Judges ideology and domestic restraining orders

[bruceleejr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA


If you were to challenge CA domestic restraining orders for violations of Due Process (e.g standard of proof, lack of safeguards, compelling interest, vague, over broad, etc,) would you think a liberal judge or conservative judge would most likely strike down the law?

I mean if you were to challenge its constitutionality, which do you think would most likely strike it down, liberal or conservative judge?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA


If you were to challenge CA domestic restraining orders for violations of Due Process (e.g standard of proof, lack of safeguards, compelling interest, vague, over broad, etc,) would you think a liberal judge or conservative judge would most likely strike down the law?

I mean if you were to challenge its constitutionality, which do you think would most likely strike it down, liberal or conservative judge?

Neither

 

[CdwJava]

If you have reasonable grounds to argue that the order granted in YOUR specific situation denied you due process, then you might be able to get a judge to reverse or modify the order ... or, at least give you a new hearing.

But, if you are asking if you could get a judge to throw one out based upon your opinion that such orders, in general, violate due process then you will lose.

 

[Zigner]

If you have reasonable grounds to argue that the order granted in YOUR specific situation denied you due process, then you might be able to get a judge to reverse or modify the order ... or, at least give you a new hearing.

But, if you are asking if you could get a judge to throw one out based upon your opinion that such orders, in general, violate due process then you will lose.

It's worse than that Carl. This OP, apparently, would like to have the entire concept of Domestic Restraining Orders struck down as unconstitutional!

 

[CdwJava]

It's worse than that Carl. This OP, apparently, would like to have the entire concept of Domestic Restraining Orders struck down as unconstitutional!

Yeah, I just read a couple of other posts ... Don Quixote, I suspect.

 

[bruceleejr]

No not restraining orders themselves. Just require that before granting them that it meet all DP, EP, and other constitutional guarantees.

 

[Zigner]

No not restraining orders themselves. Just require that before granting them that it meet all DP, EP, and other constitutional guarantees.

Who says they don't?

 

[bruceleejr]

Who says they don't?

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf

There are many more. Google Dave Heleniak, a prominent attorney regarding its DVRO constitutionality.

 

[Zigner]

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf

There are many more. Google Dave Heleniak, a prominent attorney regarding its DVRO constitutionality.

Ahhh, now the agenda surfaces

 

[bruceleejr]

Really? You didn't get the agenda from the OP?

 

[Silverplum]

Ahhh, now the agenda surfaces

Agendas on FA make me tired.

 

[CdwJava]

So, then, we should toss out all of our laws and processes because there are numerous stories that show that people get wrongly convicted or decisions are made against them with some frequency.

And what would YOUR solution be? If there is a lack of due process, the aggrieved party can appeal the decision. Frequently I see people lose TRO hearings because they are not prepared, or, they fail to respond. Due process is present but it requires the parties to act in their own interests. Due process does not mean that the state pulls teeth to get the info it means you come to court prepared to make your case on your behalf - be it pro se or with an attorney.

 

[bruceleejr]

So, then, we should toss out all of our laws and processes because there are numerous stories that show that people get wrongly convicted or decisions are made against them with some frequency.

And what would YOUR solution be? If there is a lack of due process, the aggrieved party can appeal the decision. Frequently I see people lose TRO hearings because they are not prepared, or, they fail to respond. Due process is present but it requires the parties to act in their own interests. Due process does not mean that the state pulls teeth to get the info it means you come to court prepared to make your case on your behalf - be it pro se or with an attorney.

Due process requires certain procedural safeguards prevent the "likelihood of an erroneous decision". It does not guarantee that the system is perfect but that the system will be fair.
There are clinics and grants to pay for women to get DVROs but there are none to help prevent them from being granted against men. The statutes are so vague that the same standards applied at the trial level persist at appellate level.

Especially since VAWA pays to train the judiciary about domestic violence based upon stereotypes.

DVROs should be used but only in a fair manner that protects the accused. Imagine what the workd was like before Gideon v Wainwright? Do you think DP was violated before then? Nobody thought indigent individuals were denied DP. They had appeals too which were unsuccessful.

Not until Gideon after failing at every appellate level convince the US Supreme Court that it violates DP to not allow indigents to counsel. Most people cannot afford an attorney for anything domestic as 80% are self represented. This is not fair when you're facing a low and vague standard of proof that will deprive you a fundamental rights.

There should be a higher standard and right to an attorney. In CA a 5-day contempt charge entitles a defendant to an attorney with a beyond a reasonable doubt but a 5-year or permanent DVRO you don't even get to consult an attorney.

 

[CdwJava]

Due process requires certain procedural safeguards prevent the "likelihood of an erroneous decision". It does not guarantee that the system is perfect but that the system will be fair.

The process IS fair. As fair as it can be.

There are clinics and grants to pay for women to get DVROs but there are none to help prevent them from being granted against men. The statutes are so vague that the same standards applied at the trial level persist at appellate level.

Then you are free to advocate for laws that provide similar clinics for the defendants in these matters.

We also have state and county offices that provide assistance to victims of all manner of crimes, and none for suspects. Should we also develop and office of "Defendant Services"?

Especially since VAWA pays to train the judiciary about domestic violence based upon stereotypes.

Actually, the training has nothing to do with "stereotypes" and everything to do with the law, case studies, and related legal and criminal justice information. I have been to them. There is nothing in these programs that relates to stereotypes other than the gender terminology that often refers to the victim as "her" or "she" as that is mostly what the criminal justice system have to deal with.

Not until Gideon after failing at every appellate level convince the US Supreme Court that it violates DP to not allow indigents to counsel. Most people cannot afford an attorney for anything domestic as 80% are self represented. This is not fair when you're facing a low and vague standard of proof that will deprive you a fundamental rights.

As restraining orders are CIVIL and not CRIMINAL matters, there is no obligation for a state to provide an attorney. if there was such a requirement, both parties would likely have to be provided counsel. How much are you willing to see your taxes go up to pay for this? Will we then provide attorneys for ALL civil case? An argument would certainly be made if we carved out an exception for civil harassment and DV restraining orders.

 

[Silverplum]

Y'know what, bruce?

Your aggressive "takeover" of several existing threads here on FA, your opening of several more, your "arguments" against TROs (at The Very Highest Level, of course) -- all of these things tell us much about you.

I, for one, am not at all surprised that you are facing a TRO. It's the inevitable consequence for someone who does not respect boundaries and won't take "no" for an answer.

Instead of attempting to take on a judge, a state, and the Constitution, why not take a look in the mirror? That's the guy who put you in legal danger.