Judge's ruling on restraining orders draws concern

The Domestic Violence Law is one of the few things our esteemed State Legislature has gotten right, so now, of course, an unelected judge wants to throw it out. This law is not perfect, but it's the first line of defense for battered partners, and has saved lives.

The judge should hang her head in shame.
.
..If for no other reason - look at how many people are killed even after they go through the trouble of getting a "restraining order".
.
..Any bets she lives in the clouds - looking down on everyone. Probably carries a gun, Has the police on speed dial (their emergency number - not the public one) has GPS with her no matter where she goes. Special License Plates ( you know the ones that allow her to park anywhere like the police )

.
.
maybe the reasoning is, that if restraining orders are not issued - it will save money from the lawsuits that happen when they aren't enforced by the police departments. they do not have to respond to something that doesn't exist

The real purpose of restraining orders is not so much to prevent violence as to eliminate one parent during divorce proceedings. This is now common knowledge in legal circles.
New Jersey municipal judge Richard Russell actually urged his colleagues to violate basic constitutional protections: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," he told a judges' training seminar. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around...We don,t have to worry about the rights."
Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women,s Bar Association, writes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in divorce courts and that restraining orders are doled out "like candy." "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply," and "the facts have become irrelevant," she reports. "In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had." Yet a government analysis found that fewer than half of all restraining orders involved even an allegation of physical violence.
THIS NJ JUDGE IS AN AMERICAN HERO

People are working on the problems that both men and women have with the system. Some are outlined is a set of articles; "Congressional Guidelines for Abusing Women" (http://www.true-equality.org/ Lawless/Congressional_Guidelin es.htm), "How The Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts" (http://www.true-equality.org/ Lawless/lawless-index.htm), and "Child Sex Abuse in Women’s Shelters" (http://www.true-equality.org/ Lawless/Child%20Sex%20Abuse%20 in%20Womens%20Shelters.htm). The problems are known, getting the legislatures to correct the system is another problem.

Remember: Equal Protection Under the Law is True Equality.

NJAbuse Dad is absolutely right on.
Domestic Violence is a hot button topic, law enforcement should be able to testify as to there being any evidence of physical abuse at the hearing. The people at Womens Services knew that my ex was lying and still coached her on exactly what to say. Their funding is based on sucess records so they really did not care.
My rights were violated then and continue to be violated every day. The atty. who handled the case for me was a pinch hitter who did me no service at all and did not even explain that the FRO was forever.
He is now a family court judge.

Salem County Dad wrote:

NJAbuse Dad is absolutely right on.
Domestic Violence is a hot button topic, law enforcement should be able to testify as to there being any evidence of physical abuse at the hearing. The people at Womens Services knew that my ex was lying and still coached her on exactly what to say. Their funding is based on sucess records so they really did not care.
My rights were violated then and continue to be violated every day. The atty. who handled the case for me was a pinch hitter who did me no service at all and did not even explain that the FRO was forever.
He is now a family court judge.

.if you have a complaint against an attorney the NJ Bar would be happly to listen ...
What I am talking about is how many women died with a T.R.O. in their hand waiting for police responce ?.?.?
You did not ask your attorney a question??? Sounds like your now venting your anger - in the United States are Appellate Courts - ever hear of them???

Salem County Dad wrote:

What about a woman who had no grounds for a TRO much less an FRO, but gets coached by Womens Services on exactly what to say to push the judges buttons and get what she wanted which was enough time to empty the house and bank account and drive her husband into bankruptcy.

.
.
...the rest of the story would be nice -- she emptied the house, bank acount, and drove you into bankruptcy. Then you are better off without her, aren't you?.?.?
.
..
...a perfect gentleman, saintly father and husband - gee sounds good but doesn't wash.
.
..it still takes two to tango
.
..the rest of the story would be nice

In Tennessee, the alleged victim doesn't have to have sustained any injury, have been touched or even verbally threatened. Women can and do get a restraining order that put their mates out of the house by simply stating that they "feel" threatened!

Unfortunately, all too often domestic violence laws are used for positioning in a divorce case to attain children and assets. It is well known that in the matrimonial law profession this is their trade secret, which they like to pretend does not exist.

Restraining orders protect no one. they are only used to make money for the lawyers and destroy families.

There are Billions of dollars spent needlessly taking children away from caring parents all so the Federal and State funding can keep coming in.

Jusde Schultz should be aplauded for being the first to step up and address the problem.

Professor wrote:

The Domestic Violence Law is one of the few things our esteemed State Legislature has gotten right, so now, of course, an unelected judge wants to throw it out. This law is not perfect, but it's the first line of defense for battered partners, and has saved lives.

Most people would like to see how many lives are really saved. A visit to family court easilly reveals how these are misused by the millions every. DV laws kill inicent families and destroy peoples lives.

As the pending surge in national media coverage on restraining order law and policy develops, I hope you will consider this sound, compelling and important information on the subject.
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City, NJ made the following statements (on tape) in a judicial training session regarding restraining orders:

( Source - pdf of scanned New Jersey Law Journal article
http://www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_1...
http://www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_2... )
"Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order," he said. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around ...The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection ... They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights."

Judge Russell instructs judges to take this approach because of what the news media will do to the judge if a woman is harmed after a restraining order request is denied. The article at the links provided includes his statements about this.

Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association has said "the facts have become irrelevant... restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply", a fact highlighted by a recent (2006) celebrity restraining order case involving David Letterman. Regarding divorce cases, Epstein has stated "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage". According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out "like candy" and "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had." Cathy Young reports on the Elaine Epstein quote and the broader issue at Salon.com here: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/r...
The issuance of a restraining order against a father virtually guarantees that he will not spend significant time with his children as they grow up.
A New Mexico judge (Daniel Sanchez, who was responsible for restraining order policy for all of Northern New Mexico) granted a restraining order against David Letterman based on a woman's claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial decision making is practiced in many states as a matter of policy and frequently results in innocent men losing all or most of their meaningful involvement in their children's lives.
According to the a recent CDC study, women and men between the ages of 18 and 28 initiate domestic violence at similar rates, and women in that age group initiate non-reciprocal violence at higher rates than men. The study may be viewed here:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/fu...
Here is a link to a bibliography of over 200 studies indicating similar rates:
www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
According to the US Department of Justice, women also abuse, neglect and kill their children at significantly higher rates than men. Here’s some of the data on child homicides.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/...
It's well known within the legal community that false allegations of domestic violence result in the issuance of hundreds of thousands of restraining orders every year in America. As we rethink domestic violence policy, I hope we have the wisdom to understand the system of human incentives that has allowed this situation to come about.

bbednarz wrote:

<quoted text>
.if you have a complaint against an attorney the NJ Bar would be happly to listen ...
What I am talking about is how many women died with a T.R.O. in their hand waiting for police responce ?.?.?
You did not ask your attorney a question??? Sounds like your now venting your anger - in the United States are Appellate Courts - ever hear of them???

If i have a complaint against an attorney?

I have complaint against Judges, and Appellate courts who take the current politically correct route and sided with radical feminist ideologues that plague our family courts based on NO real evidence.

The destruction of our families and children future is the outcome

Restraining orders are only enforceable against law-abiding men.

A violent spouse intent on killing his ex-spouse is not going to decide against it for fear of violating a restraining order.

New Jersey issues 30,000 restraining orders annually, and men are targeted in four-fifths of them. They have become a weapon used for advantage in divorce, helping women position themselves as their children's sole caretakers, which aids them in winning sole custody of their children. The orders effectively give women the right to banish men from their homes and their children whenever they see fit.

"Feminist Myth" ‘Get-tough’ arrest policies save lives
NJ has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to institute pro- and mandatory-arrest policies. These policies set aside due process protections of “probable cause,” and silence the wishes of victims, as well.
Worse, Taxpayer-funded mandatory arrest laws have increased partner homicides by 54%, according to a recent Harvard University study.
“Mandatory arrest laws are responsible for an additional 0.8 murders per 100,000 people.”–Radha Iyengar, PhD.

But according to you we should just let an accuser do this damage, why, because she/he is angry for some reason possibly in many case.

We should not look beyond a mere accusation against a man, Now who is the angry one, and why?

For those that say the laws are just fine as they are I say this?

So therefore you support a change in our legal system that says you are guilty until proven innocent?- that is what a TRO is- it is issued most often ex parte without any chance for the accused to defend himself.

You support the law as it stands then essentially you are saying the bill of rights should not apply to men just women.

So therefore you are ok with discrimination?- because the overwhelming majority of TRO's are issued against men despite the fact that there is signifcant fact based studies (not the lies put out by the DV industry) that show WOMEN are just as likely to be the abuser as men.

So therefore you are ok with David Lettermen who lives in CT having a TRO issued against him by a woman in NM because she thought he was sending her messages via the TV (yes that actually happened look it up)

When a person can get thrown out of their home, be denied acces to their children, their money, their way of life simply by a woman saying "i'm afraid of him" with no evidence to support it.

That's called the Soviet style of justice - welcome to the gulag men