Tampa criminal lawyer clarifies Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Orders
Here is an excellent article about Restraining Orders in Hillsborough County, Florida.
This article was written by a Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney
Many times a domestic violence charge in Hillsborough County Florida is followed by a restraining order. A restraining order prevents any contact with the petitioner. Before you take any actions that may be in violation of a Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Order, speak to an attorney experienced with handling matters involving restraining orders or injunctions.
At the Tampa law offices of The Florida Defense Group, we can help you understand your rights and prevent you from making a costly mistake. Since 1996, we have successfully defended clients with serious criminal allegations against them. We are ready to protect you from Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Order violation charges.
If you have been charged with a criminal offense such as domestic violence or child abuse, you need the chance to tell your side of the story. The American criminal justice system is designed to provide you an opportunity to tell your side of the story and respond to accusations. Don't worry. With an experienced criminal defense attorney by your side, you will have that chance.
Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Orders could equal more jail time
However, if you violate the terms of a court ordered injunction or restraining order, you will face significant penalties, including jail time and large fines. In addition to these consequences, you will complicate your defense in a criminal proceeding. Do not waste anytime — the attorneys at our law firm have extensive experience preparing comprehensive defense strategies and are ready to help you. We are tough negotiators who will fight to make sure your Hillsborough County Florida Temporary Restraining Order does not become permanent.
florida child custody law
An injunction or Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Order should not be used as a tool to obtain child custody. We will aggressively fight false accusations of domestic violence in court. You will get the chance to tell your side of the story, and we will make sure your rights are protected.
After a Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Order order is severed
If you have been served with a Temporary Restraining Order, contact our office before you try to handle it your on your own. Injunctions' are serious matters that have long standing consequences; if you violate their terms, you could go to jail. Allegations involving Hillsborough County Florida Restraining Orders require an experienced Tampa criminal defense lawyer by your side when you appear before judge in court.
Victims Assistance Advocates
Victims Assistance Advocates
Here are the dirty tricks that the system uses against the REAL victims of restraining orders - those falsely accused.
After over a decade of defending persons falsely accused of abuse in restraining orders, some clear patterns emerge. These "dirty tricks" are used again and again against restraining order defendants, because they work so well in court.
Dirty Trick No. 1
The So-Called "Victim Witness Advocate", usually working out her own tortured past in an orgy of revenge against men, will tell the woman how to falsely claim she has been abused or fears abuse.
Every court now has a strange creature on its staff known as a victim-witness advocate, whose job is to assist women to obtain restraining orders. This odious person is paid for by tax dollars, often from a "Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA) grant. They are usually horribly maladjusted, and seek the job in order to wreak revenge on some figure in their own life, real or imagined, who may have wronged them in the past. The advocate, inevitably a woman, often deeply emotionally scarred, is frequently working out her own twisted past vicariously through the women she "helps", and is intent on taking it out on every man she can ruin, through her "clients". If you wanted revenge on the male of the species, there is no better job.
This so-called "advocate" will sit with the woman seeking a restraining order, and help her fill out the application for it, and give her the language that she knows will provoke the judge to issue an order. That is why the same phrases appear so often:
Read the rest of this excellent Victims Assistance article, written by our friends at http://www.massoutrage.com/
I posted the above article from Massoutrage. I personally did not have a good experience with one Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate.
I am posting the video below to present another side to the story about Victims Assistance.
Here are the dirty tricks that the system uses against the REAL victims of restraining orders - those falsely accused.
After over a decade of defending persons falsely accused of abuse in restraining orders, some clear patterns emerge. These "dirty tricks" are used again and again against restraining order defendants, because they work so well in court.
Dirty Trick No. 1
The So-Called "Victim Witness Advocate", usually working out her own tortured past in an orgy of revenge against men, will tell the woman how to falsely claim she has been abused or fears abuse.
Every court now has a strange creature on its staff known as a victim-witness advocate, whose job is to assist women to obtain restraining orders. This odious person is paid for by tax dollars, often from a "Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA) grant. They are usually horribly maladjusted, and seek the job in order to wreak revenge on some figure in their own life, real or imagined, who may have wronged them in the past. The advocate, inevitably a woman, often deeply emotionally scarred, is frequently working out her own twisted past vicariously through the women she "helps", and is intent on taking it out on every man she can ruin, through her "clients". If you wanted revenge on the male of the species, there is no better job.
This so-called "advocate" will sit with the woman seeking a restraining order, and help her fill out the application for it, and give her the language that she knows will provoke the judge to issue an order. That is why the same phrases appear so often:
Read the rest of this excellent Victims Assistance article, written by our friends at http://www.massoutrage.com/
I posted the above article from Massoutrage. I personally did not have a good experience with one Hillsborough County Victims Assistance Advocate.
I am posting the video below to present another side to the story about Victims Assistance.
Hillsborough County Shefiffs Deputies Arrest Police Officer
Officer Reynaldo Smith Involved in Domestic Dispute with Girlfriend
Had a St. Petersburg police officer involved in a domestic dispute in Hillsborough County not resigned, he would have been fired, St. Petersburg police administrators say.
On Feb. 1, the officer, Reynaldo Smith, and his girlfriend, Onika Bess, were involved in a domestic dispute at their Hillsborough County apartment, authorities say. A roommate of theirs heard a loud crashing in the couple's bedroom, became afraid, ran out of the apartment and called 911, according to St. Petersburg police documents released this morning.
Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies arrived and tried to separate the pair, but Smith was uncooperative and belligerent during the investigation, the documents say.
Smith also refused to describe in full detail who he was, and failed to mention he worked for the St. Petersburg Police Department, the documents say. He also refused to be separated from Bess, yelled profanities and told her not to speak to deputies, the documents say.
When the deputies continued trying to separate the pair, Smith forcefully snatched his arm away from them and yelled something to the effect of "don't touch me,'' the documents say. He was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest without violence and was transported to a jail, where he was given a notice to appear in court.
Among other things, Smith lied about his being on the lease for the apartment, and he provided misleading documentation to back up his claim regarding the lease, St. Petersburg police documents say. Investigators also learned that Smith had refused to return a gun given him by the mother of his son, who is a Clearwater police officer, the documents say.
Smith was also told to stay away from Bess during the St. Petersburg investigation, but he was seen with her – a violation of an administrative order, the documents say.
Investigators also learned he had misrepresented his mileage when seeking reimbursement, the documents say.
Smith resigned July 29.
An administrative review board found Thursday he had violated a slew of policies, including one governing an employee's obligation to be truthful, another obligating an employee to do what a supervisor says and a third involving improper conduct.
Had a St. Petersburg police officer involved in a domestic dispute in Hillsborough County not resigned, he would have been fired, St. Petersburg police administrators say.
On Feb. 1, the officer, Reynaldo Smith, and his girlfriend, Onika Bess, were involved in a domestic dispute at their Hillsborough County apartment, authorities say. A roommate of theirs heard a loud crashing in the couple's bedroom, became afraid, ran out of the apartment and called 911, according to St. Petersburg police documents released this morning.
Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies arrived and tried to separate the pair, but Smith was uncooperative and belligerent during the investigation, the documents say.
Smith also refused to describe in full detail who he was, and failed to mention he worked for the St. Petersburg Police Department, the documents say. He also refused to be separated from Bess, yelled profanities and told her not to speak to deputies, the documents say.
When the deputies continued trying to separate the pair, Smith forcefully snatched his arm away from them and yelled something to the effect of "don't touch me,'' the documents say. He was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest without violence and was transported to a jail, where he was given a notice to appear in court.
Among other things, Smith lied about his being on the lease for the apartment, and he provided misleading documentation to back up his claim regarding the lease, St. Petersburg police documents say. Investigators also learned that Smith had refused to return a gun given him by the mother of his son, who is a Clearwater police officer, the documents say.
Smith was also told to stay away from Bess during the St. Petersburg investigation, but he was seen with her – a violation of an administrative order, the documents say.
Investigators also learned he had misrepresented his mileage when seeking reimbursement, the documents say.
Smith resigned July 29.
An administrative review board found Thursday he had violated a slew of policies, including one governing an employee's obligation to be truthful, another obligating an employee to do what a supervisor says and a third involving improper conduct.
Answering Restraining Order Questions On Wiki Answers
Restraining Order Questions
Here I am answering a question about restraining orders on Wiki Answers.
What happens if you break your restraining order in England Or anywhere else?
In: Law and Legal Issues, UK Law and Legal Issues
(in the US) A restraining order is an order issued by the court. If you disobey/break the court's order you are subject to immediate arrest.
Depends on what kind of restraining order it is ?
If he has the restraining order against him, she can see him all she wants.
But he will go to jail if he sees her!
Yes, it is a stupid law.
One would think the restraining order would be null and void the minute the person having the restraining order has any contact with the restrained.
After all, to get a restraining order in the first place, one must claim they are in great fear.
How can they truly be "in fear" when they are contacting the person they have a restraining order against.
I was a victim of this unjust restraining order law.
I created this web site www.restrainingorderblog.com because of what happened to me.
My advice to you would be to have your friend stay FAR away from her, no matter how she may beg and plead to get back with him.
Here in Hillsborough County Florida, after the third violation of a restraining order, charges are upgraded to Felony Aggravated Stalking.
That carries from 2 to 4 years in Prison!
So, this means if she tricks him into calling her, and calls the police, every call to her phone from his phone is a separate criminal charge!
So, imagine this ?
Him going to prison for 5 phone calls she said she wanted.
Until these stupid and IMHO unconstitutional restraining order laws are changed, this is the way it is, at least here in Hillsborough County Florida.
These current restraining order laws basically allow a woman to decide when, if, and how they are going to have you ARRESTED, whenever they see fit.
That is, only if they are able to entice you into violating the restraining order ?
Easy enough for them to do, if you are still in Love, and wanting to try and save your relationship.
Do not, repeat , do not violate a restraining order for any reason, no matter what.
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
Here I am answering a question about restraining orders on Wiki Answers.
What happens if you break your restraining order in England Or anywhere else?
In: Law and Legal Issues, UK Law and Legal Issues
(in the US) A restraining order is an order issued by the court. If you disobey/break the court's order you are subject to immediate arrest.
Depends on what kind of restraining order it is ?
If he has the restraining order against him, she can see him all she wants.
But he will go to jail if he sees her!
Yes, it is a stupid law.
One would think the restraining order would be null and void the minute the person having the restraining order has any contact with the restrained.
After all, to get a restraining order in the first place, one must claim they are in great fear.
How can they truly be "in fear" when they are contacting the person they have a restraining order against.
I was a victim of this unjust restraining order law.
I created this web site www.restrainingorderblog.com because of what happened to me.
My advice to you would be to have your friend stay FAR away from her, no matter how she may beg and plead to get back with him.
Here in Hillsborough County Florida, after the third violation of a restraining order, charges are upgraded to Felony Aggravated Stalking.
That carries from 2 to 4 years in Prison!
So, this means if she tricks him into calling her, and calls the police, every call to her phone from his phone is a separate criminal charge!
So, imagine this ?
Him going to prison for 5 phone calls she said she wanted.
Until these stupid and IMHO unconstitutional restraining order laws are changed, this is the way it is, at least here in Hillsborough County Florida.
These current restraining order laws basically allow a woman to decide when, if, and how they are going to have you ARRESTED, whenever they see fit.
That is, only if they are able to entice you into violating the restraining order ?
Easy enough for them to do, if you are still in Love, and wanting to try and save your relationship.
Do not, repeat , do not violate a restraining order for any reason, no matter what.
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
Bischof Law Impedes Fathers' Constitutional Rights
Bischof Law Impedes Fathers' Constitutional Rights
The “Cindy Bischof Law,” signed into law on August 4, 2008, by the Governor of Illinois, has the potential for victimizing innocent Illinois fathers falsely accused of domestic violence and may spread nationwide. The Bischof Law is a draconian measure that will allow judges to order anyone, mostly men and fathers, to wear a GPS tracking device if they are simply accused of violating an order of protection, even though they have not been convicted of the violation in a court after a full and complete trial. The law carries a presumption of guilt without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
\Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection without being convicted of the violation – and orders of protection are widely granted with minimal evidence of the potential for violence.
In the 1970’s, orders of protection (also commonly referred to as “restraining orders”) became a tool to help protect battered women. However, in the rush to protect the abused, the rights of the accused have been violated on a large scale.
According to the Justice Department, two million restraining orders are issued annually in the United States. The vast majority of these are related to domestic violence allegations, yet research shows that these orders often do not involve an accusation of actual violence. Usually all that is needed to obtain an order is a claim that the person to be restrained “acted in a way that scared me” or was “verbally abusive” – what’s known as “shout at your spouse, lose your house.”
Such Restraining Orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused’s knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. In this way, divorcing women get their husbands out of their houses and position themselves as their children’s sole caretakers – which helps them win custody.
A restrained person does have the opportunity to contest the orders at a later hearing. However, these proceedings are often just a formality for which little time is generally allotted, and the evidence standard is low. Illinois orders of protection are granted for 21 days and can last up to two years.
Nationally, many family law experts are raising concerns about this violation of civil liberties. A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California’s Family Law Section asserts that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[the restraining orders are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence.”
Such restraining orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
Another problem with restraining orders is that it is common for men to violate them through no fault of their own. A man can accidently be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her.
Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier – a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation.
Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation. The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of a crime.
The “Cindy Bischof Law,” signed into law on August 4, 2008, by the Governor of Illinois, has the potential for victimizing innocent Illinois fathers falsely accused of domestic violence and may spread nationwide. The Bischof Law is a draconian measure that will allow judges to order anyone, mostly men and fathers, to wear a GPS tracking device if they are simply accused of violating an order of protection, even though they have not been convicted of the violation in a court after a full and complete trial. The law carries a presumption of guilt without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
\Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection without being convicted of the violation – and orders of protection are widely granted with minimal evidence of the potential for violence.
In the 1970’s, orders of protection (also commonly referred to as “restraining orders”) became a tool to help protect battered women. However, in the rush to protect the abused, the rights of the accused have been violated on a large scale.
According to the Justice Department, two million restraining orders are issued annually in the United States. The vast majority of these are related to domestic violence allegations, yet research shows that these orders often do not involve an accusation of actual violence. Usually all that is needed to obtain an order is a claim that the person to be restrained “acted in a way that scared me” or was “verbally abusive” – what’s known as “shout at your spouse, lose your house.”
Such Restraining Orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused’s knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. In this way, divorcing women get their husbands out of their houses and position themselves as their children’s sole caretakers – which helps them win custody.
A restrained person does have the opportunity to contest the orders at a later hearing. However, these proceedings are often just a formality for which little time is generally allotted, and the evidence standard is low. Illinois orders of protection are granted for 21 days and can last up to two years.
Nationally, many family law experts are raising concerns about this violation of civil liberties. A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California’s Family Law Section asserts that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[the restraining orders are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence.”
Such restraining orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
Another problem with restraining orders is that it is common for men to violate them through no fault of their own. A man can accidently be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her.
Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier – a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation.
Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation. The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of a crime.
Domestic Violence Laws Violate Civil Liberties
A great post from our friends ar R.A.D.A.R.
Domestic Violence Laws Violate Civil Liberties
At her recent keynote address at the annual conference of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Amanda McCormick, an employee of Praxis International, showed overt disdain for male victims of domestic violence. As reported by Trudy Schuett, McCormick announced, I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten.”
Praxis International, according to their website, “is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children…. Since 1996, [they] have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.”2
Over the last fifteen years, in the name of combating domestic violence, an entire area of law has been carved out in which those rights and liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights no longer apply. Discrimination against male victims is just one of the many ways domestic violence laws violate civil liberties.
RADAR has identified that the laws:
1.Fund education and training programs that stereotype all men as abusers;
2.Expand the definition of “domestic violence” to include minor verbal disagreements, thus inviting heavy-handed state intervention into private family matters;
3.Short-circuit due process protections and remove the presumption of innocence;
4.Provide incentives to file false allegations;
5.Encourage the issuance of restraining orders, even in the absence of physical violence;
6.Promote mandatory arrest policies, even for minor violations of civil restraining orders;
7.Fund “predominant aggressor” policies that profile men as abusers;
8.Support mandatory prosecution policies;
9.Refuse legal assistance to persons falsely accused of domestic violence; and
10.Discriminate against male victims.
RADAR has prepared a flyer for distribution to help you inform the public. See http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-DVAM2009-issues.pdf
Commenting on the flyer, vlogger Bernard Chapin points out that the mainstream media will not cover this story.3 It’s up to all of us who know the truth to spread the word as best we can. Let’s get to it!
Let's get the word out in Hillsborough County Florida about these terrible domestic violence laws ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-12866-Domestic-Violence-Examiner~y2009m9d24-Praxis-International-encourages-domestic-violence-when-properly-applied
2 http://www.praxisinternational.org/default.aspx
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQemC-_1qEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of RADAR Release: October 13, 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
Domestic Violence Laws Violate Civil Liberties
At her recent keynote address at the annual conference of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Amanda McCormick, an employee of Praxis International, showed overt disdain for male victims of domestic violence. As reported by Trudy Schuett, McCormick announced, I think I know a lot of men who deserve to be beaten.”
Praxis International, according to their website, “is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children…. Since 1996, [they] have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.”2
Over the last fifteen years, in the name of combating domestic violence, an entire area of law has been carved out in which those rights and liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights no longer apply. Discrimination against male victims is just one of the many ways domestic violence laws violate civil liberties.
RADAR has identified that the laws:
1.Fund education and training programs that stereotype all men as abusers;
2.Expand the definition of “domestic violence” to include minor verbal disagreements, thus inviting heavy-handed state intervention into private family matters;
3.Short-circuit due process protections and remove the presumption of innocence;
4.Provide incentives to file false allegations;
5.Encourage the issuance of restraining orders, even in the absence of physical violence;
6.Promote mandatory arrest policies, even for minor violations of civil restraining orders;
7.Fund “predominant aggressor” policies that profile men as abusers;
8.Support mandatory prosecution policies;
9.Refuse legal assistance to persons falsely accused of domestic violence; and
10.Discriminate against male victims.
RADAR has prepared a flyer for distribution to help you inform the public. See http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-DVAM2009-issues.pdf
Commenting on the flyer, vlogger Bernard Chapin points out that the mainstream media will not cover this story.3 It’s up to all of us who know the truth to spread the word as best we can. Let’s get to it!
Let's get the word out in Hillsborough County Florida about these terrible domestic violence laws ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-12866-Domestic-Violence-Examiner~y2009m9d24-Praxis-International-encourages-domestic-violence-when-properly-applied
2 http://www.praxisinternational.org/default.aspx
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQemC-_1qEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of RADAR Release: October 13, 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
No Restraint on Hillsborough County Restraining Orders
Stephen Baskerville's "No Restraint on Restraining Orders" was absolutely right. Hillsborough County Family courts grant restraining orders like candy to anyone who claims domestic violence, no matter how dubious the claim. Hillsborough County Restraining orders are granted even though the complainant had documented mental problems or the accused was confined to a wheelchair. I have seen many such abuses of Hillsborough County Restraining Orders.
Hillsborough County Restraining order hearings are a mockery of due process. Most judges grant close to 100% of all requests for restraining orders. Hillsborough County Judges who do not are targeted for removal from the bench by the National Organization for Women.
Restraining orders are almost useless to the lower-class Hillsborough County women who most often suffer domestic violence. Their abusive boyfriends have little to lose from going to jail. Someone who is not afraid of a Hillsborough County criminal conviction for violence will not be afraid of a restraining order, either.
But Hillsborough County restraining orders are very useful as a tool in divorce litigation. Often, they are used by liberal, middle-class women to order their husbands out of the house and away from the children to ensure that the Hillsborough County divorce court will give the wife custody of the kids and possession of the house. These middle-class husbands are typically harmless. Indeed, among the college-educated, Hillsborough County men are even less likely to initiate domestic violence than women, as a recent study by Murray Strauss of the University of New Hampshire shows.
The myth underlying the flood of Hillsborough County restraining orders is that society permits men as a class to oppress women as a class. But according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, husbands receive prison sentences that are three times longer than wives receive for unprovoked killings of their spouses. Where is the evidence of oppression in Hillsborough County?
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy Accused of Domestic Violence
Here is a story from a Tampa, Florida News Source.
I feel truly sorry for this Hillsborough County Deputy Sheriff.
I was treated well by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department during my waltz through the Legal System.
I do not blame the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department for any of my Legal Problems.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department are sworn to enforce the Law, even though some of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputies privately admitted to me I got screwed by the bad Domestic Violence Laws.
This case looks like more "He Said, She Said" type of nonsense to me.
Unfortunately, under the current Tampa Florida Domestic Violence Laws, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department had no choice but to Arrest one of their own!
This Man accused of the alleged Domestic Violence in Tampa, is a veteran of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department of 18 years!
He HAD a spotless Arrest Record, until now .....
I HOPE it does not cost him his position with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, or screw up his retirement !
I wonder IF the Hillsborough County States Attorneys Office will "sick" the Hillsborough County Victims Assistant Advocate on him too ?
If so, May God help him save his Marriage, and/or his career with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office!
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy accused of domestic violence
TBO.com
Published: October 22, 2009
TAMPA, FLORIDA - A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy was arrested Wednesday on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence.
Cpl. Vivino Millan has been placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation. He has no prior arrests, sheriff's spokesman J.D. Callaway said.
According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, Millan and his girlfriend were riding together when he struck her lip with the back of his hand.
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputies called Millan after speaking with the woman at her home, and he was arrested in a parking lot in the Westchase area.
Millan, 43, has been with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's department since December 1991 and works in the recruitment and screening section
I feel truly sorry for this Hillsborough County Deputy Sheriff.
I was treated well by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department during my waltz through the Legal System.
I do not blame the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department for any of my Legal Problems.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department are sworn to enforce the Law, even though some of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputies privately admitted to me I got screwed by the bad Domestic Violence Laws.
This case looks like more "He Said, She Said" type of nonsense to me.
Unfortunately, under the current Tampa Florida Domestic Violence Laws, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department had no choice but to Arrest one of their own!
This Man accused of the alleged Domestic Violence in Tampa, is a veteran of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department of 18 years!
He HAD a spotless Arrest Record, until now .....
I HOPE it does not cost him his position with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, or screw up his retirement !
I wonder IF the Hillsborough County States Attorneys Office will "sick" the Hillsborough County Victims Assistant Advocate on him too ?
If so, May God help him save his Marriage, and/or his career with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office!
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy accused of domestic violence
TBO.com
Published: October 22, 2009
TAMPA, FLORIDA - A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputy was arrested Wednesday on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence.
Cpl. Vivino Millan has been placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation. He has no prior arrests, sheriff's spokesman J.D. Callaway said.
According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, Millan and his girlfriend were riding together when he struck her lip with the back of his hand.
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputies called Millan after speaking with the woman at her home, and he was arrested in a parking lot in the Westchase area.
Millan, 43, has been with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's department since December 1991 and works in the recruitment and screening section
Tampa teacher charged with aggravated stalking
Another "He Said, She Said" Arrest for aggravated stalking.
Unfortunately, under our current stalking Laws, all a disgruntled EX has to do is keep calling the Police with her new boyfriend, or other co conspirators as "witnesses" you stalked her.
This poor man will have the stalking arrest forever on his record, even if he wins in court!
Tampa teacher charged with aggravated stalking
By Alexandra Zayas, Times Staff Writer
TAMPA — A Hillsborough County teacher was arrested Monday and charged with aggravated stalking after, deputies say, he called his ex-wife and threatened her with violence.
Steven Ernest Hoskinson, 50, used to teach at Smith Middle School but was out for much of last year for health reasons. He was set to start the school year as a math teacher at Rampello Downtown Partnership School, but the Hillsborough School District has sent a letter telling him to stay home.
District spokesman Steve Hegarty said Hoskinson will remain on a paid leave of absence until the School Board votes on whether to suspend his pay.
Hoskinson and his ex-wife divorced seven years ago. Court records show she filed a domestic violence complaint against him in May, but a judge dismissed it, citing insufficient evidence.
He then was accused of calling his ex-wife and threatening to bash her face in, said Hillsborough sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter. He was picked up Monday on a warrant at his Davis Islands home at 6:20 a.m. and released from the Orient Road Jail on $2,000 bail shortly after.
Alexandra Zayas can be reached at azayas@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3354. Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this story.
Unfortunately, under our current stalking Laws, all a disgruntled EX has to do is keep calling the Police with her new boyfriend, or other co conspirators as "witnesses" you stalked her.
This poor man will have the stalking arrest forever on his record, even if he wins in court!
Tampa teacher charged with aggravated stalking
By Alexandra Zayas, Times Staff Writer
TAMPA — A Hillsborough County teacher was arrested Monday and charged with aggravated stalking after, deputies say, he called his ex-wife and threatened her with violence.
Steven Ernest Hoskinson, 50, used to teach at Smith Middle School but was out for much of last year for health reasons. He was set to start the school year as a math teacher at Rampello Downtown Partnership School, but the Hillsborough School District has sent a letter telling him to stay home.
District spokesman Steve Hegarty said Hoskinson will remain on a paid leave of absence until the School Board votes on whether to suspend his pay.
Hoskinson and his ex-wife divorced seven years ago. Court records show she filed a domestic violence complaint against him in May, but a judge dismissed it, citing insufficient evidence.
He then was accused of calling his ex-wife and threatening to bash her face in, said Hillsborough sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter. He was picked up Monday on a warrant at his Davis Islands home at 6:20 a.m. and released from the Orient Road Jail on $2,000 bail shortly after.
Alexandra Zayas can be reached at azayas@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3354. Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this story.
Aggravated Stalking Conviction Overturned On Appeal - Curry vs Florida
Wow, I was totally unaware you could even call the Police on someone who has a restraining order against you w/o risking "third party contact" ?
I have had a Nursing Board Complaint sitting here Notarized, with a witness's statement also Notarized, ready to send to the Florida Board of Nursing.
This statement advises the Nursing Board about certain Mental Health Issues of a Nurse.
It is my belief her Mental Health Issues can possibly effect the care of Patients, and IMHO does serve a useful and Legitimate purpose.
I have tagged this post under Chris's Story.
Curry v. Florida, 811 So.2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
The court overturned the defendant's aggravated stalking conviction. The court held that the defendant's conduct; which consisted of making complaints about the victim to various law enforcement agencies, the cities of Stuart and Vero Beach, and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles; was constitutionally protected and served a "legitimate purpose" within the meaning of the stalking statute.
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
I have had a Nursing Board Complaint sitting here Notarized, with a witness's statement also Notarized, ready to send to the Florida Board of Nursing.
This statement advises the Nursing Board about certain Mental Health Issues of a Nurse.
It is my belief her Mental Health Issues can possibly effect the care of Patients, and IMHO does serve a useful and Legitimate purpose.
I have tagged this post under Chris's Story.
Curry v. Florida, 811 So.2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
The court overturned the defendant's aggravated stalking conviction. The court held that the defendant's conduct; which consisted of making complaints about the victim to various law enforcement agencies, the cities of Stuart and Vero Beach, and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles; was constitutionally protected and served a "legitimate purpose" within the meaning of the stalking statute.
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 Order Proceedings - Issues and Challenges for Defendants
Here is an excellent restraining order article I found on the internet at http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/24/restraining-order-proceedings-issues-and-challenges-for-defendants/
Restraining Order Proceedings - Issues and Challenges for Defendants
Saturday, October 24, 2009
By Dean M. Schreyer
The purpose of this article is to introduce the reader to some of the challenges faced by defendants (the “accused”) and their children in restraining order proceedings under the California Family Code, and to offer some suggestions about how best to negotiate those challenges.
This article assumes that a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) might be or already has been issued against the accused, and that there has not yet been a formal hearing to decide whether a “permanent” restraining order should be issued.
This article addresses restraining orders in family law actions only. It does not address restraining orders or other domestic violence issues in either criminal or civil actions. Furthermore, the issues and rules addressed in this article may be different outside of California.
Summary
Domestic violence restraining orders may result from conduct that involves no domestic relationship or actual violence of any kind, and from no reliable supporting evidence of any kind.
Unfortunately, restraining order defendants and their children face many potentially disastrous consequences including, but not limited to: criminal prosecution; financial ruin; and, loss of home, family, pets, property, income, reputation, employment, career, multiple constitutional and civil rights, freedom of movement, and parent/child relationships.
Further, the defendant’s mere appearance in court during restraining order proceedings will probably result in immediate arrest on outstanding warrants, and revocation of probation and parole status, even if the accusations against the defendant are found to be false.
This article therefore concludes by recommending vigorous opposition to all false or exaggerated applications for restraining orders.
Discussion
“TEMPORARY” RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE STILL RESTRAINING ORDERS, AND MUST BE RESPECTED AS SUCH
If a “temporary restraining order” or “TRO” is in effect, the court has not yet decided whether it will issue any “permanent” restraining orders against the accused. This is because the court has yet to conduct a formal hearing.
However, the “temporary” restraining order is in effect until that hearing. Please note that the law requires the defendant to obey all restraining orders, to the letter, without exception, notwithstanding that these orders are still only “temporary.” Failure to respect such restraining orders is a crime, and is subject to imprisonment and any other consequences that may flow from committing a crime.
For example, if the temporary restraining orders forbid the accused from contacting the accuser, the accused could be convicted of a crime and sent to jail for making so much as one phone call to the accuser. Indeed, the accused could be found criminally liable for accepting a phone call from the accuser, if the accused continues the phone call after finding out who it is.
As another example, if the temporary restraining orders forbids the accused from being within 100 yards of the accuser, the accused might be convicted of a crime and sent to jail for attending a church, restaurant, school, or social event, if the accuser happens to be there at the same time.
Further, if the accused violates the “temporary” restraining orders, the court is required to consider that when deciding whether or not to make the restraining orders “permanent.”
Hence, it is absolutely essential that the accused follows all restraining orders, to the letter, whether “temporary” or “permanent,” at all times, without exception.
DOMESTIC “VIOLENCE” RESTRAINING ORDERS MAY RESULT FROM CONDUCT THAT INVOLVES NO ACTUAL VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND
As the label suggests, domestic violence restraining orders were originally intended to prevent violence between persons in domestic relationships. However, since January 2000, the grounds for getting restraining orders have greatly expanded. The defendant may now face domestic violence restraining orders for: stalking; threatening; harassing; telephoning; directly or indirectly contacting by mail or otherwise; coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of, the accuser.
Note that none of these behaviors needs to involve violence of any kind.
“DOMESTIC” VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS MAY RESULT FROM CONDUCT THAT INVOLVES NO ACTUAL DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP OF ANY KIND
As the label suggests, domestic violence restraining orders were originally intended to protect persons in domestic relationships. However, the defendant may now face domestic violence restraining orders arising from alleged conduct toward a family or household member of the accuser, whether or not the defendant has a domestic relationship of any kind with the family or household member.
RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE OFTEN ISSUED REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL MERIT
For the reasons set forth below, courts often issue restraining orders without merit.
A. Evidence Does Not Need To Be Reliable
Unlike criminal convictions, the reliability required of the evidence supporting restraining orders is very low.
In criminal proceedings, the court requires proof “beyond all reasonable doubt” before finding the allegations against the accused to be true. In other words, the court must be sure enough to bet someone’s life on its conclusion. Because sometimes it does.
Restraining orders, however, only need proof “by a preponderance of the evidence.” The judge needs only to find the allegations are merely slightly more likely than not. Hence, if the judge believes that it is only 51% likely that the defendant is “guilty,” the court must issue the restraining order. Even though the odds on either side are almost equal.
B. Public Opinion Improves The Odds Of Meritless Restraining Orders Yet Further
Further, public opinion lowers the practical standard of proof yet further, by placing pressure on the court to issue restraining orders, regardless of merit.
Any court will be ineffective, unless the public has faith in the court’s decisions. Courts are therefore inclined to avoid any adverse publicity that would erode that public trust. This can cause pressure on the court to cater to public opinion.
Unfortunately, current public opinion rushes to condemn anything labeled as violence, whether or not any actual violence is involved. This pressures the court to follow suit. The judge is thereby inclined to err on the side of caution (rather than on the side of justice), by issuing domestic violence restraining orders in spite of insufficient supporting evidence.
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
If the accused owns or possess any firearms, the law requires the accused immediately to relinquish all such arms and ammunition, either to the police or to a licensed gun dealer. Furthermore, the court will require the accused to provide proof that the accused has done so.
The accused is also required to have no contact with any firearms or ammunition at any time, while any restraining order is in place, whether or not the restraining order is “temporary” or “permanent.” If the accused is found to be in possession of so much as one bullet, the accused could be imprisoned for years.
The accused must therefore immediately relinquish and stay away from all firearms and ammunition at all times, unless and until all restraining orders are either dismissed or expired.
PAST CONVICTIONS, WARRANTS, PAROLE, PROBATION, PRIOR RESTRAINING ORDERS
If the accused has a past conviction for a “violent” or “serious” felony, or for any misdemeanor involving domestic violence, weapons, or other violence, the court is required by law to consider these factors when deciding whether or not to issue permanent restraining orders. And if the accused has a child, the court must also consider these factors when deciding upon how much contact, if any, the accused and the child will be allowed to have with each other.
If the accused has any outstanding warrants, or if the accused is on parole or probation status, the court is required to consider these factors as well. The court is also required to notify the appropriate authorities. Law enforcement will then be required to execute the warrant and arrest the accused immediately, and the parole or probation officer will be required to revoke the parole or probation. Even if the “permanent” restraining order never issues.
POTENTIAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY
If law enforcement learns about the accusations against the accused, this may result in criminal prosecution.
Further, anything that the accused may say, and any other evidence that the accused may produce, may be used against the accused in criminal proceedings. The accused may therefore be required to choose between the 5th Amendment right to refrain from testifying against one’s self in criminal proceedings, and the due process right to testify on behalf of one’s self in the restraining order proceedings.
It is therefore essential that the accused immediately consults with a criminal defense attorney with expertise in “domestic violence” criminal law.
OTHER POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRAINING ORDERS
In addition to the above, restraining orders can now carry the following potential consequences:
1. Defendants may be required to continue to pay for a home in which they are not allowed to stay, and for other property which they are not allowed to use, even if the defendant owns it and the accuser does not.
Defendants who share a home with the accuser may be ordered out of the home, with little or no notice, and sometimes with no opportunity to gather records, tools, clothing or other personal items. The defendant may then be ordered to surrender the defendant’s home, car, pets, and any other property, into the possession of the accuser, indefinitely. And to continue paying for any debt service associated with such property, indefinitely.
This can occur even if the home or other property is owned or leased exclusively by the defendant, and even if the accuser has contributed nothing toward acquiring or maintaining that home or other property.
2. The court might include the defendant’s pets among the “persons” protected by the restraining orders.
No kidding! California Family Code §6320(b) states, in part: “The Court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal.”
3. Defendants who are married to the accuser, or who share children with the accuser, may lose some or most of their income as child support, or spousal support, or both.
4. Restraining orders are now published on various state and national databases. Government entities and various other interested parties have access to these databases, and the trend is toward increased access. Access to this information creates the potential for substantial damage to the defendant’s reputation, and that access is likely to increase.
If this trend continues, defendants might eventually be labeled as “registered domestic violence perpetrators,” or something similar.
5. If the defendant’s employment requires interaction with firearms or children, the defendant will probably lose that employment, and may be unable to find similar employment ever again. Employment requiring any other form of public trust may also be at risk.
6. If the defendant provides most or all of the family’s income, and then becomes unemployed, the entire family may become destitute.
7. The court is required to assume that primary custody between defendants and their children is contrary to the children’s best interests. The court also has the power to restrict or eliminate all contact of any kind. Hence, defendants may lose most, or all, contact with their children. Worse, the children may lose contact with one of their parents.
8. Defendants may be prevented from knowing the location of the accuser and of the defendant’s children. Restraining orders are valid without explicitly stating the address of the accuser, or the location of the accuser’s residence, school, or employment, or of the school or child care of the accuser’s child. Further, the court is usually required to prohibit defendants from taking any action to obtain the address or location of the accuser, or of the family members, caretakers, or guardian of the accuser.
9. Restraining orders can be permanent. The initial maximum duration is 5 years. However, that duration can be increased, just for the asking. Family Code §6345(a) states, in part:: “These orders may be renewed, upon the request of a party, either for five years or permanently, without a showing of any further abuse since the issuance of the original order . . . ” In other words, the court can extend restraining orders indefinitely, if the accuser later asks for it, basically for no reason other than the request itself. Hence, defendants might face the consequences described above, forever.
10. The court can order defendants to attend, pay for, and successfully complete a “batterer’s program.” Such “programs” may require attendance (and payment) for 52 weeks.
11. The court can order defendants to pay restitution to the accuser for loss of earnings and out-of-pocket expenses that the court concludes were a result of the defendant’s alleged abuse. These expenses can include the cost of medical care and temporary housing, among other expenses.
12. The court can order defendants to pay for part or all of the accuser’s attorney fees and costs in connection with the restraining order proceedings.
13. Defendants may face consequences in other proceedings. The accuser can sue for additional damages in a civil action. The government may prosecute in a criminal action.
Conclusion
In summary, restraining order defendants risk:
•loss of family;
•loss of home;
•loss of property;
•loss of income;
•loss of reputation;
•loss of employment;
•loss of career;
•loss of the constitutional right against self-incrimination, or of constitutional and civil due process rights;
•loss of the constitutional right to bear arms
•restricted constitutional right to freedom of speech;
•restricted constitutional right to freedom of association;
•restricted freedom of movement;
•financial ruin, for the accused and for the family of the accused;
•loss of constitutional parenting rights;
•devastation of a child’s parental relationship with the accused;
and,
total loss of all constitutional and civil rights, and of all freedom, upon conviction for any deviation outside of the numerous, complicated, confusing, and draconian limits imposed by these orders.
Forever.
Because the judge suspects that the accused made one phone call too many.
It is therefore absolutely essential that restraining order defendants vigorously defend against any request for restraining orders of any kind.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Attorney Dean M. Schreyer is licensed to practice in California, and serves as a staff attorney at Men’s Legal Center in San Diego. To find out more about either Mr. Schreyer or Men’s Legal Center, please go to: www.menslegal.com.
The material on this document is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or other professional advice for any purpose. No attorney/client relationship, and no confidential relationship of any kind, is formed by reviewing or using this material in any way, or from any direct or indirect contact with any attorney arising from that review or use. If you need legal or other professional services, consult with the appropriate, competent attorney or other professional
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 Order Proceedings - Issues and Challenges for Defendants
Saturday, October 24, 2009
By Dean M. Schreyer
The purpose of this article is to introduce the reader to some of the challenges faced by defendants (the “accused”) and their children in restraining order proceedings under the California Family Code, and to offer some suggestions about how best to negotiate those challenges.
This article assumes that a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) might be or already has been issued against the accused, and that there has not yet been a formal hearing to decide whether a “permanent” restraining order should be issued.
This article addresses restraining orders in family law actions only. It does not address restraining orders or other domestic violence issues in either criminal or civil actions. Furthermore, the issues and rules addressed in this article may be different outside of California.
Summary
Domestic violence restraining orders may result from conduct that involves no domestic relationship or actual violence of any kind, and from no reliable supporting evidence of any kind.
Unfortunately, restraining order defendants and their children face many potentially disastrous consequences including, but not limited to: criminal prosecution; financial ruin; and, loss of home, family, pets, property, income, reputation, employment, career, multiple constitutional and civil rights, freedom of movement, and parent/child relationships.
Further, the defendant’s mere appearance in court during restraining order proceedings will probably result in immediate arrest on outstanding warrants, and revocation of probation and parole status, even if the accusations against the defendant are found to be false.
This article therefore concludes by recommending vigorous opposition to all false or exaggerated applications for restraining orders.
Discussion
“TEMPORARY” RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE STILL RESTRAINING ORDERS, AND MUST BE RESPECTED AS SUCH
If a “temporary restraining order” or “TRO” is in effect, the court has not yet decided whether it will issue any “permanent” restraining orders against the accused. This is because the court has yet to conduct a formal hearing.
However, the “temporary” restraining order is in effect until that hearing. Please note that the law requires the defendant to obey all restraining orders, to the letter, without exception, notwithstanding that these orders are still only “temporary.” Failure to respect such restraining orders is a crime, and is subject to imprisonment and any other consequences that may flow from committing a crime.
For example, if the temporary restraining orders forbid the accused from contacting the accuser, the accused could be convicted of a crime and sent to jail for making so much as one phone call to the accuser. Indeed, the accused could be found criminally liable for accepting a phone call from the accuser, if the accused continues the phone call after finding out who it is.
As another example, if the temporary restraining orders forbids the accused from being within 100 yards of the accuser, the accused might be convicted of a crime and sent to jail for attending a church, restaurant, school, or social event, if the accuser happens to be there at the same time.
Further, if the accused violates the “temporary” restraining orders, the court is required to consider that when deciding whether or not to make the restraining orders “permanent.”
Hence, it is absolutely essential that the accused follows all restraining orders, to the letter, whether “temporary” or “permanent,” at all times, without exception.
DOMESTIC “VIOLENCE” RESTRAINING ORDERS MAY RESULT FROM CONDUCT THAT INVOLVES NO ACTUAL VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND
As the label suggests, domestic violence restraining orders were originally intended to prevent violence between persons in domestic relationships. However, since January 2000, the grounds for getting restraining orders have greatly expanded. The defendant may now face domestic violence restraining orders for: stalking; threatening; harassing; telephoning; directly or indirectly contacting by mail or otherwise; coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of, the accuser.
Note that none of these behaviors needs to involve violence of any kind.
“DOMESTIC” VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS MAY RESULT FROM CONDUCT THAT INVOLVES NO ACTUAL DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP OF ANY KIND
As the label suggests, domestic violence restraining orders were originally intended to protect persons in domestic relationships. However, the defendant may now face domestic violence restraining orders arising from alleged conduct toward a family or household member of the accuser, whether or not the defendant has a domestic relationship of any kind with the family or household member.
RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE OFTEN ISSUED REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL MERIT
For the reasons set forth below, courts often issue restraining orders without merit.
A. Evidence Does Not Need To Be Reliable
Unlike criminal convictions, the reliability required of the evidence supporting restraining orders is very low.
In criminal proceedings, the court requires proof “beyond all reasonable doubt” before finding the allegations against the accused to be true. In other words, the court must be sure enough to bet someone’s life on its conclusion. Because sometimes it does.
Restraining orders, however, only need proof “by a preponderance of the evidence.” The judge needs only to find the allegations are merely slightly more likely than not. Hence, if the judge believes that it is only 51% likely that the defendant is “guilty,” the court must issue the restraining order. Even though the odds on either side are almost equal.
B. Public Opinion Improves The Odds Of Meritless Restraining Orders Yet Further
Further, public opinion lowers the practical standard of proof yet further, by placing pressure on the court to issue restraining orders, regardless of merit.
Any court will be ineffective, unless the public has faith in the court’s decisions. Courts are therefore inclined to avoid any adverse publicity that would erode that public trust. This can cause pressure on the court to cater to public opinion.
Unfortunately, current public opinion rushes to condemn anything labeled as violence, whether or not any actual violence is involved. This pressures the court to follow suit. The judge is thereby inclined to err on the side of caution (rather than on the side of justice), by issuing domestic violence restraining orders in spite of insufficient supporting evidence.
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
If the accused owns or possess any firearms, the law requires the accused immediately to relinquish all such arms and ammunition, either to the police or to a licensed gun dealer. Furthermore, the court will require the accused to provide proof that the accused has done so.
The accused is also required to have no contact with any firearms or ammunition at any time, while any restraining order is in place, whether or not the restraining order is “temporary” or “permanent.” If the accused is found to be in possession of so much as one bullet, the accused could be imprisoned for years.
The accused must therefore immediately relinquish and stay away from all firearms and ammunition at all times, unless and until all restraining orders are either dismissed or expired.
PAST CONVICTIONS, WARRANTS, PAROLE, PROBATION, PRIOR RESTRAINING ORDERS
If the accused has a past conviction for a “violent” or “serious” felony, or for any misdemeanor involving domestic violence, weapons, or other violence, the court is required by law to consider these factors when deciding whether or not to issue permanent restraining orders. And if the accused has a child, the court must also consider these factors when deciding upon how much contact, if any, the accused and the child will be allowed to have with each other.
If the accused has any outstanding warrants, or if the accused is on parole or probation status, the court is required to consider these factors as well. The court is also required to notify the appropriate authorities. Law enforcement will then be required to execute the warrant and arrest the accused immediately, and the parole or probation officer will be required to revoke the parole or probation. Even if the “permanent” restraining order never issues.
POTENTIAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY
If law enforcement learns about the accusations against the accused, this may result in criminal prosecution.
Further, anything that the accused may say, and any other evidence that the accused may produce, may be used against the accused in criminal proceedings. The accused may therefore be required to choose between the 5th Amendment right to refrain from testifying against one’s self in criminal proceedings, and the due process right to testify on behalf of one’s self in the restraining order proceedings.
It is therefore essential that the accused immediately consults with a criminal defense attorney with expertise in “domestic violence” criminal law.
OTHER POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRAINING ORDERS
In addition to the above, restraining orders can now carry the following potential consequences:
1. Defendants may be required to continue to pay for a home in which they are not allowed to stay, and for other property which they are not allowed to use, even if the defendant owns it and the accuser does not.
Defendants who share a home with the accuser may be ordered out of the home, with little or no notice, and sometimes with no opportunity to gather records, tools, clothing or other personal items. The defendant may then be ordered to surrender the defendant’s home, car, pets, and any other property, into the possession of the accuser, indefinitely. And to continue paying for any debt service associated with such property, indefinitely.
This can occur even if the home or other property is owned or leased exclusively by the defendant, and even if the accuser has contributed nothing toward acquiring or maintaining that home or other property.
2. The court might include the defendant’s pets among the “persons” protected by the restraining orders.
No kidding! California Family Code §6320(b) states, in part: “The Court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal.”
3. Defendants who are married to the accuser, or who share children with the accuser, may lose some or most of their income as child support, or spousal support, or both.
4. Restraining orders are now published on various state and national databases. Government entities and various other interested parties have access to these databases, and the trend is toward increased access. Access to this information creates the potential for substantial damage to the defendant’s reputation, and that access is likely to increase.
If this trend continues, defendants might eventually be labeled as “registered domestic violence perpetrators,” or something similar.
5. If the defendant’s employment requires interaction with firearms or children, the defendant will probably lose that employment, and may be unable to find similar employment ever again. Employment requiring any other form of public trust may also be at risk.
6. If the defendant provides most or all of the family’s income, and then becomes unemployed, the entire family may become destitute.
7. The court is required to assume that primary custody between defendants and their children is contrary to the children’s best interests. The court also has the power to restrict or eliminate all contact of any kind. Hence, defendants may lose most, or all, contact with their children. Worse, the children may lose contact with one of their parents.
8. Defendants may be prevented from knowing the location of the accuser and of the defendant’s children. Restraining orders are valid without explicitly stating the address of the accuser, or the location of the accuser’s residence, school, or employment, or of the school or child care of the accuser’s child. Further, the court is usually required to prohibit defendants from taking any action to obtain the address or location of the accuser, or of the family members, caretakers, or guardian of the accuser.
9. Restraining orders can be permanent. The initial maximum duration is 5 years. However, that duration can be increased, just for the asking. Family Code §6345(a) states, in part:: “These orders may be renewed, upon the request of a party, either for five years or permanently, without a showing of any further abuse since the issuance of the original order . . . ” In other words, the court can extend restraining orders indefinitely, if the accuser later asks for it, basically for no reason other than the request itself. Hence, defendants might face the consequences described above, forever.
10. The court can order defendants to attend, pay for, and successfully complete a “batterer’s program.” Such “programs” may require attendance (and payment) for 52 weeks.
11. The court can order defendants to pay restitution to the accuser for loss of earnings and out-of-pocket expenses that the court concludes were a result of the defendant’s alleged abuse. These expenses can include the cost of medical care and temporary housing, among other expenses.
12. The court can order defendants to pay for part or all of the accuser’s attorney fees and costs in connection with the restraining order proceedings.
13. Defendants may face consequences in other proceedings. The accuser can sue for additional damages in a civil action. The government may prosecute in a criminal action.
Conclusion
In summary, restraining order defendants risk:
•loss of family;
•loss of home;
•loss of property;
•loss of income;
•loss of reputation;
•loss of employment;
•loss of career;
•loss of the constitutional right against self-incrimination, or of constitutional and civil due process rights;
•loss of the constitutional right to bear arms
•restricted constitutional right to freedom of speech;
•restricted constitutional right to freedom of association;
•restricted freedom of movement;
•financial ruin, for the accused and for the family of the accused;
•loss of constitutional parenting rights;
•devastation of a child’s parental relationship with the accused;
and,
total loss of all constitutional and civil rights, and of all freedom, upon conviction for any deviation outside of the numerous, complicated, confusing, and draconian limits imposed by these orders.
Forever.
Because the judge suspects that the accused made one phone call too many.
It is therefore absolutely essential that restraining order defendants vigorously defend against any request for restraining orders of any kind.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Attorney Dean M. Schreyer is licensed to practice in California, and serves as a staff attorney at Men’s Legal Center in San Diego. To find out more about either Mr. Schreyer or Men’s Legal Center, please go to: www.menslegal.com.
The material on this document is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or other professional advice for any purpose. No attorney/client relationship, and no confidential relationship of any kind, is formed by reviewing or using this material in any way, or from any direct or indirect contact with any attorney arising from that review or use. If you need legal or other professional services, consult with the appropriate, competent attorney or other professional
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
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Arrest Tampa News Anchor
I found this article about the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Arrest of a Tampa News Anchor.
I watch the Man who was arrested on the Tampa Television News, Ch 13.
I am a big Fan of Russell Rhodes, probably because he is a "character", much like myself ?
I just wanted to be clear that my experiences with the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office during my many arrests for "violating restraining orders" were w/o any major incidents.
Only one Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputy was rude to me, and told me "Shut Up, you Stalker".
I found the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputys to be quite pleasant, and very professional.
Some were almost apologetic during my restraining order arrests.
The Hillsborough County Sheriffs see restraining orders abused by women all the time.
Unfortunately, their hands are tied by the current one way Law.
Looks to me like Russell Rhodes had a bit too much to drink, and fell and hurt himself ?
Hey, stuff happens, and he is back to work.
Alcoholics must sometimes "hit a bottom", and I am NOT saying Russell is an Alcoholic either.
Only he knows that.
But if he is, perhaps this was the bottom he needed to hit, to recover from Alcoholism ?
The Hillsborough County Sheriffs did launch an Internal Affairs Investigation into this arrest.
I think that says a lot about the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office!
Internal Affairs investigating Hillsborough County Sheriffs arrest of Fox 13 anchor (Hillsborough Sheriff)
Original Article at TampaBay.com
TAMPA — The arrest of Fox 13 news anchor Russell Rhodes, who has a black eye and bloodied face in his mugshot, is under review by Internal Affairs, officials from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office said today.
"Any time there's a high-profile incident or any incident that the sheriff wishes to have reviewed," an internal review is initiated, said J.D. Callaway, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office. "We'll look at all the available evidence and make sure the deputies acted properly."
Rhodes, a morning news anchor for Fox 13's Good Day Tampa Bay, was arrested Friday night, allegedly after resisting arrest.
Around 10:15 p.m., an off-duty sheriff's deputy working security at Channelside spotted a 2006 BMW 325i weaving erratically in the public parking garage, Callaway said.
The deputy stopped the BMW and the driver, Rhodes, got out, reportedly with his belt undone and his pants unbuttoned, though they were still up. Rhodes appeared to be intoxicated, Callaway said.
According to the deputy, Rhodes tried to walk away from him twice after being ordered to stay put and surrender his car keys. Rhodes didn't identify himself or try to use his name to get out of the situation, Callaway said. When Rhodes tried to run out of the garage, the deputy grabbed him, Callaway said.
He had his car key in his right hand, and when deputies tried to take it, he began waving his hands to keep them from taking it, an arrest affidavit states.
"He began to flail his arms," Callaway said. That's when he was "taken to the ground." Callaway said injuries to Rhodes' face happened when he hit the ground.
He then said he was sorry and that he had panicked because he works for Fox 13, the report states.
Rhodes was taken to Tampa General Hospital for cuts and bruises to his face and then was booked into the Orient Road Jail, Callaway said. He was charged with obstructing an officer without violence and was released Saturday morning on $500 bail.
Blood samples were taken to see if he was intoxicated. The results should be back next week, Callaway said. Depending on the outcome, he could face an additional charge of driving under the influence.
Rhodes is from Paris, Texas, and has been with Tampa Bay's Fox station since 1994, according to his biography on the Fox Web site. He originally wanted to be an actor or singer, but went into broadcast journalism.
He went to the University of Oklahoma and worked at stations in Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota and then Tampa Bay.
"I used to say I had the best job in the news business," he said on the Web site, referring to his promotion from Good Day feature reporter to co-anchor. "This new one may be better."
Fox 13 offered a brief comment when contacted about the arrest.
"He will not be on the air Monday," said Jessica Moss, spokeswoman for Fox 13. For all other questions, she referred to a story on the station's Web site that briefly recounts the incident and says "FOX 13 management is aware of the matter and is reviewing it."
Erin Sullivan and Drew Harwell, Times Staff Writers
I watch the Man who was arrested on the Tampa Television News, Ch 13.
I am a big Fan of Russell Rhodes, probably because he is a "character", much like myself ?
I just wanted to be clear that my experiences with the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office during my many arrests for "violating restraining orders" were w/o any major incidents.
Only one Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputy was rude to me, and told me "Shut Up, you Stalker".
I found the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Deputys to be quite pleasant, and very professional.
Some were almost apologetic during my restraining order arrests.
The Hillsborough County Sheriffs see restraining orders abused by women all the time.
Unfortunately, their hands are tied by the current one way Law.
Looks to me like Russell Rhodes had a bit too much to drink, and fell and hurt himself ?
Hey, stuff happens, and he is back to work.
Alcoholics must sometimes "hit a bottom", and I am NOT saying Russell is an Alcoholic either.
Only he knows that.
But if he is, perhaps this was the bottom he needed to hit, to recover from Alcoholism ?
The Hillsborough County Sheriffs did launch an Internal Affairs Investigation into this arrest.
I think that says a lot about the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office!
Internal Affairs investigating Hillsborough County Sheriffs arrest of Fox 13 anchor (Hillsborough Sheriff)
Original Article at TampaBay.com
TAMPA — The arrest of Fox 13 news anchor Russell Rhodes, who has a black eye and bloodied face in his mugshot, is under review by Internal Affairs, officials from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office said today.
"Any time there's a high-profile incident or any incident that the sheriff wishes to have reviewed," an internal review is initiated, said J.D. Callaway, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office. "We'll look at all the available evidence and make sure the deputies acted properly."
Rhodes, a morning news anchor for Fox 13's Good Day Tampa Bay, was arrested Friday night, allegedly after resisting arrest.
Around 10:15 p.m., an off-duty sheriff's deputy working security at Channelside spotted a 2006 BMW 325i weaving erratically in the public parking garage, Callaway said.
The deputy stopped the BMW and the driver, Rhodes, got out, reportedly with his belt undone and his pants unbuttoned, though they were still up. Rhodes appeared to be intoxicated, Callaway said.
According to the deputy, Rhodes tried to walk away from him twice after being ordered to stay put and surrender his car keys. Rhodes didn't identify himself or try to use his name to get out of the situation, Callaway said. When Rhodes tried to run out of the garage, the deputy grabbed him, Callaway said.
He had his car key in his right hand, and when deputies tried to take it, he began waving his hands to keep them from taking it, an arrest affidavit states.
"He began to flail his arms," Callaway said. That's when he was "taken to the ground." Callaway said injuries to Rhodes' face happened when he hit the ground.
He then said he was sorry and that he had panicked because he works for Fox 13, the report states.
Rhodes was taken to Tampa General Hospital for cuts and bruises to his face and then was booked into the Orient Road Jail, Callaway said. He was charged with obstructing an officer without violence and was released Saturday morning on $500 bail.
Blood samples were taken to see if he was intoxicated. The results should be back next week, Callaway said. Depending on the outcome, he could face an additional charge of driving under the influence.
Rhodes is from Paris, Texas, and has been with Tampa Bay's Fox station since 1994, according to his biography on the Fox Web site. He originally wanted to be an actor or singer, but went into broadcast journalism.
He went to the University of Oklahoma and worked at stations in Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota and then Tampa Bay.
"I used to say I had the best job in the news business," he said on the Web site, referring to his promotion from Good Day feature reporter to co-anchor. "This new one may be better."
Fox 13 offered a brief comment when contacted about the arrest.
"He will not be on the air Monday," said Jessica Moss, spokeswoman for Fox 13. For all other questions, she referred to a story on the station's Web site that briefly recounts the incident and says "FOX 13 management is aware of the matter and is reviewing it."
Erin Sullivan and Drew Harwell, Times Staff Writers
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... -
Many people in bad relationships that turn into domestic violence situations with restraining orders are unaware they are in relationships w... -
Restraining Order Blog gets a number of questions from readers. Here is a restraining order violation question we just received. Courts...