In my last post, I wrote about the outrageous “Indefinite” Temporary Restraining Order issued against Bruce Aristeo by the Camden County Superior Court of New Jersey to “protect” alleged “stalking victim” Jody Raines.
As predicted and written by legal scholar, Aaron H. Caplan, in his legal paper, “Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders”, once a wrongful and extremely flawed restraining order (initially a civil matter) is in put into place, it can then be unfairly and illicitly used as a stepping stone transforming it into a criminal matter:
“A civil harassment order creates a new crime that can only be committed by the respondent. Actions that would otherwise be lawful—such as attending a school sporting event or placing a telephone call—become potentially criminal. Even if no criminal prosecution follows, other less extreme but nonetheless perilous legal consequences exist. The issuance of a past harassment order can be a factor in favor of issuing a new order. A judge in an unrelated criminal proceeding would be allowed to consider the existence of an earlier harassment order as an indicator of dangerousness, potentially affecting decisions on bail or sentencing.”
Aaron H. Caplan also predicted enforcement errors by police.
“Officers who investigate alleged violations of no-contact orders may make unjustified arrests (or unjustified oral orders to move along) resulting from inattention, misinterpretation, or lack of accurate information. Several federal civil rights actions have been filed against police for arrests made when any reasonable reading of the order would show no violation.”
And that, unfortunately, is exactly what has happened to Bruce Aristeo. Below is a copy of an insane arrest warrant issued against Bruce filed by Police Detective Christoph Auletto
For reading convenience, I have pasted below the core text (with spelling corrections) from the arrest warrant (BOLD is my emphasis):
Within the jurisdiction of this Court, on diverse dates between on or about January 2, 2013 through May 15, 2013, did purposefully or knowingly engage in a course of conduct directed at Jody Raines that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or the safety of a third person or suffer other emotional distress, specifically by posting numerous inflammatory videos on public internet sites using Jody Raines’ name, image, photographs, business website, as well as friends and acquaintances of Jody Raines and did so in violation of an Indefinite Temporary Restraining Order issued August 2, 2012, by the Honorable Nan S. Famular, J.S.C. under Docket Number FV-04-001476-12-B, in violation of N.J.S. 2C:12-10C, a 3rd degree crime.
Within the jurisdiction of this Court, on or about April 25, 2013, did purposely or knowingly violate a provision of an Indefinite Temporary Restraining Order issued August 2, 2012. by the Honorable Nan S. Famular. J.S.C. under docket number FV-04-001476-12-B, by engaging in a course of conduct directed at Jody Raines that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or suffer other emotional distress by posting two inflammatory videos on YouTube, a public internet site, using Jody Raines’ name, image, and video of her pet Belgian Malinois in violation of N.J.S. 2C:29-9B, a fourth degree crime.
Since when is a restraining order allowed to prevent a person from talking ABOUT someone else such as “friends and acquaintances” of an alleged harassment victim (Jody Raines)?
Next up, I will post links to some of the “inflammatory” videos that allegedly caused the “victim” (Jody Raines) to “suffer emotional distress” and “fear for her safety”. You will also see the “inflammatory” videos displaying “Jody Raines’ name, image, photographs, business website” that supposedly violates the Indefinite Temporary Restraining Order. I promise, you won’t be disappointed.
Follow Defiantly on Twitter at http://twitter.com/defiantlynet or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at http://facebook.com/defiantly.net. Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.