Ontario's Notorious Bill 117 Comes To Colorado by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.

This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.


 

| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |

| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |

 

| Chapter 6 — Domestic Violence And The Law |

| Next — Chapter 7-Colorado Judges-Citizen's Review |

| Back — Legal Services Corporation abuses by Terri Lynn Tersak and Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. |


 
Note: The term "redfems" is used as a synonym for neo-Marxist radical feminists as described by the essays here.

Background

Top

In the fall of 2000 legislators in Ontario, Canada, introduced Bill 117 that provided that any woman could have a man restrained, imprisoned, and his property transferred to her all in the same day without any pretense of due process. Writing for the Ottawa Citizen, columnist Dave Brown noted:

"The new legislation is based on the premise women in abusive relationships can't escape because they are economically dependent. The intent is to correct this by making it possible to immediately transfer all property to her.

Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made. Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-to-one relationship, including dating.

...It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act.

Transference of property will include leased property, even if she is only a date, and is binding on the landlord. If rent is in arrears, the landlord must collect from him. She will have no liability."

While I understand Bill 117 became law it has rarely, if ever, been enforced as the inherent violations of English law are so blatant that even today's courts would be likely to quickly void it. However, that does not mean the idea and process have faded away.

In Your Lucky Night, written in 2002, I put forth an example of how, under Colorado law, a woman can pick up a man in a bar and end up with all his property and possessions by obtaining an ex parte restraining order claiming abuse or domestic violence. Since writing that essay many men have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation to tell us how something very similar was done to them. And EJF member Elizabeth has described how an illegal alien has done this to her father and is gaining U.S. citizenship in the process under VAWA, another all-too-common fraud.

Male victims of this fraud have naturally reacted to this outrage by not paying the rent, cutting off the utilities and phone, closing joint accounts and credit cards, canceling insurance, stopping car payments, etc. We have also advised a number of men that their best, and probably only option was to let the bank foreclose on their house. And many women have found the promises of the DV and divorce industry were a financial and personal disaster for them and the children.

Apparently the number of men unwilling to pay some doxy's rent, or the mortgage on the house where his wife's new boy toy now lives because of false allegations of abuse has become unacceptably large and redfems have demanded draconian legislation to "correct" the situation.


 

Colorado's Democratic Peoples Soviet to the rescue

Top

State senator John Morse (D-El Paso County) 1 has been happy to oblige by introducing SB07-136, which provides that Colorado courts can now require men to pay for

"...rent and mortgage payments, telephone and utility services, child care costs, temporary possession of personal property, and insurance,"

when issuing an ex parte restraining order. Note also that there is no requirement that "child care costs" be limited to the man's biological children.

As passed by the Colorado soviet, SB07-136 provides that a protection order:

"...restrains the Defendant from ceasing to make payments for mortgage or rent, insurance, utilities, services, or child care when the Defendant has a prior existing duty or legal obligation to make the payments, or from transferring, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing of personal effects or real property, except in the usual course of business or the necessities of life." (p.3, lines 8-14, § 13-14-102(15)

Of course, there is no requirement that the woman prove the man was legally obligated to support her before she sought the protection order. Nor is the woman restrained from disposing of his possessions while he is restrained.

Upon signature by the governor any woman who is angry at her boyfriend, a "working girl" on South Nevada near Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, or a wife having an affair can claim they are "Victims of domestic violence...unable to access resources to seek lasting safety options;" and have their living expenses guaranteed by filing an ex parte restraining order.

Under Morse's scheme, a man who fails to pay the rent or mortgage, etc., will go to jail for violating the restraining order, no doubt losing his job and income in the process. By casting a man into the street with an ex parte restraining order, and then jailing him, the entire family is now left without support. While that suits the interests of the DV industry and the welfare bureaucracy, it is destroying our society.

SB07-136 also claims that " Thirty-three states recognize existing legal obligations for support, payment, or ownership of personal or real property in order to protect victims in civil protection orders." However, Ontario, Canada, is the only other case I've seen of such complete disregard of civil rights and apparently deliberate attempt to destroy families and marriage.


 

Feeding the DV and divorce industry

Top

It is also of interest to note that the best estimate of actual domestic violence is from the National Crime Victim Surveys (NCVS) that suggests only 1 in 250 (0.4%) of households a year suffer what citizen's regard as a criminal DV incident. From that estimate there would be fewer than 7,000 DV incidents in Colorado a year. However, for fiscal year 2006 Colorado courts, excluding Denver, report 7,237 restraining orders were issued for domestic abuse and 16,767 misdemeanor cases of domestic violence, wherein a restraining order is mandatory, for a total of at least 24,004 restraining orders (felony cases are not included). On the face of it there appear to be 3.5 times more DV court cases than citizens are reporting to the statisticians at NCVS. Clearly there is reason to suspect domestic violence laws are being grossly abused.

It cannot be claimed that false allegations by women in order to obtain a protection (restraining) order are uncommon or new. The June 11, 1998, edition of Denver's Westword documented a case of two sisters making a game of charging men with DV . The EJF has heard numerous cases of women getting a restraining order and giving their boyfriend's address as their residence, then selling off all his possessions. A woman in Colorado Springs was caught after her third round of that game. Other women have probably been even more successful. And, when caught, virtually nothing is done to these women.

Additionally, fewer than 7,000 cases of domestic violence a year in a sampled population of 4.2 million does not represent an epidemic and hardly mandates draconian legislation directing the ex parte seizure of men's property in direct violation of their civil rights.

The basis for such tyrannical legislation becomes clearer when we note there were 26,075 divorce petitions filed during 2006, including Denver, in Colorado a number rather close to the 24,004 (plus an estimated 3,000 in Denver) restraining orders issued. And what better way to encourage the destruction of marriages, families, and relationships than by guaranteeing a woman the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants if she files a restraining order or calls 911 without giving a man the chance to defend himself.

The similarity of such measures as SB07-136 to the Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution seems so blatantly obvious that the Colorado soviet must be either brain dead or deliberately enacting the redfem ideology into law.

Governor Bill Ritter signed this abomination into law on May 17, 2007, and it became effective July 1, 2007. § 13-14-102(15) C.R.S.
The final sponsors in the Senate were Morse, Bacon, Boyd, Groff, Romer, Shaffer, Tapia, Veiga, Williams, and Ward;
In the House it was co-sponsored by Romanoff, Carroll T., Frangas, Green, Jahn, Kerr A., Labuda, Levy, Madden, Marshall, Merrifield, Roberts, Solano, Stafford, Stephens, and Summers.

 

1. The original sponsor of this abomination, John Morse, was a freshman state senator without previous experience, who has chosen to dive off the deep end without checking to see if the pool is full of cow manure. Morse lists his occupation as "executive" but a more traditional title for what he is doing would be commissar.

Top


 

| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |

| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Authors and Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |

 

| Chapter 6 — Domestic Violence And The Law |

| Next — Chapter 7-Colorado Judges-Citizen's Review |

| Back — Legal Services Corporation abuses by Terri Lynn Tersak and Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. |


 

This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.

Last modified 10/5/14