You may not have figured it out yet but sooner or later your wife is HIGHLY likely to hear something she does not like and file a criminal complaint that you violated your restraining order. It seems that, and there is case law, that you can contact your children at "her" (or most likely your old home). In fact you can but the standard for criminal charges is that she SAYS something happened. You may need to hire a separate criminal attorney to defend yourself at a cost of $4,000+. This drains your resources and not her's because it is the district attorney who prosecutes you because this is a criminal, not a civil matter!!!!  This just continues to accelerate the vindictiveness and sets you up. As usual you will see it comes back to money.

Yesterday while at a meeting of the Liberty Bell Union a couple Framingham cops came into the building because it was a holiday and the alarm was set off. We had a nice discussion about how unfair the restraining order were - they told us their chief's policy was to "always arrest the man" and they had no choice. Talk about sexist, unconstitutional behavior and policies!!!

As usually it always comes down to money somehow as you will see below.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I am not on your list,( FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM) but as you can see, Bill did sent this to me.

about me, a father who has been through the ringer, and has had 5 RO criminal complaints dismissed, a permanent RO vacated.

An order of no contact, is how the courts go about separating the father from the child.

Yes, visitation with the kids is allowed but the first time "SHE said", you said something, you are on your way to jail. Then visitation is suspended.

the standard of review is the "she said standard"

What I will tell you, is DO NOT, NOT NOT, plea out. Do NOT NOT NOT have a judge decided the merits of the complaint, or you will go to jail.

As long as you are out on bail, or personal, you are subject to 60 days in jail on a phone call. A continuance without a finding, also put you in jeopardy of going to jail for 60 days on a phone call. SHE SAID STANDARD
so I would recommend that if you have friends, let them baby sit you 24/7, so you have witnesses that when she said comes up you have people to support you that it never happened.

go for a jury trial, stall as long as you can, so you can follow the money trail.

learn as much as you can about the federal money coming into the state/courts VIA "WAWA",

you might want to start with discovery, by sending a list of questions to the chief justice of the district courts, directly asking for financial information concerning judges retirement funds, i.e. where does the money come from. what sources,

As you file request under rule 34 MRCP, at the same time, use FOIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
RE: REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS
1. This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552.

there are a few of the sources you can cite in you requests:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 664, 666,(b). (b) 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k). Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 663, 664, 666,(b). (b) 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k) Authorized under title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)

Authorization: Social Security Act, Title IV-D, as amended, Public Laws 94-46, 94-88, 94-365, 95-30, 95-59, 95-171, 95-598, 96-178, 96-265, 96-272, 96-611, 97-35, 97-248, 98-369, 98-378, 100-485, and 101-508; 15 U.S.C. 1673; 26 U.S.C. 6103(i); 26 U.S.C. 6305; 26 U.S.C. 6402(c); 29 U.S.C. 49b; 42 U.S.C. 651-667; 42 U.S.C. 1310; 42 U.S.C. 1315.

Once the court sees you are going to try and show a jury the racketeering scam that gives every appearance of creating a conflict of interest and just how corrupt the mass courts are, the court, police and district atty. will back off.

But if you flinch, you will be on your way to jail.

Good luck, and try to have fun doing it.


In a message dated 5/31/05 2:05:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, XXXXXXX writes:

here is more help for you on contacting the wife to reach the kids.

From Commonwealth v Silva  SJC-08191

COMMONWEALTH vs. ANTHONY P. SILVA.

Plymouth. March 7, 2000. - April 11, 2000.

A no-contact order like this one would not be violated when a father has to speak on the telephone with a protected woman, in order to speak with his children, and he does so briefly, and in a direct and nonabusive way. Such contact would be a lawful incident of the order because there may be no other way for the father to exercise his right to reach his children. [3] This brief and inevitable contact, however, cannot be used as an occasion to harass, threaten, or intimidate the protected party. That form of conduct crosses the line between lawful incidental conversation, permitted by the order, and a substantive violation of its terms.

The line was crossed in this case. The order prohibited the defendant from making contact with his former wife, either "in person, by telephone, in writing or otherwise, either directly or through someone else, and to stay at least 50 yards from [his former wife], even if [she] seems to allow or request contact." The order was not ambiguous to a person of ordinary intelligence. A reasonable man, in the defendant's position, could not have believed that paragraph 13 of the order, allowing telephone contact with his children, would have sanctioned the angry outbursts that occurred here. See Commonwealth v. Butler, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 906, 907 (1996). The evidence was susceptible only of the conclusion that the defendant understood that his behavior violated the terms of the order, because, on being asked not to call anymore, the defendant told his former wife that he would call "any f'in time he want[ed]."

it would be appreciated if you would also post this to the FATHERS-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM, as to allow others to learn.

You need not delete my name or E mail address. Many of the web pages I once had posted into cyberspace have been introduced in court, during a hearing to reconsider a permanent 209A.

i don't fear reprisal from the scum that are running the racketeering syndicate in MA
   
My problem seems to be a little different though. I think I am caught in ambiguity. I have been under the impression that the Family court order overrides the RO order when it is around communicating about the visitation and other children issues. I have asked 3 attorneys now and gotten 3 different answers as follows:
 
1) If she initiates I can have the discussion (prior to my family court order)

What I was told by a few of the people, friends, who just happen to be police, that under any circumstance, if there is an RO in place, I need to run away, stay away, and never speak to her, or even have a third party make contact with her, or I will be arrested.

The Ambiguity is by design. It helps generate work for Attys. generating billable hours for lawyers, bring in revenue to the court under WAWA.
 
2) Greg Hession an RO specialist - "record all calls with her" - implying I can have these calls

Yes, Record everything, but let her know right up front, " ever call" that you are recording the conversation.
  3) My attorney - "Recommends" I don't contact her at all but does not ever say it is a violation of the order - self-serving, of course, because all contact would need to go through him and the other attorney making them many thousands of dollars more for writing letters at $250/hour.

The Ambiguity is by design. It helps generate work for Attys. generating billable hours for lawyers, bring in revenue to the court under VAWA.

The family court judge clearly knows these contacts are happening. Her attorney moved to prevent me from taping calls with her to protect myself and this was granted recently.  So how can I be in violation? Where is the line? How can I possibly know what I can and can't do

try filling a motion for clarification do this as a pro se, do it on your own.
try and set out a stipulation with the motion designating a few other people to act as go between. lay out in your motion an argument on the issue of ambiguity, by design, the need to put in place third parties to avoid your unnecessary arrest, wasted prosecution time for frivolous criminal complaints meant only to interfere with the parent child relationship, and the fragrantly bring in federal tax dollars to the state

I am thinking of asking the judge for a letter to the DA saying I do in fact have his permission to contact my wife, as long as it is concerning the kids in the hope this would force the DA to drop the charges and save thousands in attorneys fees. What do you think about this strategy.

That is what a motion for clarification is for. But to save you money? it is important that you be driven into bankruptcy. By driving you into the poor house, then the P & F can go after you for not paying child support.