John's Story Of A False Restraining Order!

John Dias:

The following story is taken from my Web site, here:

http://www.dontmakehermad.com/forum/index.php?topic=3.msg3#msg3



John's Story



I had an argument with my wife a couple years ago which got quite heated. By "heated" I mean the argument was loud and there was a lot of screaming, but there was no violence or threat of violence. Just a lot of shouting. My wife told me that she was going to "make me pay" if I continued to piss her off (her words). So I dropped the conversation and went in another room. But she followed me, shouting, no matter where I went. The stress was driving me out of my mind, and I screamed "shut up!" right in her face. I still had not threatened her, and never once touched her or even implied any threatening behavior. But she did back off and left me alone, finally.



About 20 minutes later, a police officer arrived and asked me to "turn around." I was taken back and wondered why he was here, and what was he going to do to me when I turned around? It turns out he wanted to "detain" me (as he put it), and he put handcuffs on my wrists and led me out to his car. He locked me in the back seat and then went back in apparently to talk to my wife some more. After about 15 minutes, he returned to the car, and drove me to the police station. On the way he said I was being charged with assault and "terrorist threats." The terrorist thing got my attention, because right away I was thinking he meant I was a threat to the government. But it turns out this is a term used in domestic violence crime to describe someone who puts another in fear of imminent harm by using threatening language. Neither of the charges were true, but he said I couldn't go back home regardless. I was put in a filthy holding cell for several hours.



While I was in the holding cell, I was served with a restraining order by the officers there. It said that I couldn't have any contact with my wife or kids, and I couldn't return home until the order had expired. Thankfully, I had my wallet with me, but no clothes except the ones I was wearing. My car and all my belongings were still at home, and my cell phone was there too. I felt totally blindsided. My behavior was not physical, and even verbally I didn't say anything "menacing." But somehow the presumption of guilt was all over me.



After I was bailed out, I used the credit cards in my wallet to get an extended stay hotel, a car rental, a computer rental, and set up internet access in my hotel room. During this time I researched the charges against me. When I read what the actual law said and compared it to what really happened, I was floored. I had done nothing like what I was charged with. But somehow I was now knee-deep in legal sludge.



I hired what seemed to be a competent attorney by visiting FindLaw.com, but in reality I had no idea how I could judge an attorney's ability or experience. I wished there was a guide somewhere that ranked attorneys based on their effectiveness in their profession (now there is: LawDragon.com). Anyway, the attorney wanted $5000, which I didn't have, but was able to borrow from family members' credit cards. Thank God for family! Unfortunately they were all out of state and had to help me remotely.



After I signed the attorney's retainer agreement, I felt a little more secure. I then bought another cell phone (charging it to my monthly wireless bill), and transferred my service into it. Now I had my phone, and a temporary place to stay as well as a car rental. A couple weeks went by and I was allowed to collect my possessions again, as well as my car. I found a cheap apartment and decided to settle down there while this whole nightmare died down.



My wife started calling my cell phone and leaving voicemail messages, begging me to call her back. I didn't dare call her, fearing that I would be hauled back into jail for violating my restraining order. But I kept thinking that surely she must know I can't talk to her; why then is she trying to get me to do just that? A few days later, I found out that she had filed an additional restraining order on me in civil court, this one more permanent. It was then that I realized the true extent of my wife's hostility toward me.



Until I read the text of her new restraining order, I had never seen anything documenting any details of what I was accused of; just what the cop had told me while driving me to jail. I wasn't allowed to see the police report. So when I read what she was accusing me of, I nearly fell on the floor. She fabricated all kinds of stories. Some were based on harmless events in which she added totally fictional details claiming that I had abused her in the past. Other stories in the restraining order didn't even resemble any past event. They were just made up out of thin air. I knew then that she had not just been afraid of me screaming on that particular day. She had an ongoing motive to destroy me, and even telling a lie was an acceptable tactic to her.



I later discovered that she had been in contact with an organization that serves female purported victims of domestic violence, called WEAVE ("Women Escaping a Violent Environment"). I have read that such organizations try to convince women who call them that they are more victimized than they really are. This situation all began because my wife was angry that I screamed "shut up" at her. But it snowballed to the point where WEAVE had her convinced that she was legitimately victimized, and now anything she did to ruin me was justified as a response to her "victimization." Making her mad had now transformed; she no longer thought of herself as vengeful, but was (ridiculously) convinced that she was an actual victim! Now she was a member of a politically "untouchable" class. Woe unto he who questions the legitimacy of a woman's victimhood! I would later discover the immense truth of this axiom.



Eventually my attorney and I worked out a deal with the prosecutor, and I was let off with a fine, probation, a (bogus) misdemeanor charge, no jail time, and had to take an anger management course. My attorney said I was lucky to get that deal, and that it was my spotless record that helped me. I don't know whether he ever would have won at trial, but he said he doubted he could. But with avoiding jail time, I took the deal and went to my first anger management class that night.



Before going into the class, I was required to sign documents that made me agree not to disclose the contents of the discussions held in the anger management class. I figured this was to protect the owners of the program from being sued. But I now realize that this was to prevent the outside world from knowing about the kind of indoctrination that goes on in these classes.



Over the next year, I noticed that anyone who would tell their story in class was never allowed to imply that he was framed. The female director of this class full of men frequently made threats that she had the power to send us all back to jail, simply by writing a well-timed letter to the department of probation saying that we were being "uncooperative." I quickly learned through observation that disagreeing with her meant that you had a "snowball's chance in hell" of graduating from the program. Men who asserted their innocence were derided and mocked -- by the director for sure, but amazingly also by the rest of the men in the class!



I thought back to the stories of Soviet Russia under the dictator Joseph Stalin, where it was not enough just to keep your disagreements with the government to yourself. In order to survive, you had to report someone -- anyone -- for anything. You had to become an agent for the state just in order to avoid becoming its victim. This is how I felt these classes were run. And because I had signed an agreement not to disclose what was happening, I felt like this little "racket" had little chance of ever being exposed for what it was: a "re-education" camp.



I got to the last session I was required to attend with few problems. I knew what was expected of me by the director, if graduating was a possibility. I was required to tell my story again, only this time accepting 100% of the responsibility for the bullshit that had been thrust upon me. It was so bogus, so wrong, so completely unjust. But I knew I had to get out of this thought-police program, so I told the class what the director wanted to hear. I accepted blame for everything. I was now "reborn." And that night, I graduated -- supposedly reformed of my inborn male violent tendencies. I never had a tendency to be violent, and the idea that I was predisposed by my sex to be violent seemed no different than the mindless hatred and bigotry I had learned about in studying history. Only now, the bigotry was directed at a safe target: men.



I wished that there was some way that the courts could have known what really happened on that day. I have received sympathy from a lot of people, but there was always a touch of doubt that I sensed in people who listened to me describe what I had gone through. They never really felt comfortable believing that I was framed. After all, the system that tolerated this happening to me also protects them, doesn't it? And they didn't want to believe that they too could be falsely accused, as I was. Add to that, whenever a woman heard my story, the skepticism of my truthfulness was far more ingrained.



If only I could have shown them a video clip or something. If only I could just call up to God and say, "Can you just rewind history and give me a video of my argument with my wife on that day?"



I created this Web site, DontMakeHerMad.com, because only by showing indisputable proof can an accused man in this country even hope for an aquittal. If only more men could stand up and say, "Oh really, you think I'm guilty? You think I'm an abuser? Well surprise, watch the video! Who's the guilty one now?" The presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty would then be restored to the legal system.



Using this Web site, I hope to teach men how to use electronics to record abusive behavior by their wives, and hopefully to reveal the disgusting prevalence of false charges against men that permeate through western society. Every man, in every state, province, and country dominated by feminist-style criminal law policies, should take his freedom seriously enough to invest in the equipment named on this site. His freedom depends not on his word, but on evidence that shows the truth of an event without editorializing. Ultimately, as more men come forward with such evidence, I hope that the legal system itself is elevated to the dignified position it should have held to begin with.



Let the surveillance begin.



John Dias

Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com



Alien Love Child:

What gets me is how easily a man can be "detained". My ex wife came to my house to pick my daughter up for visitation, got into an argument with my older daughter, a screaming match if you will; she left and went to the police station and came back with an officer in tow. Somehow, for whatever reason the "officer" came to the door looking for me! I was at work, 30 miles away, gotta love that! When I complained that I am tired of beng harrassed, called on the phone at work etc; I was told to file a complaint with the family court, maybe they'll do something, otherwise she has a right to "yell" at anyone she wants. Different story for the ladies, it seems.



When my ex and I were married we had arguments like yours with your wife, lots of yelling and such, but that was it. The cops were sometimes called by the neighbors, they always came looking for me. In my divorce hearing her attorney constantly brought up "police records" that I had, referring to the arguments. I was never arrested or processed, and neither was she at that time. They would come to the door, realize we were arguing, we were told to quiet down. But, they were "MY" complaints, you see. I had to struggle to get that attorney to shut up about the complaints, that they were complaints against her and I, not just me.



I don't know, I guess I'm just rambling, but there is definitely way too much bullshit that surrounds a corrupt system conveniently serves women. I still maintain that a man goes into any situation with a woman and the system with a severe disadvantage.



KellyMac:

John, I've read your story before, but my heart is pounding again after reading it again. For what it's worth, I believe you 100%. Not that it helps.



Consider me at your service with anything I can do to help.







John Dias:

Quote from: outdoors on August 28, 2007, 04:48:01 PM



i didn't give a shit about the anger management agreement,i volunteered,as it was 'advertized "as help for men-only after the first retraining seminar did i realize i had been lied to-so the contract means nothing and this program is exactly the way you say it is"re-education".I have been blowing the lid off this scam since i finished.The feminazi secret service hasn't said any-thing yet. I do not know if i passed nor do i give a shit.I was argumentative since the first class ,right to the bitter end.Never did open the final report on how un-co-operative i was.

6 men in the class-1 volunteer-me

-3 men who called the police for help

-2 men who were terrorized till they broke



Fuck anger management!!! we have every right to be angry.







You're right... There is no reason why your sense of injustice should be suppressed, or derided as "blame/denial" in conformity to feminist theory. Within the context of anger management programs, the notion that all abuse that arises out of intimate relationships is ultimately caused by the man is known as the Duluth Model. This model is the perfect example of the feminist attempt to blame and shame men, and hold all women unaccountable for their actions.



In my class, I will surmise that plenty of the men were guilty of at least some form of abuse (often including drug abuse), so I'm not of the mood to exonerate just any man. But I'm absolutely positive that certain men in my program were set up in some way and unjustly faced criminal charges. What bothers me most is that even among the men who had abused, there was a clear indication to me that some had also been abused, and yet the mere mention of this fact was always called "blaming the victim" by the director of the class. No matter what the woman did, it was only because she was "afraid of the terrorizing environment" imposed by the man, and thus she was not to be held accountable. This excuse of the abuses of women embittered me far more deeply than even the false allegation itself; it was institutionalized bigotry, plain and simple.



It took me a long time to figure out the logical premises behind such bigoted thinking, but I finally broke it down here:

http://www.dontmakehermad.com/dv.html



Two anger management counselors who are opposed to the Duluth Model -- people in respected positions in academia -- have looked at the diagram at the above Web address and have commented to me that they totally agree.



Outdoors... If your class embraced some version of the Duluth Model, then I totally know what you went through in taking that class, and I empathize. Stay strong, brother. It takes an enormous amount of inner strength to avoid being consumed by the bitterness and anger which such programs leave in your heart and mind. We make so many assumptions about how our liberal societies have moved beyond open acceptance of racism and bigotry -- and yet here we have it, mandated by law no less!



I swear on my life that I will defeat these people.



John Dias:

Quote from: KellyMac on August 25, 2007, 11:06:46 AM



John, I've read your story before, but my heart is pounding again after reading it again. For what it's worth, I believe you 100%. Not that it helps.



Consider me at your service with anything I can do to help.









Thanks, Kelly. You're a voice of compassion and reason in this movement.