Feminists Responsible for Boom in Unnecessary Temporary Restraining Orders

Human Events ^ | Sep 11, 2006 | Phyllis Schlafly

[IMissPresidentReagan]

In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously "annoys" a woman.

In that case, I'm packing now to move to Oklahoma, and plan to get a TRO on all Democratic male Senators. :D Watch out Ted Kennedy.

[Paisan]

Feminists Responsible for Boom in Unnecessary Temporary Restraining Orders

Well Duh...

Don't even need to read this one. I expect most of the divorced guys to have a similar response.

[ConservativeMind]

Wow. That New Mexico lady has a mental problem. And the person (lawyer) who put her case before the court has even more.

[theBuckwheat]

This would all be almost humorous except that sometimes having had a TRO issued against you can cause you further problems with the legal system.

For example, it may make it illegal for you to possess a firearm, or allow local law enforcement officials to demand that you surrender all your firearms.

Forever more you will have to answer Yes to the question on government and employment forms asking if you have ever been subject to such an order.

Needless to say, if you are ever served with such an order, you must consult your attorney for the implications. None of this trouble comes without big, expensive, legal bills.

[Gay State Conservative]

I've read that it's pretty much SOP now for women to claim domestic abuse and/or child sexual abuse in order to get a leg up in divorce proceedings.No doubt some of these claims are justified,but it's unlikely that all of them are...and maybe not even most of them.

No judge with an IQ of more than 50 would ever deny a request for a restraining order from a woman so as to avoid the possibility of seeing the headline "Woman Denied A Restraining Order By Judge Smith Found Murdered".

[Gay State Conservative]

Forever more you will have to answer Yes to the question on government and employment forms asking if you have ever been subject to such an order.

How often,and under what circumstances,is this question asked.I know that it's common to be asked if you've ever been convicted of a crime (or,at least,a felony).

[antiRepublicrat]

I've read that it's pretty much SOP now for women to claim domestic abuse and/or child sexual abuse in order to get a leg up in divorce proceedings.

Luckily, some states got smart. They yank the child from both parents when an allegation is made to get ahead in a divorce.

[JamesP81]

How did it happen that state laws against domestic violence are written so broadly as to produce such absurdities?

Because when a woman files a complaint against a man in court, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a myth.

Ladies, this is why men are 1) reluctant to date and 2) reluctant to commit. We're as likely to end up bankrupt or with a criminal record as find happiness. Something to think about.

[EdReform]

bookmarking

[martin gibson]

a rat is a dog is a pig is a feminist (with profound apologies to rats, dogs and pigs).

[Fido969]

And don't forget the gutless judges that go along with this.

You'd think it would be against the law to file a bogus request for a restraining order. But judges nowadays pick and choose which laws to enforce based on their political preferences.

Then they sit around and wring their hands at the decreasing public confidence in the courts. Like they had nothing to do with it or something.

[Vasilli22]

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

The sad thing is all of the BS TROs will eventually hurt those who really need them by watering down their importance.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" Needless to say, if you are ever served with such an order, you must consult your attorney for the implications. None of this trouble comes without big, expensive, legal bills. "

This has nothing to do with either a true domestic crime has or has not happened.
The Feminist cry that men have the power in the system, and society, and that men get paid more than women.
This is nothing but another arrow that the Feminist/Libs/Gays/MSM/Socialist have in their quiver to over trow and subvert society and even our country to bring it into their subjection.
They want to subvert to bring this country and society into the Liberal/Pervert/Socialist utopia that they want to create.
This is the same thing they are trying to do with our political system, and court system, and you can see what the NEA has done with our schools and the " dumbmining down " of the students in our public school system.
Look what they ( A.C.L.U. ) has done with their war on Christianity.

[sportutegrl]

Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network television broadcasts.

Did it ever occur to this woman or the judge for that matter, that she simply oould have changed the channel?

[Fido969]

the multimillion-dollar federal boondoggle called the Violence Against Women Act.

Try multi billion dollar.

What do you think people with degrees in "women's studies" live on?

[doc30]

I've read that it's pretty much SOP now for women to claim domestic abuse and/or child sexual abuse in order to get a leg up in divorce proceedings.

Women are also advised to quit their jobs before filing so they can get more support alimony, too (depending on state).

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" No judge with an IQ of more than 50 would ever deny a request for a restraining order from a woman so as to avoid the possibility of seeing the headline "Woman Denied A Restraining Order By Judge Smith Found Murdered". "

I find it very unlikely and absurd in this case with the woman who filed this claim against David Letterman ( hence ? he is the one who had to file many claims against many crazy women stalking him ) so in effect ? any judge who see's this coming ( a bogus, absurd claim that she was harmed some way by watching TV ) automatically trow it out of court, and put these women 30 days in jail for filing false bogus claims.
( HEY lady ? turn the TV off if it effects you like that by watching David Letterman )
This sounds absurd as the case with the person who sued Starbucks for $ 100 million because the coupon was either expired or they didn't honor the coupon for what ever reason ( Starbucks ) saw reasonable.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" Did it ever occur to this woman or the judge for that matter, that she simply could have changed the channel? " ....... not enough brain power to comprehend or figure it out by themselves ( they got to get the government NANNY THEM )