DV-120, Item 03: Personal Conduct Orders
1. Introduction
Plaintiff requests (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005,
served 04 March 2006, page 2, Item 6, Personal Conduct Orders) that
defendant not "harass, attack, strike, threaten, assault, hit, follow, stalk,
molest, destroy personal property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance,
or block movements".
1.1 Defendant denies each and every charge
Defendant has not harassed, attacked, struck, threatened, assaulted, hit,
followed, stalked, molested, destroyed personal property, disturbed the peace,
kept under surveillance, or blocked the movements of plaintiff at any time.
1.2 Defendant has been San Francisco Superior Court-appointed foster
parent
Defendant is a former court-appointed foster parent, appointed by the
Superior Court of San Francisco, and lived, for over three years, with an
angry black girl during her adolescence - a young lady whose anger was so
great that she had been thrown out of every other group home in the Bay Area.
Defendant has been the recipient of harassment, attacks, strikes, threats,
assaults, hits, following, stalking, molesting, destruction of personal
property, disturbance of the peace, surveillance, and interference with
freedom of movement, and has remained friends with his foster daughter through
it all, without needing legal intervention (other than an armed response from
the San Francisco Police Department, every three to six months).
1.3 Defendant expects to be a foster parent again
Defendant expects to be a foster parent again and is concerned that being
the recipient of a restraining order will interfere with defendant's ability
to provide this service to his community.
Defendant notes that he is currently acquainted with at least one family
who has an at-risk child and has discussed the possibility of foster parenting
with defendant's wife and the at-risk child's parents.
1.4 Defendant is a registered blood and platelet donor
Defendant is a registered blood and platelet donor and has donated platelets
over 100 times, in San Francisco - between two hundred and five hundred hours
of community service.
1.5 Plaintiff has not done any community work
Defendant observes that plaintiff has not done any community work in the
past 1.5 decades whereby society is improved.
1.6 Defendant is slow to anger
Defendant is fundamentally non-violent.
No evidence exists to the contrary.
Plaintiff is alone is her allegations. Plaintiff is a diagnosed psychiatric
patient.
2. Psychosis
Defendant observes that there is no testimony or evidence from anyone
alleging that defendant is violent, except from the plaintiff. Plaintiff has
offered no evidence to corroborate plaintiff's accusations.
2.1 Perceptions Are Subjective
Plaintiff has only offered perceptions, which are subjective, and subject
to question.
Defendant observes that the Court's reluctance to question cases which are
so largely based on perception, actually contributes to the problem of domestic
violence, by turning a blind eye towards fraud and misrepresentation - which
only aggravates and perpetuates the existing conflict, whatever it may be.
2.2 Telepathy Is Subjective, Too
Defendant observes that plaintiff is not telepathic, and does not have the
ability to directly perceive defendant's thoughts.
Defendant observes that motive exists for plaintiff to lie, including
animosity towards defendant, on the part of plaintiff, subsequent to
plaintiff's abortion, several years before the events which led to the
original request for a temporary restraining order, occurred. This was
diagnosed, at the time, as borderline psychosis.
2.3 Plaintiff Abandoned Therapy
Plaintiff is a former mental patient whom ceased taking plaintiff's
prescribed medications - including Prozac - and withdrew from psychiatric
therapy shortly before the events which led to the original request for a
temporary restraining order, occurred, in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.
Defendant observes that all of plaintiff's subjective perceptions of
defendant occurred after plaintiff stopped taking plaintiff's prescribed
medications, in 1991.
Based on information and belief, defendant suggests that plaintiff may not
be a reliable source of information. Plaintiff's recollection of events appears
to be unreliable.
(See Defendant's Exhibit 1, 1981 Physicians' Desk Reference, page 3,
for note in plaintiff's handwriting, relating to one of the drugs plaintiff had
been prescribed, by her psychiatrist.)
3. Fraud
3.1 No Third-Party Declarations
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that plaintiff has
continuously lived in a flat above plaintiff's parents and other family
members for the past 15 years.
Defendant observes that the total lack of supporting declarations from
plaintiff's own family members, or any other third parties intimately
acquainted with the history of this disagreement, suggests, independently,
that there is no threat to the plaintiff.
3.2 Potential Witnesses Whited Out
Defendant notes (Defendant's Exhibit 2, Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury, page 3, lines
9 - 11) that names of other family members were
explicitly removed from the original request for a temporary restraining order,
in 1993, and are not mentioned in any of plaintiff's subsequent filings.
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that this indicates an
ongoing refusal on the part of plaintiff's family members to participate in a
fraud.
3.3 Hidden, Sealed Envelopes
Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005,
served 04 March 2006,
Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, line 3)
that plaintiff "left a note in a sealed envelope for Defendant".
Defendant denies ever seeing such an envelope.
Plaintiff affirms (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005,
served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, line 7)
that plaintiff does "not believe" defendant read the note.
Defendant observes that plaintiff never delivered the note, preferring to
leave the note in a place where plaintiff could then object to defendant's
having trespassed in order to retrieve the note ... which letter defendant
did not even know existed.
Defendant observes that such a note would not even be visible to someone
walking or driving by.
(Exhibit 9,
Photograph of front door, 459 16th Avenue)
Defendant observes that this sequence of events, attested to by the
plaintiff, is more of an indicator of mental incapacity on the part of the
plaintiff, than it is an indicator of malicious conduct on the part of the
defendant.
3.4 Double-Bind Scenarios
Defendant observes that the double-bind scenario described above - defendant
must pick up the note in order to learn he is trespassing, yet defendant must
trespass in order to pick up the note - is characteristic of mental patients
whom have been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Defendant observes that defendant is not a licensed psychiatrist but
surmises that if defendant's other statement are correct, and this case was,
in reality, not a situation where a man was threatening a woman, but, rather,
a small step in a long trek back to mental health for the plaintiff, where
plaintiff went badly astray, that plaintiff might well, by now, be of two
minds regarding the events that had transpired.
4. Scrupulous Compliance
Defendant observes that defendant has scrupulously complied with the
restraining orders, issued 22 January 1993 and 18 February 1993. Plaintiff
has never alleged otherwise.
Defendant observes that plaintiff has not made any good faith effort to
communicate plaintiff's concerns about defendant's conduct directly to the
defendant.
Defendant observes that as a result of plaintiff's incapacity or failure
to affirmatively communicate plaintiff's dissatisfaction with defendant's
conduct, that defendant has been misled into interpreting plaintiff's response
to defendant's communications, as neutral.
Based on information and belief, defendant now believes that this was an
intentional act of sabotage by the plaintiff, in order to fraudulently elicit
the behavior that plaintiff required in order to substantiate plaintiff's
allegations in court.
5. Responsibility
5.1 Defendant Cannot Read Minds
Defendant observes that defendant is also unable to read minds.
Defendant observes that all of his communications have been in writing
explicitly so that defendant could demonstrate to all interested parties that
defendant's conduct has been consistently civil and law-abiding.
Defendant observes that defendant would have to be mentally defective to
threaten plaintiff in writing, given plaintiff's history of emotional and
mental illness, as well as plaintiff's history of making false accusations
of domestic violence.
5.2 Plaintiff Is Avoiding Liability
Defendant suggests that plaintiff is exaggerating plaintiff's emotional
distress in order to avoid being held responsible for the inevitable
consequences of plaintiff's previous false accusation of domestic violence -
which included, and continues to include, defendant's loss of relationships
with defendant's family, defendant's loss of relationships with defendant's
friends, defendant's loss of employment, and defendant's loss of employment
opportunities.
Defendant observes that writing was invented several thousand years ago
precisely for those situations where one of the correspondents was unable or
unwilling to be present at the time that the other correspondent received the
first party's communiques.
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that dialogue evolved
in response to the need for people to ascertain one another's thoughts, and
share information.
Defendant observes that plaintiff has refused to communicate in writing
and refused to participate in the most rudimentary sort of dialogue.
5.3 This Was And Is A Medical Matter
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that this is a medical
matter, not a legal matter, and that defendant's conduct should not be a
matter for legal dispute.
6. Constitution
Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005,
served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, line 3) that
"defendant has been writing about me on the internet".
6.1 Defendant Has Only Discussed Case, Not Plainitff
Defendant objects to this description. Defendant has discussed the case
FL 00005153 but has not identified the plaintiff by name at any time, in any
way.
6.2 Defendant Asserts 2nd Amendment
Defendant observes that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution
prevents any law that interferes with freedom of speech, and that defendant's
speech, describing events that defendant was personally involved in, is
protected, by the rights granted United States citizens under the United States
Constitution.
Defendant observes that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution
prevents any law that interferes with redress of grievances, and that
defendant's speech, calling for a grand jury investigation of the relationship
between the non-profit organization known as W.O.M.A.N., Incorporated, and
individuals within the San Francisco Superior Court Clerk's office, is
protected, by the rights granted United States citizens under the United States
Constitution.
6.3 No Grounds For Defamation
Defendant observes that if plaintiff believes that plaintiff is being
defamed, that there are other venues available to plaintiff, and that a
domestic violence restraining order is not the appropriate venue.
7. Conclusion.
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that plaintiff is
unwilling to allow the defendant to freely engage in either dialogue or
monologue, because this reminds plaintiff of subjects that plaintiff would
prefer not to think about.
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that plaintiff is
unwilling to allow the defendant to freely engage in either dialogue or
monologue, because plaintiff has insisted on an alternative version of events
that falsely preserves plaintiff's reputation (at the expense of defendant's
reputation), and plaintiff fears being exposed as a liar and fraud.
Based on information and belief, defendant believes that plaintiff blames
defendant for 'making' plaintiff think about unpalatable subjects, every time
she is reminded of what she fraudulently did to the defendant.
Defendant thinks that plaintiff should assume responsibility for plaintiff's
own internal states of being, instead of attempting to control external
agencies.
Defendant suggests that if plaintiff's feelings are overwhelming, that
plaintiff should be seeking mediation, reconciliation and psychological counsel
- not legal counsel.
8. Addendum.
Defendant observes that Christmas cookies do not constitute a threat, so
much as they constitute an invitation to civil discourse.
Defendant observes that fabric crafts supply catalogs do not constitute a
threat, so much as they constitute an invitation to civil discourse.
Defendant suggests that plaintiff's inability to engage in civil discourse
is a consequence of patient's prior history of mental and emotional disease,
combined with guilt, and is not the product of any genuine fear other than the
fear of exposure - which every criminal experiences, and which is not a
protected activity.
2.3 Plaintiff Abandoned Therapy
Plaintiff alleges (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005,
served 04 March 2006,
Declaration of Helen Wong, page 9, line 3)
that plaintiff "left a note in a sealed envelope for Defendant".