I ordinarily don’t watch these shows, but someone else in the house was watching The People’s Court today, and there was a case where someone was trying to collect an alleged debt. Supposedly, the defendant had a restraining order against the plaintiff.
If this was true, wouldn’t the plaintiff be in violation of that restraining order just by being in the fictitious courthouse with the defendant?
They could probably write up some kind of waiver for the limited purpose of appearing on TV together.
Could the person who got the restraining order just give the other person permission to be in their presence?
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work like that. The court alone would have the power to amend the restraining order.
It depends on the details of the restraining order. They’re not all the same.
No (if the restraining order banned it). People who have restraining orders against them make this mistake sometimes, and legal people who discuss restraining orders warn against this.
Restraining orders may specify the locations where they apply such as home or place of work.
There must be some exceptions for court because usually a restraining order can be challenged while it’s in effect for some period of time and if only one party shows up they are likely to win.
Due to common law. Its back to Magna Carta stuff… one has the right to attend court to defend oneself or when one has a strong interest in the case.
I don’t know what would happen if you went to observe a court session , not subpoenaed nor involved, and …
a. a person you had been ordered not to approach is involved in the case
b. a person you had been ordered not to approach is also just observing the court session as a non-involved spectator…
Could you be excused for breaching the order for a ? or for b ? I don’t see common law explaining these things clearly.
The laws are going to differ slightly between states. In my state restraining orders only go one way. The plaintiff can contact the defendant but the defendant can not communicate back. The plaintiff can send 50 texts but one reply can get the defendant arrested. The plaintiff can say “Come on over and let’s work this out” and that’s not illegal. But if the defendant does that he can get arrested. The order comes from a judge and not the plaintiff. Only a judge can change the order.
Well sure. The order comes from the judge. The judge can also order them back into court together. But The People’s Court does not count as a real court.
I asked a friend of mine who was, a long time ago, a production assistant on the People’s Court. I’m not sure she’ll know the answer but I’ll report back if I learn anything.
My guess is that the show doesn’t ask candidates about restraining orders and just ignores them if they learn of them. They have a show to produce. It’s up to the person subject to the restraining order to know what he or she can do under the order. The restrained person will face the consequences of violating it and I doubt the producers of the show care that much what happens to the restrained person after the show is in the can.
The People’s Court isn’t a real court. It’s an arbitration proceeding dressed up as a judicial one.
My friend reported back and said she doesn’t know what happens. She said she could ask around but I didn’t want to push her.
It’s not even that. The producers sign contracts with the people who agree to drop their suits and appear on the show instead. According to Wikipedia, the show says: “Both the plaintiff and the defendant have been paid from a fund for their appearance. The amount, if any, awarded in the case, is deducted from this fund, and the remainder is divided equally between both litigants. The amount of the fund is dependent on the size of the judgment.” In the real world, arbitrators don’t pay the awards for the litigants appearing before them.
No, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an arbitration proceeding. Any extrajudicial hearing which the litigants agree is binding on them is an arbitration (though there is nonbinding arbitration too). The important thing is that they waive their rights to challenge the arbitrator’s ruling in a court of law, not where the money comes from.
I was just mentioning what I knew to be a true exception. And all states are required to follow orders from other states under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause so it’s not just a technicality.
Anyway, these court shows aren’t actual courts, they are valid arbitration proceedings, they have legal advisors, and the judges are or were real judges (usually, there may have been exceptions), so I’m sure they wouldn’t try to convince any of the participants to violate any valid restraining order.
It’s interesting that you mentioned one-way orders, I believe that it’s a common misconception that you can resume contact with someone after they’ve contacted you.
Which my wife’s ex found out the hard way. She had a restraining (or no-contact?)order against him but they texted back and forth all the time regardless in order to deal with their shared-custody young kid… until he started acting like an idiot and the communications began to get abusive. One phone call and the cops showed up at his door and took him away in cuffs. Of course his response was along the lines of “wtf we both break that order all the time”. Didn’t prevent him from getting convicted though.