Posted on 06/05/2007 10:59:00 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
Assembly Bill 5424, recently introduced by State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn), is a draconian measure which will victimize many innocent New York men and fathers. The bill requires “any person against whom an order of protection is issued…to wear an electronic monitoring device.” The device will allow pinpoint tracking of the wearer, and tampering with the device will be a felony.
Perhaps such a drastic, Orwellian measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be violent or dangerous. With orders of protection, however, this often is far from the case.
Beginning in the 1970s, 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 each year in the United States. The vast majority of these are related to domestic violence allegations, yet research shows that these orders often do not even involve an accusation of actual violence. Usually all that’s 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 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. New York Final Orders of Protection are usually granted for one or two years, and may last up to five 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 orders are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence."
Such orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
An excellent example of the assembly line manner in which orders of protection are issued is the case of TV host David Letterman. In December 2005, a judge granted a temporary restraining order against Letterman to a woman who had never met Letterman, but who claimed that he had mentally harassed her through his TV broadcasts.
Reflecting the mentality of too many judges, the judge who issued the order explained, "If [applicants] make a proper pleading, then I grant it.” Thus what matters is not the accused’s guilt or innocence, but instead whether the accuser knows how to fill out a form properly. (Letterman’s attorneys were later able to get the order dropped).
Another problem with restraining orders is that it is common for men to violate them through no fault of their own. A man can accidentally be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife, 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 he needs her 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 bail. A5424 goes way beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who’ve never been found culpable of any crime.
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys. He is the author of the new HarperCollins book Divorce Wars: A Field Guide to the Winning Tactics, Preemptive Strikes, and Top Maneuvers When Divorce Gets Ugly. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
So glad I'm in a good marriage.
that frog is getting really hot!
I have a friend who’s ex-wife had a 209 out against him. She showed up at the door of the Church when he was getting remarried. The cops finally took her away. This was after his fiance took him down to the station to complain about the ex’s abuse of the system. She called while they were there. They had to cuff him.
I certainly hope for your sake it never goes sour.
I was in 3 “good” marriages, right up until the time the ex’s decided they wanted something better.
You’ll find out real fast how stacked against you the “law” is, if you ever are on the receiving end of this kind of BS.
These ‘restraining orders’ also have direct bearing on the RKBA. If on of these is granted, you are no longer able to purchase a firearm.
I am not sure if guns are taken away from the target of one of these abominations. Does anyone here know?
Cripes, that should have led to a commitment order.
I’ve ceased to expect sane behavior from ANYONE, anymore.
Increasingly, the world is more and more filled with whiny, petty, thin-skinned, self-absorbed, navel-surfing, attention whores bent on making those around them “pay” for every perceived slight they’ve ever experienced.
Society’s BEST GOOD would be achieved by taking the whole howling lot of them out to a remote, uninhabited island, and leaving them there to form their own little island nation. They deserve no better than to have all of themselves as close company.
Keep it that way, if you can. Otherwise, you'll find out that the motto of all courts is, "Man bad, woman good."
So basically this allows men (and some women) to have their life and liberty to be revoked without a trial by jury and without due process.
Just think, this all started with the woman’s right to just vote.....
And victims can only expect certain action --- from the grave.
It should be interesting to try and sell the Islamic world on American style women's lib.
You see we're equal, well except men are guests in their own home, must surrender their children at the drop of a hat, must make lifetime payments to their ex, can be sued for additional ailmony if we get raises after being married,......oh, and we are made to wear tracking devices without a trial.
Why are you Muslims violently resisting our superior culture?
Don't kid yourself; that frog is already boiled.
FASCISTS!
i was accused by my ex-wife of threatening her...throwing chairs at her amd she feared for her life....this happened the day after she had come by to pick up the last of her belongings and tried to bait me into an argument. i was the one that called 911 and asked for a deputy to be sent out until she left. they sent 2 and when asked if any domestic voilence had occured they were told no. they left after she did and there was never any arrests or police reports done. i found myself in court where she was granted an injuntion for domestic violence and i was ordered to 6 monthes of classes. when i went in to sign up i was asked for an arrest report to which i told them i was never arrested, then i was asked for a police report to which i told them there was none. the girl looked at me and asked what i was doing there. i learned alot about our judicial system and it wasn’t good. protect yourselves out there.
Cripes, that should have led to a commitment order.
Agreed. For the woman and the judge both.
This is the guy(?) who got the cell phone ban. His next claim to fame will be the tax added to high-fat foods. This is not the NYS I grew up in.
Nicely put!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.