personal service on a ro question

[cjbrown929]

This situation has been described in earlier threads, but I have a new question. Maybe cdwjava or someone can help.

In California, does the defendant/respondent in a civil harassment case HAVE to be served in person, ie person to person with the summons etc? Are there any exceptions?

My ex filed a ro against me I just found out, and it was approved because I didn't even know it was pending. I've sent a request for records to see who signed the proof of service.

Another q: may I assume that a perjured pos would be grounds for dismissing the ro (I just don't want it on my record)

Thanks. cjbrown929

 

[garrula lingua]

Yes. If the POS was perjury (note that it is signed under penalty of perjury), then it is grounds to quash the RO.

Frequently, courts will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and the protected person is ordered to have the TRO served.

It is issued for a short period of time and is accompanied by a notice of a hearing date (a few weeks later) for both parties to appear for a 'long term' RO to be considered by the court.

Many, many TROs are issued & many are never served on the person to be restrained.

Yours may have been a TRO, which was granted, but never served on you,or it may be that, at the hearing date for the RO, someone did submit a perjured proof of service.

The proof of service should state the time, date, and location where you were served.

PS: you'll wait a long time for Riverside to respond to written request. Go down to the court and read/ask for a copy of the file (they'll charge you for copying ).

 

[cjbrown929]

Yes. If the POS was perjury (note that it is signed under penalty of perjury), then it is grounds to quash the RO.

Frequently, courts will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and the protected person is ordered to have the TRO served.

It is issued for a short period of time and is accompanied by a notice of a hearing date (a few weeks later) for both parties to appear for a 'long term' RO to be considered by the court.

Many, many TROs are issued & many are never served on the person to be restrained.

Yours may have been a TRO, which was granted, but never served on you,or it may be that, at the hearing date for the RO, someone did submit a perjured proof of service.

The proof of service should state the time, date, and location where you were served.

PS: you'll wait a long time for Riverside to respond to written request. Go down to the court and read/ask for a copy of the file (they'll charge you for copying ).

Thank you very much for your reply. You're right, the tro was granted but I never received a copy personally. What happened is, the person who filed it (my ex) KNOWS she is in trouble. Why? She pled guilty only a month ago to violating a court order I had obtained against HER over a year ago and, despite spending 7 days in jail, being placed on probation (summary, 3 yr), and being fined, she CONTINUES to call me every day. The DA has filed against her for violating PC 653m(b) and a probation violation.

Actually, the county she filed in is San Diego, while her violation of 273.6(A) was prosecuted in Riverside.

Would writing directly to the judge, or trying to file a "response" (even though it would technically be "late") and explaining what happened be effective?

 

[garrula lingua]

No, writing to the Judge is considered 'ex parte' communication (one-sided: both sides should be before the court and hear everything).

Go to the court in Riverside, ask the clerk for a certified copy of the docket on the annoying phone calls conviction date (have the case # and the date).

Go to the S.D. court that issued the TRO. Check the file & see when the hearing date for the 'permanent' restraining order was/is.

If there were no appearances on that hearing date, then there is no active restraining order (the TRO died on the scheduled hearing date, if there was no appearance by the person seeking the restraining order).

You may still want to see what basis did she use for the TRO- they usu require violence or threat of vio for issuance.

PS: The Riverside DA must have issued a 136.2 criminal protective order on your behalf.
If the restraining order hearing is still pending, use a copy of that pro. order, and the certified copy of the docket showing her conviction, to respond to the San Diego court, in writing, to her request. They should immediately back off granting a PO.

If your problems with her are on-going, then get extra certified copies of the docket, showing her conviction, to keep in your file for future use.

...but, life is too short to spend it fighting her, especially if she's nuts. Try to avoid initiating any form of contact (be prepared to defend, but don't initiate).

 

[cjbrown929]

Thank you for your help...

 

[garrula lingua]

You are welcome.
Hopefully she will leave you alone & find someone else to annoy.

 

[cjbrown929]

Update: just today, new charges were filed against her (violating pc 653mb). The DA assured me that she is facing a few months.

 

[cjbrown929]

Yes. If the POS was perjury (note that it is signed under penalty of perjury), then it is grounds to quash the RO.

Frequently, courts will issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and the protected person is ordered to have the TRO served.

It is issued for a short period of time and is accompanied by a notice of a hearing date (a few weeks later) for both parties to appear for a 'long term' RO to be considered by the court.

Many, many TROs are issued & many are never served on the person to be restrained.

Yours may have been a TRO, which was granted, but never served on you,or it may be that, at the hearing date for the RO, someone did submit a perjured proof of service.

The proof of service should state the time, date, and location where you were served.

PS: you'll wait a long time for Riverside to respond to written request. Go down to the court and read/ask for a copy of the file (they'll charge you for copying ).

An update on this situation...

A deputy from San Diego county called me yesterday and told me that the person who signed both pos's admitted that she never personally served me.

I am not sure why he was investigating it, but the "server", a girl who had just turned 18 was obviously hoodwinked into signing the document, which had a fake address for her. What are the chances the DA would prosecute (my ex) for, say, abuse of process or subornation of perjury? The fake address, according to the deputy, appears to have been (hand) printed by the same person who filled out the original complaint.

 

[eme76]

An update on this situation...

A deputy from San Diego county called me yesterday and told me that the person who signed both pos's admitted that she never personally served me.

I am not sure why he was investigating it, but the "server", a girl who had just turned 18 was obviously hoodwinked into signing the document, which had a fake address for her. What are the chances the DA would prosecute (my ex) for, say, abuse of process or subornation of perjury? The fake address, according to the deputy, appears to have been (hand) printed by the same person who filled out the original complaint.

it is possible what your ex did would fall under Cal.P.C132 (felony)go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and look it up you might want to talk to the DA about it

 

[cjbrown929]

it is possible what your ex did would fall under Cal.P.C132 (felony)go to www.leginfo.ca.gov and look it up you might want to talk to the DA about it

My incomplete understanding is that the signer signed of her own free will after the document had been basically filled out. It appears that she was given a deliberately inaccurate or incomplete explanation of the consequences of signing the document. I gather this because the deputy who investigated the case said that after interviewing her, he felt that she had been duped, a victim of her own inattention or lack of sophistication rather than a knowing participant.

I'm thinking (in my dreams) about PC 126 and PC 127. I'm sure that these are used only in situations where a victim suffers as a result of the perjury. See PC 128, I think. If someone is executed by the state due to perjured testimony, they can face a similar fate.

 

[eme76]

My incomplete understanding is that the signer signed of her own free will after the document had been basically filled out. It appears that she was given a deliberately inaccurate or incomplete explanation of the consequences of signing the document. I gather this because the deputy who investigated the case said that after interviewing her, he felt that she had been duped, a victim of her own inattention or lack of sophistication rather than a knowing participant.

I'm thinking (in my dreams) about PC 126 and PC 127. I'm sure that these are used only in situations where a victim suffers as a result of the perjury. See PC 128, I think. If someone is executed by the state due to perjured testimony, they can face a similar fate.

if she turned it in to the court knowing it was fake...meaning she knew the person who signed it did not really serve you...she is guilty of PC132

my ex tried the same thing...sort of...in a very diffrent situation but still a "false" proof of service was given and he is being charged with PC132