Woman in Court denied Jail "Pants" and Feminine Hygiene, See Video

IT HAD TO BE IN THE SOUTH...LOUISVILLE, KY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT IN SOUTH KOREA..............
NO, this has nothing to do with law. Thank God.....

  ...glad some people get to have fun while
                                                                                     working!!!  LOL

Problem with "Domestic Violence" Temporary Restraining Orders.........Call Attorney Now!

Much has been said about CALIFORNIA "domestic violence" TROs........but what this attorney believes, is that the current way they are handed out like candy on Halloween and then reissued automatically when requested is simply ridiculous in many cases. Especially if the other spouse is a good, medium, or legendary liar.

Because most of the "DV" TROs are requested by females (against males)--- many judges just rubber stamp them, even when there is no proof of any alleged violence TO BEGIN WITH.



  An ALLEGATION of "domestic violence" is all that is required.  In general, an ALLEGATION of violence does not mean there was any violence, but since the "DV" TROs are not criminal (if you violate the TRO it will be a potential criminal charge) but the TRO itself  will be registered on CLETS  (see fn#1 below)-- it kind of amounts to it being criminal in effect.  "DV" TROs can cause people to NOT be hired in the workplace, even if one was not charged or convicted of any violence in criminal court.  * [see **below, for what could happen IF it is found or believed that you DID violate the "DV" TRO--and charges in criminal court transpire....]

The ALLEGATION alone, if not contested, can have huge, long lasting, completely devastating effects  in any custody issue, period.  Especially if one party has an attorney and the other party does not have an attorney, the one without the attorney may simply give up, and end up losing visitation.

Attorney has seen this happen in many, many cases.  Conversely, attorney has seen parents unjustifiably accused by "DV" TROs, and then end up prevailing, but it can take a long time and a lot of work, especially if one has a vindictive ex spouse or partner.


---> //FN#1 re CLETS:  restraining order coming from the civil courts is the CLETS restraining order. CLETS is an acronym standing for California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System. A CA CLETS order is a restraining order that is issued by a family law judge, lodged in the CLETS database and allows the police to arrest the abuser if the abuser violates that order. 

SO....the best thing to do if accused of any "DV" TRO

 is to immediately get legal help so that you

 don't go down like a sinking ship

 before you even get started.  

The last thing most people need is a "DV" TRO on their record, even if they are not guilty of it--- it carries both a stigma (you beat up people or try to hurt them, etc), that you are not fit to watch or babysit children (age  of kids will matter but especially babies)  and you will be stuck with what is known as supervised visitation which you will likely not be able to afford, or will not want to afford.  Further, the wait list is very long unless you plan to use a private agency which is quite expensive.

IF YOU HAVE HAD A "DV" TRO 

SLAPPED ON YOU, 

CALL ATTORNEY ASAP. 

Waiting Will Harm You.

YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARGED

 UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

 PENAL CODE,  PC273.6

WITH VIOLATING A "DV" TRO..........

CALL ATTORNEY ASAP

Attorney is A  LITIGATOR,  familiar with representing defendants on DV TRO allegations in criminal court.  

Examples (as seen online...)

• The protective order states that you must not contact your ex-boyfriend, yet you continue to send him e-mails and texts
• The restraining order states that you may not use force or violence upon your wife, yet you grab her and threaten to break her legs if she doesn't seek to have the order terminated
• The protective order states that you may not own or possess any firearms during the length of the order, yet you fail to relinquish your gun to the proper authorities
• The restraining order states that you must stay away from your family home, yet you slash your wife's tires while her car is in the driveway

Defenses

Possible legal defenses apply to a PC 273.6 charge.  Some of these include:

• the judge didn't legally issue the protective order (this only happens infrequently)
• you didn't know about the restraining order (maybe you were never served)
• you didn't intentionally violate the order  (perhaps it was an accidental situation)
• you were falsely accused of violating the protective order  (you have a legendary liar for an ex spouse?)

A new case, June 2016 was published for CA which indicates that no NEW allegations of DV conduct is required in order to "renew" a  DV  TRO. Perez v Torres-Hernandez, First Appellate District CA.

*NOTE:  Most people violate DV orders by doing something dumb or stupid--but most are not extreme in nature--in other words, they don't use weapons to try and kill you or abduct the kids. However, some defendants will make repeated threats via phone, text, computer---which are counted by the courts.  Therefore, sending bad texts, bad emails, and leaving bad notes online (Facebook, etc) is simply stupid.  If you have done this, then basically you need to change your behavior.  In Butte County, even felons are not necessarily being pulled back into prison--or-- jail,  for violating a DV TRO due to the Realignment problem. If you do not know what the Realignment problem is, google it online.

Penalties

If you are convicted of violating a California restraining order, the penalties vary quite a bit depending on

1. Whether it's your first or subsequent violation, and
2. whether the victim suffered a physical injury.

The penalties may include up to three years in the California state prison for a felony, and up to one year in a county jail for a misdemeanor.  In addition, you could face

• court fines and penalties,
• victim restitution for any counseling and/or medical services that the victim reasonably incurred in connection with the offense,
• counseling services, and
• the relinquishment of any firearms and the inability to acquire any new ones for the length of the protective order.

Attorney herein, in the past, had a client that was ALREADY convicted of PC 273.6-- BECAUSE he took a plea and did not go to trial.  Client's ex spouse was (to put it mildly--) a legendary liar. Seriously.

After obtaining the 273.6 plea, the ex wife then subsequently went after another DV TRO for 5 years. (This case is not in Butte County.) 

True to form at the trial, the ex wife's showboating attorney paraded around thinking he was Perry Mason.........just awful...........and sure enough, despite the Judge finding that it was extremely close in his decision, (because he was a new family Law Judge in part) Judge gave the ex wife the new TRO anyway.  All of the false accusations were repeated and re-hashed.  Although Client had no visitation anyway, he slowly did his supervised visitation as per the FCS recommendation.  Even now, which is over a year later, the ex wife is still withholding the kids from the father and she even moved to another city.  If father sticks with it, he can get unsupervised visits, but so far the ex wife has not even complied with the last court order.  This puts a burden on the father to take action and not remain passive.

SO-- if you want or need an attorney that can handle both Family Law issues, and even criminal charges, feel free to call attorney. Attorney does have a track record of recorded wins in cases, this is fact based.

SO-- if you want or need an attorney that can handle both

 Family Law issues,

 and  criminal charges, feel free to call attorney. 

IT  is also possible  to be charged with either cyber-stalking PC 646.9 or Penal Code 653.2 PC indirect cyber-harassment.

Cyber-stalking is the same behavior as ordinary stalking, only committed over the internet or email. In contrast, indirect cyber-harassment consists of posting harmful information about someone on the internet or in an email message, with the intent to incite other people to harass or threaten him/her in person.

Indirect electronic harassment is distinct from “direct electronic harassment” or cyberstalking under Penal Code 646.9 PC. With direct electronic harassment/cyberstalking, the defendant is the one who personally harassed or stalked the victim.³

CA Supreme Court Rule on "Date of Separation" Fixed by Legislature

In 2015, the CA Supreme Court had ruled that "date of separation" means that there must be physical separation of the parties (meaning someone moved out...) With the economy and other factors, spouses (often women)  ---  do not always move out because they may not be able to afford to do so. Thus the financial aspects were not considered so much in the Supreme Court.

The Legislature was apparently bombarded with huge backlash from women's groups and other advocates, including the Family Law Bar; so upon this backlash, the Legislature enacted a new Code Section which pretty much eliminated the Supreme Court ruling. 

Family Code Section 70, when adopted, January 1 2017--- will provide as follows:

(a) “Date of separation” means the date that a complete and final break in the marital relationship has occurred, as evidenced by both of the following:

(1) The spouse has expressed his or her intent to end the marriage to the other spouse.

(2) The conduct of the spouse is consistent with his or her intent to end the marriage.

(b) In determining the date of separation, the court shall take into consideration all relevant evidence.(c) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to abrogate the decisions in In re Marriage of Davis (2015) 61 Cal.4th 846 and In re Marriage of Norviel (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1152.

As you can see, this makes everything about the parties' supposed intent and their conduct up for grabs, and indeed "the court shall take into consideration all relevant evidence." Although California is supposedly a "no-fault" jurisdiction,  this amendment will CAUSE nearly all behaviors and activities by spouses to be fair game in establishing their intentions about continuing or ending the marriage.