Fighting a Bogus Restraining Order - need some help here

[Storm70707]

I have a bogus restraining order that has been
placed against me alleging abuse that never
occurred and threats that were never made.

I have two witnesses that stated on the
day of the abuse, I yelled at this woman, but
never physically touched her or threatened her,
because..well, i didnt.

The restraining order states otherwise.


now, when I was served I received no dv-120? (The form that gives me a
chance to
respond to the order)

I also stumbled across this at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve


CA Family Code Section 243 states:
"(a) When the matter first comes up for hearing, the applicant
must be ready to proceed.
(b) If an order described in Section 240 has been issued without
notice pending the hearing, the applicant must have served on the
respondent, at least five days before the hearing, a copy of each of
the following:
(1) The order to show cause.
(2) The application and the affidavits and points and authorities
in support of the application.
(3) Any other supporting papers filed with the court.
(c) If an order described in Section 240 has been issued with
notice pending the hearing, the applicant must have served on the
respondent the documents described in subdivision (b) at least 15
days before the hearing.
(d) If the applicant fails to comply with subdivision (a) and
either subdivision (b) or (c), the court shall dissolve the order."

Since I didnt receive all my forms, can I
get this order dissolved? What is the appropriate
way to do that?
Should I do something about the fraudulent
accusations being held against me BEFORE my
hearing? or at the hearing?

[JayCee]

Storm70707 wrote:

I have a bogus restraining order that has been placed against me alleging abuse that never occurred and threats that were never made. I have two witnesses that stated on the day of the abuse, I yelled at this woman, but never physically touched her or threatened her, because..well, i didnt. The restraining order states otherwise.

Yelling at a woman is physical abuse. You probably made her "feel"
threatened. Therefore, you are a criminal, an abuser of women. And you
will be wearing that label for the rest of your life. Of course on the
other hand, the woman could do just about anything to you short of
murder and you would be expected to just suck it up and "take it like a
man." Welcome to life in feminist Amerika ...

[Rog']

"Storm70707" <stormwind0@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have a bogus restraining order that has been placed against me alleging abuse that never occurred and threats that were never made. <snip> Since I didnt receive all my forms, can I get this order dissolved? What is the appropriate way to do that? Should I do something about the fraudulent accusations being held against me BEFORE my hearing? or at the hearing?

I'm sorry to sound unsympathetic, but IMO, relying on us
armchair quarterbacks for half-assed and likely incorrect
legal advice would not be your best move. But as I see it,
your alternatives are to:
1. Hire a lawyer who knows what to do and how to do it; or
B. Contact the clerk of the court and/or judge's office which
issued the order, find out if there's going to be a hearing (or
file+serve a motion to dissolve and set a hearing), and then
get your witnesses to the hearing, using subpoenas, if needed.
=R=

[John Riggs]

"Rog'" <rcblinnNoSpam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OOoIe.11054$BA5.420@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| "Storm70707" <stormwind0@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >I have a bogus restraining order that has been
| > placed against me alleging abuse that never
| > occurred and threats that were never made.
| > <snip>
| > Since I didnt receive all my forms, can I get this
| > order dissolved? What is the appropriate way to
| > do that? Should I do something about the fraudulent
| > accusations being held against me BEFORE my
| > hearing? or at the hearing?
|
| I'm sorry to sound unsympathetic, but IMO, relying on us
| armchair quarterbacks for half-assed and likely incorrect
| legal advice would not be your best move. But as I see it,
| your alternatives are to:
| 1. Hire a lawyer who knows what to do and how to do it; or
| B. Contact the clerk of the court and/or judge's office which
| issued the order, find out if there's going to be a hearing (or
| file+serve a motion to dissolve and set a hearing), and then
| get your witnesses to the hearing, using subpoenas, if needed.
| =R=
|


Even then it won't help, Rog. The judge will let it ride, even with
witnesses. BTDT

[Storm70707]

We'll have to see.
I fail to see how they could do that if I have
a witness to the entire situation.

[Rog']

"Storm70707" <stormwind0@yahoo.com> wrote:

We'll have to see. I fail to see how they could do that if I have a witness to the entire situation.

These days, its enuff just to make the accusation to get
you treated as if you're guilty, regardless of the evidence.
What you are dealing with, as JR discovered, is that its
far safer for these judges politically, to issue these orders
and kow-tow to the domestic-violence task forces and
other interest groups, than to follow the evidence.

If something happens, its the judge's name gets splashed
in the newspaper for failing to protect victims of domestic
violence, just like it would for be setting a low bond on an
alleged child-molester. But once in a while, you draw a
judge who's about to retire and doesn't give a hoot about
how it'll look in the papers, and does the right thing. =R=

[S.Taylor]

Forget what the law(s) say. The judges will ALWAYS act in favor of the
female. If they don't and a woman is killed by an angry husband, the
local feminists will picket the courthouse until the judge is removed
from the bench.

Make a pledge to yourself. NEVER again marry an American woman. They are
simply out of control.



======================================
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:47:57 -0400, "Storm70707" <stormwind0@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I have a bogus restraining order that has beenplaced against me alleging abuse that neveroccurred and threats that were never made.I have two witnesses that stated on theday of the abuse, I yelled at this woman, butnever physically touched her or threatened her,because..well, i didnt.The restraining order states otherwise.now, when I was served I received no dv-120? (The form that gives me achance torespond to the order)I also stumbled across this at:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieveCA Family Code Section 243 states:"(a) When the matter first comes up for hearing, the applicantmust be ready to proceed. (b) If an order described in Section 240 has been issued withoutnotice pending the hearing, the applicant must have served on therespondent, at least five days before the hearing, a copy of each ofthe following: (1) The order to show cause. (2) The application and the affidavits and points and authoritiesin support of the application. (3) Any other supporting papers filed with the court. (c) If an order described in Section 240 has been issued withnotice pending the hearing, the applicant must have served on therespondent the documents described in subdivision (b) at least 15days before the hearing.(d) If the applicant fails to comply with subdivision (a) andeither subdivision (b) or (c), the court shall dissolve the order."Since I didnt receive all my forms, can Iget this order dissolved? What is the appropriateway to do that?Should I do something about the fraudulentaccusations being held against me BEFORE myhearing? or at the hearing?

[wickedways]

Make a pledge to yourself. NEVER again marry an American woman.

Ok, done. hey, that was easy!

[John Riggs]

They won't picket just the court house. These people will picket the
judge's house. It happens here all the time.

"S.Taylor" <STaylor938129@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lt57f15sb8k9uv2rq706jpidroi1dp8jjg@4ax.com...
| Forget what the law(s) say. The judges will ALWAYS act in favor of the
| female. If they don't and a woman is killed by an angry husband, the
| local feminists will picket the courthouse until the judge is removed
| from the bench.
|
| Make a pledge to yourself. NEVER again marry an American woman. They are
| simply out of control.
|
|
|
| ======================================
| On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:47:57 -0400, "Storm70707" <stormwind0@yahoo.com>
| wrote:
| >I have a bogus restraining order that has been
| >placed against me alleging abuse that never
| >occurred and threats that were never made.
| >
| >I have two witnesses that stated on the
| >day of the abuse, I yelled at this woman, but
| >never physically touched her or threatened her,
| >because..well, i didnt.
| >
| >The restraining order states otherwise.
| >
| >
| >now, when I was served I received no dv-120? (The form that gives me a
| >chance to
| >respond to the order)
| >
| >I also stumbled across this at:
|

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve

| >
| >
| >CA Family Code Section 243 states:
| >"(a) When the matter first comes up for hearing, the applicant
| >must be ready to proceed.
| > (b) If an order described in Section 240 has been issued without
| >notice pending the hearing, the applicant must have served on the
| >respondent, at least five days before the hearing, a copy of each of
| >the following:
| > (1) The order to show cause.
| > (2) The application and the affidavits and points and authorities
| >in support of the application.
| > (3) Any other supporting papers filed with the court.
| > (c) If an order described in Section 240 has been issued with
| >notice pending the hearing, the applicant must have served on the
| >respondent the documents described in subdivision (b) at least 15
| >days before the hearing.
| >(d) If the applicant fails to comply with subdivision (a) and
| >either subdivision (b) or (c), the court shall dissolve the order."
| >
| >Since I didnt receive all my forms, can I
| >get this order dissolved? What is the appropriate
| >way to do that?
| >Should I do something about the fraudulent
| >accusations being held against me BEFORE my
| >hearing? or at the hearing?
|

[John Riggs]

Easy for you to say.

"wickedways" <lostcause@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tHNIe.551526$cg1.70204@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| >
| > Make a pledge to yourself. NEVER again marry an American woman.
|
| Ok, done. hey, that was easy!
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
|

[LoriMc]

Storm70707 wrote:

I have a bogus restraining order that has been placed against me alleging abuse that never occurred and threats that were never made.

Ouch, doesn't sound like a nice situation.

I have absolutely no experience with any type of restraining orders so can't
offer any advice.

Just wanted to tell yo to hang in there Storm, and to remember you have
friends here.

LoriMc

[elklaw]

You seem to have the answers already, but need to take action. File or draft a motion to dissolve the order by arguing failing to execute required service as you never received the proper forms to respond, and by alternative arguing that no physical abuse occurred and attach affidavits from persons who can verify this.

In the future, I suggest even if this is dissolved to stay away from this person and if you have to see them do so in public with others around.

[peakman]

Originally Posted by Rog'

"Storm70707" <stormwind0@yahoo.com> wrote:

These days, its enuff just to make the accusation to get
you treated as if you're guilty, regardless of the evidence.
What you are dealing with, as JR discovered, is that its
far safer for these judges politically, to issue these orders
and kow-tow to the domestic-violence task forces and
other interest groups, than to follow the evidence.

If something happens, its the judge's name gets splashed
in the newspaper for failing to protect victims of domestic
violence, just like it would for be setting a low bond on an
alleged child-molester. But once in a while, you draw a
judge who's about to retire and doesn't give a hoot about
how it'll look in the papers, and does the right thing. =R=

it happened to me.

I started blogging my story since legal means gets you know where and cost to much money. http://bogusrestrainingorder.blogspot.com/

Restraining orders, or "orders of protection" are
easily obtained by women and commonly used in domestic
cases where a male partner is violent or abusive.

But for Seymour Friedman, of the upper West side, it
was used by a female neighbor to obtain his very
desirable, nice-sized, rent-stabilized apartment with
backyard.
The saga started on October 12, 2004 when Deirdre
Waters, a large 200-pound woman, came barreling down
the hall towards Seymour as he emerged from his
apartment. Screaming, she pinned him against the wall.
According to her, paramedics had been slowed down by
obstructions in the hallway as they attempted to reach
a friend in her apartment the previous day. Seymour
runs an online pet food business and distributes pet
food and toys to hundreds of customers in and outside
of New York City. Some of his pet supplies were in the
shared hallway. Deirdre ripped Seymour's shirt with
one hand and flung nearby merchandise across the hall
with the other. Seymour, a small, slight man in his
40s, needed to use considerable force to disengage
himself. Deirdre responded by shouting for help, for
someone to call the police. When the police arrived,
she told them that Seymour had attacked her violently
and was so vindictive that he would kill her. Seymour
asked the police to talk to a witness who had been
standing in the hallway during the incident. The
police declined and took Seymour to jail.

Deirdre managed to convince the Court that she needed
an order of protection, and this was granted to her,
even though it is impossible for the two parties to
avoid contact: Seymour lives 20 feet away from Deirdre
and they share a bathroom in the hall. Seymour, has no criminal record, was
unable to convince any judge to hear his story. He was
assumed guilty on her word alone and the order of
protection stuck.

Twice more, Deirdre called the police and had Seymour
arrested without grounds. According to American law, if someone with an order of protection calls the police, the police are required
to arrest the accused. No questions are asked and no
evidence is needed. The order of protection, which finds the accused guilty
until proved innocent, also gives its "protectee"
Carte Blanche to harass the accused.

The third incident took place in Central Park. Seymour
and Deirdre both walk their dogs there. Seymour
entered the park as Deirdre was leaving. He ignored
her. Deirdre turned around and ran after Seymour,
screaming about his presence in the park. Seymour
decided to call the police to demonstrate that it was,
in fact, he who was being harassed, and that the
"victim" had accosted him and was clearly not afraid
of him. When the police arrived (Deirdre had left)
they explained to Seymour that there was nothing they
could do. The last arrest happened in Central Park.
Seymour met some friends who told him that Deirdre had
recently left the park; fortunately there had been no
contact or incident. Twenty minutes later, the police
arrived with a report that Seymour had just harassed
Deirdre. Since he had been at the park with his
friends, he had an alibi. There were more than ten
witnesses, some of whom knew the parties and others
who did not. Four more police cars arrived, and
Seymour was taken back to jail against the angry and
outraged pleas of the bystanders who had witnessed the
scene in disbelief.

Deirdre proceeded to file charges against Seymour in
criminal court for aggravated assault. She claimed
that she was terrified of Seymour and afraid for her
life, that he was an axe murderer and was trying to
kill her, her dog, and his dogs. Seymour is actually
known in the community for fostering sick dogs for
animal rescue groups. Seymour's defense brought seven
witnesses: Pete Page, who witnessed the original
incident, described how Seymour was attacked and how
he defended himself. Several friends and employees
provided testimony about Deirdre's front door, which
was almost always open, countering her claims of
living in fear. Mike Gold, who knew both plaintiff and
defendant, described a friendship gone sour. They used
to all play volleyball on the same team and once
shared a Passover seder together in Seymour's
apartment. The day after Seymour's second arrest Mike
went with his girlfriend to Deirdre's apartment to try
to mediate the conflict, and was told by Deirdre that
she would only drop the charges if Seymour gave her
$10,000.

Deirdre perjured herself three times during the trial
by denying events and circumstances until the defense
presented evidence to the contrary. For example,
Deirdre claimed that she had kept her dog away from
Seymour since the beginning of 2003, until the defense
exhibited emails from Deirdre to Seymour in 2004
thanking him for looking after her dog. She claimed
that the landlord had requested that she take
photographs of Seymour's belongings in the hallway,
but that she had refused to do so, not wanting to "spy
on her neighbors". However, at a later proceeding, she
produced many photos that she had taken. She denied
that Seymour had lent her $800, until witnesses
demonstrated otherwise. The transcripts of her perjury
are all available for the public record.

Deirdre had no witnesses and her sole piece of
evidence was a bruise that was shown to the police and
photographed three weeks after the incident. The
prosecution alluded to a witness who had seen the
scuffle and claimed that he had seen Seymour beat
Deirdre, but this witness, Petro Torress, never showed
up. Torress is a fellow tenant who told Seymour that
since he lives directly above Seymour, he was unable
to see what happened and only called the police
because he heard "Call 911!" He later contacted the
District Attorney's office to explain that he would
not be appearing in court because he did not witness
anything. Yet in closing statements to the jury, the D.A.
insisted that there is a witness had attested to the beating.

Based on Deirdre's bruise, and District Attorney Craig
Ortner's depiction of all the witnesses as frauds and
liars,the jury, under Judge Kirk Bartley of New York
City Criminal Court, convicted Seymour of reckless
assault, a misdemeanor,which is the mildest charge
that could be given without throwing out the case.

Deirdre's next action was to evict Seymour from the
building. She knew that the landlady, Frida Gural, had
a history of previous legal disagreements with
Seymour. Seymour had been awarded rent abatement three
times in Landlord-Tenant Court for problems with
leaks, a broken ceiling and warped floor which the
landlady had refused to fix. The rent abatement had
caused the Management Company to lose rent. Deirdre
took the unconventional and inappropriate step of
hiring a lawyer to represent the Company, presumably
with her eye on the prize of Seymour's apartment.

Upon further investigation, Seymour learned that the
previous occupant of Deirdre's apartment had been
evicted using a harassment complaint obtained through
the police department. Mark Greenstein had originally
sublet his apartment to Deirdre Waters, charging her

$50-75 above his own rent, still far below market
value. After five years, Deirdre started arguing with
Greenstein over the rent and wanted the apartment in
her name. They were not able to come to an agreement.
Deirdre complained to the Management Company, Central
Park Realty, who allegedly recommended that she file a
complaint against Greenstein for "harassing" her.
Deirdre admitted to this in her testimony in criminal
court. After Deirdre filed the complaint, Greenstein
began receiving calls from the police and detectives
who had been told that he was trying to kill her. Not
wanting to incur a lengthy legal battle, Greenstein
relented and gave up his apartment, and Deirdre took
over the lease.

Seymour brought this to the attention of the judges in
both Criminal and Housing court to establish a pattern
of behavior and an ulterior motive in the plaintiff.

In the second trial the lawyer for Deirdre produced
one
witness, a fellow tenant, who said that he was afraid
of Seymour, although he would not explain why and
could cite no examples. Seymour learned after the
trial that this witness, Brian Robinson, owed back
rent on his apartment.

Seymour's defense cited the lack of any evidence
behind Deirdre's claims, and the absence of any proof
that Seymour was responsible for her bruise. But
orders of protection are apparently "untouchable" and
no judge, including Judge Halpern of New York city's
Housing Court, wants to take the responsibility of
overturning one, even if a case appears frivolous. The
consequences can be dire: in many homicides of women,
their male partner is found guilty. Clearly, there is
merit in the overwhelming majority of cases in which
orders of protection are issued. And because judges
understandably take these cases so seriously, accused
men who are actually innocent become the necessary
casualties of this law. Seymour Friedman is such a
case. He now has a bogus criminal charge against him
and has been given 30 days to vacate the apartment
that he has inhabited for 12 years. An order of
protection has been used twice by the same person to
obtain a much coveted, rent-stabilized apartment in
New York City, and the American Justice System has
allowed this to happen.

The apartment is located at 58 W. 91st street between
Columbus and Central Park West.

For more information, and to assist in the legal
appeal, please contact BogusRestrainingOrder@yahoo.com

Deirdre Waters was successful in having Seymour Friedman evicted from his long time residence. After his eviction she quickly made her move, she moved into his apartment where she still resides now. But Deirdre Waters was not satisfied with getting Seymour's below market rent apartment (60% below market) Deirdre Waters lawyer <a href="http://www.manhattanfirm.com/about_stevendecastro.html">Steven De Castro</a> who claims to be specializing in civil rights, have filled motions to sue Seymour for her legal fees. This is a real slap in the face and injustice. These would be like a mugger suing his victim for the expense of buying the gun. Unfortunately for Seymour the hearring will be in front off the same <a href="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/nyc/housing/Judge/Profiles/SHalprin.shtml">Judge Haprin</a> who evicted him, and placed an armed guard next to Seymour, non withstanding that besides Waters accusation Seymour (46) has a perfectly clean record and Deirdre Waters admitted that the so called injuries did not warrant any medical attention. This is the very same Judge who said <span style="font-weight:bold;">I have to evict Seymour, since no judge want to make that 1 in 1 million mistake when it come to restraining orders and end up in the papers. (I thought a case should be decided on the merits of the case, I guess I am very naive)</span>

<span style="font-style:italic;">Judge Haprin stated very clearly at the time of Seymour's eviction that he does not see any evidence that Deirdre Waters has an eye for Seymour's apartment, (even thought evidence was provided that she did the same thing to Mark Greenstien to obtain his apartment.) I guess I will see what Judge Haprin has to say about that statement now. </span>

Because of a bogus restraining order and the way Judges interpret restraining order laws Seymour lost his apartment, was forced to move out of Manhattan due to skyrocketing rent, and is now paying an extra $700+ a month in rent than his previous rent. In addition he is being by Deirdre Waters to recover her lawyer’s fees. Let not forget he now has a criminal record based on Deirdre Water statements alone. She provided no evidence to support her claims and Seymour has many eyewitnesses that refute her accusations. Even proving that Deirdre Waters moved into his apartment as predicted does not sway the judges at all. THE RESTRAINING ORDER MUST SURVIVE AT ALL COST.

And what about Deirdre Waters, she gets a studio apartment with a backyard 1 block away from Central Park for way below market, and gets Seymour (the real victim) to pay, for his own eviction. All this because Deirdre Waters knows how to use a law, that was written to protect, and use it as a sword to harass and steal.


If anybody can help or knows a lawyer, who specializes in fighting restraining order please email Seymour at <a href='mailto:bogusrestrainingorder@yahoo.com'>bogu srestrainingorder@yahoo.com</a> or call 212-496-6684.

He would be also interested in starting or helping some action group to change this one sided and unconstitutional law.

[aryels]

okay, suppose you are the judge.

You are facing a person (perpetrator) who was put under a restraining order (protective order) ordering that person to "stay away" from the victim.

You believe that the victim felt that the importance of obtaining a protective order outweighed the time and cost of filing and obtaining that order.
The "perpetrator" paid nothing, and wants the restraining order dissolved.

In many states, "assault" is defined as verbal threats made by a person who is in a vicinity near enough to actually harm the other person (or who has the ability of actually carrying through with the threat), and thereby placing the victim in a state of apprehesiveness or fear of harm.

I suppose the judge would ask "How difficult is it for the "perpetrator" to stay away from the victim, and why is the "perpetrator" so insistent about having the restraining order dissolved?"

A very wise judge would probably uphold the protective order, advise the "perpetrator" about the laws concerning stalking, and very possibly order the "perpetrator" to obtain psychiatric counseling.

[peakman]

What cost does the suppose victim incur a phone call to the police. Also if and when it is discovered that the person filed a false police report nothing happens to that person.

In many cases the person who files an restraining order has other motives. And the down side is zero. And restraining order are very, very easy to obtain in many states. And the person who was put under the restraining order was not even there for the hearing. Not allowed to face the accuser. And will be denied as I was for a hearing on the matter.

QUOTE=aryels]okay, suppose you are the judge.

You are facing a person (perpetrator) who was put under a restraining order (protective order) ordering that person to "stay away" from the victim.

You believe that the victim felt that the importance of obtaining a protective order outweighed the time and cost of filing and obtaining that order.
The "perpetrator" paid nothing, and wants the restraining order dissolved.

In many states, "assault" is defined as verbal threats made by a person who is in a vicinity near enough to actually harm the other person (or who has the ability of actually carrying through with the threat), and thereby placing the victim in a state of apprehesiveness or fear of harm.

I suppose the judge would ask "How difficult is it for the "perpetrator" to stay away from the victim, and why is the "perpetrator" so insistent about having the restraining order dissolved?"

A very wise judge would probably uphold the protective order, advise the "perpetrator" about the laws concerning stalking, and very possibly order the "perpetrator" to obtain psychiatric counseling.[/quote]

[Innocent_Bystander]

that is the biggest bunch of bs I have ever heard and I hope that fat tub of lard rots in hell when she dies. It sounds like she is so damn insecure with herself that she needs to start s--- in order to justify her false sense of worth. She is mean , selfish and has no dignity for anyone, including herself and she will get hers in the end. What comes around goes around- karma is getting ready to slap that b---- in the face and I hope when it does it slaps the crap out of her and knocks her into next week. In fact, I WISH IT ON HER RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND.... SO MOTE IT BE.....

[Chase0409]

Hey guys, I don't know how to post a new thread so I am just going to post off this one.

My boyfriend was served with a no contact order from his almost ex wife and his kids. He had to go to court in Chicago, and the judge order a year long protection order. I don't know much about these, but he is not allowed to see his kids for another year and he is only allowed to talk to them 4 times a week at scheduled times. The problem is. These are bogus charges. Julie is almost ex wife, has left him 7 times in the 6 years they were married, now this time she left him she was gone for a year and a half and he didn't know where she was until someone from the HOMELESS shealter she is staying in with her kids, contacted my boyfriend. He finally called her and then about 5 months later she showed up at our house after a year and half long of not seeing her or his kids, she dropped the kids off for a week to stay with us. now she is telling everyone that he abused his son. Which is not true and i know first had because i was with them ever second. She said that he beat him so bad he had bruises for weeks. and he couldn't walk for several days. bogus he never was hit ever. She has no proof no pictures no doctor notes nothing. and the judge granted her a year protection order! Without any proof! Just hearsay. We live in Iowa, is there anything that we can do? Can he take her back to court and appeal it? Can he file for custody in our county that we live in? is the order of protection only good for the county she lives in or the whole state of Illionois? I need some advice....please help us.

[xena]

Chase0409,

Please start your own thread. There is a button near the left top that says "new thread". Click on that and you'll be able to start your own thread and get more responses.

[Mrs S]

You gave so little info. I am going to guess this is your wife since you posted in the divorce section of this site. Do you have children with this "woman" If so I can see fighting a restraining order. If not your best bet is staying away. Not much proof is needed to obtain a restraining order and smaller than that proof is needed to have your arrested if you violate. If you have children fight it. If it is hurting your reputation, fight it. ABOVE ALL get an attny to tell you exactly what to do. Don't listen to me or anyone else who isn't an attny.Seems no one knew the legal answer. You should have done this already.

[FlyinHawk]

Please watch the dates before you post.