local

From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to Az restraining-order law

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of a Tempe man who said a long–standing restraining order violated his First Amendment rights and should be dissolved.
have your say   

2 comments on this story

1
1770 comments
Nov 16, 2011, 6:39 pm
-0 +0

This is unfortunate. This is a law that could use another look. I don’t know what the problem is with taking a look at the law…if the court looks at it and says it’s good, then let it stay.

When I was 17 I was served with a restraining order. The service was put in front of the hearing. The only thing that the petition for the order contained that was the truth was my name.

I fought the restraining order. I took alibis with me to the hearing who vouched for my whereabouts on the nights this scumbag said I shot at him and poisoned his dog. Judge Michael Lex didn’t want to hear it (he wasn’t exactly an all-star judge. I hope beyond hope he’s no longer on the bench). He said that he could see no reason why I would want to go around the scumbag, so he let the order stand. I asked him about the pack of lies in the petition, and he answer was “Well, none of that has been judicially proven.”

2
1770 comments
Nov 16, 2011, 6:41 pm
-0 +0

Lex didn’t care that it is public record, and that the order was allowed to stand would imply to those who don’t know better that the pack of lies was somehow true.

Hearings really need to be BEFORE the service, and the burden of proof REALLY needs to be on the petitioner…no, not like it is now, I mean ACTUALLY on the petitioner.

— 30 —

{/exp:weblog:entries}

Best in Internet Exploder