Supreme court justices
(Leah Millis/Pool via AP)
Previous Post
Next Post

Conservatives try to mask the horror of what the Fifth Circuit has done [in US v. Rahimi] by making a due-process argument. They say that a restraining order is vastly different from a criminal conviction and that people should not have a fundamental constitutional right taken away from them without the full benefit of a trial. There is a version of this argument I could agree with: I don’t, for instance, think people should lose their voting rights based on a prosecutorial indictment.

But what conservatives ignore is that a restraining order is far from a mere allegation. A complaint is filed, a judge reviews it, and the defendant has an opportunity to object. There is a process. Restraining orders are not, as Judge James Ho suggested in his concurrence to the Fifth Circuit ruling, a “tactical device” used by spurned women to get back at their former lovers.

I don’t think the Supreme Court will go for Ho’s and the Fifth Circuit’s framing of the issue. Alito will, and probably Thomas, but I think the other conservatives will blink at the prospect of rearming abusers. Even though a restraining order is not the same as a criminal conviction, I just can’t believe that Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett want this much blood so directly on their hands. And I don’t think the liberals will use this case to make some larger point about pretrial detention or the revocation of voting rights to felons. The Fifth Circuit has to lose here—I can’t bear to imagine the consequences if it doesn’t.

— Elie Mystal in Supreme Court Preview: This Term, It Can Always Get Worse

Previous Post
Next Post

78 COMMENTS

  1. “Even though a restraining order is not the same as a criminal conviction, I just can’t believe that Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett want this much blood so directly on their hands.”

    A quote (paraphrased) :

    “It is better for 100 guilty to go free than it is for one innocent person to be imprisoned.”

      • Uh-huh.

        There are lots of highly deserving spree murderers whose guilt is in NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. NOT A SHRED OF DOUBT. NONE. ZERO.

        Parkland, Aurora, El Paso and on and on…

        Those folks need to be dead, buried and forgotten.

        The “innocent man” argument needs to go away. Pronto.

        • “There are lots of highly deserving spree murderers whose guilt is in NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. NOT A SHRED OF DOUBT. NONE. ZERO. ”

          That is the usual repost. However, the proposition is “A hundred guilty go free, rather than a single innocent person be convicted. Sources indicate that since 2017, ~182 innocent persons have been released from death row. How many erroneous deaths are acceptable, and to whom? What is the response of government, and populace, when the number of erroneous deaths exceed the acceptable amount?

          What you are promoting is not justice, but revenge. Sentencing the obviously, recorded, videoed guilty to life-without-parole is justice.

          If you haven’t read Grisham’s book, you are operating under an immature understanding of how corrupt the criminal justice system can be.

          But I do fully understand your reaction; it was mine, until 6yrs ago.

        • Unfortunately, there are any number of men on death row based on no more than coerced confessions obtained after hours of interrogation, and upon purely circumstantial evidence, with no physical evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. Once police think they “have their man,” a certain tunnel blindness sets in and they will move heaven and earth to obtain a conviction of the person they have deemed guilty, even ignoring or burying contrary evidence. I have few difficulties with convictions based on direct physical evidence, but for the rest the death penalty goes too far.

        • The proposition that “A hundred guilty go free, rather than a single innocent person be convicted” does not apply to cases wherein there is absolutely NO DOUBT RELATIVE TO GUILT WHATSOEVER. NOT A SHRED OF DOUBT. NONE. ZERO.

          And concepts like justice, revenge, compassion and the like do not apply to spreekillers. Those folks need to be dead, buried, and forgotten. No copycats, followers, lovers, medical care, headlines and/or parole hearings 40 years on wherein survivors have to appear to explain *again* why Perp #365457 should not be released, not matter how great his brain rewire went.

          If your understanding of the larger picture was deeper and more mature, you would get that.

          “I have few difficulties with convictions based on direct physical evidence, but for the rest the death penalty goes too far.”

          Exactly, and thank you!

          And I add that for spreekillings with direct evidence, the justifications for endless appeals and semi-religious maundering crap about revenge and justice DO NOT APPLY.

          So! Convicted of a spreekilling? One appeal, three judge panel to verify ZERO DOUBT ABOUT GUILT, qualifies as a spreekilling, then a quick and quiet bye-bye.

        • “What you are promoting is not justice, but revenge”

          Well, revenge is the central mantra of the Republican Party, you can’t expect him to abandon that.

          Even though their ‘Good Book’ states clearly: “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”.

        • Nice to see y’all agreeing on what I said, albeit incorrectly.

          Vengeance has nothing to do with my stance. I suppose y’all call it “vengeance” when animal control euthanizes an aggressive dog?

          Peaz Inna pod…

      • The “innocent man” argument needs to go away.

        There are lots of highly deserving folks about whose guilt there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. NONE. ZERO.

        Parkland, El Paso, Aurora and the list goes on. Those folks need to be forgotten, ASAP. Dead is the only way to do that.

      • Then, if you’re intellectually honest, you should support disarming the police like I do. Issued them night sticks and the training to use them.

        Government workers known as police officers, representatives of The government known as police officers, shoot and kill and wound the innocent and the guilty all the time, and are not punished for it.

        There was a time when we didn’t have police in this country, and we were better for it.

      • Nah, can’t get behind that. There are WAY too many….’citizens’ that need killin. Probably 80% of the prison population should be turned into dog food or fertilzer. 3 strikes and you are OUT. No one should be rail-roaded and an automatic review should ensure no gross misjustice, but otherwise 30 days after sentencing we the people should be destroying the detrius of our society. Way fewer laws with much harsher punishment is my belief.

        • “Nah, can’t get behind that. There are WAY too many….’citizens’ that need killin. Probably 80% of the prison population should be turned into dog food or fertilzer. 3 strikes and you are OUT. ”

          The issue at hand regards the question of how many innocents executed is acceptable. The common answer among the populace? “I don’t care, so long as it isn’t me.” That is moral justice?

          The trade is some number of the guilty allowed to escape punishment, rather allow a single innocent person to be wrongly executed. People found to have been wrongly executed cannot be restored to their situation prior to the conviction and execution.

          If the application of the death sentence is not absolutely perfect, it is a warrant for the government to simply be sloppy, hoping government gets it right most of the time.

          What is the acceptable number of innocents murdered by the state, and maintain that our courts deliver justice? Any other punishment by the state can be reversed, and the wrongly convicted remains alive.

          There is no one visiting TTAG who, when wrongly executed, would, at the last moment, think to themselves, “Oh well, what the hell, it’s just the price of living in a society that values liberty and justice.”

        • “That is moral justice?“

          Come now, you’ve been on this list long enough to know you can’t expect moral justice from most conservatives.

          They cry about “baby killing” abortions, then cut food assistance for infants and children.

          “House Republicans’ Agriculture Appropriations Bill Would Cut WIC Benefits for 5 Million Participants, Put SNAP Benefits at Risk for 1 Million Older Adults
          UPDATED MAY 23, 2023 | BY KATIE BERGH AND ZOË NEUBERGER
          House Republicans’ fiscal year 2024 agriculture appropriations bill[1] would make harmful policy changes and deep funding cuts to two critical food assistance programs — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — that would result in benefit cuts or loss of eligibility for millions of people. To adhere to the austere funding caps on annual appropriations proposed under House Republicans’ own debt-ceiling-and-cuts bill, the proposal would slash science-based WIC benefits that families use to buy fruits and vegetables for 5 million pregnant and postpartum participants and young children under 5.“

  2. I can believe the Communist inspired leftists of the Democrat party believe that the 2nd Amendment is a 2nd rate relic of our founding that we no longer need rather than a corner stone of the protection the people have from the criminals both in the streets and in government.

  3. A good correlation would be for the Court to order someone to not speak about a subject that their opponent doesn’t want out in Public. Oh. Wait…

  4. Some people are dangerous. But governments and courts are notoriously inept at identifying danger. Bad people are released all the time, only to do harm again. Innocent people go to jail because of prosecutorial and judicial prejudice. We read about it every day. So, no. A court does NOT get to infringe upon a right based upon an accusation. A hearing is not due process. For example: there is no option for a jury.

    • This cannot be repeated often enough:

      The right to keep and bear arms belongs to EVERYONE.

      If you are concerned enough for your safety from a particular individual the proper course of action is to exercise your Constitutionally protected right to bear arms for your own protection, not enlist the power of the government to infringe on someone else’s right, then sit around and HOPE he (she) obeys the Restraining Order or that the police will arrive in time to save your ass if he (she) doesn’t.

  5. These liberals believe in the British form of criminal justice, guilty until proven innocent. I have news for them, we haven’t been that uncivilized since we broke away from England on September 3, 1783.

  6. Elie Mystal evidently doesn’t understand what constitutional rights are and thinks they are something to be decided ’cause feelings’ and what liberals want.

    “I just can’t believe that Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett want this much blood so directly on their hands.”

    What ‘much blood’? This is one case, its decided in the specifics for the specific case and not for every case.

    “But what conservatives ignore is that a restraining order is far from a mere allegation. A complaint is filed, a judge reviews it, and the defendant has an opportunity to object. There is a process.”

    Ahhhh the liberal ‘pretense imagination’. Evidently Elie Mystal doesn’t understand this ‘pretend’ process doesn’t actually take place in around 90% of these cases. Conservatives aren’t ignoring anything, its the reality this ‘pretend’ process she touts doesn’t actually take place in around 90% of these cases and when it does it starts out biased against the person and they are hindered every step of the way in mounting a defense and are not, in most cases, permitted a court provided attorney and most of them can’t afford to get an attorney. Due process is a thing Elie, yet for the most part its denied these people even if on paper in a ‘process’ its implied to exist. Another liberal that doesn’t live in reality.

    • “as Judge James Ho suggested in his concurrence to the Fifth Circuit ruling, a ‘tactical device’ used by spurned women to get back at their former lovers.”

      Which is very common, over 80% of the cases are people seeking a ‘tactical device’ of revenge to make life hard on the accused or ‘force’ them into unjustified concessions and the accuser is not required to actually prove it valid but rather the burden is shifted to the accused who has a really hard time trying to, and can’t, prove something did not happen to avoid what is basically a ‘criminal conviction’ type of penalty of ‘restrictions’ and infringements upon rights without due process. Its one of the most exploitable and abused things in the legal system.

      • .40, I served a few injunctions. I know some were retaliation, but 80 percent is high. At least based on my personal experience. Most of the injunctions I saw were following the arrest of the respondent within the last 24 hours based on probable cause at the scene. A lot served on the respondent/defendant while they were still in jail. Most were frequent flyers. Those that were retaliation stank like three day old bait your brother in law left in your ice chest. When I got one of those, and the respondent had firearms, I would ask if there was anyone who could take possession of the firearms. Family member, friend, neighbor, etc. After all, the injunction said the respondent couldn’t possess a firearm. It didn’t say I had to take it. Never took a firearm from someone I didn’t have to. Sometimes you have to.

      • “over 80% of the cases are people seeking a ‘tactical device’ of revenge“

        Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to cite the source for your claim.

      • Elite is a he, an affirmative-action beneficiary with a Don King hairdo.

        He’s a far left legal commentator (with, as far as I can discern, no actual accomplishments as an attorney or legal scholar) whose schicht has been writing at The Nation and at his Above the Law blog (which was more of a gossip column than a serious law blog). Hardly a lawblogger like Eugene Volokh, Glenn Reynolds, or Bill Jacobsen (highly respected law professors and scholars) or John Hinderaker (PowerLine blog, but was a very well-respected and accomplished commercial litigator). Mystal couldn’t hack it in private practice, and so became a commentator. While the media likes to run his various screeds, no one in the legal community takes him seriously.

        Mystal is nothing but a lightweight grievance-monger. He’s never accepted that the Second Amendment protects anything, so no surprise that he finds it incomprehensible that the Fifth Circuit would apply the Bruen test to restraining orders, and conclude that because there are zero historical antecedents that disarmed people not convicted of a felony (leaving aside the laws disarming Catholics, Blacks, and Indians), the law failed the test.

    • A complaint is filed, a judge reviews it, and the defendant has an opportunity to object. There is a process.”

      maybe in theory. Reality? Not so much.
      I know personaly of one case: woman, perhaps validly, decides to divorce her husband maybe because he burned the toast one too many times. SHE goes and finds a crank-out divorce lawyer. HE fills out a stack of paperwork, calls her to come in and place her Jane HEnry on the “necessary documents”. Amonst that pile of dead trees there is a court restraining order. She scroibbles her name at the bottom of that page just like all the rest.
      HE has already moved out and left the state. Provuded a forwarding address for mail, but the attorney muffs that. He has already decided he will not cintest, not even show up. Let her do what she wants. HE moves in with his brother three states away, begins to build a new life there. The silence is very enjoyable. Imagine his utter shock two years laer when he goes to try and buy a .22 rifle to plink with out on the five acres his brother owns, and where they’ve been shooting regularly. That restraining order was in the niCS file, not only was his attempt to pruchase denied, but the local sheriff came round to his brother’s house to “do an inspection” based on the presumption the “prohibited person” (the divorced brother with the unknown restraining order in place) Sheriff said they’d have to keep the gun safe locked now…

      all of this happened to the complete ignorance of the target of the order, to which he never had opportunity to object or respond. And this happens A LOT.

      Of course, we all know about the poor chap in Billngs whose frmer neighbour has repeatedly violated court restraining orders based on known aggressin of the target of said orders yet the cops did a big fat nothing. Until the victim of that aggression armed himself. Fat lotta good a restraining order does anyway.

      • A restraining order is good post-mortem, for those on defense.

        OTOH, if the local drug lords/wise guys don’t like you, you can get accused of something anytime you go out your door.

      • Not possible. The husband has to be served PERSONALLY with all of that paper or it is ineffective for lack of service. (If he is out of state, it can be served by certified mail, return receipt requested.) If he didn’t read what was served on him, then it is his mistake, not the system’s. If there was no service, all of the illegitimate and voidable orders can be set aside.

        • “If he didn’t read what was served on him, then it is his mistake, not the system’s“

          Oh you and your pesky facts!

          Discussing the actual legal process will crash these folks delusional narrative of oppression, how dare you introduce them to reality!

          You see, they have ‘feelings’ about these matters and they don’t need any competent lawyers pointing out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in their rant.

  7. As a Restraining Order is almost guarantied to be filed in divorce cases and routinely approved without any input from the victim of said order, Due Process should be Required 100% before an order can be approved that strips a Constitutionally Protected Right!

    • That has been my experience, as California allows issuance of temporary restraining orders ex parte, i.e., without serving the defendant, and therefore without notice. However, these orders are of limited duration, typically no more than three weeks.

      Are there scums buckets out there? No doubt. But a gun ban should be based on more than probable cause to believe, which is all that is required for an arrest, and which is a standard of proof less than 50%.

    • That has been my experience, as California allows issuance of temporary restraining orders ex parte, i.e., without serving the defendant, and therefore without notice. However, these orders are of limited duration, typically no more than three weeks.

      Are there scums buckets out there? No doubt. But a gun ban should be based on more than probable cause to believe, which is all that is required for an arrest, and which is a standard of proof less than 50%. (Nonetheless, courts have almost uniformly held that the ex parte process comport with due process. I don’t really understand why, when it is based on little more than affidavits and not live testimony.)

  8. Women lie. Men lie. It’s ridiculous to believe removing gats make either “safe”. I have a metal monster that can do the job(ban cars?!?) as well as knives,machetes,baseball bats & various sundry improvised weapons🙄

  9. This is not an argument FOR red flag laws. It’s an argument AGAINST them. Made by people that are for them.

  10. The Nation is the communist publication in this country. Speech, Self-Defense, Private Property, to the editors and contributors of this commie rag these are all subject to the review of the Revolutionary Council, which is composed by them, of course.

    “Restraining orders are not, as Judge James Ho suggested in his concurrence to the Fifth Circuit ruling, a “tactical device” used by spurned women to get back at their former lovers.”

    This is a LIE, plain and simple. They want the same process in so-called “extreme risk protection orders,” i.e. “red flag” laws. I hope the Supreme Court disappoints them.

  11. RE: “There is a version of this argument I could agree with: I don’t, for instance, think people should lose their voting rights based on a prosecutorial indictment.”

    The writer separated herself from Conservatives which points to her being a democRat and a member of the party that wants incarcerated felons to vote…she left that portion of her “fairness” out. She also makes abusers out to be men only when cases show that is not true.

    Boils downs to a court case where again the Gun is the center of attention and bricks, bats, knives, fists, feet, vehicles are out of sight and out of mind. Taking a Constitutional Right from an individual warrants extraordinary scrutiny where there is no margin of error.

    • Number one, your post has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
      Perhaps you need to learn a little more about the meaning of ‘context’.

      Number two, Arizona Republicans conducted multiple audits, you may be familiar with the most famous of these, involving the cyber ninjas:

      “After months of work and some $6 million spent, a so-called audit that Trump supporters claimed would show that the election had been stolen from the defeated president found that Joe Biden actually won Arizona by more votes than the official tally — and it found no conclusive evidence that the election had been influenced by fraud“

      Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the official reporting from the Arizona senate Republicans:

      https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

      I’m sorry, but your favorite TV newscaster talking head did not win the election.

  12. Elie must be congratulated. It is not often anyone can successfully stuff 20 lbs of excrement in a 5 lb bag.

  13. You deserve the Tyrants and Tyranny…You Allow. YES YOU. Stop whining and take action or continue to be a Subject of your Betters. It’s your choice. Free citizen or Subject of the Regime. That wants you to comply.

  14. The fundamental issue surrounding the Constitution is that it was written to protect people from government, not to facilitate erosion of natural, human, and civil rights by government, no matter the “compelling interest” for government to expand its control.

    The founders clearly laid out the single “compelling interest” of government in the words of the DOI: “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”.

    Obama was correct, the Constitution is a document of negative rights for government.

      • “Power does not like being restricted.”

        Hence, the militia are “the people”, armed such that government understands it cannot field a military force that can defeat “the people”.

        Unless, somehow, “the people” decide that government benefits are more important than natural, human, and civil, rights.

    • “Obama was correct, the Constitution is a document of negative rights for government.”

      That pretty much demonstrates the difference between them and us… 🙁

      • “That pretty much demonstrates the difference between them and us…”

        Throughout recorded history, the bulk of humanity cries out for a king, or tyrant (ancient Greek for “Chief”), but pointedly, a king who can be easily replaced.

    • “The founders clearly laid out the single “compelling interest” of government… “

      Including this gem of liberty and equality:

      “The Fugitive Slave Clause in the United States Constitution, also known as either the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labor Clause,[1][2][3][4] is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a “Person held to Service or Labour” (usually a slave, apprentice, or indentured servant) who flees to another state to be returned to his or her master in the state from which that person escaped.“

      Even Thomas Jefferson used this clause to offer rewards for his runaway slaves, those who believe the founding fathers were infallible are sadly mistaken.

  15. I reckon if I was going to kill somebody I’d have already done it before the restraining order.

  16. I fully concur with Judge Ho and the 5th. Circuit ruling. “Restraining orders are not, as Judge James Ho suggested in his concurrence to the Fifth Circuit ruling, a “tactical device” used by spurned women to get back at their former lovers.” This absolutely NAILS IT; there’s as many false allegations towards men by women in this regard as there is true allegations. If a restraining order is followed then there’s no crime. Those orders that aren’t followed should be jailed. Those orders filed fraudulently should put the person whom filed it in jail.

    • “there’s as many false allegations towards men by women in this regard as there is true allegations“

      That is quite the claim, could you please provide a source or citation to support your assertion?

  17. If you really want to make the libs heads explode, lets use the example of the gal in New Jersey who was waiting for literally MONTHS to get her handgun permit after getting a restraining order, and was then killed by the person the order was served against.

    The filing of a restraining order should FORCE the agency holding up the gun permit to ISSUE it within 24 hours, provided the plaintiff is legally allowed to posses firearms.

    Yeah, lets’ see how THAT flies…

  18. “There is a version of this argument I could agree with: I don’t, for instance, think people should lose their voting rights based on a prosecutorial indictment.”

    The author concedes defeat with this one statement.

    A fraudulent vote is FAR more dangerous to our society than a gun in the hand of a prohibited person. You can stop a person with a gun. You cannot “undo” a fraudulent vote.

    As Justice Clarence Thomas has said over and over, the Second Amendment is not a “second class right.”

    Any violation that takes away your gun rights must also take away your voting rights.

    • “You can stop a person with a gun. You cannot “undo” a fraudulent vote.“

      So just how would you “undo” someone being murdered during a divorce by their soon to be ex domestic partner?

      • English much? Or are you just intentionally trying to deceive?

        I did not say you can “undo” a crime committed by a prohibited person with a gun. I said you can “stop them,” as in, prevent them from doing further damage.

        Not so with a fraudulent vote. That vote keeps on doing damage until the next election MIGHT fix it, or maybe it won’t.

        • “I said you can “stop them,” as in, prevent them from doing further damage“

          Gee, I wish someone had “stopped them” in Parkland, Uvalde, etc.
          Those folks will be thrilled to learn that there is an “undo” function.

          And you believe a fraudulent vote is far more dangerous than a gun in the hand of a prohibited person?

          You do know the election process includes a canvass of votes and multiple recounts if the results are in question, right?

          And if a vote is found to be fraudulent, and sometimes this happens, it is removed from the election count.

        • And again you lie about what I said. I did not say you could “undo” a crime committed with a gun. I’d really appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting what I write. If you can’t debate honestly, perhaps this isn’t your thing.

          Now since you want to bring it up, IF there were “good guys” with GUNS in our schools and other sensitive places, then the BAD guys COULD be STOPPED, as we have seen over and over and over again in places where law-abiding citizens are not prohibited from carrying.

          A single fraudulent vote CAN sway an election. This is a fact. In my own state, the literal balance of power in one of the legislative houses came down to drawing a name out of a hat for that last candidate that determined the majority. We know that every election has a non-zero number of fraudulent votes.

          However, once an election is over, then that majority (whether legitimate or not) is in power until at least the next election. No way to “undo” that fraudulent vote.

        • SHitDiggingIdiot
          Yes, they COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED in ALL of those cases.

          First, if basic SECURITY would have been followed, and ARMED TEACHERS in the classroom, and not having chicken shit LEOs hanging around waiting for the body count to increase.

          TFred is correct.

          It took three ‘recounts’ to elect a Demokkkrat to the governors position in Washington State. Dino Rossi was in the lead by quite a bit, but not enough to avoid triggering a recount.

          I’ll give you ONE GUESS where they finally ‘found’ enough ‘missing’ ballots to push Gregoire over the top..

  19. “A complaint is filed, a judge reviews it, and the defendant has an opportunity to object.”

    Had a neighbor get hit with a restraining order, from a woman he had no connection with, except that she was with her son when he knocked my friend’s boss to the ground. Overnight in hospital. ‘Opportunity to object’? No way, never happened. He gets a phone call from the Marshall’s Office, “We’ll come by and pick up all your guns.” Took them five days. In the meantime he got a job offer ‘back east’ and needed gas money to get there. He sold his guns. A Deputy Marshal came by, no guns.

    Interestingly enough, his wife was allowed to keep her gun. He headed east. Two weeks later his wife needed to go to town to collect some money. She came over, “Can you go with me?” She was carrying. “Will you feel better if I carry also?” “Yes.” I strapped on a J -frame and into town we went. No problems.

  20. Let us hope that at least 5 of the justices will not let the plaintiff’s character sway their opinion. Usually when weighing constitutionality of laws that implicate a right of the people guaranteed by the BOR’s strict scrutiny is the standard of review. Strict scrutiny requires the government use a means to the desired end that infringes on the people’s right (shortcuts due process). In this case a restraining order doesn’t meet this standard. The option that doesn’t shortcut due process is pre-trial confinement.
    Note: The plaintiff at the time of his arrest for violating a judges order to not keep firearms wasn’t a prohibited person (felon or domestic violence misdemeant).

  21. The Nation Magazine is made up of useful idiots. For the communists. They are smiling fascist. They are as anti-civil rights as any n@zi publication. The fact that they have a seat at the mainstream media table, just shows how far things went to crap here.

    They are the smiling face of Liberal fascism.

  22. The idea that a defendant gets to say anything at all during a restraining order is hilarious at best, and deliberate lying at worst. The whole point of the “red flag” orders is that the defendant is clueless to it going on until guilt has been established based on preponderance of evidence (much lower burden of proof than a criminal conviction) and women absolutely weaponize everything they can when they’re upset at a man.

Comments are closed.