No, you read that right. Some woman got a restraining order against Letterman:
I thought this was Winter Solstice and not April Fool’s Day.
Maybe I need to wind my calendar.
Explain to me how a judge granted a restraining order to this loon in the first place?
I feel so sorry for her. She’s obviously trapped in some godawful mental illness. I hope she gets help.
Does whoever approved the order do this with a rubber stamp? If the article is even half accurate, then the request should have gone straight to the shredder. The only reason I can see for granting it is that the judge (assuming a judge approves these) thought it was harmless. The applicant asked for, and was apparently granted:
That’s just lining up a follow-up nuisance lawsuit. Obviously, someone thinking that when Letterman mentions Oprah he is really talking to her will see whatever he says at being directed at her.
I love you Americans, really really, but your justice system is weird.
Hmm. I wonder why Letterman in particular seems to attract so many disturbed women. I remember he was being stalked by another mentally ill woman a few years ago, who broke into his house a few times and such (sadly, rather than getting the help she needed, she ended up committing suicide).
The weird thing is that Letterman *is doing * all of this and that he is doing it to impress Jodi Foster.
Jodi Foster, still unimpressed.
Zebra, you’re Jodi Foster!?!?!? That’s it! I’m going to have to get a restraining order to stop you from harassing me!
[Foghorn Leghorn]That’s a joke, son![/FL]
Man, after reading that news article, it’s not just the lady who’s got a mental problem. It sounds like the judge who granted it has some serious problems of his own.
Because he isn’t funny anymore, disturbed women just don’t seem to realize that yet.
You got dat right!
Can’t argue with that.
It would appear you can’t appeal simply because the plaintiff is nuts.
I read it as that it was a temporary restraining order. My guess would be that they automatically hand out a temporary since most people asking for a restraining order need it “right then” and can’t wait for a review. Probably this lady just lucked out in getting the temporary.
This is the disturbing part to me. What has to be going on is an explicit or implicit policy of always, always granting a temporary restraining order on the say-so of the complainant. This, in turn, seems to bespeak a policy that complainants never lie and are, in fact, victims whenever they say they are.
This case illustrates the fact that such an assumption is far from well-founded. The ultimate issue here, albeit it’s not being discussed, is one of some rather nasty sexual politics. Given that most seekers of protective orders are almost sure to be women accusing men of stalking or harassing them (right up there with sexual abuse of kids as the nuclear option in familial dispute), it’s very troubling that the system should accept such complaints at face value when, in at least some instances such as this, they are clearly meritless. It’s another twist on the “Women never lie about rape or sexual abuse” dogma that was debated during the whole Kobe Bryant/Katelyn Faber fiasco.
I would like to have anyone who understands New Mexico law better than I do confirm whether the judge’s hands were bound by a policy of automatic-issuance of all requested “anti-stalker” protective orders, as I suspect was the case.
Doesn’t this just feed this woman’s delusions?
How is this ethical or even “right”?
I would like to know what the judge was thinking.
The thing I don’t understand is why Letterman wants the restraining order overturned. Wouldn’t he want to avoid someone like her? Unless he really is planning to marry her.
I’m wondering if the judge upon advice from psychiatrists, just granted the order with the hopes that it would stop her in her tracks. Because if he DENIES her motion, then it would feed into her paranoia and obsession with him.
I mean, it’s kind of like a parent who scares away imaginary bogey men so that their child can go to sleep.
Just a WAG.
According to the story, he would be violating the order if he even thought about her. That makes it practically impossible for him to avoid violating the order, so potentially he could be arrested at any time if the order is enforced.
Judges don’t have that kind of latitude. You can’t grant a restraining order simply because the person seeking it really, really wants one, but only because the law supports it.
Because this is a TRO, there’s a pretty low threshold in order to get one, and it’s likely set to expire on its own terms in a very short time period. The thought is that a TRO maintains the status quo while the parties fight about a permanent restraining order (an “injunction”).
My WAG, based on no facts, is that her papers seeking the restraining order were perfunctory; they hit the points she needed to hit to get a TRO. (It sounds like she’s pro se, which makes me think this is quite possible.) The article says that her “request” was accompanied by a six-page letter. It is possible that the judge did not review the letter (perhaps because it does not conform to the standards required by the court for submissions), and that the inflammatory statements the media is quoting come from that letter, but not from the papers the court actually reviewed.
Also, like I said, courts give more leeway to pro se plaintiffs than to those represented by attorneys, because the judicial system can be difficult to navigate, and a pro se plaintiff (particularly one seeking a TRO and alleging that she is being stalked and harassed) should be protected in the interim before the legal merits are considered. After all, our default position ought to be to protect a vulnerable person at least long enough so that s/he can live to make it to the hearing on the injunction.
[QUOTE=Huerta88]
The ultimate issue here, albeit it’s not being discussed, is one of some rather nasty sexual politics. Given that most seekers of protective orders are almost sure to be women accusing men of stalking or harassing them (right up there with sexual abuse of kids as the nuclear option in familial dispute), it’s very troubling that the system should accept such complaints at face value when, in at least some instances such as this, they are clearly meritless. /QUOTE]
This may not be true, I don’t have any figures, but I believe know of more men who got restraining orders against other people (men and women), than I do women.
In the most recent restraining order I was aware of a co-worker was being harrassed by his 70-year-old neighbor and sort-of landlord. The neighbor had been demanding unreasonable things (according my co-worker, whom I believe) and blowing up at him. Finally he came to our work and said he has to see the co-worker, who wasn’t there that day. While there he said he wanted to kick the co-workers ass and that if he came by he’d better bring the police. The co-worker asked for and was granted a restraining order against this guy. He said he knew it seemed ridiculous, but his neighbor was a bit senile and had a gun.
Another one I can think of is one where this guy got a restraining order against a woman who had been accosting him. I believe they had had a relationship at one point, but that that had broken up. They both were a little bit crazy and were both a bit touchy, so it was not a stable situation. I doubt she would have done him bodily harm, but she could make his life miserable.
In any case, while I could believe that most restraining orders are from women who are being harrassed by men, I’m not so sure this is the case based on the varied types of restraining orders I’ve run into over the years.