"The right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." --Fourth Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." --Fourteenth Amendment.
Only a democrat could possibly think an 'emergency temporary restraining order' is legal. Only a person with no regard for civil liberties would support such a law. The Fourth Amendment clearly states that a person cannot be seized (arrested) until a judge has issued a probable cause arrest warrant. And in order for a judge to issue a probable cause arrest warrant a crime has to have been committed. Any person with a grudge against another person can go to a judge, sometimes via an online reporting system, tell the judge that the person they don't like has threatened to harm them and the judge will sign what is commonly referred to as a protection order. And one of the provisions of that order will state that the accused person must stay a certain distance away from the protected person. The restrained person has to be served a copy of the order and it has to be filed with the local police department before it takes legal effect, but once that has been done the person who is the target of the order can be arrested for just being within the distance proscribed by the protection order. All the 'protected' person has to do is follow the target person to a grocery store and call the police claiming that the target person is in violation of the order and the target person will be arrested. It doesn't matter that the protected person lied to the court about the supposed threat, or that the protected person lied to the court about serving the target person, the target person will be arrested.
There is no way to know if the target person was served or not. And there is no way to know if the protected person was telling the truth about the supposed threat. Just about every time a person going through a divorce seeks a protection order it is based on lies. No abuse ever happened, no threats were ever made, and the protected person was never in any danger. On top of that the protected person lies about having served the target person so the target person doesn't even know he or she has been accused until they are being handcuffed and taken to jail. And now in addition to being unjustly accused in a so-called Family Superior Court the target person has to defend him or herself against a protective order that is based solely on lies. The targeted person never intended any harm to the so-called protected person. In many cases it is just the opposite. The targeted person has been subjected to unbelievable mental cruelty and other forms of abuse. And the real funny part is that the targeted person won't even have a chance to defend against the illegal order for several months. The arraignment after the arrest will only be for the crime of violating an order that was issued illegally in the first place. And all the judge has to say is, Thank God I'm immune from the effects of my stupidity!
Even judges who witness this multiple times a day put great weight on protective orders often using them to give an advantage to the person seeking protection.
Never mind the fact that judges knowingly allow themselves to be used as weapons against a targeted parent or other person in a legal matter, the protection order is issued without offering the targeted person any due process rights and as such are completely unconstitutional. The targeted person is presumed guilty without a hearing, gets arrested for something that never occurred, and has to make bail in order to be released from the jail, possibly hire a lawyer who will then proceed to fleece him or her for as much money as possible so they can set multiple hearings to hear evidence that their client never committed a crime that never occurred. And the targeted person, usually a citizen of the United States, is openly and knowingly deprived of his or her Constitutional rights for the convenience of the court. And the judge has knowingly and willingly allowed him or herself to be used as a dupe for the so-called protected person.
So much for the Fourth Amendment. It has been rendered useless by Superior Courts.
Ok then how about the Fourteenth Amendment? Maybe the court believes the Fourteenth Amendment protects a citizens rights.
Nope! As mentioned above the targeted person gets arrested for a crime for which there is no evidence ever occurred. And since there is no evidence that a crime ever occurred there can't be any evidence that anyone committed the crime that never occurred, yet a person has been illegally arrested for the phantom crime.
Literally thousands of citizens are arrested every year and at least 90 percent of the restraining orders that are granted are based on lies, allegations of incidents of things that never occurred. This can only happen when judges are signing protection orders without asking for any corroborating evidence. The judge has no way of knowing if the accused person is guilty of anything, but he signs what amounts to an arrest warrant anyway. No matter how you look at it, this is wrong.
In the absence of any kind of proof that a person has done anything wrong it is illegal for the state to deprive that individual of his or her rights even if it is possible that the person might be a danger to someone.
No judge who cares about the law, or who has any integrity at all would sign a restraining order without seeing some proof that there is a reason for the issuance of such a restriction of a person's rights.
Even a temporary restraining order has a long lasting effect on the targeted person that can affect such things as job opportunities and housing, or even traveling via commercial air carrier. Any court issuing restraining orders is probably willingly violating the Constitution for the convenience of the court. I have no idea how this is legal.
And worse it undermines the credibility of the entire justice system. How can we possibly have any confidence in a judge who would knowingly sign a protection order for which the protected person has shown any evidence that one is needed?
So much for the protection provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. If you are going through a divorce proceeding you better be the first to request an illegal protection order because the first one to lie about being abused has a great advantage during the rest of the proceedings.
At least in Family Court there are no laws. There is only a judge who is either ignorant of the law or doesn't care about the law. Either way we lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment