Related documents, FDV-93-005153:
DV-120, Item 03: Personal Conduct Orders
DV-120, Item 04: Stay Away Orders
DV-120, Item 17: Turn In Guns
DV-120, Item 19: My Answer To Statements


DV-120, Item 04: Stay Away Orders




1. Introduction

Plaintiff requests (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, page 2, Item 6, Stay Away Orders) that defendant stay at least one hundred yards away from plaintiff, plaintiff's home, plaintiff's job or workplace, and plaintiff's vehicle.

Defendant has never, in the past fifteen years, seen plaintiff in person. Defendant barely remembers what plaintiff looks like. Defendant has no pictures of plaintiff.

Defendant observes that defendant has never come within 100 yards of plaintiff's house for the past fifteen years, except to deliver occasional notes, requesting information, which were non-threatening in nature - which is a matter of record.

Defendant admits that defendant does pass by regularly, on Geary Boulevard, a major thoroughfare in San Francisco, half a block away from plaintiff's house.

Defendant notes that he has no idea where plaintiff works, or if plaintiff is even employed, particularly after 15 years of separation.

Defendant has never touched the plaintiff's vehicle at any time, and plaintiff makes no allegations to the contrary.

2. Psychosis

Defendant observes that there is no testimony or evidence from anyone alleging otherwise, except from the plaintiff. Plaintiff has offered no evidence to corroborate plaintiff's accusations.

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.

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.

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.

Defendant suggests that plaintiff may not be a reliable source of information.

(Exhibit 1, 1981 Physicians' Desk Reference, page 3, bookmark in plaintiff's handwriting)

3. Fraud

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 testimony from plaintiff's own family members, or any other third parties intimately acquainted with the history of this disagreement, provides independent affirmation that there is no threat to the plaintiff.

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.

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, given the plaintiff's request that defendant stay 100 yards away from plaintiff, that this aforementioned behavior is closer to being a classical example of dual-bind schizophrenic behavior than it is a serious indicator of a legitimate concern about physical safety.

Defendant observes that if plaintiff was sincere in plaintiff's concern for plaintiff's safety that plaintiff would have asked plaintiff for an address, and mailed this alleged note to the address that defendant would have provided plaintiff with, requesting a reply - instead of leaving the alleged note, unannounced, on plaintiff's 'shelf'.

Defendant points out that defendant provided plaintiff with a mailing address as early as 05 August 2005 (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 29, labeled "8/5/05 NOTE" - address has been redacted), and that plaintiff could have communicated plaintiff's concerns at any time after that date, in writing, directly, without convoluted mechanisms.

Defendant observes that by plaintiff's allegedly leaving a letter on plaintiff's 'shelf' - where it would certainly be invisible to all but someone who had been invited to come and pick it up - plaintiff was placed in a position of having to trespass in order to even see if such a hypothetical message, which defendant had no reason to even expect would be waiting, existed.

Defendant suggests that such a story is absurd.

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.

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 if plaintiff was sincere in plaintiff's concern for plaintiff's safety that plaintiff would have asked plaintiff for an address, and mailed this alleged note to the address that defendant would have provided her with, requesting a reply - instead of leaving the alleged note, unannounced, on plaintiff's 'shelf'.

Defendant points out that defendant provided plaintiff with a mailing address as early as 05 August 2005 (DV-100, Request for Order, filed 16 September 2005, served 04 March 2006, Declaration of Helen Wong, page 29, labeled "8/5/05 NOTE" - address has been redacted), and that plaintiff could have communicated her concerns at any time after that date, in writing, directly, without convoluted mechanisms.

Defendant observes that by plaintiff's allegedly leaving a letter on her 'shelf' - where it would certainly be invisible to all but someone who had been invited to come and pick it up - plaintiff was placed in a position of having to trespass in order to even see if such a hypothetical message, which had no reason to even expect would be waiting, existed.

Defendant suggests that such a story is absurd.

Defendant observes that as a result of plaintiff's inability or failure to affirmatively communicate, in writing, 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.

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.

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 communiqué.

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, on any sort of topic.

Defendant asks the Court to contemplate a situation where a patient refused to discuss the one thing that made that patient most ill, with the person that the patient (right or wrong) blamed most.

Defendant asks the Court: would this not be a medically pathological state of affairs?

Defendant asks the Court: how is defendant supposed to make amends for his alleged wrongdoings if he cannot even ask what went wrong ... or if everything is now better?

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.

Defendant thinks that rubber-stamping uncorroborated requests for restraining orders only guarantees the perpetuation of injustice.

Defendant asks, yet again, that the Court refer this to mediation, and request that the two parties seek a mutually acceptable reconciliation to the state of affairs that exists.

6. Conclusion.

Defendant has never, in the past fifteen years, seen plaintiff in person. Defendant barely remembers what plaintiff looks like. Defendant has no pictures of plaintiff.

Defendant observes that defendant has never come within 100 yards of plaintiff's house for the past fifteen years, except to deliver occasional notes, requesting information, which were non-threatening in nature - which is a matter of record.

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.