Man Asks for Restraining Order Against Himself--and Court Rubberstamps It
November 4th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.I'm sure artist Ben Stone of Chicago feels much safer now. After all, he's protected by a restraining order. He's got the order itself in his hands. It's signed by Judge Daniel Miranda and signed and stamped by County Clerk Dorothy Brown. He's even got his own videotape of police officers serving him with the order.
But wait. Serving him with the order? Isn't he the one protected by the order? Why would they serve it on him?
This article explains (ArtForum). It was a simple matter of Stone's filing the request and providing the court with all the proper documentation for an order of protection against himself. Apparently it all went like clockwork too. Ben Stone went to court and got an order of protection against himself.
Come to think of it, I could use one of those. So the next time I cut myself in the kitchen or slip on a step I can get the police to arrest me. That'll show me! I'll have to stop talking to myself. Better yet, I'll have to stay away from me altogether. I won't be allowed to call myself on the phone or interfere in my finances, and believe me, that's probably a good idea. Seriously, I feel safer just thinking about it.
I don't know if Ben Stone's taking out an order of protection is more ridiculous than Colleen Nestler's taking one out against David Letterman, a man she'd never met and who lived many states away from her. I call it a dead heat.
But whichever one you prefer, both give a pretty good idea of how seriously we take people's rights to things like freedom of speech and association. I've discussed this before, but honestly, imagine the court hearing in which a woman in New Mexico can get a TRO against a star like Letterman. Was the judge even awake?
Ditto the Ben Stone hearing. How is it possible that Judge Miranda was so out of it that he didn't notice that the name of the person requesting the order was the same as the name of the person he was requesting it against. I mean, did the judge ask him a single question?
The Stone and Letterman cases are absurd, of course, but the principles are anything but. Restraining orders are acts of the state abridging the liberties of people who supposedly have rights to due process before that can happen. How much more blatant does a case have to be before we realize what we've given up?
Thanks to William for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.446 seconds.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
definitely some sort of art project, and a goog one at that.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Methinks, to use a British phrase, he's taking the piss.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I was actually hoping he was doing this to make a statement. I have entertained the idea before of having every woman in the US file a TRO against a dead man, like Abe Lincoln, just to show how inane it is that they all got it. Would that spark an investigation? Not because he is dead, but would that show up on some PC and have the FBI looking for the most dangerous man in the US? Lincoln? Or would it lead Feminists to starting a man-hunt, never realizing that they are the joke?
And of course not every woman, but if we could get like... 5k women to file it on the same day, and get it all ordered.. I mean, they could just say he was making lewd winks to them on the back of every penny they saw. It worked for Letterman.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
The vast majority of divorces are filed by woman. In my case I, (the husband) filed the divorce (plaintiff) against my wife (defendent). The judge had a few questions he wanted in writing:
"Does the plaintiff give up "her" right to "his" retirement pension?
"Does the plaintiff give up "her" right to the community property?
"Does the plaintiff give up "her" right to spousal support?
I answered in writing yes to everything. Paid nothing.
True story
November 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
This story is funny.
I hope that this will lead to some changes in the law.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
This is the ultimate "paradox" in Family Court to protect a spouse. Wouldn't such an order make you self-destruct? In essence the Judge causing death.
What this guy did is absolutely brilliant! I hope this stupid judge is fully embarrassed of how blatantly stupid and irresponsible they are when issuing such serious orders!!!
Attila
November 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
IMHO, this is just another example of how idiotic this whole TRO situation has become. It just shows how much thought the judges give to these things and how easy it is to remove an innocent man from his home and his family.
And our US VP wants to give federal $$$ to the women who request these things to help them get lawyers to ensure that they keep custody of the kids and milk every last $ out of the poor slob that gets served with one of these things. I doubt that they will have to provide any more proof than this guy did to receive this $$$.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I've discussed this before, but honestly, imagine the court hearing in which a woman in New Mexico can get a TRO against a star like Letterman.
I know you don't mean that to say that his star power is why she should not have gotten the TRO against him but I would not be surprised if someone took it that way. Perhaps:
I've discussed this before, but honestly, imagine the court hearing in which a woman in New Mexico can get a TRO against Letterman who doesn't even know her or live near her.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Just further proof that these idiots that sign orders and change lives on a daily basis do not even read what they are signing.
He should of put a document in front of this Judge to sign that transfered all of the Judges asssetts and bank accounts into his name.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Okay, I'm missing something here. Did he do this to make a point about frivolous TROs or did he just have a few screws loose?
MAJ
November 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Does he realize what's he's done? If he ever shows up somewhere where he already is, he better leave before he decides to call the police! It's just a matter of time before he'll say something to himself that he takes as abuse, and before he knows it he'll wind up being arrested!
I'll bet he's so angry at the system that he's beside himself!
November 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
"He should of put a document in front of this Judge to sign that transferred all of the Judges assets and bank accounts into his name."
Come on FramedFather! Why that would be fraud don't you know!
You would find yourself charged for shoplifting or jailed for fraud sooner than you would find a woman charged for raping a man of his assets or jailed for perjury that destroyed a man!
These are the facts Ladies and Gentlemen. Or should we say conniving women and perpetually deceived Gentlemen.
Attila
November 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This is perfect. Great job, Ben. In your attempt to document art, you've just shown everybody what a crock of your favorite waste material our restraining order system is. I don't know if you'll appreciate it, but everybody who knows how ridiculously easy it is to get these and what a farce of justice they make appreciates your efforts.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Attila, yes it would of been fraud, but it would of made the Judge look even dumber than he already is! hahaha!
November 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
And if he would of planned it right he could of cleaned him out and been sitting on a quiet and beautiful Pacific island within hours....
November 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Does this mean that if he chokes the chicken he can be charged with violation of a restraining order AND sexual assault?
November 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Hmmm, makes me curious could a planning criminal be able to get a restraining order against every police officer in the town. Making himself/herself un arrestable.
But honest judge I have a fear of cops. They look at me funny.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Actually, he's in a perpetual state of violation of the order, which means that the police must be in a constant state of arresting him and taking him to prison. But even there he is violating the order and over and over and over and over again.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
That's correct Joe!!! so a law suite against the the state would be in order, after all they continuously endangered him with (wait for it) him self!
November 4th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
John D said:
"Does this mean that if he chokes the chicken he can be charged with violation of a restraining order AND sexual assault?"
That is seriously the funniest thing I have read in a long time!!! I am still laughing my guts out! Now wouldn't choking your chicken also constitute animal cruelty and have you in trouble with PETA and the SPCA.
Now what if you were spanking your monkey? Would CAS/CPS take away your monkey after the police arrest you and place it into foster care? Just wondering how that would play out?
Attila
November 4th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
***Femspeak Announcement***
Women are the "oppressed" class.
Men are the "oppressor" class.
Men start all wars.
Women give life.
Men spread disease.
Women spread wisdom.
***Femspeak Announcement over***
November 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Hang on.. this is the exact logic used to justify the Social security system. Why do you have a problem with this all of a sudden?
November 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Robert!
Thanks for the comic relief.
But then again the implications surrounding what you wrote about aren't so funny.
Yes, what did we give up? And how?
Not too late to get it back though, folks.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:52 am
I've often wondered how funny it would be to have a group of women take out TROs on all lawmakers. Think that would even make them pause in their rusty armor, chivalrous, vote getting war on fathers? I doubt it.
If you tell people they are victims and then "lead" them to victorious retribution, you will be re-elected. It is a proven path of power and money...screw the guy who is losing his rights...he doesn't need them anyway. Let's start calling them privileges that we're just taking away. Apparently women have rights, men have privileges.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:55 am
This video show why people need to be protected from themselves. Its deadly serious and I don't want to hear any more levity on this subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0CdnUKGmMA
November 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Just a heads up folks the tv networks are thinking of revamping a sitcom dealing with trivilising devorce , sterieo typing men as ideots. where as women are super smart and very even tempered , all wise and sexy. Every divorce was because the men are childish and the mature smart woman did not need the man. This smacks of pro divorce anti male-family. I witnessed this attempted resurection at a prescreening last weekend,and by the way there is truth in advertising for it was sponcored by charmin toilet paper complete with the bears. We need to get on the phones and tell Charmine NO to this kind of show.