintiff.I am not aware of any dollarsexchanging hands.About a year later, the same woman was in a nearby county with a differentdefendant she had a TRO against, and she dropped it as well.The victim advocate also stated that if the courts reduced the number of TRO'sissued it would reduce the abuse.These are but a few of the abuses of such orders reported to the Equal JusticeFoundation and many more are tabulated in the index under restraining orders.Consequences of the abuse of protection ordersTopThe consequences of a protection order for the man are devastating. If he shares ahome with the "victim" he will be ordered to vacate the premises with no more thanwhat he has on his back. Any contact becomes illegal punishable by prisonwithout further ado. And it doesn't matter if the "victim" agreed to, or eveninitiated the contact. This has particularly wrenching consequences when there arechildren involved.Depression and rebellion are a common, if not universal, result of a protectionorder. Problems with subsequent relationships, in his job, or with the police arevirtually certain. Abuse of alcohol or drugs is likely. Stories abound ofdeteriorating health, even to the point of being physically disabled by such thingsas heart attacks, after such charges. Virtually everyone who goes through thesenightmares suffers from at least some symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder(PTSD).

Men who have had protection orders issued against them on the basis ofuncorroborated or trivial allegations have been jailed: For taking food to their children while the mother was away partying fordays. For sending their kids a birthday or Christmas card. For asking a telephone operator to convey a harmless message. For 'accidental' contact at the courthouse. For returning a child's phone call. For a computer virus on their machine at work that sent email to everyone ontheir mailing list including the ex-wife, who hadn't been removed. For accidentally hitting speed dial on their cell phone that still containedtheir home phone number. For passing the woman going the other way on a highway.

For being at the grocery store or shopping mall at the same time, For putting a note in his son's suitcase telling the mother the boy had beensick over a weekend visit. For getting out of the car to pet the family dogs when returning his childfrom a visit. For attending public events such as their children's musical recitals orsports activities. For attending his daughter's first communion. For attending their daughter's dance recital.and on ad nauseam.Or take a December, 1999, example from Minnesota that could as easily have happened


7/7

in Colorado. The following is an e-mail to men-law mailing list:"Yesterday I went to Court to assist a father that was jailed for 'Interrupting a911 call' (gross misdemeanor in Minn.). During the bail hearing the local women'sadvocates addressed the Judge by first name basis. Then proceeded to instruct theJudge on the fathers conditions of bail release. He needs to do the following forbail:1. Spend $325 for a cell phone for his wife to contact the shelter whenever shepleases.

2. Ordered to a no contact order, indefinitely placed, that will not be lifteduntil the trial. No contact with wife or children for about 6 months. The advocatesthen stated that if he pleads guilty they will assist him with battering classes.No domestic abuse is alleged.3. I have read the police reports and the officer states that no domestic abuse isalleged or took place.4. No transcript is available on alleged 911 call. Police cannot furnish thetranscript as it does not exist.5. $2,000 cash bail.6. Order for Protection was denied by a different judge 3 days earlier.7. The wife states that she went to call 911 and her husband hung up the phone onher. No attempt was made to recall 911. She went 3 days later to the advocates whoassisted her in filing police reports and in discussions with the County Attorney.When I contacted a mutual friend in the apartment building, I was informed that hiswife has a boyfriend staying with her for a while. The witness stated that the wifesaid: 'Well, I needed to get him out of the house somehow.'As a fathers advocate, I asked the court if we could speak for the father. We wererefused. Now the father sits in jail as he cannot come up with $2,000 cash bail. Sowe can assume that he is charged, found guilty, punished and jailed for his crimewithout representation. To further the cause of the women's advocates.Just another angry man in Minnesota. I hope to god that no violence will resultwhen he is released. However, I firmly believe that the local area advocates willdo what they can to create the violence to further their cause and funding.Any advice is needed. Thanks, Kevin"and the only thing unusual about this story is that someone published it.Top

Fathers False P Orders

Documents

Transcript of Fathers False P Orders