It is our opinion that Restraining Orders will ultimately be found to be unconstitutional someday.
If you have a restraining order put in place against you by a court of law, you can be arrested and imprisioned for contacting the person who has the restraining order against you.
However, she can contact you at will, w/o and legal problems.
This is un equal justice under law.
Here is a good article to read.
The Meaning of Justice
By Hon. Anthony M. Peccarelli
The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are inscribed on the architrave, resting on Corinthian columns, above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. The phrase did not occur in any significant government document or court ruling prior to the completion of the building in 1935. The U.S. Supreme Court in an 1891 case, Caldwell v Texas, 137 U.S. 692; 11 S.Ct. 224; 34 L.Ed 816, introduced a phrase, in obiter dicta, that may have given rise to the words that appear on the facade when it said,
". . . By the Fourteenth Amendment . . . no state can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law (emphasis added). Law, in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, is due process . . . ".
And later in an 1897 case, Nobles v Georgia, 168 U.S. 398; 18 S.Ct 87; 42 L.Ed. 515, the Petitioner-defendant pled a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights and alleged,
". . . no State can deprive any person of equal and impartial justice under the law (emphasis added), and that law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, is due process . . . " .
The architect, Cass Gilbert, who designed and supervised the construction of the Supreme Court building, until his death, apparently paraphrased the broad statement made by the court and alleged by the pleader as the source for the words "Equal Justice Under Law. The words "Equal Justice Under Law’ ignite an expectation by persons who seek redress in a judicial proceeding. The difference in perception by those who decide the issues in a judicial proceeding and the result understood by the public are sometimes in conflict. The finality and impact of what occurs in a judicial proceeding has an effect upon us all.
The wisdom of the concluding that "justice" is the result of "law" requires an examination and definition of the words in order to understand the meaning of "Equal Justice Under Law". A source to define, there being a dearth of reported precedent, was the venerable unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary, in addition to historical anecdotes and descriptive quotations, primarily defines law as a rule of conduct imposed by authority; the body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects. The dictionary defines justice, with historical anecdotes and descriptive quotations, as the quality of being just, of being morally just or righteous; the principle of just dealing; the exhibition of this quality or principle in action; just conduct; integrity; rectitude; conformity (of an action or thing) to moral right, or to reason, truth, or fact; rightfulness; fairness; correctness; propriety.
Law seems reasonably well defined and understood. Further colloquy beyond rules imposed by constitution, statute, custom, or precedent which is binding on the members of a community, for regulation of conduct as suggested by the Oxford English Dictionary would not add to an understanding. Ambiguities attributed to the conclusiveness and understanding of law appear to occur by interpretations of law in various courts by diverse tribunals.
Justice has eluded a well defined and understood meaning. It is a value laden word which often precludes agreement on its meaning. It has a profound, learned, sage and exhilarating sound. It evokes strong emotions. The values and notions of justice that impact us today emanate and are synthesized from those commonly shared, timeless qualities of justice as described by Socrates, Lock, Hume, Machiavelli and Spinoza among others. The judicial process seeks to do that which is morally right in the name of justice. The public who seek, expect and demand justice as they enter and participate in the judicial process attribute specific expectations upon the conclusion of the process. It is not with any degree of certainty that the ultimate resolution of the dispute that caused involvement in the judicial process results in moral righteousness.
In an article in the 1997 October issue of the DCBA Brief I expressed my perplexity in the expectation of justice as a consequence of the judicial process. It was an attempt to contrast law and the result of the judicial process with justice. In that article, "Reflections on Law and Justice", I reported to you two dissimilar anecdotes, one historical and one personal. The historical anecdote of the role of the judicial process was expressed by United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. I reported that in an exhortation to Justice Holmes that he "Do justice", Justice Holmes replied, "That is not my job. My job is to follow the law." The personal anecdote was by an informed, questioning lay person and friend whom I have known for many years. In an exchange of letters which included a discussion of the difference between a trial court judge and a reviewing court judge my friend wrote and raised the question, "What is the purpose of law, if not to increase justice?" The historical anecdote and the personal anecdote characterize two different perceptions as a consequence of a judicial proceeding.
A serious consideration must be whether following the law and the expectation of justice as a consequence of the judicial process will remain unchanged or will it be redefined. In order to put such consideration in perspective we need only look at our own development of the judicial process. The Honorable John F. Daffron Jr., Judge of the Twelfth Judicial District in Chesterfield, Virginia and Vice-Chairman of the State Justice Institute in an address at the conference on "The Future and the Courts in Illinois" in April 1992 speculated that if Patrick Henry were to find himself in the trial courts of today,
". . . professionally, he would likely feel right at home. The configuration of the courtroom and the furnishings would be similar to what he had known. The substantive law would be similar and the procedural law would be familiar. He would recognize the burdens of proof and feel right at home with the rules of evidence. Even the types of relief obtainable, civilly and criminally, would be similar to those he knew 200 years ago."
The dispute would be resolved in a specified central location where all who seek judicial relief would be required to attend. "What this means" Judge Daffron continued, " is that in the trial courts, we haven’t changed much." It is in the trial courts that the public becomes aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the law, the judicial process and justice.
What does the public opine about the judicial process and by implication justice. Since 1977 there have been many surveys of public opinion about the courts and justice including three major national surveys and 27 surveys commissioned by the judicial branches of 24 states. Although the Illinois Supreme Court convened the conference "The Future and the Courts of Illinois" no statewide survey in Illinois of public opinion or trends materializes that could impact the current judicial process, the expectations of the public or the effect of law upon justice.
The most recent national survey conducted in 1999 was commissioned by the National Center for State Courts at the suggestion of the President of the Conference of Chief Justices and is commonly referred to as the "Hearst Report". Using the "Hearst Report" as a commentary on the perceptions of justice by the public is not to suggest that the result of the judicial process should yield to accommodate public opinion but only to summarize and report what a cross section of the public thinks about the judicial process and by implication justice. The "Hearst Report" commentary on the results of the survey were presented May 14, 1999 at the National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System. The survey covered four broad areas: access to the courts, timeliness of court decisions, fairness of judicial decision-making, independence and responsiveness to the public and changing conditions of society.
There was substantial affirmative consensus across all respondents for access to the courts although there were several caveats. The survey revealed that the courts do a good job insuring adequate representation and that users of the system were treated with dignity and respect. However, the respondents opined that the cost of legal representation was a barrier to access and slightly less than one-third believed that taking a case to court is affordable. The complexity of the procedural and substantive law was cited by many respondents who believed that procedures should be readily available for persons to represent themselves. An extraordinary majority of respondents disagreed with the statement, "It is affordable to bring a case to court". This result was exacerbated when race, economic status, social standing and cultural background was considered. Access appeared to be available to few but not the vast majority of respondents.
The slow pace of court proceedings, the failure of courts to adequately monitor cases, the amount of personal time required and expended by waiting for cases to be heard and concluded contributes to the lack of timeliness in the resolution of issues raised by bringing a case to court. The handling of juvenile delinquency, family relations and criminal cases were overwhelmingly considered poorly handled
Several items were assessed in addressing the issue of fairness of judicial decision-making. Most respondents believed that juries are not representative of the community. African-Americans overwhelmingly held that belief. The survey also reflected that 80% of all the respondents agreed that judges generally are honest and fair. However African-Americans and Hispanics were significantly less likely to agree concerning the honesty of judges. Those respondents also replied that failure to actively monitor cases, lack of clarity in the rulings resulting in inability to understand the rulings and familiarity and favoritism toward particular litigants negatively impacted the issue of fairness of judicial decision-making. The general answer to the inquiry concerning the fairness of judicial decision-making depended upon whether the respondent was Hispanic, Caucasian/non-Hispanic or African-American. African-Americans were consistently negative concerning the fairness of judicial decision making.
The respondents perception of confidence in the courts is effected by changing conditions in society, politics and the necessity to raise campaign funds by elected judges. These also influence responsiveness of the courts to the public and the independence of judges. There is a perception that courts are out of touch with reality within their community and that decisions result from political influences. Given those broad generalizations a substantial majority of respondents have trust and confidence in the courts in their community but that confidence varies systematically across racial groups with race being a significant predictor in the level of trust and confidence.
What do the contemporary philosophers suggest about the legal system and by implication justice. Several philosophers describe justice in terms of that which obliges a person to do or not do something that concerns another and the performance of which elicits approval. That suggestion epitomizes the divergence and chasm within several current prevalent theories of law. The following brief statements only touch the surface of the four theories.
The Positive Theorists suggest law is the product of the State, independent of justice and conformity is obligatory because of the need for an orderly society. The command of the sovereign power is enforced by the sovereign power’s ability to impose sanctions
The adherents of the law of Social Good theorize that law is formulated by human beings. Law and justice are social products, developing in tandem, which imposes a moral duty based on the social good, not dependant upon sanctions, and that social custom or tradition impact the relationships of people each to the other.
The proponents of Natural Law maintain that law preceded the existence of the state, is based on a natural right to render to each his due, is cognizable by pure reason and that which is not right is not law.
Therapeutic Law, sometimes called Restorative Law or Healing Law, a more recent development by courts and sociologists during the past twenty years extends the role of courts beyond an adjudicative function to active intervention to divert defendants charged with antisocial behavior away from courts and criminal penalties by encouraging social rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Examples of this concept are drug courts, conciliation family courts and juvenile courts exercising the standard of the best interests of the individual balanced with the rights of the aggrieved party. In the settlement of civil disputes the active intervention extends the power of courts through alternative means, such as arbitration or mediation, to resolve disputes. The alternative of combining the adjudicative process with active intervention attempts to enable participants in the judicial system to cope with their behavior. This is an attempt to impact the existing social order and address social problems. It combines the resolution of legal issues and social issues and seeks to reeducate the participants. The concept focuses on due process, equal protection and other constitutional safeguards with the viewpoint of repairing damaged relationships.
Without attempting to name or give credit to particular philosophers the four distinct philosophical approaches to law include all or some of the following: (1) that like persons should be treated alike without reference to race, ethnicity, economic status or social status in that law defines a persons legal standing and is incapable of effecting righteousness and that the judicial process should protect the needy and easily exploited classes of society; (2) one or more arbitrary values are developed and codification of law is to stabilize a sound social order; (3) what is perceived to be good is good and justice is established in terms of just rulers and judges and a right order of society will follow; (4) equality to all in that justice does not define particular duties but challenges one to learn what is his particular duty and obligates that person to perform that duty; and (5) applications under one interpretation of law may be justice but under another interpretation of law may be unjust.
The meaning of justice today by jurists appears to be that justice emanates from conforming to the Constitution, body of statutory law and common law. If litigants have been accorded the constitutional safeguards of due process, equal protection, statutory and common law consistent with the standards of conduct approved by society the result of the judicial process is deemed justice. Therefore justice is what the judicial process says it is. Something good occurs in the peaceful resolution of disputes. This brings to mind a quotation from United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson commenting on the meaning of law and its effect upon society by the Supreme Court when he wrote;
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final."
This is extraordinarily true at all levels of the judicial process. Particularly when the vast majority of cases are ultimately resolved at the trial level. Few cases are reviewed by intermediate appellate courts or the ultimate supreme court..
Unanimity of the concept of justice is sometimes lacking. If the essence of justice is to do that which is morally righteous and just that is not without conflict. Thomas Stoppard in his play "Professional Foul" suggested, "There would be no moral dilemmas if moral principles worked in straight lines and never crossed each other." When we comply with the rules of conduct and standards established by society in an orderly non-confrontational non-violent way in resolving a dispute which may satisfy one persons interest at the expense of another persons interest, under the law, does that constitute justice? If there is tension to do that which is morally righteous and just in the pursuit of justice through the judicial process and that which is to abide by the rules of conduct established by society how can that seeming conflict be reconciled.
The perception of justice is evolving. It will be impacted by the future. The future of the judicial process and the outcome may be significantly different than the prevailing result of the judicial process. The traditional resolution of disputes in a judicial proceeding in the past was usually dominated and resolved by caucasian males. The future trend will be influenced by the increasing, progressive inclusion of females, diversity of non-caucasian groups, impact of differing cultures, aging population, unconventional family units, medical technology, active judicial intervention, complex litigation and resolution of disputes outside a court room.
The leadership of the federal and state court systems will need to address affordability of access to the courts, existing protracted judicial proceedings, perception of favoritism toward particular participants, government intrusion in individual decision making and the expectations of the public from the judicial system. A different active intervention beyond the adjudicative approach to the current traditional judicial proceeding may well be the result. The evolving possibilities include the creation of specialized structured procedures to resolve disputes such as mandatory mediation, mandatory arbitration, drug courts, proactive courts addressing social problems through counseling or monitoring conduct of public governmental bodies, courts developed to address the disintegration of family or other relationships and court procedures dominated by technology. The traditional background of judges may lack the inclusion of skills to adequately address the publics expectation of a judicial proceeding shifting from an adjudicative function to active intervention by the courts.
The judiciary should be aware and be responsive to the potential changing demographics and the public expectation of justice in the resolution of disagreements pursued in a court proceeding. The willingness for the public to seek a resolution of disputes outside of the traditional judicial proceeding will distinguish the expectation of justice from a highly structured environment in a judicial setting to alternatives to litigation by removing cases from the court system and seeking other peaceful means to resolve their dispute and thus perceive the result to be justice.
Honorable Anthony M. Peccarelli (retired) was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd Judicial District in 1993 and served through 1994. Judge Peccarelli was Chief Judge of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, DuPage County, Illinois for four years prior to his appointment to the Appellate Court. He joined the judiciary in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court as an Associate Judge in 1979, was elected Circuit Judge in 1982, and retained as a Circuit Judge in 1988. Prior to 1979 he was a trial attorney for 17 years
Supreme Court Rules In Protective Order Case
Supreme Court Rules In Protective Order Case
By JOSH KOVNER
The Hartford Courant
4:45 p.m. EDT, October 26, 2009
In a decision that could have ramifications in domestic violence cases, the state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that a trial judge erred when he denied a defendant's request for a hearing on a protective order that restricted him from having contact with his children without the presence of a third person.
Protective orders are generally automatically issued in domestic-violence cases. They spell out the conditions of defendant's release and usually limit or prohibit contact with the alleged victim. The state law on protective orders requires that a defendant receive a hearing, during which he can challenge the order.
The defendant in this case, identified only as Fernando A. to protect the privacy of the alleged victim and children, was charged in 2007 with assaulting his wife and risk of injury to a minor. The couple, who lived in the Stamford area, were in the process of getting a divorce.
At issue is whether Fernando A. was denied due process rights when a judge at his second court appearance refused a request for an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court found Fernando A. should have had the hearing, and sent the case back to the trial judge for further proceedings.
Fernando A.'s lawyer, Steven D. Ecker, said he believes the decision will result in more frequent, fuller hearings when there is a dispute over the terms of a protective order. Ecker said the court was careful to say that the victim would not be required to participate in these hearings.
There was discussion about Fernando A.'s protective order and the family-relation unit's report on the matter before a different judge at his first appearance. Judge Robin Pavia extended the order to require that Fernando A. have only third-party visitation with his children. The judge said there wasn't time that day for a fuller hearing, and set a date four days hence.
Ecker and co-counsel Alinor Sterling argued that the defendant was entitled to a full hearing within 14 days where evidence was taken and witnesses questioned. But at the second court date, Judge James Bingham ruled that defendant "had already been heard." The judge said the issuance of a protective order was similar to a bail hearing and that defendants weren't entitled to full hearings on bail matters.
In response to the appeal, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Robert Scheinblum asserted essentially the same thing as Bingham — that protective orders arise from bail or pretrial-release proceedings and don't require full hearings.
In his written decision, released today, Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr. said the legislature didn't intend for the defendant to have a full hearing before the initial issuance of the protective order, which could occur in the immediate aftermath of an arrest. But Norcott said the court "agrees with the defendant's claims that the extended effects of the initial emergency order may well cause a defendant significant pretrial deprivation" of rights.
Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, imtimidate, bring any emotional distress, stalk or cyberstalk, nor intentionally slander or damage any individual in any way.
Nor is it intended to initiate any third party contact on behalf of any poster or author, or violate a current restraining order in any way. If you feel there is anything on our Restraining Order Blog that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. Our Restraining Order Blog Legal Staff will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed and possibly removed in a timely mannner
By JOSH KOVNER
The Hartford Courant
4:45 p.m. EDT, October 26, 2009
In a decision that could have ramifications in domestic violence cases, the state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that a trial judge erred when he denied a defendant's request for a hearing on a protective order that restricted him from having contact with his children without the presence of a third person.
Protective orders are generally automatically issued in domestic-violence cases. They spell out the conditions of defendant's release and usually limit or prohibit contact with the alleged victim. The state law on protective orders requires that a defendant receive a hearing, during which he can challenge the order.
The defendant in this case, identified only as Fernando A. to protect the privacy of the alleged victim and children, was charged in 2007 with assaulting his wife and risk of injury to a minor. The couple, who lived in the Stamford area, were in the process of getting a divorce.
At issue is whether Fernando A. was denied due process rights when a judge at his second court appearance refused a request for an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court found Fernando A. should have had the hearing, and sent the case back to the trial judge for further proceedings.
Fernando A.'s lawyer, Steven D. Ecker, said he believes the decision will result in more frequent, fuller hearings when there is a dispute over the terms of a protective order. Ecker said the court was careful to say that the victim would not be required to participate in these hearings.
There was discussion about Fernando A.'s protective order and the family-relation unit's report on the matter before a different judge at his first appearance. Judge Robin Pavia extended the order to require that Fernando A. have only third-party visitation with his children. The judge said there wasn't time that day for a fuller hearing, and set a date four days hence.
Ecker and co-counsel Alinor Sterling argued that the defendant was entitled to a full hearing within 14 days where evidence was taken and witnesses questioned. But at the second court date, Judge James Bingham ruled that defendant "had already been heard." The judge said the issuance of a protective order was similar to a bail hearing and that defendants weren't entitled to full hearings on bail matters.
In response to the appeal, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Robert Scheinblum asserted essentially the same thing as Bingham — that protective orders arise from bail or pretrial-release proceedings and don't require full hearings.
In his written decision, released today, Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr. said the legislature didn't intend for the defendant to have a full hearing before the initial issuance of the protective order, which could occur in the immediate aftermath of an arrest. But Norcott said the court "agrees with the defendant's claims that the extended effects of the initial emergency order may well cause a defendant significant pretrial deprivation" of rights.
Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, imtimidate, bring any emotional distress, stalk or cyberstalk, nor intentionally slander or damage any individual in any way.
Nor is it intended to initiate any third party contact on behalf of any poster or author, or violate a current restraining order in any way. If you feel there is anything on our Restraining Order Blog that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. Our Restraining Order Blog Legal Staff will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed and possibly removed in a timely mannner
Restraining Orders Unconstitutional in New Jersey ?
Restraining Orders Unconstitutional
Thursday, July 24, 2008
By David R. Usher
For many years, domestic violence laws have been carelessly abused at both the federal and state levels. Gary Hession, J.D., just nailed the rabid possum to a tree in his New American cover story “Restraining Orders Out of Controlâ€.
Or ask Kathleen Parker, who points out in her new book Save The Males, “In our rush to save those women who desperately need saving, we’ve criminalized ordinary men who may never have raised a hand against their spouse … this often takes place with little due process, without proof of guilt … or any chance to defend himselfâ€.
The principles of national domestic violence policy were established in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law crafted by the ABA and steered by the ABA Commission On Domestic Violence (CODV). Federal provisions were subsequently implemented at the state level via pass-through funding requirements and by ensuring that federal funding is channeled only by radical feminist non-governmental organizations.
The thinking of the CODV was recently found “unethical and unworthy for use in policy†in RADAR’s recent report “Myths of the ABA Commission On Domestic Violenceâ€. The ABA Standards of Practice for family practitioners is unconstitutional on its face: The petitioner is repeatedly referred to as “sheâ€, despite the fact that men initiate less the half of all serious spousal altercations.
In June, New Jersey trial court judge Francis B. Schultz did his judicial homework and found portions of the New Jersey domestic violence laws are unconstitutional. Attorney David Heleniak, who is also a board member of the True Equality Network, represented the husband in this ground-breaking decision.
In Crespo v. Crespo, Judge Schultz applied the Matthews-Eldridge balancing test to properly assess the standard of review required for these cases (trial court judges rarely do this on the notion that only high courts need weigh fundamental elements of due process). He found that since restraining orders impact constitutionally protected parental rights, the highest evidentiary standard of “clear and convincing evidence†applies when determining if restraining orders are issued.
In his decision, Schultz also rejected a common practice of state legislatures who often improperly dictate evidentiary standards and due-process provisions to the courts. It is long held that the standard of review and procedural matters are exclusively the venue of the courts.
The difference between applying the “preponderance of evidence†standard and the strict-scrutiny “clear and convincing†standard in domestic violence cases is important. The “preponderance of evidence†standard, and the lower standard of review presently applied, encourages and rewards false assertions by trial lawyers or clients whose cases have little or no merit whatsoever. Under this standard, evidence is unimportant or even unnecessary. The “clear and convincing†evidentiary standard brings evidence to the forefront of the decision. If evidence of past or future serious violence exists, a restraining order will be issued.
The Supremacists-at-Bar were horrified about the decision. It means the collapse of their arrangement running trial courts as renegade Star Chambers.
The position of big-government advocates on domestic violence is absurd. They pretend having to present evidence that violence will (or has) occurred will make it impossible to get restraining orders. Of course, having to present a little hard evidence never stopped a court from making a prompt ruling. Having to present evidence means that trial lawyers could no longer abuse restraining orders as roadside bombs to commandeer families, children, and assets in divorce, immigration, and fantasy litigation cases (such as the woman who actually got a restraining order against David Letterman for being on television).
Readers must understand that radicals steering big government are not individuals who truly care about women or equality. They are individuals lobbying to expand the business base for trial lawyers, psychologists, foster care, adoption services, and a Colosseum full of other businesses that profit from deconstructing marriage.
This political-industrial complex reshaped government so that the only options available to women are the ones that put them at the mercy of big government that often later takes their children. Terri Lynn Tersak, True Equality Network’s CEO, sums it up precisely: â€these individuals are to feminism, what false prophets are to religionâ€.
Upholding Crespo predicts decreases in domestic violence and better service for women who have been abused. Abuse of restraining orders injects tremendous conflict into spousal relationships. For this reason, the vast majority of domestic violence occurs after issuance of a restraining order. Women’s abuse centers and courts are clogged with thousands of cases filed for strategic purposes. Truly abused women fall through the cracks.
If divorce is necessary, the dissolution and custody of children should be determined on the merits. Those who are irresponsible to the marriage or abuse mood altering chemicals should not be the victor – which is often the case when domestic violence laws are misused.
According to an Associated Press article, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office is presently seeking leave to appeal this decision, which is likely to ultimately wind up in the New Jersey Supreme Court.
We shall soon see if the New Jersey Supreme Court is working for the people, or for trade lobbies. Unquestionably, the court must uphold Crespo if its members place the Constitution and Separation of Powers doctrines before the vicarious demands of profiteering trial lawyers and other anti-marriage advocates.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm and is filed under Domestic Violence, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Judicial Activism, Law, Men and Mating, Men's Rights Activism, Psychology, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 1,519 views | Trackback | Print this page |
Mr. Usher is the Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and a co-founder and former Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (5 years). He served as Secretary of the National Congress for Fathers and Children for five years. He was quoted in the October, 10 1996 issue of Time Magazine as an editor of "The Liberator", the oldest Men's Movement publication founded by Richard Doyle. Mr. Usher organized the three largest protests in the history of the men's movement, including the First Wives Club protests (1996 - 25 cities across America), and the "Bridges for Children" protest (2001 - 225 cities around the world). He drove many legislative reforms, including the first state law requiring downward support modifications for military reservists called into active duty [MO-1991], and the nation's toughest move-away law [MO-1998]. His slogan, "We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace", has become an often-quoted standard of the pro-marriage reform movement
Thursday, July 24, 2008
By David R. Usher
For many years, domestic violence laws have been carelessly abused at both the federal and state levels. Gary Hession, J.D., just nailed the rabid possum to a tree in his New American cover story “Restraining Orders Out of Controlâ€.
Or ask Kathleen Parker, who points out in her new book Save The Males, “In our rush to save those women who desperately need saving, we’ve criminalized ordinary men who may never have raised a hand against their spouse … this often takes place with little due process, without proof of guilt … or any chance to defend himselfâ€.
The principles of national domestic violence policy were established in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law crafted by the ABA and steered by the ABA Commission On Domestic Violence (CODV). Federal provisions were subsequently implemented at the state level via pass-through funding requirements and by ensuring that federal funding is channeled only by radical feminist non-governmental organizations.
The thinking of the CODV was recently found “unethical and unworthy for use in policy†in RADAR’s recent report “Myths of the ABA Commission On Domestic Violenceâ€. The ABA Standards of Practice for family practitioners is unconstitutional on its face: The petitioner is repeatedly referred to as “sheâ€, despite the fact that men initiate less the half of all serious spousal altercations.
In June, New Jersey trial court judge Francis B. Schultz did his judicial homework and found portions of the New Jersey domestic violence laws are unconstitutional. Attorney David Heleniak, who is also a board member of the True Equality Network, represented the husband in this ground-breaking decision.
In Crespo v. Crespo, Judge Schultz applied the Matthews-Eldridge balancing test to properly assess the standard of review required for these cases (trial court judges rarely do this on the notion that only high courts need weigh fundamental elements of due process). He found that since restraining orders impact constitutionally protected parental rights, the highest evidentiary standard of “clear and convincing evidence†applies when determining if restraining orders are issued.
In his decision, Schultz also rejected a common practice of state legislatures who often improperly dictate evidentiary standards and due-process provisions to the courts. It is long held that the standard of review and procedural matters are exclusively the venue of the courts.
The difference between applying the “preponderance of evidence†standard and the strict-scrutiny “clear and convincing†standard in domestic violence cases is important. The “preponderance of evidence†standard, and the lower standard of review presently applied, encourages and rewards false assertions by trial lawyers or clients whose cases have little or no merit whatsoever. Under this standard, evidence is unimportant or even unnecessary. The “clear and convincing†evidentiary standard brings evidence to the forefront of the decision. If evidence of past or future serious violence exists, a restraining order will be issued.
The Supremacists-at-Bar were horrified about the decision. It means the collapse of their arrangement running trial courts as renegade Star Chambers.
The position of big-government advocates on domestic violence is absurd. They pretend having to present evidence that violence will (or has) occurred will make it impossible to get restraining orders. Of course, having to present a little hard evidence never stopped a court from making a prompt ruling. Having to present evidence means that trial lawyers could no longer abuse restraining orders as roadside bombs to commandeer families, children, and assets in divorce, immigration, and fantasy litigation cases (such as the woman who actually got a restraining order against David Letterman for being on television).
Readers must understand that radicals steering big government are not individuals who truly care about women or equality. They are individuals lobbying to expand the business base for trial lawyers, psychologists, foster care, adoption services, and a Colosseum full of other businesses that profit from deconstructing marriage.
This political-industrial complex reshaped government so that the only options available to women are the ones that put them at the mercy of big government that often later takes their children. Terri Lynn Tersak, True Equality Network’s CEO, sums it up precisely: â€these individuals are to feminism, what false prophets are to religionâ€.
Upholding Crespo predicts decreases in domestic violence and better service for women who have been abused. Abuse of restraining orders injects tremendous conflict into spousal relationships. For this reason, the vast majority of domestic violence occurs after issuance of a restraining order. Women’s abuse centers and courts are clogged with thousands of cases filed for strategic purposes. Truly abused women fall through the cracks.
If divorce is necessary, the dissolution and custody of children should be determined on the merits. Those who are irresponsible to the marriage or abuse mood altering chemicals should not be the victor – which is often the case when domestic violence laws are misused.
According to an Associated Press article, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office is presently seeking leave to appeal this decision, which is likely to ultimately wind up in the New Jersey Supreme Court.
We shall soon see if the New Jersey Supreme Court is working for the people, or for trade lobbies. Unquestionably, the court must uphold Crespo if its members place the Constitution and Separation of Powers doctrines before the vicarious demands of profiteering trial lawyers and other anti-marriage advocates.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 11:33 pm and is filed under Domestic Violence, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Judicial Activism, Law, Men and Mating, Men's Rights Activism, Psychology, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 1,519 views | Trackback | Print this page |
Mr. Usher is the Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and a co-founder and former Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (5 years). He served as Secretary of the National Congress for Fathers and Children for five years. He was quoted in the October, 10 1996 issue of Time Magazine as an editor of "The Liberator", the oldest Men's Movement publication founded by Richard Doyle. Mr. Usher organized the three largest protests in the history of the men's movement, including the First Wives Club protests (1996 - 25 cities across America), and the "Bridges for Children" protest (2001 - 225 cities around the world). He drove many legislative reforms, including the first state law requiring downward support modifications for military reservists called into active duty [MO-1991], and the nation's toughest move-away law [MO-1998]. His slogan, "We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace", has become an often-quoted standard of the pro-marriage reform movement
Restraining Orders 101
The following is from our friends at www.misandry.us
Do you know about restraining orders?
1. Police will arrest you if called out. No proof is required, you will be arrested, that is their duty.
Proof is not required, due to the safety of the victim. In theory it would make sense, but in reality, women can have you arrested on purpose.
2. It’s almost impossible to get dual restraining orders.
The person who doesn’t have a restraining order can walk up to you, and you will goto jail for breaking a restraining order.
3. Federal Law removes your right to own weapons.
The police will confiscate all firearms. Police often will not give you the weapons back, selling them for profit.
4. If you are on probation, just being charged for breaking a no-contact will break probation.
Straight to jail, do not pass go.
5. If charges are dropped, is the restraining order?
No. The state classifies the person as a victim, the state has to drop the charges, most often they will not.
Do you know about restraining orders?
1. Police will arrest you if called out. No proof is required, you will be arrested, that is their duty.
Proof is not required, due to the safety of the victim. In theory it would make sense, but in reality, women can have you arrested on purpose.
2. It’s almost impossible to get dual restraining orders.
The person who doesn’t have a restraining order can walk up to you, and you will goto jail for breaking a restraining order.
3. Federal Law removes your right to own weapons.
The police will confiscate all firearms. Police often will not give you the weapons back, selling them for profit.
4. If you are on probation, just being charged for breaking a no-contact will break probation.
Straight to jail, do not pass go.
5. If charges are dropped, is the restraining order?
No. The state classifies the person as a victim, the state has to drop the charges, most often they will not.
Restraining Orders - Challenging Their Constitutionality
Restraining Orders are going to someday be found to be Unconstitutional in our opinion.
Something is really wrong with a law that allows a woman to claim she is scared of you in court, yet see and contact you all she wants.
But God help you if your see her.
This is unequal justice under the Law, and just plain unfair.
Here is a New Jersey Attorney challenging this bad law.
We here at Restraining Order Blog hope he wins!
NJ Attorney Challenges Constitutionality of Restraining Orders
David Heleniak, a Morristown, NJ attorney, has filed a motion on behalf of his client, John Paulsen, to vacate a final restraining order (FRO) on the ground that it violates Paulsen's constitutional rights.
Heleniak gained recognition on the issue of domestic violence restraining orders with his 2005 law review article "The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act." More recently, in Crespo vs. Crespo, Heleniak won a landmark decision in which the Honorable Francis Schultz of Hudson County ruled that the criteria for a FRO must be "clear and convincing evidence" rather than a "preponderance of the evidence." That verdict made Crespo vs. Crespo a glimmering hope to anyone who was ever hit with a frivolous restraining order – until it was recently overturned by the New Jersey Court of Appeals.
"They were dismissive of the whole idea [that the NJ domestic violence statute could be unconstitutional]" said Heleniak. "In fact, they dealt with some of our best points in a footnote [7], in which they said they were unworthy of discussion. I think they're hoping the issues go away."
Heleniak, disappointed with the decision of the Appellate Division, has asked the NJ Supreme Court to take the Crespo case and has forged ahead with Paulsen in a similar action with a motion to vacate a domestic violence restraining order on constitutional grounds in the local Morris County family court.
"I believe their [the Appellate Division's] refusal to address some of the issues head-on affects their credibility. It just looks like they were ducking," said Heleniak. "But at some point the issues will have to be addressed at a high level. There are just too many cases out there with the same story – a restraining order handed down without sufficient evidence that ruins a man's life and the lives of his children."
Paulsen said that the FRO against him was nothing more than a tactical maneuver to gain an unfair advantage in the litigation process.
"The allegations of abuse against me that gave rise to the FRO were manufactured by my wife to gain a tactical advantage in a divorce that she had decided she wanted months before the allegations were made," said Paulsen. "In fact, she had surreptitiously had several meetings with her divorce attorney and was using the threat of a restraining order as a means of intimidation within our marriage for over a year before she used it as a first strike weapon in the divorce."
A recent analysis notes that unwarranted restraining orders create a "ripple" effect that can persist for many years, harming the alleged person's reputation, legal standing, security clearances, career prospects and financial status. In many cases, it also affects the person's relationship with their children, often causing devastating and permanent harm to that relationship. (A Culture of False Allegations, http://www.radarsvcs.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf.)
False allegations not only damage the individual falsely accused, they also affect other family members who may be barred from seeing a grandchild, nephew, or niece.
Special reports regarding domestic violence restraining orders can be viewed at http://www.mediaradar.org/radarServices_special_reports.php.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of RADAR Release: September 28, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something is really wrong with a law that allows a woman to claim she is scared of you in court, yet see and contact you all she wants.
But God help you if your see her.
This is unequal justice under the Law, and just plain unfair.
Here is a New Jersey Attorney challenging this bad law.
We here at Restraining Order Blog hope he wins!
NJ Attorney Challenges Constitutionality of Restraining Orders
David Heleniak, a Morristown, NJ attorney, has filed a motion on behalf of his client, John Paulsen, to vacate a final restraining order (FRO) on the ground that it violates Paulsen's constitutional rights.
Heleniak gained recognition on the issue of domestic violence restraining orders with his 2005 law review article "The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act." More recently, in Crespo vs. Crespo, Heleniak won a landmark decision in which the Honorable Francis Schultz of Hudson County ruled that the criteria for a FRO must be "clear and convincing evidence" rather than a "preponderance of the evidence." That verdict made Crespo vs. Crespo a glimmering hope to anyone who was ever hit with a frivolous restraining order – until it was recently overturned by the New Jersey Court of Appeals.
"They were dismissive of the whole idea [that the NJ domestic violence statute could be unconstitutional]" said Heleniak. "In fact, they dealt with some of our best points in a footnote [7], in which they said they were unworthy of discussion. I think they're hoping the issues go away."
Heleniak, disappointed with the decision of the Appellate Division, has asked the NJ Supreme Court to take the Crespo case and has forged ahead with Paulsen in a similar action with a motion to vacate a domestic violence restraining order on constitutional grounds in the local Morris County family court.
"I believe their [the Appellate Division's] refusal to address some of the issues head-on affects their credibility. It just looks like they were ducking," said Heleniak. "But at some point the issues will have to be addressed at a high level. There are just too many cases out there with the same story – a restraining order handed down without sufficient evidence that ruins a man's life and the lives of his children."
Paulsen said that the FRO against him was nothing more than a tactical maneuver to gain an unfair advantage in the litigation process.
"The allegations of abuse against me that gave rise to the FRO were manufactured by my wife to gain a tactical advantage in a divorce that she had decided she wanted months before the allegations were made," said Paulsen. "In fact, she had surreptitiously had several meetings with her divorce attorney and was using the threat of a restraining order as a means of intimidation within our marriage for over a year before she used it as a first strike weapon in the divorce."
A recent analysis notes that unwarranted restraining orders create a "ripple" effect that can persist for many years, harming the alleged person's reputation, legal standing, security clearances, career prospects and financial status. In many cases, it also affects the person's relationship with their children, often causing devastating and permanent harm to that relationship. (A Culture of False Allegations, http://www.radarsvcs.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf.)
False allegations not only damage the individual falsely accused, they also affect other family members who may be barred from seeing a grandchild, nephew, or niece.
Special reports regarding domestic violence restraining orders can be viewed at http://www.mediaradar.org/radarServices_special_reports.php.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of RADAR Release: September 28, 2009
R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Restraining Orders and Tampa Domestic Violence Injunctions
Tampa Restraining Orders and Tampa Domestic Violence Injunctions
A typical day in Tampa Florida courts: A couple is at the end of their rope and starts to consider divorce. Both spouses begin to think about things they never bothered with before. How can I get the house to myself? How can I make sure I win custody of the children? After seeking advice from friends, lawyers, and Internet sources, they quickly realize how to score an early win: by filing a Tampa Domestic Violence Injunction, known by most people as a Tampa Restraining Order.
The next few steps happen quickly and can have a devastating affect on the intended target. In Tampa Florida it is fast and free to file a restraining order (domestic violence injunction). All it takes is a trip to the Tampa courthouse, completion of a quick and easy form, and one hour later a Tampa judge may decide to sign what is officially known as an order of protection against domestic violence in Tampa. Within 48 hours, a sheriff is dispatched to serve the Tampa restraining order on the respondent. At this point it is critical to look for a Tampa domestic violence attorney.
Right after the injunction paperwork is served a series of events begins to unfold. Most important: it now becomes a criminal offense in Tampa to approach, call, or communicate in any way with your spouse. If you are served with this order, you must immediately move out of the marital home. The emphasis is on the word "immediately." You have time to take your toothbrush, underwear, some clothing, and medications. Everything else you own is now in the forbidden zone, illegal to remove or touch until further word from a Tampa judge.
If you have children, chances are the Tampa restraining order grants temporary custody to the spouse that filed the petition. In this case, temporary custody means sole custody of the children. Until a Tampa judge decides the issue you won't have any contact with your children. You may be ordered to pay child support and/or alimony.
The effect of the Tampa Restraining Order can have a devastating effect on your entire life. If you communicate with your spouse, your children, or come too close to your house there is a chance the Tampa Police will arrest you and file criminal charges against you for violating the injunction. On top of this the state attorneys office in Tampa may decide to file criminal domestic violence charges against you. Within 2 weeks of the initial restraining order (domestic violence injunction), a Tampa judge will hold a hearing to decide whether the order is permanent or temporary.
After the events unfold, it will be time to consider the effect on your upcoming divorce. The black and white truth: a Tampa restraining order can eliminate your chances at ever gaining custody of your children. Alimony that is ordered within a Tampa injunction hearing may become an order within the divorce. If you end up with a criminal record in Tampa, it can severely alter your prospects no matter what is at issue in the divorce.
The moral of the story: a restraining order (Tampa domestic violence injunction) is not a do it yourself case in Tampa, Florida. Your rights to your children, your property, and your freedom may be changed for the rest of your life.
Once you get even a domestic violence arrest on your record in Tampa Florida you will be marked for the next 15 years as a beater of women.
And, if you violate the restraining order, you will go to jail!
Get the best legal help in Tampa to defend against the restraining order before it is made permanent that you can afford.
Your future will depend on it.
A typical day in Tampa Florida courts: A couple is at the end of their rope and starts to consider divorce. Both spouses begin to think about things they never bothered with before. How can I get the house to myself? How can I make sure I win custody of the children? After seeking advice from friends, lawyers, and Internet sources, they quickly realize how to score an early win: by filing a Tampa Domestic Violence Injunction, known by most people as a Tampa Restraining Order.
The next few steps happen quickly and can have a devastating affect on the intended target. In Tampa Florida it is fast and free to file a restraining order (domestic violence injunction). All it takes is a trip to the Tampa courthouse, completion of a quick and easy form, and one hour later a Tampa judge may decide to sign what is officially known as an order of protection against domestic violence in Tampa. Within 48 hours, a sheriff is dispatched to serve the Tampa restraining order on the respondent. At this point it is critical to look for a Tampa domestic violence attorney.
Right after the injunction paperwork is served a series of events begins to unfold. Most important: it now becomes a criminal offense in Tampa to approach, call, or communicate in any way with your spouse. If you are served with this order, you must immediately move out of the marital home. The emphasis is on the word "immediately." You have time to take your toothbrush, underwear, some clothing, and medications. Everything else you own is now in the forbidden zone, illegal to remove or touch until further word from a Tampa judge.
If you have children, chances are the Tampa restraining order grants temporary custody to the spouse that filed the petition. In this case, temporary custody means sole custody of the children. Until a Tampa judge decides the issue you won't have any contact with your children. You may be ordered to pay child support and/or alimony.
The effect of the Tampa Restraining Order can have a devastating effect on your entire life. If you communicate with your spouse, your children, or come too close to your house there is a chance the Tampa Police will arrest you and file criminal charges against you for violating the injunction. On top of this the state attorneys office in Tampa may decide to file criminal domestic violence charges against you. Within 2 weeks of the initial restraining order (domestic violence injunction), a Tampa judge will hold a hearing to decide whether the order is permanent or temporary.
After the events unfold, it will be time to consider the effect on your upcoming divorce. The black and white truth: a Tampa restraining order can eliminate your chances at ever gaining custody of your children. Alimony that is ordered within a Tampa injunction hearing may become an order within the divorce. If you end up with a criminal record in Tampa, it can severely alter your prospects no matter what is at issue in the divorce.
The moral of the story: a restraining order (Tampa domestic violence injunction) is not a do it yourself case in Tampa, Florida. Your rights to your children, your property, and your freedom may be changed for the rest of your life.
Once you get even a domestic violence arrest on your record in Tampa Florida you will be marked for the next 15 years as a beater of women.
And, if you violate the restraining order, you will go to jail!
Get the best legal help in Tampa to defend against the restraining order before it is made permanent that you can afford.
Your future will depend on it.
Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate - My Experiences With Victims Assistance.
Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate
This is my personal experiences with only one Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate, and not meant as an opinion of the entire Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate's office, as a whole.
In the hillsborough county jail, I encountered some people who IMHO really needed to be in there.
Open bragging about how some people physically abused and beat women was all too common in the hillsborough county jail. during my 84 day stay!
Perhaps some of these battered and physically abused women were well served by the Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office?
In the issue of fairness to Hillsborough County Victims Assistance, watch this video ?
IMHO, I feel I was unjustly prosecuted for violating a restraining order, and had to face the full might of my taxpayer dollars, used against me.
Though I feel the Hillsborough County State Attorneys Office did me wrong in this case, I feel they were manipulated and misled by my ex girlfriend.
I think Mark Ober is doing a great job overall for the Taxpayers of this county, and this blog is in total support of Pam Bondi election to Florida Attorney General.
This is who I am Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing in case you were wondering ?
My friends at the Brandon Chamber are quite frankly puzzled by the conduct of the Hillsborough County Florida States Attorneys Office in my case.
We support Pam Bondi, who is running for election to be Florida Attorney General
I have a good name in the community that I live in, and do lots of volunteer roof cleaning work, as well as exterior cleaning jobs for charity.
Here I am, broom in hand, with a few members of The 1500 member Brandon Singles Group I am President of, and Co Founded.
Here is a letter of appreciation from The Emergency Care Help Organization (ECHO) for the volunteer exterior cleaning of their building my members and I performed.
It is my opinion You legally screwed a good person Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, intentionally or not, and I think The Taxpayers in this county should know about it ?
Not only did my attorney and I have to face the Hillsborough County States Attorney Office, and all their taxpayer supported resources, but the Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate as well!
IMHO, Because my ex girlfriend actually LIVED at my home during part of my Legal Jeopardy process, I know that the Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate assigned to my ex girlfriends case was well aware that my ex girlfriend was still having contact and a relationship with me, with an active restraining order in place!
For crying out loud, on one police report from the discovery in this violation of a restraining order case that I obtained through my attorney, my ex girlfriend admits to a Hillsborough County Deputy she ALLOWED me to contact her sometimes, and I even moved her into the current apartment she is now living at!
Look at this below, Eileen Riordan has a HISTORY of obtaining Hillsborough County Restraining Orders against Men, read and weep.
[row] Status PartyType FullName CrossPartyName Date Doc
3 From RIORDAN EILEEN TUCKER CHRIS 12/20/2007 DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT PAPER 18331 1556 2007529592
7 From RIORDAN EILEEN SAMAD RAZEEK 2/7/2003 DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT PAPER 12334 985 2003046790
10 From RIORDAN EILEEN M TUCKER CHRIS G 12/2/2008 DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUDGMENT 18984 32 2008412721
11 From RIORDAN EILEEN M TUCKER CHRIS G 1/3/2006 DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT PAPER 15937 941 2006000231
12 From RIORDAN EILEEN M TUCKER CHRIS G 3/30/2005 DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUDGMENT 14820 2033 2005123727
13 From RIORDAN EILEEN M TUCKER CHRIS G 8/26/2004 DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT PAPER 14171 1348 2004338421
15 From RIORDAN EILEEN M SROUFEK BRIAN A 6/30/1998 DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUDGMENT 9113 399 98185998
And her recent marriage to the ex convict and convicted Felon JEWELL WARREN EARL JR - RIORDAN EILEEN MARIE - MARRIAGE RECORD 1/13/2010 711 790 2010014190
OnCore Online Public Search Engine
Copyright © 2004-2006 Aptitude Solutions, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why did not Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, or Assistant States Attorney Valeria Pretto LOOK at the freaking discovery in this case ?
This is the "testimony" my ex girlfriend gave to the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputy.
She says she found several missed calls on her phone from me, why did she not call the police then, if she was so "in fear" ?
She says I came over her apartment, to show her my new car!
She LOOKED at it, and I left.
WTF is she doing even LOOKING at my new car, if a relationship was not going on, despite the restraining order she had against me ?
She CLAIMS that I came by later, and came "charging at her" LOL
She them "claims" that she told me she was calling 911.
Now, think about this, HOW do you call 911 when a 200 lb Man is "charging at you" ?
Answer = You Don't, you run away.
IMHO, Just the fact she did call 911 is proof positive she was in NO danger.
Please read the last 2 sentences in the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office police report above ?
My ex girlfriend admits to ALLOWING me to contact her w/o calling the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office !!!
Is This a "woman in fear", Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing ?
Plus, she admits in the HCSO Police Report, that I am the person who not only FOUND her new apartment for her, but actually moved her into it!!!
Now, I don't know about you, but if I am "scared" and "in fear" of anyone I have a restraining order against, they sure as hell are not going to know where I live ?
Shame on you Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing and States Attorney Valeria Pretto for this malicious and unnecessary prosecution of me !
My ex girlfriend was NEVER in any "danger"
BTW, her "'only witnesses" on this HCSO Police Report were her NEW Boyfriend, and his Mom !!!
Her NEW Boyfriend is an ex convict, who has 2 Prison ESCAPES on his Rap Sheet, as well as Burglary of an OCCUPIED Dwelling, Grand Theft, Assault, etc, etc.!
Wanna SEE his rap sheet Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing ?
Here it is Margaret and Valeria, from a Public Records Check.
I publish it, and all the other information provided on this Blog, not to "harass or punish" any witnesses against me, but to show how desperate in my opinion the Hillsborough County States Attorneys Office was in my case to get a conviction against me, to the TAXPAYERS and concerned citizens of this county!
I think the Taxpayers have the need and the right to see what their Hillsborough County States Attorneys Office is doing ?
Sorry it is so long, and hard to read.
I am not the most computer literate person in Hillsborough County, Florida!
| ||||
| View Report |
1020 - National Criminal Record Search | 1050 - National Federal Docket Scan | 1080 - National Arrest History Check | 1060 - National Wants and Warrants Check 1020 - National Criminal Record Search
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I WISH if I met a girl I liked, I could just insist she call the police to get rid of her 6 year boyfriend she was still seeing, with a restraining order in place, LOL
IMHO, kind of an "easy way" to eliminate his competition, if ya know what I mean ?
All the information I am publishing serves the legitimate purpose of informing the taxpayers of Hillsborough County, Florida that IMHO the case against me was not a good one, and should never have been prosecuted.
No contact with my ex girlfriend, or any members of her family is wanted, nor intended by me.
IMHO, You people ALLOWED my ex girlfriend to manipulate YOU.
Then Margaret Laing, you were there in Court, with your little Pseudo "Victim" when she bold faced committed Perjury when asked by Ellis Faught if she received a 5000.00 Check from me.
HERE is the Check for 5000.00, Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, made out in her OWN Handwriting.
The 5000.00 check was destroyed by her, and a NEW check for 4900.00 was made out by me to her because she was "concerned" that it would screw her up with her Social Security Disability !
Yes IMHO Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, she scammed YOU, like she scammed Disability by borrowing under 5000.00 from me so she would not have to REPORT it!
She borrowed this money from me, promising to pay it back from a settlement she was getting through Kinney, Fernandez and Boire, Hillsborough County Personal Injury Lawyers I freaking TOOK her too, while the restraining order was in place.
IMHO She USED you Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, the HCSO, and she used Valeria Pretto as well.
She PLAYED the system like a Piano, and you assisted her to rip me off.
Can't you see the diabolical "beauty" of all this Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing ?
With me in Prison, she would not have to re pay me for the Money she borrowed ??
Now, I am gonna do my BEST to present the written out and CASHED checks and check stubs, but because I dont TRUST you Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, or Assistant States Attorney Valeria Pretto either after your malicious and un necessary prosecution of me, I will "black out" my ex girlfriends name.
Heaven forbid you TRY and charge me with something else to "shut me up"
IMHO, My story about my horrible experiences with the Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate needs to be told to the Taxpayers of this county.
And you can BET your funding that it will be told.
This Blog is climbing the search results, and MANY people are closely "watching this case"
Will you assist ME Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate Margaret Laing, in my pursuit of Justice ?
IMHO, I am the victim of several counts of Perjury, and having false police reports filed against me.
IMHO, I am the victim of my ex girlfriends crimes against me, do I get my own Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate ??
Here is the Perjury Evidence where she lied in Hillsborough County Circuit Court Margaret and Valeria.
With her name blacked out, temporarily, to not subject myself to any legal ramifications you MAY "have in store" for me ?
Maybe even show it to Hillsborough County Judge Manuel Lopez well ?
My ex girlfriend was NEVER in any "danger" from me at all, as evidenced by her constant and willful contact with me during this restraining order, until she laid her deceitful legal trap!
IMHO, She SCAMMED you, Margaret and Valeria.
IMHO, She used and manipulated the Hillsborough County Florida Legal System to flat RIP me off, then tried to put me in Prison, to get out of repaying my generosity.
Read the evidence, and weep
It is my opinion this clever little manipulator made a mockery of the criminal justice system, and you well meaning, but grossly misinformed people, ALLOWED her to use you.
HAD you looked a little deeper into her past record of obtaining fradulent restraining orders, like the one Judge Raul Palomino threw OUT just a few years ago, it is my opinion you would see she has real mental challenges.
We TRIED to make her show her forearms she has cut up in front of me, her daughter, and witness Anthony Creelman, but you "objected" Valeria Pretto.
She was asked, under OATH, if she cuts up her Forearms ?
Her answer " after whispered converation in court with the Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate ""I do not do that"
Well, guess freaking what, she does, and has the scars to Prove It!
In fact, in my second request for Perjury Prosecution, the Hillsborough County States Attorneys Office will be furninshed with certified court transcripts where Judge Raul Palomillo MADE her show her razor blade scarred forearms in Court!
The razor blade scars are there for all to see, IF you cared enough about Justice to look !
Shame on you Valeria Pretto, you got your little conviction, only because I was denied bond.
But had I got bond in this case, we would have rocked and rolled in a full blown Jury trial, and I seriously doubt the State would have prevailed ?
I think a Hillsborough County Jury would have seen right through this BS, and would not return a conviction, even though "technically" I was "in violation" of a restraining order.
In MY mind, I did NOTHING wrong, but attempt to Love and financially provide for an ex girlfriend who wanted me to contact and see her with a restraining order in place, who had sinister and self serving intentions, unknown to me, at the time.
IMHO, She TRICKED and deceived me, by filing TWO motions to DROP the restraining Order, and I THOUGHT she was sincere !
Shame on ME!
May I humbly suggest that instead of looking for criminal ways to "shut me up", that you consider undoing the grave injustice you have done to me ?
How about a Perjury Prosecution of my ex girlfriend for starters, maybe even a Larceny by Conversion charge, as well as filing a false restraining order against me, refuted by her own handwritten statements wrote out at my HOME, in front of several witnesses.
On a previous violation of a restraining order police report in this case, my ex girlfriend says "I can't stand the anxiety, they keep letting him out of the Hillsborough County Jail ", and basically begs the Police to lock me up.
All for phone calls, normal in any relationship where two people are dating.
WHY did not the Hillsborough County States Attorney look at the DURATION of these many phone calls, or check HER phone records, to see they were not threatening, and wanted by her ?
When I got out of jail on Bond for this, she contacts and Lives with ME, and has me pack, and move her to a NEW Apartment.
I even paid the movers!
Then, she borrows 4900.00 from me to pay her bills, then goes on to LIE about it in Court when asked!
You would THINK that since I pay taxes too, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate would have "smelled at rat" ?
Perhaps the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate might even have have informed the Judge that originallly issued the bogus restraining order in the first place, and or the Hillsbourough County States Attorney assigned to my criminal case, of possible fraud or Perjury by the "victim" herself ?
After all, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's are paid well, by our taxpayer dollars!
They are college grads, and should have enough common sense to question how a "victim" could swear under oath in a court of law she is "scared" of you, knowing fully well this "victim" is living in your house, when the "victim" has a place of her own to "escape" to ?
Did the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate do so for me ?
Not on your life!
While my ex girlfriend was living here at my home, with a restraining order against me in place, I hears a few conversations between my ex girlfriend, and the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate!
In one particular conversation, my ex girlfriend was talking with the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate on the Phone.
I clearly heard the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate order my ex girlfriend to get ALL and ANY personal belongings of hers out of my house!
My ex girlfriend ended the phone call, and started taking and looking for anything with her hand writing on it in my home!
Before the phone call ended, I clearly heard what she said was the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate telling her " You are weakening our Case" !
Of course, I allowed my ex girlfriend to take her belongings, and watched her look in vain for the handwritten statements she freely wrote out in front of several people, and gave to me, while the fradulently obtained restraining order was in place.
I have those statements she wrote out,while she was staying here, and will publish them soon, on this blog.
My point is this about the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate ....
If anyone was the "victim" here, It is my opinion it was me!
Unfortunately, I fell in Love with the wrong girl, a woman with real mental and emotional problems.
Why did the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office assist this mentally challenged woman, knowing fully well she was living at my home during a restraining order ?
It is my opinion that HAD they looked a little deeper into my ex girlfriends mental conditions, and her past habits of constantly calling the Police on people, for little or no reason, might "justice" have been better served ?
I went down to Hillsbourough County Records, near Ybor City in Tampa, Florida, and ran a check of my ex girlfriends past involvement with calling the Police on People.
The Hillsbourough County Sheriffs Office records Division returned almost 30 calls to the Police from my ex girlfriend, in the 5 or 6 year time period they checked into !
That is almost 7 police calls a year, from one woman!
Many citizens never call the Police in a lifetime, or seldom do.
My ex girlfriend suffers from severe, uncontrollable Anxiety, by her own admission.
In fact, several of the Deputy Sheriff's who came to arrest me, or talk with me, knew of her by name!
Several confided in me that they suspected she was mentally challenged.
WHY diid not the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate look a little deeper into my case ?
And, once they knew she was in daily contact witth me, why did they not assist ME, in getting the charges dropped ?
Since technically the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office is a part of the States Attorneys Office, do they not have a responsibility to EVERY citizen of this county ?
In my case, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate did not even question the charges against me.
Heaven forbid that the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office do anything to jeopardize the States Attorneys Case ?
Instead, I believe the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office actually "Coached" my ex girlfriend as to the best way to put me in Prison!
A reasonable person will have to agree that if someone is really in danger, like they swore to in a court of law, that they will stay FAR away from that person ?
Yet, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate knew my ex girlfriend was not only continuing to have a relationship with me, but living with me as well!
I can remember my ex girlfriend telling me, and several others, she was scared to death of her Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate !
My ex girlfrienjd told me, in front of witnesses, that the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate told her she would go to Jail for Perjury and or Contempt Of Court Criminal Charges, if she did not follow through with the prosecution of me!
All the time, in full knowledge she was in no danger from me, as evidenced by her decision to actually live in my home, after a restraining order was in place against me!
It is my opinion that the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate acted only to "save the case, and get the conviction, no matter what, against me", with no regard to justice being served, or doing what is right!
The article from a Tampa Florida newspaper below that I copied is about the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's funding getting cut.
Unfortunately, it never happened.
Perhaps, the Hillsbourough County Florida Victims Assistance Advocate's Office does indeed serve some useful purpose, and is not a waste of Hillsbourough County Florida Taxpayer Dollars ?
Taxpayers and concerned citizens of this county can read the comments below, watch the video above, and decide for yourself ?
In my case, and IMHO, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate was a prime example of Big Government gone wrong.
Here she is, trying to contact me when BOTH of us were under a restraining order Judge Lopez Ordered!
Flag this message
Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:38 AM
FLASH - DEC 23rd 2010 - Watch this video below, my ex girlfriend Eileen Riordan was really "In Fear" of me after all, LOL Please notice how she attempts to cover her Ass by saying she only wrote the letter to Hillsborough County Judge Manuel Lopez to "drop the restraining order and end my Probation" ?
Remember, her husband and possibly her family (who hate me because Eileen has lied to them about me so much) found out about Eileen and I seeing each other! She played it off like she was such a "Good Christian" and was concerned that the criminal record she tricked me into was effecting my business! Knowing full well her Family hates me, she had to save face with them and her ex convict husband once she got caught seeing me again. She screws up at the end of the video though, when she asks that "all provisions" between her and I be dropped! Read the letter she wrote to Judge Manuel Lopez below, and the SKYPE Transcript below the video, decide for yourself WHO is Lying ?
Yes folks, Eileen Riordan was "so scared of me" she sought me out after a year, even though she is Married to the Ex Convict and Ex Florida State Prison Escapee Warren Earl Jewell DOB 9 -16 - 1963. Here she is in Japan visiting her Son and contacting me on Skype, wondering IF the letter she wrote Hillsborough County Judge Manuel Lopez worked!
[11/15/2010 3:26:46 PM] Chris Tucker: Hi irishprincessriordan! I’d like to add you on Skype.
[11/19/2010 1:00:54 AM] Eileen M. Riordan: Hi chris we r here i am finally learning how to use this thing. I miss you hopefully I will keep learning and be able to keep in touch with you Are you doing ok. I a t
[11/19/2010 1:01:26 AM] Eileen M. Riordan: I a t
[11/19/2010 1:09:52 AM] Eileen M. Riordan: I actually found your message by just playing around with this iPod touch. How was the court thing Can we legally see each other now. Gotta go help with Jude now keep in touch I love you. Eileen
[11/19/2010 8:27:15 AM] Chris Tucker: No pooching ! I am NOT Pooched, went to court, they postponed it till Dec 13th! The girl who works for the Judge set it and made a mistake.you have to be here. Judge was really nice! he even said "It has been over a year, with no problems! They just want to be sure you wrote that letter is all Honey, not to worry. I miss you honey, I bet Jude just LOVES you, just like his Daddy did when he was a baby. I Love You ! Chris
[11/19/2010 10:34:19 PM] Chris Tucker: Hello Darling, I miss you so very much, but not pooched, in fact, I have great news! I ordered your Seroquel, and I also ordered you some Remeron.
[11/19/2010 10:42:33 PM] Chris Tucker: I have done hours of research on what is THE best medicine for all the conditions you present, and Remeron seems best, here you can read all about it What is Remeron: Remeron is an Antidepressant, specifically a tetracyclic antidepressant.
Read up on these sections if you haven't done so already, because they cover a lot of information about multiple medications that I'm not going to repeat on many pages. I'm just autistic that way about not repeating myself.
What is the FDA Approved Use of Remeron: Remeron is officially approved to treat major depressive disorder.
What are some of Remeron'sOff-Label Uses: Additionally Remeron is prescribed unofficially to treat:
* Panic/Anxiety
* Bipolar Depression
* Sleep Disorders
* Chronic Fatigue
* Fibromyalgia
* Arthritis
* Lupus
* Irritable Bowel Syndrome
It has proven effective not only for depresion and PTSD, But for IBS that presents with diarreah as well, as well as releives and lessens Fibromyalgia, and Panic Anxiety! It was a little pricey, but you are worth it! I even read one study where it was used to treat OCD. It is w/o sexual side effects like the SSRI's too ! I have us a 3 months supply, we can get more if it proves to work. I am especially excited about all the great stuff I read about it at the IBS Forum ! it has proven to be a miracle drug for some people! It also greatly enhances quality of sleep, and you take it at night, with your seroquel. Read about it Honey, and know I have been thinking about you!
[11/19/2010 10:43:52 PM] Chris Tucker: If i am asleep when u get this, lease tell me it got to you baby ?
[11/20/2010 10:47:15 AM] *** Call to Eileen M. Riordan, no answer. ***
My ex girlfriend Eileen Marie Riordan wrote Hillsborough County Judge Manuel Lopez a letter asking him to allow us to see each other (Judge Lopez had also made it a crime for her to see me). Please notice that in the letter she writes to Hillsborough County Florida Judge Manuel Lopez, she uses her Aunt's address instead of her own ? She did not want her Husband, or her Family to find out about us !
Her new husband (the ex convict and potential witness against me Warren Earl Jewell 9 -16 - 1963) AKA "Butch Jewell" and her Family found out about us seeing each other, so she changed her mind, again. She made up a story about how she "only tried to get me off probation" to save her marriage, and not incur the wrath of her overly controlling family. To "prove" to her husband "nothing was going on between us" she recently tried to get me Trespassed from her apartment complex, imagine that, after writing a letter to Judge Lopez asking for us to be able to see each other by asking him to drop the Hillsborough County Restraining Order in force against both of us.
Eileen Riordan's apartment manager recently called me, and was completely unaware Eileen Riordan and her husband Warren Jewell had filed a Lawsuit against the apartment complex she lives at! She was also unaware Eileen Riordan was not a working nurse, since the apartment complex gives considerable rent discounts for Working Hillsborough County Police Officers, Nurses, and Firemen! She told me Eileen showed her a current Florida LPN Nursing License to get a rent discount, though Eileen is on total Social Security Disability!
The apartment manager was also unaware that Eileen Riordan's husband Warren Earl Jewell has several Felony Convictions, including Grand Theft, and Burgulary of a Occupied Conveyance, and was sentenced to Florida State Prison where he escaped from! He also has Assault convictions on his record.
I asked her if she always knowingly leased apartments to convicted felons, and she assured me a criminal background check was run on both Warren Jewell and Eileen M Riordan before any lease was signed. I gave her Warren Earl Jewell's correct birth date of 9 - 16 - 1963, and asked for her email address to send her the criminal background in my possession for Warren Earl Jewell, who also goes by the alias "Butch Jewell". Later that week, I received a call from him claiming I "did not have a soul" because he and Eileen Riordan had to move because I exposed him for the Convicted Felon that he is, and attempted to hide from his apartment complex.
Victims Assistance program could lose funding as Hillsborough County officials ponder budget cuts
By Colleen Jenkins, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Sunday, June 14, 2009
[MARTHA RIAL
Times]
Buzz up!ShareThis
TAMPA — Prosecutors had a problem.
A man accused of raping his 5-year-old granddaughter wanted out of jail before his trial. But the little girl didn't want to testify at a bond hearing.
Without her words, the man would go free.
Kelley Purpura, a veteran victims assistant, offered a solution. With permission from the judge, she scooped the girl up and held her like an infant on the witness stand.
Only then did the girl utter hints of her horror, her arms wrapped tight around Purpura's neck the whole time she spoke.
In a hospital, doctors treat the diseased and nurses comfort them. One does not function without the other.
The same goes for a courthouse, where prosecutors seek justice for crime victims and count on seasoned advocates to shepherd the victims through the legal process. That might mean helping families find a cleaning company to mop up a bloody crime scene or reminding them to wear a sweater to chilly courtrooms.
Crime victims in Hillsborough County have benefited from this expertise for nearly 25 years. But under County Administrator Pat Bean's newly proposed budget cuts, the program is in danger of becoming a victim itself.
Bean says she doesn't take lightly her recommendation to eliminate funding for the victim assistance program and its 35 employees. Doing so would save $2.5 million a year at a time when county programs that serve the elderly, children and animals face slashed funds, too.
"I know the value of these programs," Bean said, sighing. "I almost wish I didn't because that would make it easier for me."
She hopes the state would pick up the bill for victim assistance.
Believing that unlikely, crime victims and the State Attorney's Office hope to persuade commissioners to save the program.
"Without them, who's going to tell the victim what to expect?" said Donna Clemons, who credits victim counselors with guiding her through the murder trials of two teens who beat her 16-year-old daughter and dumped her in a trash bin five years ago.
"The attorneys? They're too busy trying the cases," she said. "They don't have time to coddle, to be the support for the victim."
Put another way, if Kelley Purpura loses her job, who will sit with a wailing rape victim for three hours in a courtroom after a jury acquits her attacker?
• • •
Officially, Purpura, 52, carries the title of victim counselor.
But on any given day, she also functions as a marriage mediator, grief counselor, babysitter and social worker.
She has spent two decades helping victims of child abuse, rape and molestation make sense of the courts. Their sickening stories grab headlines: a 2-year-old girl allegedly raped and killed by her mother's live-in boyfriend, the high school girl attacked at the Bloomingdale library, the Walker Middle School student who authorities say was sodomized with a broom handle and hockey stick by teammates in the school locker room.
Prosecutors come and go. Purpura and her colleagues, most of them long-timers with the victim assistance program, often are the only constant from an arrest to a resolution for victims and their families.
"It wouldn't be a shame if we did away with them. It would be a disaster," said Linda Shiflet, an assistant state attorney who works closely with victim counselors during the intake process, when decisions are made about whether enough evidence exists to file charges. "I don't think we would function without them."
Purpura smiles a lot, despite spending much of her time tending to victimized children. She sits with them through depositions, walks them to the witness stand at trial and awards them bravery certificates after they testify.
In return, they fill her walls with crayon drawings. One little girl drew the entire cast of SpongeBob SquarePants to pass the time during her molester's trials. A boy scribbled "I LOVE U as a friend!" on a piece of blue construction paper.
The job, Purpura said, "means everything to me."
One morning last week, she led the parents of a mentally disabled teen to the office of Assistant State Attorney Rita Peters, chief of the sex crimes division.
Peters needed to know whether they would consider allowing her to extend a plea offer to the man accused of sexually battering their daughter. She wanted Purpura there to help explain the option, aware that victims sometimes view plea negotiations as a weakness coming from a prosecutor.
Families trust Purpura. She interprets tactics, helps them see the lawyers aren't just giving up.
Purpura began the meeting on a personal note. She wanted to know about the victim.
"How's she doing?" Purpura asked the parents.
For once, there was good news. The mother said her daughter had become more verbal.
Happy tears welled in the corner of Purpura's eyes.
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at cjenkins@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3337.
[Last modified: Jun 13, 2009 08:42 PM]
1010012
article
Have your say...
You must Login or Register to publish a comment.
There are 14 commentsNewest FirstOldest First
Think before you speak wrote:
Advocates do so much more than provide hugs. They provide case management to the homeless, hungry, disabled, abused and vulnerable. Consider yourself blessed if you have never had to face these horrors and pay back your blessings with compassion
Jun 20th, 2009 1:56 amReport Abuse
GetEducated wrote:
You may think that family should fill this role...but the truth is the majority of people criminals prey upon do not have family. Without an advocate, they have no will to fight & the killer/rapist finds another victim that society can easily ignore
Jun 20th, 2009 1:49 amReport Abuse
Informed wrote:
Victim Advocates do more than anyone could possibly imagine. It is one of the toughest jobs out there. An advocate carries the weight of hundreds of rapes and murders for victims, who cannot stand on their own.
Jun 20th, 2009 1:46 amReport Abuse
AMary wrote:
i checked the records and can't believe the high salaries in that office. the director is also the wife of a judge. political favors cost alot of $$?
Jun 16th, 2009 3:55 pmReport Abuse
cc wrote:
the director(ms.lopez) of this program makes 150k according to public sources. nuf said. cut the fat BOCC.
Jun 15th, 2009 10:05 pmReport Abuse
Steve wrote:
Ms. Purpura makes $59,200, according to public record. This is more than many Hillsborough County State Attorneys, PD's and Attorney Generals. The attorneys can handle victim assistance's functions. This is a LUXURY we can no longer afford. Trim the fat, Mr. Ober.
Jun 15th, 2009 6:46 amReport Abuse
TruthHurts wrote:
Let's face facts! The program is a waste of money. What does the program do that the lawyer can't do? I have seen often times the advocates get complicate matters. Let the program go! Cut the fat!!
Jun 14th, 2009 4:42 pmReport Abuse
Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, imtimidate, bring any emotional distress, stalk or cyberstalk, nor intentionally slander or damage any individual in any way.
Nor is it intended to initiate any third party contact on behalf of any poster or author, or violate a current restraining order in any way. If you feel there is anything on our Restraining Order Blog that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. Our Restraining Order Blog Legal Staff will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed and possibly removed in a timely mannner
In fact, in my second request for Perjury Prosecution, the Hillsborough County States Attorneys Office will be furninshed with certified court transcripts where Judge Raul Palomillo MADE her show her razor blade scarred forearms in Court!
The razor blade scars are there for all to see, IF you cared enough about Justice to look !
Shame on you Valeria Pretto, you got your little conviction, only because I was denied bond.
But had I got bond in this case, we would have rocked and rolled in a full blown Jury trial, and I seriously doubt the State would have prevailed ?
I think a Hillsborough County Jury would have seen right through this BS, and would not return a conviction, even though "technically" I was "in violation" of a restraining order.
In MY mind, I did NOTHING wrong, but attempt to Love and financially provide for an ex girlfriend who wanted me to contact and see her with a restraining order in place, who had sinister and self serving intentions, unknown to me, at the time.
IMHO, She TRICKED and deceived me, by filing TWO motions to DROP the restraining Order, and I THOUGHT she was sincere !
Shame on ME!
May I humbly suggest that instead of looking for criminal ways to "shut me up", that you consider undoing the grave injustice you have done to me ?
How about a Perjury Prosecution of my ex girlfriend for starters, maybe even a Larceny by Conversion charge, as well as filing a false restraining order against me, refuted by her own handwritten statements wrote out at my HOME, in front of several witnesses.
On a previous violation of a restraining order police report in this case, my ex girlfriend says "I can't stand the anxiety, they keep letting him out of the Hillsborough County Jail ", and basically begs the Police to lock me up.
All for phone calls, normal in any relationship where two people are dating.
WHY did not the Hillsborough County States Attorney look at the DURATION of these many phone calls, or check HER phone records, to see they were not threatening, and wanted by her ?
When I got out of jail on Bond for this, she contacts and Lives with ME, and has me pack, and move her to a NEW Apartment.
I even paid the movers!
Then, she borrows 4900.00 from me to pay her bills, then goes on to LIE about it in Court when asked!
You would THINK that since I pay taxes too, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate would have "smelled at rat" ?
Perhaps the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate might even have have informed the Judge that originallly issued the bogus restraining order in the first place, and or the Hillsbourough County States Attorney assigned to my criminal case, of possible fraud or Perjury by the "victim" herself ?
After all, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's are paid well, by our taxpayer dollars!
They are college grads, and should have enough common sense to question how a "victim" could swear under oath in a court of law she is "scared" of you, knowing fully well this "victim" is living in your house, when the "victim" has a place of her own to "escape" to ?
Did the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate do so for me ?
Not on your life!
While my ex girlfriend was living here at my home, with a restraining order against me in place, I hears a few conversations between my ex girlfriend, and the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate!
In one particular conversation, my ex girlfriend was talking with the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate on the Phone.
I clearly heard the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate order my ex girlfriend to get ALL and ANY personal belongings of hers out of my house!
My ex girlfriend ended the phone call, and started taking and looking for anything with her hand writing on it in my home!
Before the phone call ended, I clearly heard what she said was the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate telling her " You are weakening our Case" !
Of course, I allowed my ex girlfriend to take her belongings, and watched her look in vain for the handwritten statements she freely wrote out in front of several people, and gave to me, while the fradulently obtained restraining order was in place.
I have those statements she wrote out,while she was staying here, and will publish them soon, on this blog.
My point is this about the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate ....
If anyone was the "victim" here, It is my opinion it was me!
Unfortunately, I fell in Love with the wrong girl, a woman with real mental and emotional problems.
Why did the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office assist this mentally challenged woman, knowing fully well she was living at my home during a restraining order ?
It is my opinion that HAD they looked a little deeper into my ex girlfriends mental conditions, and her past habits of constantly calling the Police on people, for little or no reason, might "justice" have been better served ?
I went down to Hillsbourough County Records, near Ybor City in Tampa, Florida, and ran a check of my ex girlfriends past involvement with calling the Police on People.
The Hillsbourough County Sheriffs Office records Division returned almost 30 calls to the Police from my ex girlfriend, in the 5 or 6 year time period they checked into !
That is almost 7 police calls a year, from one woman!
Many citizens never call the Police in a lifetime, or seldom do.
My ex girlfriend suffers from severe, uncontrollable Anxiety, by her own admission.
In fact, several of the Deputy Sheriff's who came to arrest me, or talk with me, knew of her by name!
Several confided in me that they suspected she was mentally challenged.
WHY diid not the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate look a little deeper into my case ?
And, once they knew she was in daily contact witth me, why did they not assist ME, in getting the charges dropped ?
Since technically the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office is a part of the States Attorneys Office, do they not have a responsibility to EVERY citizen of this county ?
In my case, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate did not even question the charges against me.
Heaven forbid that the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office do anything to jeopardize the States Attorneys Case ?
Instead, I believe the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's Office actually "Coached" my ex girlfriend as to the best way to put me in Prison!
A reasonable person will have to agree that if someone is really in danger, like they swore to in a court of law, that they will stay FAR away from that person ?
Yet, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate knew my ex girlfriend was not only continuing to have a relationship with me, but living with me as well!
I can remember my ex girlfriend telling me, and several others, she was scared to death of her Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate !
My ex girlfrienjd told me, in front of witnesses, that the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate told her she would go to Jail for Perjury and or Contempt Of Court Criminal Charges, if she did not follow through with the prosecution of me!
All the time, in full knowledge she was in no danger from me, as evidenced by her decision to actually live in my home, after a restraining order was in place against me!
It is my opinion that the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate acted only to "save the case, and get the conviction, no matter what, against me", with no regard to justice being served, or doing what is right!
The article from a Tampa Florida newspaper below that I copied is about the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate's funding getting cut.
Unfortunately, it never happened.
Perhaps, the Hillsbourough County Florida Victims Assistance Advocate's Office does indeed serve some useful purpose, and is not a waste of Hillsbourough County Florida Taxpayer Dollars ?
Taxpayers and concerned citizens of this county can read the comments below, watch the video above, and decide for yourself ?
In my case, and IMHO, the Hillsbourough County Victims Assistance Advocate was a prime example of Big Government gone wrong.
Here she is, trying to contact me when BOTH of us were under a restraining order Judge Lopez Ordered!
Flag this message
eileen riordan would like to connect with you on Yahoo!
From:
To:
"Chris Tucker"
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FLASH - DEC 23rd 2010 - Watch this video below, my ex girlfriend Eileen Riordan was really "In Fear" of me after all, LOL Please notice how she attempts to cover her Ass by saying she only wrote the letter to Hillsborough County Judge Manuel Lopez to "drop the restraining order and end my Probation" ?
Remember, her husband and possibly her family (who hate me because Eileen has lied to them about me so much) found out about Eileen and I seeing each other! She played it off like she was such a "Good Christian" and was concerned that the criminal record she tricked me into was effecting my business! Knowing full well her Family hates me, she had to save face with them and her ex convict husband once she got caught seeing me again. She screws up at the end of the video though, when she asks that "all provisions" between her and I be dropped! Read the letter she wrote to Judge Manuel Lopez below, and the SKYPE Transcript below the video, decide for yourself WHO is Lying ?
[11/15/2010 3:26:46 PM] Chris Tucker: Hi irishprincessriordan! I’d like to add you on Skype.
[11/19/2010 1:00:54 AM] Eileen M. Riordan: Hi chris we r here i am finally learning how to use this thing. I miss you hopefully I will keep learning and be able to keep in touch with you Are you doing ok. I a t
[11/19/2010 1:01:26 AM] Eileen M. Riordan: I a t
[11/19/2010 1:09:52 AM] Eileen M. Riordan: I actually found your message by just playing around with this iPod touch. How was the court thing Can we legally see each other now. Gotta go help with Jude now keep in touch I love you. Eileen
[11/19/2010 8:27:15 AM] Chris Tucker: No pooching ! I am NOT Pooched, went to court, they postponed it till Dec 13th! The girl who works for the Judge set it and made a mistake.you have to be here. Judge was really nice! he even said "It has been over a year, with no problems! They just want to be sure you wrote that letter is all Honey, not to worry. I miss you honey, I bet Jude just LOVES you, just like his Daddy did when he was a baby. I Love You ! Chris
[11/19/2010 10:34:19 PM] Chris Tucker: Hello Darling, I miss you so very much, but not pooched, in fact, I have great news! I ordered your Seroquel, and I also ordered you some Remeron.
[11/19/2010 10:42:33 PM] Chris Tucker: I have done hours of research on what is THE best medicine for all the conditions you present, and Remeron seems best, here you can read all about it What is Remeron: Remeron is an Antidepressant, specifically a tetracyclic antidepressant.
Read up on these sections if you haven't done so already, because they cover a lot of information about multiple medications that I'm not going to repeat on many pages. I'm just autistic that way about not repeating myself.
What is the FDA Approved Use of Remeron: Remeron is officially approved to treat major depressive disorder.
What are some of Remeron'sOff-Label Uses: Additionally Remeron is prescribed unofficially to treat:
* Panic/Anxiety
* Bipolar Depression
* Sleep Disorders
* Chronic Fatigue
* Fibromyalgia
* Arthritis
* Lupus
* Irritable Bowel Syndrome
It has proven effective not only for depresion and PTSD, But for IBS that presents with diarreah as well, as well as releives and lessens Fibromyalgia, and Panic Anxiety! It was a little pricey, but you are worth it! I even read one study where it was used to treat OCD. It is w/o sexual side effects like the SSRI's too ! I have us a 3 months supply, we can get more if it proves to work. I am especially excited about all the great stuff I read about it at the IBS Forum ! it has proven to be a miracle drug for some people! It also greatly enhances quality of sleep, and you take it at night, with your seroquel. Read about it Honey, and know I have been thinking about you!
[11/19/2010 10:43:52 PM] Chris Tucker: If i am asleep when u get this, lease tell me it got to you baby ?
[11/20/2010 10:47:15 AM] *** Call to Eileen M. Riordan, no answer. ***
 |
| Hillsborough County Clerk Of Circuit Court Certified Copy Of Letter Written To Judge Manuel Lopez By Eileen Marie Riordan |
 |
| Hillsborough County Clerk Stamped Receipt For Certified Copies Of Records ! |
 |
| Envelope Containing Love Letter In Her Own Handwriting!!!!!! |
My ex girlfriend Eileen Marie Riordan wrote Hillsborough County Judge Manuel Lopez a letter asking him to allow us to see each other (Judge Lopez had also made it a crime for her to see me). Please notice that in the letter she writes to Hillsborough County Florida Judge Manuel Lopez, she uses her Aunt's address instead of her own ? She did not want her Husband, or her Family to find out about us !
Her new husband (the ex convict and potential witness against me Warren Earl Jewell 9 -16 - 1963) AKA "Butch Jewell" and her Family found out about us seeing each other, so she changed her mind, again. She made up a story about how she "only tried to get me off probation" to save her marriage, and not incur the wrath of her overly controlling family. To "prove" to her husband "nothing was going on between us" she recently tried to get me Trespassed from her apartment complex, imagine that, after writing a letter to Judge Lopez asking for us to be able to see each other by asking him to drop the Hillsborough County Restraining Order in force against both of us.
Eileen Riordan's apartment manager recently called me, and was completely unaware Eileen Riordan and her husband Warren Jewell had filed a Lawsuit against the apartment complex she lives at! She was also unaware Eileen Riordan was not a working nurse, since the apartment complex gives considerable rent discounts for Working Hillsborough County Police Officers, Nurses, and Firemen! She told me Eileen showed her a current Florida LPN Nursing License to get a rent discount, though Eileen is on total Social Security Disability!
The apartment manager was also unaware that Eileen Riordan's husband Warren Earl Jewell has several Felony Convictions, including Grand Theft, and Burgulary of a Occupied Conveyance, and was sentenced to Florida State Prison where he escaped from! He also has Assault convictions on his record.
I asked her if she always knowingly leased apartments to convicted felons, and she assured me a criminal background check was run on both Warren Jewell and Eileen M Riordan before any lease was signed. I gave her Warren Earl Jewell's correct birth date of 9 - 16 - 1963, and asked for her email address to send her the criminal background in my possession for Warren Earl Jewell, who also goes by the alias "Butch Jewell". Later that week, I received a call from him claiming I "did not have a soul" because he and Eileen Riordan had to move because I exposed him for the Convicted Felon that he is, and attempted to hide from his apartment complex.
Victims Assistance program could lose funding as Hillsborough County officials ponder budget cuts
By Colleen Jenkins, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Sunday, June 14, 2009
[MARTHA RIAL
Times]
Buzz up!ShareThis
TAMPA — Prosecutors had a problem.
A man accused of raping his 5-year-old granddaughter wanted out of jail before his trial. But the little girl didn't want to testify at a bond hearing.
Without her words, the man would go free.
Kelley Purpura, a veteran victims assistant, offered a solution. With permission from the judge, she scooped the girl up and held her like an infant on the witness stand.
Only then did the girl utter hints of her horror, her arms wrapped tight around Purpura's neck the whole time she spoke.
In a hospital, doctors treat the diseased and nurses comfort them. One does not function without the other.
The same goes for a courthouse, where prosecutors seek justice for crime victims and count on seasoned advocates to shepherd the victims through the legal process. That might mean helping families find a cleaning company to mop up a bloody crime scene or reminding them to wear a sweater to chilly courtrooms.
Crime victims in Hillsborough County have benefited from this expertise for nearly 25 years. But under County Administrator Pat Bean's newly proposed budget cuts, the program is in danger of becoming a victim itself.
Bean says she doesn't take lightly her recommendation to eliminate funding for the victim assistance program and its 35 employees. Doing so would save $2.5 million a year at a time when county programs that serve the elderly, children and animals face slashed funds, too.
"I know the value of these programs," Bean said, sighing. "I almost wish I didn't because that would make it easier for me."
She hopes the state would pick up the bill for victim assistance.
Believing that unlikely, crime victims and the State Attorney's Office hope to persuade commissioners to save the program.
"Without them, who's going to tell the victim what to expect?" said Donna Clemons, who credits victim counselors with guiding her through the murder trials of two teens who beat her 16-year-old daughter and dumped her in a trash bin five years ago.
"The attorneys? They're too busy trying the cases," she said. "They don't have time to coddle, to be the support for the victim."
Put another way, if Kelley Purpura loses her job, who will sit with a wailing rape victim for three hours in a courtroom after a jury acquits her attacker?
• • •
Officially, Purpura, 52, carries the title of victim counselor.
But on any given day, she also functions as a marriage mediator, grief counselor, babysitter and social worker.
She has spent two decades helping victims of child abuse, rape and molestation make sense of the courts. Their sickening stories grab headlines: a 2-year-old girl allegedly raped and killed by her mother's live-in boyfriend, the high school girl attacked at the Bloomingdale library, the Walker Middle School student who authorities say was sodomized with a broom handle and hockey stick by teammates in the school locker room.
Prosecutors come and go. Purpura and her colleagues, most of them long-timers with the victim assistance program, often are the only constant from an arrest to a resolution for victims and their families.
"It wouldn't be a shame if we did away with them. It would be a disaster," said Linda Shiflet, an assistant state attorney who works closely with victim counselors during the intake process, when decisions are made about whether enough evidence exists to file charges. "I don't think we would function without them."
Purpura smiles a lot, despite spending much of her time tending to victimized children. She sits with them through depositions, walks them to the witness stand at trial and awards them bravery certificates after they testify.
In return, they fill her walls with crayon drawings. One little girl drew the entire cast of SpongeBob SquarePants to pass the time during her molester's trials. A boy scribbled "I LOVE U as a friend!" on a piece of blue construction paper.
The job, Purpura said, "means everything to me."
One morning last week, she led the parents of a mentally disabled teen to the office of Assistant State Attorney Rita Peters, chief of the sex crimes division.
Peters needed to know whether they would consider allowing her to extend a plea offer to the man accused of sexually battering their daughter. She wanted Purpura there to help explain the option, aware that victims sometimes view plea negotiations as a weakness coming from a prosecutor.
Families trust Purpura. She interprets tactics, helps them see the lawyers aren't just giving up.
Purpura began the meeting on a personal note. She wanted to know about the victim.
"How's she doing?" Purpura asked the parents.
For once, there was good news. The mother said her daughter had become more verbal.
Happy tears welled in the corner of Purpura's eyes.
Colleen Jenkins can be reached at cjenkins@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3337.
[Last modified: Jun 13, 2009 08:42 PM]
1010012
article
Have your say...
You must Login or Register to publish a comment.
There are 14 commentsNewest FirstOldest First
Think before you speak wrote:
Advocates do so much more than provide hugs. They provide case management to the homeless, hungry, disabled, abused and vulnerable. Consider yourself blessed if you have never had to face these horrors and pay back your blessings with compassion
Jun 20th, 2009 1:56 amReport Abuse
GetEducated wrote:
You may think that family should fill this role...but the truth is the majority of people criminals prey upon do not have family. Without an advocate, they have no will to fight & the killer/rapist finds another victim that society can easily ignore
Jun 20th, 2009 1:49 amReport Abuse
Informed wrote:
Victim Advocates do more than anyone could possibly imagine. It is one of the toughest jobs out there. An advocate carries the weight of hundreds of rapes and murders for victims, who cannot stand on their own.
Jun 20th, 2009 1:46 amReport Abuse
AMary wrote:
i checked the records and can't believe the high salaries in that office. the director is also the wife of a judge. political favors cost alot of $$?
Jun 16th, 2009 3:55 pmReport Abuse
cc wrote:
the director(ms.lopez) of this program makes 150k according to public sources. nuf said. cut the fat BOCC.
Jun 15th, 2009 10:05 pmReport Abuse
Steve wrote:
Ms. Purpura makes $59,200, according to public record. This is more than many Hillsborough County State Attorneys, PD's and Attorney Generals. The attorneys can handle victim assistance's functions. This is a LUXURY we can no longer afford. Trim the fat, Mr. Ober.
Jun 15th, 2009 6:46 amReport Abuse
TruthHurts wrote:
Let's face facts! The program is a waste of money. What does the program do that the lawyer can't do? I have seen often times the advocates get complicate matters. Let the program go! Cut the fat!!
Jun 14th, 2009 4:42 pmReport Abuse
Restraining Order Blog is not meant to harass, directly or indirectly contact, harm, imtimidate, bring any emotional distress, stalk or cyberstalk, nor intentionally slander or damage any individual in any way.
Nor is it intended to initiate any third party contact on behalf of any poster or author, or violate a current restraining order in any way. If you feel there is anything on our Restraining Order Blog that is slanderous, untrue, or illegal, please bring it to our attention. Our Restraining Order Blog Legal Staff will examine your request promptly, and any post you find offensive will be reviewed and possibly removed in a timely mannner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LOL, I was talking with my 40 year old Son last week about the abuse of restraining orders and orders of protection, and he said "Dad, ...
-
Don't let them get away with Lying under Oath. Don't just "sit back, and take your medicine". Fight Back! When all els... -
Restraining Order Blog gets a number of questions from readers. Here is a restraining order violation question we just received. Courts... -
How to Beat a False Restraining Order Author: Drew P. Spaeth In today's political climate, divorce has become a cottage industry ...