OSC granted on issued RO

What is the name of your state? California

My ex-lied and fabricated a story that I was harassing him (phone calls, e-mails, and ID theft) and was granted an RO. I did not have a lawyer, was told it was my responsibility to prove that I didn't do the things I was accused of doing.

I did some research and requested an OSC and it was granted so we go back to court in one month. The clerk of courts granted my request for three subpoena's for evidence, two from credit card companies, and one from his residential phone company. I have also collected all phone records from home, work, and cell for the year, and 735 public payphones numbers within a 50-mile radius of my home and work. I also got my attendance record of all days missed from work and IP address from home and work. The subpoenaed information shows without a doubt that there were no calls made from my home, cell, work or so far payphone in my area code, to his home or cell number. The information from the credit card companies proves that he opened the accounts, signed the applications with me as an authorized user.

Also, the court told me that they are not there to re-hear the facts of my case but I argued the following California Civil Code and judge set a court date

3424. (a) Upon notice and motion, the court may modify or dissolve
a final injunction upon a showing that there has been a material
change in the facts upon which the injunction was granted, that the
law upon which the injunction was granted has changed, or that the
ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of
the injunction.
(b) Service of this motion to modify or dissolve a final
injunction shall be made upon the nonmoving party by one of the
following methods:
(1) If the party has not appeared in the action, the motion shall
be served in the same manner as a summons pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2) If the party has appeared in the action, the motion shall be
served either upon the party or his or her attorney, or upon the
party if he or she has appeared without an attorney, either in the
same manner as a summons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with
Section 415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with
Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(c) This section does not apply to a final injunction issued
pursuant to the Family Code.



My questions are:

1) If they are not going to re-hear the facts then why did they grant me the order to show cause?
2) Since the facts of the case have changed and I can prove he lied isn’t that enough for the court to rescind the RO?
3) Are my chances for getting a RO against him good, i.e., greater than 75%?
4) Would it be feasible to sue him for libel, or falsely accusing me of something he knew I didn't do? If so, what I do that in Small Claims court?

Regarding 1 and 2, you will need to tell the court why the evidence you are presenting now was not presented at the initial TRO hearing.

Regarding 3, who knows? Depends on the judge you get and how you present your case. Do you have an attorney?

is this the same TRO you had posted about earlier this year? If yes, what evidence did your ex present to the court showing that you were contacting him?

is this the same TRO you had posted about earlier this year? If yes, what evidence did your ex present to the court showing that you were contacting him?

He did not present anything to the court that proves that I was harassing him. This was a his word against my word. What he presented to the court were some e-mails sent to him and his wife but they were from an e-mail address from a city approximately 90 miles away.

He showed the first page of a phone bill to his residence (i.e., monthy charges) and he stated that he had a trap on the phone but did not show any incoming phone numbers.

He told the court that I open credit cards in his name with him as the primary and me as the authorized user. He did not present any letter from any creditor stating that the accounts were opened fraudently. (Which is why I had to get the subpoena's because as the AU they would not supply me any information.)


He told the court I sent three letters to his employer (Navy) and the CA state DMV and Child Welfare offices stating that he was committing fraud, had removed information from his personnel folder in-order to get promoted, and where to find him in CA to collect back child support for a kid he fathered that had received California Assistance. I did send these letters which I admitted to doing, they were sent in 2001 and everything in the letters is/was 100% true. I have all the evidence to prove all the information is true which is why he will never take me to court for libel or defamation.

No I did not have a lawyer, naively, I thought since he was only making statements with no proof that the RO would not be granted.