Yep, I'm against stalking and peeping. And I like having a legal recourse to deal with it. Call me crazy.
Iowa Domestic Violence Bill likely to be abused (pun intended) with impunity
- Thread starter JRHawk2003
- Start date
Interesting. Stalking and "Peeping", according to Natural, includes standing on public property and, apparently, violating no other laws.
I do find that crazy, and sad. It is the definition of Property Rights over all. If it wasn't your "property" it wouldn't be an issue. So, if paranoid OiT lady thinks some goons are following her, you know, because she is afraid of everything, she can force them LEGALLY to remove themselves or be arrested.
Can I do this to my neighbor?
You really think I should have a right to stand outside your home and stare, even film into your window for hours on end without you having any recourse? We aren't going to agree if that's your take. I think there should be legal recourse. This law provides for it. If it turns out you have a good reason to watch me, let the courts decide that.
Businesses, private people, and the government seem to be able to film anything they wish from their own property and persons. But "creepy guy" can't?
Or can I request that the Kum N' Go down the street has to stop filming my house? Stop my neighbor from looking out his window at mine? Stop the dog-walking-guy from lingering too long on a public sidewalk?
You are right, you have stated your opinion, I have stated mine. But you seem to not like my claim that your idea is Unconstitutional and Authoritarian and about property rights. If you are concerned about that, you should think about how they apply to your position.
Or can I request that the Kum N' Go down the street has to stop filming my house? Stop my neighbor from looking out his window at mine? Stop the dog-walking-guy from lingering too long on a public sidewalk?
You are right, you have stated your opinion, I have stated mine. But you seem to not like my claim that your idea is Unconstitutional and Authoritarian and about property rights. If you are concerned about that, you should think about how they apply to your position.
1) It's not overblown.
2) Yes, I am talking about the order without hearing. (Think about what that means.) And her smart lawyer managed to make it last for 68 days.
One the day the hearing was to finally take place all complaints were dropped, which I agreed to without seeing the judge. I knew that the books had been cooked, anything of value would never be seen again. I got out, and that was all I was going to get.
Somewhere you got screwed DanL, but you got screwed either by a) yourself or b) your lawyer. The law is pretty clear on timelines for those cases, and I would bet a large amount of money either you/yourlawyer agreed to let it go beyond. That is unfortunate, but we have an adversarial system, meaning one side can (and should) push as far as they can, it is up to the other side to stop it.
Good, how much do you want to bet?
I told you her lawyer was smart. I went to the hearing (within ten days as is supposed to happen) without representation because my assets had been frozen and it took all I had just to pay the lawyer a retainer for the divorce. No problem, he'd told me, just show up. The Petition for Emergency Order of Protection didn't even include any reason to continue the no contact order.
For example, one complaint. "He doesn't get angry, stays calm when we argue but eventually raises his voice. I never know how long it will take until he gets mad." That's really in there!
Anyway, I'm in the courthouse hallway (Yes, it would have been within ten days.) waiting to be called for the hearing. A woman approached with a piece of legal type paper and she says the hearing has been postponed. I said, "No, I haven't been told that, who are you?" She claimed to work for the court. I was trying to stand my ground but she turned the paper around so I could read it and there was my lawyers name on it. She said I needed to speak with him.
I'm not claiming to be a genius, but his office was a block away and I did just that, I went to speak with him. Meanwhile that lady, who I later learned was my wife's lawyer, went into the courtroom and got the hearing changed to a later date and according to her it was by mutual consent.
Smart move on her part, huh? Maybe my lawyer should have done something about it, but he didn't.......and what was I going to do about it?
Yes, you sure as shit are right, we have an adversarial system and apparently that includes bogus claims and pretending to be someone you aren't. If I'd have had my hands on my money....I'd have fired my lawyer and hired a new one. Credit to my ex...she picked a good one, and then later I learned shafted her for her final fees!
Now you're going to tell me all the reasons that shouldn't have happened like that. Yeah, well, I tell you that the legal system is something like a vanilla ice cream cone that someone pee'd on. It's still a vanilla cone, just ruined.
(If spoken, this would be slow and calm, as if an old man was just sharing his experience.) Unless you tell me what my lawyer could have done differently, I'm afraid I can't reach that conclusion.
It seems to me a flimsy way to run a system of justice when one party can go to a judge and without the slightest of reason get him to seize money, property, and access to income. Without even a chance for the accused to offer a defense from the allegations.
And something else. I went to another lawyer after the hearing was delayed. A very expensive lawyer in the kind of office and with the kind of practice that I'd wager 95% of attorneys dream about. His advice? Unless I could come up with another retainer to hire him, get used to things like her lawyer tricking me into leaving the courthouse. He said she had a reputation of working like that. He said he could work like that as well.
But with my funds being held, there wasn't going to be another lawyer.
Bad lawyer? I was stuck. It seems to me that if there is anything conclusive it is exactly the point I made to begin with. These "Orders of Protection" are used the majority of the time not to protect some innocent victim from domestic abuse, but to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings. (Both the lawyers I spoke with told me about how OP's are so often used like this.)
We can say, "Your lawyers fault". I got a raw deal and I suspect, despite my wanting to ring the guys neck at the time, most lawyers caught in that kind of battle wouldn't have done any better.
No, I don't believe it wasn't the lawyers fault. It was the way the system works. (Or doesn't work)
Now I know I probably sound bitter, but let me assure you that I'm well past anger at this point and the only reason I've born my personal history out (and one there is no pride in relating this, I feel like an idiot, a freaking vegetable brained idiot for having been married to this woman. And the stigma of the accusation is not pleasant) is that at one time I would have blindly said, "Domestic Violence? Yeah, anything to stop that." But my friend...these laws create their own victims, persons like I was who are not abusers.
To conclude, here is how I see your adversarial system. With the current laws, it's like a fire and one just has to hope to get out alive, forget your stuff...it's gone. Now, if you have a specific comment about what could have been done differently let me know. I'd be glad to consider it and maybe enjoy some faith being restored that there might be some fairness out there somewhere.
I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but you can't just do that by saying, "your lawyers fault".
If this were to become law, it seems to me that a woman could have about any guy arrested for anything. There is no burden of proof.
Creepy guy can't film a person in their private domicile from the sidewalk is my position. No I don't see that as a violation of his rights. Yes I do think a person should have recourse if they are being stalked. Yes I do find stalking threatening to a level that I should get to seek a restraining order. I find your disregard for personal safety and privacy an irresponsible violation of the stalkee's rights. A person has a right to be safe and secure and private when they are out of the public domain.
This is why we can't have reasonable gun laws. People like you go around defending the rights of pervs to act criminally so now the stalkee has no option but to shoot the stalker. I think your position is antithetical to a civil society.
What you don't seem to understand is that without some burden of proof this will be widely abused. I know now that some lawyers counsel their female divorce clients to use the 10 day boot out now without cause. It would only get worse.
I'm sure there will, I recognize there will be abuse, I just don't think thats the biggest issue here. Without the law, there is no recourse but to shoot the creep filming you in your living room. Why do you think this law is gender specific? Anyone can use it. And its only grounds for obtaining an order. When people are in fear, I want those people going through the legal system to deal with the issue. That keeps everyone safer.
You are using a rare extreme example. Why is it gender specific? Its a domestic abuse law. I guess technically women can get arrested for domestic abuse, but thats very rare. Heck, most guys wouldn't even use that charge when a woman does get physical. Its mostly about women. Don't play coy.
We should not have a law that says someone can be thrown out of their house just because someone else says so. Besides, in the worst domestic abuse cases the women keep going back. Not sure how this law would help that. This law is just an open ended can of worms full of unintended consequences and you won't even be able to quantify if this law would make a difference.
We should not have a law that says someone can be thrown out of their house just because someone else says so. Besides, in the worst domestic abuse cases the women keep going back. Not sure how this law would help that. This law is just an open ended can of worms full of unintended consequences and you won't even be able to quantify if this law would make a difference.
Simply not true. Temporary order of protection requires finding of probable cause assault has occurred based upon, at a minimum, sworn affidavit setting forth a factual basis
Care to share the other complaints? Little doubt the above allegation, while your favorite and the basis of your first quote above, was not relied upon as a factual basis to find probable cause an assault occurred by the Judge that signed the Order.
Um, showed up? Properly advised you what to do if you insisted you didn't want to pay him or her to show up? Pretty sure the advice would not have been to be running down the street away from the courthouse at the time scheduled for the hearing.
Not in a position to dispute your claims about ex's attorney committing fraud, impersonation of a court official, and misrepresentation to the court by an officer of the court. Clear grounds for disbarment if true. More likely you (no fault of yours, it is a strange and intimidating environment for most) were unable to process accurately what she said and you could only process your lawyer's name on what may well have been a motion to continue.
Look folks, difficult issues fraught with emotional responses often unrelated to substantive issues at hand*. No doubt some women (and actually happens to men as well) are physically taken advantage of in varying degrees of disgusting ways including inducing fear as a weapon. Also no doubt some women (and men) misrepresent the truth or outright lie in order to gain financial (or more often custodial) advantage in pending or anticipated dissolution litigation. Determining which, if either, of those circumstances actually exist is why they have hearings in court with witnesses and exhibits.
Everybody be wary when you hear stories about divorce and custody. People that choose to talk about their experiences have to find an emotionally acceptable way to think and talk about events. Rarely is the resulting tale the straight scoop, and even more rarely is it the whole straight scoop.
*Example: W: Your car is worth at least 15k (eyes say you screwed the neighbor)
H: Not worth more than 8k (eyes say I wouldn't of had to if you ever screwed me)
W: 14K at the bottom (I would of if you didn't stink)
H: 10k final offer (why shower for you to lay there)
W: 13k (your family treated me like crap)
H: 11K (they knew)
H & W: 12k (I hate you!)
Dan, I get it, you got shafted, I'm not questioning that.
2. You seem to believe that recourse is to physically remove the person from the PUBLIC DOMAIN, as opposed to, you know, shutting your blinds. Brad Pitt doesn't get to create an entirely-glass house and then complain (with recourse) that people, in PUBLIC, are looking at him.
I think you made two salient points: 1. Filming does change the equation, I believe you were expanding it past that to someone standing on the sidewalk.
2. You seem to believe that recourse is to physically remove the person from the PUBLIC DOMAIN, as opposed to, you know, shutting your blinds. Brad Pitt doesn't get to create an entirely-glass house and then complain (with recourse) that people, in PUBLIC, are looking at him.
Don't get me wrong DanL, you got shafted, but you admit yourself that something SHOULD have been done, and your lawyer was the person to do it.
Basically, I hear you claiming that the opposing party (wife?) had someone (or their lawyer) present a fraudulent document to you to trick you out of the courthouse. While you were out of the courthouse they told the court that you weren't there and they extended it out longer.
This question is easy: How did you think that was ok and that nothing should have been done about it? Your lawyer should have absolutely raised holy hell (why wasn't he there to begin with?), you should have filed ethics complaints, etc.
You were shafted, that is NOT how the system works.
Big shock the Gazette misrepresents the bill, unintentionally probably. Note also the bill is not law at this time, hasn't passed the house or been signed.
Start with this, bill has nothing to do with what a victim "can report." Horrible description, absolute journalistic incompetence.
The bill changes the crime of stalking, but not much. Before and after the bill, if passed, the elements of the crime require more than the victim's feeling or fear of injury. The defendant must have "purposefully engaged in a course of conduct directed at a specific person" that would cause the proverbial reasonable person to feel terrorized etc. and Defendant knows it would place a reasonable person in fear. Course of conduct is defined as "repeatedly" doing certain acts "without legitimate purpose." The acts, if the bill passes, would include surveillance technology.
Hard to see many if any juries concluding a course of conduct causes a reasonable person to feel terrorized or intimidated in a situation where they conclude it didn't cause a reasonable person fear of physical injury. Feeling terrorized etc and fearing injury are very similar conclusions.
The real change is it eliminates one element, the proof of knowledge of actual fear. Currently requires knowledge it would cause reasonable fear (actually in fear, reasonably) and the change would make it only that it would cause a reasonable person to have such fear.
Don't know the background of the bill so I am speculating, but I suspect the county attorney's association suggested Defendants were getting away with crimes by claiming Defendant was not actually in fear even if a reasonable person would have been in fear. Along the lines of a parade of witnesses saying they heard victim say things like you could never scare me you are too weasely or something like that. The "I believed she was fearless" defense.
https://legiscan.com/IA/text/SF395/2015
Time scheduled for hearing. 12:30. Sometime in the afternoon. Wait to be called. Reason I left, described. Lied to by her lawyer who I had never met as representing the court. You can take the first sentence and I suggest open it up in the real world where it will dissolve as the fiction it is......I'm telling you, she had nothing to complain about.
Edit to add. I realize you are saying there was something in the paperwork which the judge viewed as probable cause. I'm not going to dig the thing out and type the whole thing out, but one reason that on the "cheap plan" that my lawyer sent me in alone was there was nothing in the complaint that actually "alleged" anything.
Again, and here we have the issue, what is supposed to work, the way it is supposed to work, didn't work.
I like your "everybody be wary" line by the way. Let me just say, "everybody be wary" when people tell you to be wary. Make up your own minds. Lifelong is a good poster, but he wasn't there.
Last edited:
Thanks, but that may be how the system should work, but it didn't. Lack of funds due to the seizure of my property by the court. I barely found a lawyer to begin with and then it was on the "self help" plan of me just showing up at the hearing. Money would have been the answer, I'd have fired my dumb lawyer for letting me go in there unarmed and get tricked...or for what he did about it which was to say, "well, it's only a delay". But as mentioned, another lawyer wanted money up front as well.
Let's end this by saying, this is not how the system should work.
Fair enough? If Iowa passes this Domestic Violence Bill? Divorce lawyers will be hanging up signs, "Women Only!"I am kind of torn here. Do we protect the rights of the male to the fullest extent or protect the life and health of the women. As long as the reputation of male is protected should they find no basis for the charge, I am ok with giving deference to the female's safety .
I've got a suggestion. If the court deems that assets should be frozen, the court is responsible for paying for a lawyer. Not just a court appointed lawyer, but a divorce lawyer of the accused's choosing. Once the assets are unfrozen, he can pay the court back.
That will prevent someone ending up like me looking for the "Aldi's Law Office,"
And. If the accuser is found to have committed perjury in the documents? Do something about it! The court is supposed to, but it doesn't. Another, "It's not the system but you got screwed kind of mystery."
And. Almost forgot to add, and a smart reader would say, "I thought she didn't really accused you of anything". Right. In my case perjury would have been a stretch. All she really kept repeating was that she was afraid of what I might do...but with no history at all of me having ever done anything.
So what I would have needed is a Judge that didn't automatically hand out No Contact Orders for every Petition he received. But you know what he would have said? "First time I don't and something happens my butt is in a sling."
So look what your, "I'm scared" law is going to do to your divorces!!! I guarantee it!
Last edited:
Look, I'm not trying to embarrass or argue with you, promise you I know situations where people got screwed in much worse ways than you think you did. Imagine if you had to sit your butt in jail and stew over perjurious testimony that put you there, or were homeless, or lost a dream job,,,,,,,,, Be thankful you didn't then face a false allegation of violation of the no contact order if she is the lying cheating scum you portray.
Not sure what you are saying with opening up the first sentence in the real world where it will dissolve as fiction. You can tell me anything you want, but that is the law. And if you are honest you can look at the petition and see that an allegation of assault, (false, exaggerated, whatever) was made. Perhaps you want to post the petition and I can point out to you what the judge relied upon to determine probable cause existed? I see while I was typing this you doubled down on the no allegation at all was made claim (now we have judicial incompetence in addition to attorney fraud), post the damn thing or that is nothing but a river in Egypt. How many real abusers say crap like that you think?
Aflac above points out the cognitive dissonance. The current reaction is to require an affidavit (criminal penalties do attach if proven false) for probable cause and a rapid hearing. While JR and Dan and others see one side of the potential abuses, there is another side. Actual abuse does exist and is horrible. See some of those cases and hard to dispute we need a judicial process in place to help.
Here is my personal main dispute with the current system. Real domestic abuse exists and the system needs a way to respond rapidly and meaningfully. But, in the truly worst cases, the ones that the system is really attempting to address, a piece of paper is meaningless. Those folks (and I've only personally seen that in males) make the order a prop in the next round of abuse.
Perhaps a tiered judicial response should be legislated in an attempt to differentiate between 1. we've been married 15 years and last week he slapped my arm and left a mark from 2. He broke my leg and held a knife to my throat. They are the same in the current scheme.
PS And it is not the "I'm scared" law, it is the "I was assaulted" law.
I'll tell you why the original petition isn't going to get posted. This site is anonymous. Without such protection I couldn't say a dang thing. When I signed the divorce papers I agreed to keep my mouth shut. If I go too far It would be easy for my ex to nail my rear. And I've got enough nail scars from the "system" that you seemed to think is working to know I don't want more.
Now ask yourself why she wanted such an agreement. As to why I signed it? To get the divorce! By that point there was nothing I could do for myself but just get out.
I started to put the parts in bold that I was going to respond to, but as you can see, it was going to be too much.
Just, let it suffice to say that clearly what I say is being treated as unreliable "testimony". At least according to you. Let this new Bill pass into law and soon enough you'll have plenty of examples of what I'm warning about. And then, I hope you will look back and remember this conversation.
Your mythological imaginations of how things work...are nice and it would be great if they did work like that. But they don't.
And finally, you might notice I already offered an example of how women could be protected without affording a female in a divorce the kinds of untethered powers that actually cause the court to violate laws against the illegal seizure of property.
Lifelong, I'm not upset over past events. I learned from them. You are a good poster, just, if this Bill gets passed, remember this conversation...I'm repeating this because if nothing else you'll know when you read my posts in the future to not assume I'm prone to exaggerate or make stuff up.
Anyone know of a single case where a woman was charged with perjury on a "Petition for Emergency Order of Protection"? Anyone? I might be wrong but I was told by two different lawyers that this never happens.
The environment is too politically charged with Domestic Violence concerns for anyone to stand up to the current misuse of the laws. The lawyer that I managed to hire even told me that outside the court this is one thing that lawyers talk about amongst themselves. But nobody is going to risk wrecking their career standing up for a man's rights when all it would take is one lunatic to harm his wife.
And consider JRHawk's points. You've got two posters on here trying to warn of abuse in the system. If nothing else, when this doesn't convince you at least put it in the back of your head for when more and more information comes your way you can react more quickly to fix what is about to be broken.
Don't count on the lawyers. This Bill gets passed and it mucks up divorces even worse and that means more money for them. Especially if they get the female as a client and she would gut the small business before seeing the male get a fair portion of it. And remember that as well when it comes time to fix it, the lawyers knew exactly what was going to happen and profiteered from it.
You want to battle Domestic Abuse? Fine, but safeguards must be in place to prevent the abuse of the system which is already taking place, and will get worse.
The environment is too politically charged with Domestic Violence concerns for anyone to stand up to the current misuse of the laws. The lawyer that I managed to hire even told me that outside the court this is one thing that lawyers talk about amongst themselves. But nobody is going to risk wrecking their career standing up for a man's rights when all it would take is one lunatic to harm his wife.
And consider JRHawk's points. You've got two posters on here trying to warn of abuse in the system. If nothing else, when this doesn't convince you at least put it in the back of your head for when more and more information comes your way you can react more quickly to fix what is about to be broken.
Don't count on the lawyers. This Bill gets passed and it mucks up divorces even worse and that means more money for them. Especially if they get the female as a client and she would gut the small business before seeing the male get a fair portion of it. And remember that as well when it comes time to fix it, the lawyers knew exactly what was going to happen and profiteered from it.
You want to battle Domestic Abuse? Fine, but safeguards must be in place to prevent the abuse of the system which is already taking place, and will get worse.
Thanks, but that may be how the system should work, but it didn't. Lack of funds due to the seizure of my property by the court. I barely found a lawyer to begin with and then it was on the "self help" plan of me just showing up at the hearing. Money would have been the answer, I'd have fired my dumb lawyer for letting me go in there unarmed and get tricked...or for what he did about it which was to say, "well, it's only a delay". But as mentioned, another lawyer wanted money up front as well.
Let's end this by saying, this is not how the system should work.
Why didn't the system work? You didn't make a complaint, fight back, or anything through your lawyer.
You are claiming clear violations of ethics and fraud on part of a lawyer and then shrugging it off as a bad system. You had to do your part, but it sounds like you just helped with the lube.
No doubt my mythological explanations are nowhere near as reliable as your tale of judicial incompetence, attorney fraud on one side, attorney incompetence on the other, and an o so common confidentiality clause in a dissolution stipulation. How bout just posting that clause? Pretty sure I know what it really is, and it ain't what you say. Stick to telling your tale to people that don't know better than to accept at face value a story starkly at odds with the law and common legal experience.
And for your edification, the bill has nothing to do with petitions for relief from domestic abuse or dissolution of marriage actions. It amends elements of the crime of stalking, and will not change the status quo in 232 or 598 cases at all. Your protestations about examples that will flow from adoption of this bill are simply ignorant.
And geez, now you assert the female has untethered power to cause the court to violate laws against the illegal seizure of property?
Whatever dude. Enjoy the Cairo Holiday Inn Express!
And for your edification, the bill has nothing to do with petitions for relief from domestic abuse or dissolution of marriage actions. It amends elements of the crime of stalking, and will not change the status quo in 232 or 598 cases at all. Your protestations about examples that will flow from adoption of this bill are simply ignorant.
And geez, now you assert the female has untethered power to cause the court to violate laws against the illegal seizure of property?
Whatever dude. Enjoy the Cairo Holiday Inn Express!
In ways I would agree with that. In fact, I would say that after the initial trickery nothing surprised me. But please, tell me what my part was, or should have been? If I'd been in front of a judge many times I might have had a clue. But other than one incident in my life which I'm not getting into, I'd never been involved with the court system at all.
You say it is adversarial? I talk, tell the truth, I've never ripped anyone off in my life. And though I'm built such that if this were caveman days I could handle myself in a dispute, I don't go around cracking necks. But I don't get screwed with often either. So, I'm not used to it. I had a lawyer and hired him with the money I had from my "escape". (For the last two months after the warning of what would happen I was afraid to eat any of her cooking...thought she might poison me.) I had planned to use inventory in the store van to sell offsite to fund myself until the divorce, but the judge ruled I couldn't touch it. Meanwhile she was running the store, taking out whatever funds she wanted.
If I "self lubed" IowaHawk, it wasn't because I wanted to, I just didn't and still don't see a better way out.
So here's an opening to settle this. I'm sure there must be one old guy somewhere reading this thread and eating popcorn and wondering who is right. I'm telling you, I had no clue and saw no resource but to keep my lawyer. I did go see another one and other than asking for a lot of money that I didn't have, he didn't help. (The first thing he asked was how much my business was worth, when I told him he got disinterested, quick.) That lawyer did say, "The guy you have is competent."
So, settle this. What should I have done?
What should you have done? Hell, maybe:
Report the unethical conduct
Tell your lawyer to do his damn job
Tell the court, the judge
Not say, "oh well, the system."
Report the unethical conduct
Tell your lawyer to do his damn job
Tell the court, the judge
Not say, "oh well, the system."
1) I'll dig up the terms of the settlement that said I don't get to talk about the divorce. Give me until tonight.
2) Second paragraph, that would greatly relieve my concerns but your additional comments cause me to believe you are posting out of anger for some reason. So I don't trust you.
3) Seems to a dummy like me that a court saying I can't touch my property until they say so, without my chance to argue back, should be illegal if it isn't already.
4) I'm not anywhere near Cairo, I didn't get that one.
5) As I mentioned to IowaHawk, a good way to conclude this would be for someone to tell me what I should have done differently. I've already acknowledged my understanding that you chose not to believe what I say. We can move past that anytime you want.
Never mind #1. I'm just getting crack pot answers (in my opinion) and skeptical responses. What's the point in digging through paperwork just to hear more? Forget it. Believe what you want.
Last edited:
To who? And when he doesn't what then? I started to say something to the judge the first and only time I saw "her" (the one at the divorce hearing) My lawyer, her lawyer (the ex just waiting outside in the hall for some reason) and the judge all snapped up like I'd lit a firecracker and my lawyer actually shushed me! IowaHawk...none of them wanted to hear a dang thing.
Why is it so hard to believe this stuff happens? And what am I supposed to do? Yeah, I say, "Oh well, the system." It was just money. And a little freedom. But I'm not the kind of guy that should go and start trying to change this stuff on my own. I'm not smart about dealing with people and the only other avenue isn't even a good one to consider.
I will say that "report it" might have been a good idea. But it would have meant going after my lawyer for not doing anything. Man, I was trying to get divorced!
Last edited:
I gotta tell you guys. I'm done. With respect it's come down to either I'm stretching what happened to the point of disbelief, or I should have pulled some one man revolt against the court.
Your chance at a "victory" in swaying my belief, based on personal experience, of how much harm these restrictive rulings can have rested on giving me a clear answer as to what I should have done differently. I don't feel I read one.
Thanks for the conversation, I'm sorry if I ruffled some feathers, and I'm especially sorry if you feel I'm against protecting women, or men, from the real abusers. That was not my intent.
Your chance at a "victory" in swaying my belief, based on personal experience, of how much harm these restrictive rulings can have rested on giving me a clear answer as to what I should have done differently. I don't feel I read one.
Thanks for the conversation, I'm sorry if I ruffled some feathers, and I'm especially sorry if you feel I'm against protecting women, or men, from the real abusers. That was not my intent.
Don't care if you trust me. Since you missed it when linked and explained above, click here. https://legiscan.com/IA/bill/SF395/2015
Your "truth" gets sketchier and sketchier with each post. Now you are describing a restraining order regarding financial matters that DOES NOT typically go with a temporary order of protection. It handles the house, but does not freeze bank accounts. Makes me think there was a separate request for a restraining order filed in the dissolution and you choose to remember it all as the fault of some crooked lawyer in an unfair domestic abuse situation.
What should you have done?
not be a cheapskate and choose "self-help" legal service plan-lawyer was a block away and it wouldn't have taken much to have him there-talk about penny wise and pound foolish
not run away from the courthouse at the time of your hearing
get a copy of whatever you claim was waived in your face-in no circumstance should you have walked away without any paper or communication directly from the court-
after you did talk to your lawyer, go back to the courthouse and tell the judge you want to make a record of what happened
Insist if the hearing was to be reset the order be amended pending the reset hearing
testify
cross examine
file for amendment of the order immediately after you failed to do so at the hearing and learned of alleged skullduggery-get the skullduggery on record
file for amendment of the order to release funds for legal expense which could have been done at any time-goes without saying judges and lawyers tend to ok that request
use any one of several opportunities to argue back, and when you choose not to don't claim you didn't have the chance to argue back
but first and foremost: DON'T ASSAULT YOUR WIFE! (sorry, couldn't help myself on that one)
Was done but this one gets one a response. I DIDN'T . I HAD MOVED OVER THIRTY MILES AWAY WHEN THIS PETITION WAS FILED. THERE WAS NO HISTORY OF ANY VIOLENCE.. The rest of your speculations are what get further and further from what happened. But I'm hoping it is from some life experiences that cloud your intellectual instincts. In the past I've enjoyed your posts, Only in this thread have I been disappointed. Maybe your Dad used to beat up your Mom or something.
But thanks. I suspect the casual reader will get the message that there is a strong stigma attached to persons subjected to a restraining order issued from a Petition for Emergency Restraining Order. I believe you just helped make my case. Can we stop now or do you want to come tar and feather me or something?
Last edited:
