Comments about Media Radar: Part II

Welcome back!

Our Anonymous friend wrote some pretty scathing examples of mis-steps in the Media Radar.Org report Without Restraint: The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders.

I would like to take a few moments to respond to some of our friend's points, as they are worth addressing.

I have to agree with our friend that any organization that attempts to lobby the public for or against an issue has an incumbent responsibility to make sure the information presented is accurate, transparent, and does not hide critical facts from its target audience.

It is my opinion that the case against feminism and cultural marxism is strong enough that we, as Men's Rights advocates, can argue clearly and convincingly, without resorting to dishonesty as feminists are prone to do.

With that said, it is my opinion that this report in particular, errors and misquoting aside, still accomplishes its main goal:

That domestic violence laws, and the guiding philosophies behind them, are dangerous to democracy and civil rights as defined by classical American law and custom.

I want to take a moment, before I begin, to thank our mystery critic.

Criticism is not to be feared. Rather, it helps us to make our arguments sharp like steel, and as pure as the driven snow.

In addition, the comments I will be addressing bring up an important point:

Fact-checking is an important discipline, and something that I personally will be doing more often from here on out. I recognize that I don't know everything, I am not 100% right all the time, and that I learn something new about the nature of things everyday, without fail.

Your overall point, friend is noted.

One more thing.

I care not if the "media" decideds to report on blogs such as mine. I say that the mainstream media isn't ready for the raw truth of what we have to say as Men's Rights Activists.

Furthermore, the media is an accomplice of the Matriarchal regime, and I expect more gyno-centric reporting as time passes. Keep in mind that the majority of journalism school graduates are women.

The mainstream will either avoid our blogs like the plague, or vilify us beyond recognition. Either way, men will be enlightened, and feminists can't do anything overtly to stop us.

The media "can't handle the truth!!"

Alrighty them! Let's get to it.

Citation 9 refers to "The Sacramento Superior Court's website
instructs TRO applicants as follows:

'Please present the completed domestic violence forms to the Family Law
Filing Window in Room 100 of the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations
Courthouse. The clerk will conduct a mini-interview with you to clarify your
request and to ensure that you filled out the forms correctly.'"

Other than citing absurd mundane instructions this ignores the rest of
the context which goes on to state, "If your request is granted, a
hearing will be set for you and the other party. It is your
responsibility to have other person personally served. Proof of
service for the other person must be presented and filed with court
prior to or at the time of the Domestic Violence Restraining Order
hearing." Though this is still a simple proceedure it is vastly
different from what the author implies from this source.

Agreed. A major boo-boo on Radar's part to cite California.

However, other states aren't so generous.

Indiana, for example, requires:

Restraining Orders...

...Where can you file?

Application is made in the form of an affidavit, in the Superior Court or Circuit Court, at the Jasper County Courthouse. The courthouse is located on the square in Rensselaer, at the intersection of (US231) Washington Street, and (SR114) Cullen Street. You can call these offices Monday through Friday 8AM-4PM, for further details regarding filing fees.

Superior (219) 866-4971, Circuit (219) 866-4941.

The County Police Department can not issue restraining Orders. We only enforce them.

Who can file?

Any person over 18 years of age, is permitted to file the affidavit on behalf of his family or him/herself.

When do I qualify?

In very general terms; When you have received threats from a person(s) to cause you bodily harm or death, or threats to do damage to your property, or when you have actually been harmed physically, or your property has been damaged, and it is likely to occur again.

If you have questions regarding your specific circumstances, call the courts and inquire as to whether you qualify for the order, or refer your questions to an attorney. We do not decide who can file an affidavit.

What happens after I file?

The Judge will hear your case. He will decide if your affidavit and application should be granted. If an order of protection is granted, it becomes effectively immediately. The courts will forward a copy of the order to the Law Enforcement agency where the protected person lives, and to the location where the restrained party resides. A copy of the order will be served on the respondent, as soon as the courts provide that copy to the law enforcement agency. After service on the person, that person will appear in court to testify before the judge. This hearing determines whether the order becomes a permanent order.If the restrained party violates this order, call the Police Department where you live and report the facts which lead you to believe the order has been violated.

Apparently, Indiana hands out their orders without requiring personal service, as opposed to California.

While I agree that the use of California is a poor choice in this case, there are plenty of other jurisdictions where getting a TRO is quite easy to do.

Citation 11 refers to an exact quote and cites both a document and a
website but does not specify a page number out of the 33 page long
document on which one may find the quote. A Google search for the
quote produces it, but the citation should read with the page number
on which to find the quote, if the electronic source is used there
would obviously be no page number to reference.

Citation 13 from the Heleniak "Star Chamber" source also lacks a page
number with which to find the quote, and "ibid" is not used when other
citations stand between the referenced previous citation. Ibid should
be replaced with the page number of the quote.

Very technical sir! While this does count as an error, it does not undermine the basis for this paper.

Take it easy will ya?? ^ ^;

Citation 14 quotes what appears to be a journalistic account, but
indeed the source is from editorial commentary. With ample ability to
cite journalistic accounts this is brash dishonesty. A simple Google
search of his name produces several articles.

Since when it is a crime to include commentary?

Which state along with the information in the commentary cited that,
"LEWIS BARBER had three drunk driving convictions on file at the
Alexandria Courthouse. In 1998, the court ordered a habitual offender
evaluation in which the court-appointed addictions counselor
determined that Barber had an "anger problem," and that drinking
caused him to have "two different personalities." Another counselor
examined Barber and determined that he "may be suffering from 'dry
drunk' syndrome — his body language presented a depressed individual."

Also "Lewis does not know," she wrote in an affidavit to support the
protective order. "Our son will not be there Sat. morning when I tell
him. There are weapons in the house and I know Lewis will start
drinking heavily. Lewis is a very quiet man and very unpredictable."

Nobody can know all the facts but both sides would be nice if you
respect your audience enough to be truthful.

Agreed that all the facts in this case cannot be known. But it would appear that my man Lewis presents a danger to a reasonable person, and more than likely, a restraining order would be justified.

Overall, this would not be the best example of "restraining orders gone wild."

Citation 15 refers to the factual claim that "The analysis found that 34%
of requests from men were deferred or turned down, compared to only
10% of requests
from women."

The author also claims to extrapolate this data as if
the bias is "borne out by research." It is unclear in the claim what
"get a restraining order" means but to be fair even at the lowest bar
of the ex-parte the bar chart clearly shows that 23% of requests from
men were deferred with 5% of the women's claims being deferred. If
the measure is a permanent order the lower chart clearly shows 19%
denied for men vs. 2% for women.

The report you speak of, A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection, is an interesting read.

We find on page 172 of the report that:

An Abuse Prevention Order (M.G.L. c. 209A)
is a Massachusetts’ civil court order designed to protect
victims of domestic violence. Although a civil order, its
violation is a criminal offense, punishable by 2.5 years in
prison. The research found male and female defendants
in these cases known to the court were almost equally
abusive. The second part, presented here, measures the
court’s response to these same allegations. By measuring
how the court responds to similar male and female
allegations, gender differences in that response is determined.

Examination of living and parenting status is also
conducted and compared to the effect of gender on court
response to see if living status, parenting status, or gender
has the greatest effect.

Massachusetts’ domestic violence victims can first
request protection from abuse at an Ex Parte Hearing
before a district court judge. The defendant is usually
not present during this hearing and therefore does not
have the opportunity to defend him or herself.

Relating back to your objection to citation number #9; this would be yet another state that issues restraining orders quite easily.

The Measure of Court Response report, on page 174 tells us:

Table II. Court Response at Ex Parte Hearing by Gender

Male plaintiff
Response (N = 44)
Deny: 11
Defer: 23
Grant: 66

Female plaintiff
(%) (N=238) (%)p
Deny: 5
Defer: 5 .0003
Grant: 91 .00006

Note. df = 1; p: probability according to Fisher’s Exact Test (two-tail),
ns: not significant.

The numbers tell us some interesting things here.

The sample sizes, 44 for men and 238 for women, affirms that women overwhelmingly file for restraining orders more than men do, even though men and women abuse at the same rates.

Based on these numbers, once again we find that women file (238/44=5.4) for these orders five times more than men do. Why?

Secondly, we find that women are granted their orders 91% of the time! Why?

Is there not a problem here? Is there not a good reason for Media Radar to go through the trouble of putting this report together, or do they just "hate women?"

These numbers alone justify the investigation that Media Radar chose to undertake in this case.

The report summarizes, on page 178 that:

The present study hypothesized that courts are not
immune from social norms and that despite gender neutral
language of (M.G.L. c. 209A), would exhibit differing
tendencies when responding to male vs. female requests
for protection. The present study finds that in this one
court setting, male victims of domestic violence were not
afforded the same protections as their female counterparts.
This inequality in court response occurred even though
male and female plaintiffs were similarly victimized by
their opposite gender defendants.

I should also note that the numbers that Radar reports are the numbers of the deferred and the denied cases added together, per sex. I can find no fault with Radar on this citation; indeed, it would have been better if Radar had included the additional information that I have referenced today. It would certainly make the Without Restraint report more damning.

I would assume that Radar is trying to educate the public, not to convince statistical nerds such as ourselves.

Citation 22 refers to this statement, "Allegations of abuse and
restraining orders are often used as "part of the gamesmanship of
divorce.'" This is a clear example of intentional deception or given
the benefit of the doubt, lazy research.

The actual claim is supported by the title of an article from which
the quote comes from. "Orders of protection are designed to prevent
domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship
of divorce." You will note that your author has used the word
"often" while the source says "can." There is abolutely no
demographic of statistical information in the quote or source to
support "often" as used by the author. More than likely it is "often"
as this is a vague term, but find something by which to substantiate
it.

Oh no friend. You should know that the "gamesmanship" is quite real.

I give you Baskerville:

Restraining orders are routinely issued during divorce proceedings, usually without any evidence of wrongdoing. “Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,” and “the facts have become irrelevant,” according to Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association. “In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”[77] Bypassing due process protections is so routine that New Jersey judge Richard Russell told his colleagues during a training seminar, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street.... We don’t have to worry about the rights.”[78]

Some argue that judges must balance the rights of accused men with the need of women for protection.[80] Yet elsewhere the criminal justice system operates on the principle that people are punished for crimes they commit, not for what someone says they might commit. A defendant charged with the most heinous violent crime “has all his or her rights preserved and carefully guarded when before a court,” says Massachusetts attorney Gregory Hession. In domestic abuse cases, by contrast, “a defendant may lose all those things, with no due process at all. ... The abuse law throws out all of those protections.”[81] According to the New Jersey family court, to allow accused abusers the due process protections afforded other criminal defendants “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting the word “alleged” is standard in federal and state statutes and media reports, and “the mere allegation of domestic abuse...may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”[82] David Heleniak identifies six separate denials of due process in the New Jersey statute, which he terms “a due process fiasco.”[83]

Some insist that protective orders are issued on the principle of “better safe than sorry.”[84] Yet it is not clear precisely how protective orders can prevent violence, since violent assault is already illegal. One father was “enjoined and restrained from committing any domestic violence” upon his wife.[85] But is he not already thus restrained, along with the rest of us? Clearly the orders are issued not to prevent violence, but to remove fathers and enforce divorce.

It is also likely that forcing parents to stay away from their children provokes precisely the violence it ostensibly aims to prevent. “Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuing therefrom,” writes retired Judge Milton Raphaelson of Dudley, Massachusetts, District Court. “This is not only my opinion; it is the opinion of many who remain quiet due to the political climate. Innocent men and their children are deprived of each other...”[86]

It seems to me that Radar is holding up quite well under your scrutiny.

My view is that these abominations of justice (domestic violence laws) need to be reformed substantially. If they cannot be reformed adequately to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victim, and to conform to the guarantees given by the U.S. Constitution, they need to be terminated with extreme prejudice altogether.

For the sake of brevity, I will respond to one last point you raised, as I feel it is an important one.

Citation 37 refers to, "Dorothy Wright, a New Jersey attorney and
former board member of a women's shelter, has estimated that 40%–50%
of all restraining orders are requested purely as a legal maneuver."
This estimation is not even claimed to be on any verifiable basis
other than her "belief." For someone dealing so heavily with the
issue of evidence and not simply guilt by a simple claim it is
dishonest to place this in a report. Find some real statistics that
are verifiable. Further the article cited at least gives the claims
from the opposition but those are ignored in the interest distortion.

Hopefully, these are all honest mistakes. For an organization with
accuracy in its name though it should be of the utmost importance to
be, indeed, accurate.

I wouldn't discount professional testimony so quickly if I were you friend.

I'm going to tell you something about me that many of my fellow MRAs probably don't know. The reason why I am so anti-feminism and anti "domestic violence" law is because I am an insider.

I am a government officer for the largest law enforcement agency in my STATE. My agency has the most police officers, the largest budget, and of course, the most crime.

I include judges, lawyers, and local politicians as my acquaintances and colleagues.

And on top of this, I read a great many police reports in my official capacity. I know that domestic violence is an equal opportunity offense, and that when the media creates the impression that only men commit domestic violence, that they are lying.

I know what the trends are, and I know the politics that drive our domestic violence regime. I know about all the block grants, and the federal funding. I've read quite a few sales pitches from private companies rushing to sell us domestic violence training manuals, books, aids, and other useless nonsense.

I know that the domestic violence lobby is well funded, and very influential.

I've heard about the training manuals in use at our police training classes, and I know that none of the information I have presented today, or in past posts, makes the cut.

High ranking officers that I have spoken with privately about these issues acknowledge that there is a major problem with the way the system works, but no one dares challenge it openly.

And most tragically, it is the officers who risk their lives upholding the law, that are harmed by these laws the most. Divorced multiple times, with multiple child support orders, with multiple court appearances, and multiple restraining orders, these fine men have bleak futures to look forward to, more often than not.

I hope you get my drift.

Professional experience, counts. Please don't forget it, and for goodness sake, don't belittle it. You know a lot less than what you think you do. Believe it.

To conclude:

I wholeheartedly agree that accuracy is essential in this debate. And it cannot be denied that Radar made some crucial errors in this particular report.

However, I still hold that the Without Restraint piece is sufficient to inform the general public that there is indeed a serious problem with the way Domestic Violence laws are enforced in this country.

With that said, I will heed your advice, and fact-check, as much as possible, any reports I cite in the future. Being thorough never hurts.

This will be the end of this series of posts, as I need to research and, fact-check, my theories relating to Plato. I hope you will stick around. It should be interesting reading!

Thanks for stopping by.

Kumogakure.