Restraining order dismissed at cost to defendant.

[PaisanPrincess]

Nebraska

A while back, I discovered I was being spied on in private by this mentally-ill (I'm pretty sure), toothless old man. Even his sister, who I knew, told me she was afraid he'd come to the house and kill her and her family just for having me there. Naturally, I got a restraining order. I tried to renew it a year later because he showed his crazy face on my university campus within that year. The order was granted, but they couldn't serve him because he was probably hiding when the sheriff came around with the order. After two or three hearings it turned out he hadn't been served. The judge told me she would put it on hold until I could call and give a workplace for him; I have no clue where he works or how to find that information.

So instead, I went out and bought a couple of guns and learned some krav maga. I come home from college and find a letter telling me the case was dismissed at cost to the plaintiff. I have no clue where any other papers are or if there was any warning to this by letter. Obviously not the court's fault.

However, I'd like to know the ballpark of how much the costs usually are, how I could pay them, or if I can somehow get out of the costs? It seems ridiculous to me that this was purely dismissed because of the legal system's incompetence, which is why I gave up on the order in the first place. It's obvious the police aren't going to be able to help me if he comes around with intent to kill, but my Mossberg probably will. Anyway, can someone lend advice? It would be very appreciated.

 

[justalayman]

legal system's incompetence

the legal system's incompetence? You think because the guy avoided service it somehow means the court is incompetent? If you want to pay a process server the money to hunt the guy down, feel welcome to do so.

I find it hard to believe you had an RO at all since he never expressed any threat to you. It doesn't sound like you have ever actually met the guy.

 

[stealth2]

The idiot can just stand in front of the window and wave at the sheriff, but if he doesn't answer, no protection order. The legal system is incompetent, and that's not the only way it is, but that's a whole new thread.



Woah, he never expressed any threat? I'm glad you're here to examine my forum posting and tell me. Before the order, he threatened my life because I filed criminal charges against the lunatic. Having known quite a bit about him because he was married to a relative, I also knew he had an extreme anger problem. His closest relatives thought he needed to be on meds.

I seriously appreciate you taking the time to read my post and respond and all, but you kind of just threw some seemingly random assumptions out there and didn't really address the questions of the thread. I probably do come off as one, but I sort of have this nutcase stalking me, and I'm trying to get answers from an online forum.

Your little stars don't mask the vulgar language you're using. Please clean it up - none of us want to read it. And besides... it's against the ToS. Which I presume you've read.

 

[Ohiogal]

The idiot can just stand in front of the window and wave at the sheriff, but if he doesn't answer, no protection order. The legal system is incompetent, and that's not the only way it is, but that's a whole new thread.

Your immaturity is showing. It is NOT the court's responsibility to make sure the defendant is served -- it is YOURS. And the sheriff cannot force his way into someone's house -- there is a little thing called the constitution. You know, that same thing that gives you a right to buy a gun or act like an idiot with your language in public.

Woah, he never expressed any threat? I'm glad you're here to examine my forum posting and tell me. Before the order, he threatened my life because I filed criminal charges against the lunatic. Having known quite a bit about him because he was married to a relative, I also knew he had an extreme anger problem. His closest relatives thought he needed to be on meds.

And if his closest relatives thought he was a danger to himself or others, they could have had him involuntarily held or committed.

I seriously appreciate you taking the time to read my post and respond and all, but you kind of just threw some seemingly random assumptions out there and didn't really address the questions of the thread. I probably do come off as one, but I sort of have this nutcase stalking me, and I'm trying to get answers from an online forum.

Actually you come off as a spoiled little brat with the iq of a five year old. If you want a restraining order YOU need to make sure the defendant is served within the bounds of the law. Or does the law only apply when YOU want it to apply?

 

[PaisanPrincess]

Your immaturity is showing. It is NOT the court's responsibility to make sure the defendant is served -- it is YOURS. And the sheriff cannot force his way into someone's house -- there is a little thing called the constitution. You know, that same thing that gives you a right to buy a gun or act like an idiot with your language in public.

No, it's not the court's responsibility, but there are plenty of stories where the court can't serve the guy, and she gets killed because the police didn't care to show up in time. Without that slip of paper, it's not illegal for him for to come knocking on my door with a gun on his hip and rope in his car. I already mentioned that I've seen him on my campus. I have the witnesses and other things to show the guy's a threat enough I could probably meet a burden of proof for a warrant. Ideally, there would be a system to get a warrant to serve if you can meet the burden of proof and if he's avoiding it, but still be able to get an RO without it as an option.

That, of course, is all discussion and not really for this thread. It's pretty obvious I have a low opinion of the justice system, and if you disagree, that's fine. You can state that or even rebut without tossing around elementary personal attacks and proving your own maturity level.

And if his closest relatives thought he was a danger to himself or others, they could have had him involuntarily held or committed.

Have you had someone involuntarily committed? The burden of proof for that is incredible. The same burden of proof that the police can use to search a house isn't enough to have someone thrown into the loony bin. It's extremely rare and difficult to do. I can easily get a large handful of his relatives to stand in court and tell stories, but that's not enough. You know, because of that constitution thing you talked about earlier.

Actually you come off as a spoiled little brat with the iq of a five year old. If you want a restraining order YOU need to make sure the defendant is served within the bounds of the law. Or does the law only apply when YOU want it to apply?

"IQ of a five year old," brilliance. Spoiled little brats must fear for their life and have to deal with five digit posters who waste space whining about little stars that represent swear words. Oh my. The last time swear words bothered me so much, I was five years old. Hm.. No, but seriously, grow up. If you disagree, you can do it without the lame insults.

Honestly, do you want me to slam open the door of a 250 lb skinhead and try to serve him myself? I've already mentioned being on campus. If I'm worried about being able to pay the RO dismissal, does it sound like I can easily pay some guy to hunt him down? I got out of high school not long out of all this, and I'm looking for a part-time job. I didn't really ask about serving the guy. If you sift through my post, the questions I asked were actually pretty simple and straightforward. If you don't want to answer, it's up to you, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I legitimately don't want to have an attitude on here, especially with anyone mature enough to actually address my post.

It's not hard to see I have a lot going on, and then one guy derailed the thread and keenly decided I spent the extra time to go ahead and lie about the incredible feat of getting an RO against a nutcase in the first place, because..? Why?
It's obvious you were irritated by my response for whatever reason. I'm irritated by yours, so I'm going to speak my mind, not unlike you. Unlike you, though, I don't need to resort to actually typing out, "You're stupid!" Again, if you don't want to give advice, don't. Your post count looks to me like it's fine.

 

[Silverplum]

No, it's not the court's responsibility, but there are plenty of stories where the court can't serve the guy, and she gets killed because the police didn't care to show up in time. Without that slip of paper, it's not illegal for him for to come knocking on my door with a gun on his hip and rope in his car. I already mentioned that I've seen him on my campus. I have the witnesses and other things to show the guy's a threat enough I could probably meet a burden of proof for a warrant. Ideally, there would be a system to get a warrant to serve if you can meet the burden of proof and if he's avoiding it, but still be able to get an RO without it as an option.

That, of course, is all discussion and not really for this thread. It's pretty obvious I have a low opinion of the justice system, and if you disagree, that's fine. You can state that or even rebut without tossing around elementary personal attacks and proving your own maturity level.

Have you had someone involuntarily committed? The burden of proof for that is incredible. The same burden of proof that the police can use to search a house isn't enough to have someone thrown into the loony bin. It's extremely rare and difficult to do. I can easily get a large handful of his relatives to stand in court and tell stories, but that's not enough. You know, because of that constitution thing you talked about earlier.

"IQ of a five year old," brilliance. Spoiled little brats must fear for their life and have to deal with five digit posters who waste space whining about little stars that represent swear words. Oh my. The last time swear words bothered me so much, I was five years old. Hm.. No, but seriously, grow up. If you disagree, you can do it without the lame insults.

Honestly, do you want me to slam open the door of a 250 lb skinhead and try to serve him myself? I've already mentioned being on campus. If I'm worried about being able to pay the RO dismissal, does it sound like I can easily pay some guy to hunt him down? I got out of high school not long out of all this, and I'm looking for a part-time job. I didn't really ask about serving the guy. If you sift through my post, the questions I asked were actually pretty simple and straightforward. If you don't want to answer, it's up to you, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I legitimately don't want to have an attitude on here, especially with anyone mature enough to actually address my post.

It's not hard to see I have a lot going on, and then one guy derailed the thread and keenly decided I spent the extra time to go ahead and lie about the incredible feat of getting an RO against a nutcase in the first place, because..? Why?
It's obvious you were irritated by my response for whatever reason. I'm irritated by yours, so I'm going to speak my mind, not unlike you. Unlike you, though, I don't need to resort to actually typing out, "You're stupid!" Again, if you don't want to give advice, don't. Your post count looks to me like it's fine.

Alrighty then.

 

[Ohiogal]

No, it's not the court's responsibility, but there are plenty of stories where the court can't serve the guy, and she gets killed because the police didn't care to show up in time. Without that slip of paper, it's not illegal for him for to come knocking on my door with a gun on his hip and rope in his car. I already mentioned that I've seen him on my campus. I have the witnesses and other things to show the guy's a threat enough I could probably meet a burden of proof for a warrant. Ideally, there would be a system to get a warrant to serve if you can meet the burden of proof and if he's avoiding it, but still be able to get an RO without it as an option.

That, of course, is all discussion and not really for this thread. It's pretty obvious I have a low opinion of the justice system, and if you disagree, that's fine. You can state that or even rebut without tossing around elementary personal attacks and proving your own maturity level.



Have you had someone involuntarily committed? The burden of proof for that is incredible. The same burden of proof that the police can use to search a house isn't enough to have someone thrown into the loony bin. It's extremely rare and difficult to do. I can easily get a large handful of his relatives to stand in court and tell stories, but that's not enough. You know, because of that constitution thing you talked about earlier.



"IQ of a five year old," brilliance. Spoiled little brats must fear for their life and have to deal with five digit posters who waste space whining about little stars that represent swear words. Oh my. The last time swear words bothered me so much, I was five years old. Hm.. No, but seriously, grow up. If you disagree, you can do it without the lame insults.

Honestly, do you want me to slam open the door of a 250 lb skinhead and try to serve him myself? I've already mentioned being on campus. If I'm worried about being able to pay the RO dismissal, does it sound like I can easily pay some guy to hunt him down? I got out of high school not long out of all this, and I'm looking for a part-time job. I didn't really ask about serving the guy. If you sift through my post, the questions I asked were actually pretty simple and straightforward. If you don't want to answer, it's up to you, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I legitimately don't want to have an attitude on here, especially with anyone mature enough to actually address my post.

It's not hard to see I have a lot going on, and then one guy derailed the thread and keenly decided I spent the extra time to go ahead and lie about the incredible feat of getting an RO against a nutcase in the first place, because..? Why?
It's obvious you were irritated by my response for whatever reason. I'm irritated by yours, so I'm going to speak my mind, not unlike you. Unlike you, though, I don't need to resort to actually typing out, "You're stupid!" Again, if you don't want to give advice, don't. Your post count looks to me like it's fine.

Never said you were stupid. Not at all. I have dealt with cases of people involuntarily committed. It is NOT that difficult. I don't like people who think the rules don't apply to them -- you don't think they apply to you. You are responsible for making sure someone is served. Not the court. You are responsible for following the law. You are responsible for abiding by the rules of this site. Since you did not abide by the rules of this site, your post where you were swearing has been reported and you will almost guaranteed be banned.

 

[PaisanPrincess]

Princess, royalty normally has class and since you don't, you are not a princess except in your own mind. Never said you were stupid. Not at all. I have dealt with cases of people involuntarily committed. It is NOT that difficult. I don't like people who think the rules don't apply to them -- you don't think they apply to you. You are responsible for making sure someone is served. Not the court. You are responsible for following the law. You are responsible for abiding by the rules of this site. Since you did not abide by the rules of this site, your post where you were swearing has been reported and you will almost guaranteed be banned. So Princess, put that with your high school diploma and savor it.

My life doesn't really revolve around this forum. I'm not really sure where I said the rules didn't apply to me. I was actually complaining about the entire system and how it applies to everyone. I thought I addressed the issue of the court serving the order, but you're obviously mostly concerned with the fact that I had the gall to dare backtalk you. It would seem you're the one who thinks she's some kind of royalty. I guess you think having the IQ of a five year old is smart?

At the end of the day, if I were to get banned, you're still the fully grown attorney who sat there and instead of bothering to argue with what you disagree with, offer advice, or act like an adult, you went, "Ha! I reported you for swearing! You're going to be banned for sure! Ms. Recent High School Graduate Still in Stupid College! LOLZ"

Congratulations, you win the internet in your own special way. Looks like I might have to follow the advice of more mature, intelligent legal forums I've asked this in. Good job for representing your community.