A Good Referral To An EXCELLENT Attorney Who Did A Spectacular Job For Me!
On 02/01/2013 I arrived home to find two (2) business cards from the Boone County Sheriff’s Department in my door. Of course my first thought is one that I often have when something just does not seen right, and it looks like I am about to get a very unpleasant surprise: “What Manner Of Fuckery Is This”? So, I called the Boone County Sheriff’s Department and found out that one of my former employees, who was fired for being a THIEF, driving without a driver’s license (mind you, each time she did this she was breaking the law), and a host of other disreputable things, some I am still finding out about; filed for an ex-parte against me. Now, I don’t know if any of you understand what an ex-parte is, but it is an order of protection that is temporarily granted without the respondent having an opportunity to be heard on the matter. Typically the ex-parte is granted, then there is a hearing in short order and if the Judge feels like the respondent is a threat to the petitioner a full order of protection is granted, if not the full order is denied and the ex-parte order is dismissed. What you need to know about orders of protection, to include ex-parte temporary orders of protection is that they are NOT harmless. They create a stigma that attaches to the respondent, a gun owner can lose his or her constitutional right to own a firearm, and criminal charges can later be filed as a result of the Civil Order of Protection. Let me give you some points of reference, because I did my homework on Orders of Protection. I will recite some case law for the reader from the Missouri Appellate Court, that might make it easy to understand how harmful an order of protection can be and the appropriate reason for a party to file one:
TODD v. PLACK Fred L. TODD, Jr., Respondent, v. Phillip PLACK, Appellant. No. WD 71693.– September 07, 2010 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1537439.html
“Thus, to establish stalking, the petitioner must prove “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time” that serve no legitimate purpose. Stiers, 174 S.W.3d at 555 (internal quotation omitted). “For conduct to have ‘no legitimate purpose,’ it must be found to be not sanctioned by law or custom, to be unlawful, or not allowed.” Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo.App.S.D.2007) (internal quotation omitted)”.
BINGGELI v. HAMMOND Joanie BINGGELI, Respondent, v. Deborah A. HAMMOND, Appellant. No. WD 70903.– January 19, 2010 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1497658.html
“The Adult Abuse Act, however, was not intended to be a solution for minor arguments between adults. Leaverton v. Lasica, 101 S.W.3d 908, 912 (Mo.App.S.D.2003). Prior courts have warned us that there is great potential for adults to abuse the stalking provision of the Adult Abuse Act:
The potential for abuse of the stalking provision of the Adult Abuse Act is great. And, the harm that can result is both real and significant, not the least of which will be the stigma that attaches by virtue of a person having been found to be a stalker. Moreover, such a finding could lead to criminal prosecution for violation of the criminal stalking statute, § 565.225. Thus, it is incumbent that the trial courts exercise great vigilance to prevent abuse of the stalking provisions in the Adult Abuse Act and in making sure that sufficient credible evidence exists to support all elements of the statute before entering a protective order”.
DENNIS v. HENLEY Rodney DENNIS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Waylan HENLEY, Respondent-Appellant. No. SD 30012.– June 29, 2010 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1529786.html
“Because there is real harm that can result in abusing the Adult Abuse Act and its provisions, including the stigma that may attach to a respondent who is ultimately labeled a ‘stalker,’ trial courts must exercise great care to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to support all elements of the statute before entering a full order of protection.” McGrath v. Bowen, 192 S.W.3d 515, 517 (Mo.App.2006); Overstreet v. Kixmiller, 120 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Mo.App.2003); see Glover v. Michaud, 222 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Mo.App.2007). The Act is not, nor was it intended to be, “a solution for minor arguments between adults.” Binggeli v. Hammond, 300 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Mo.App.2010). Henley contends that Dennis failed to meet his burden of proof because there was insufficient evidence Henley engaged in a course of conduct that reasonably caused alarm to Dennis. This Court is constrained to agree”.
S.D., Petitioner–Respondent, v. WALLACE S.D., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Melinda Gail “Mindy” WALLACE, Respondent–Appellant. No. SD 31296.– March 27, 2012 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1597136.html
Under section 455.010(13), “stalking” occurs
when any person purposely and repeatedly engages in an unwanted course of conduct that causes alarm to another person when it is reasonable in that person’s situation to have been alarmed by the conduct. As used in this subdivision:
(a) “Alarm” means to cause fear of danger of physical harm;
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of repeated acts over a period of time, however short, that serves no legitimate purpose. Such conduct may include, but is not limited to, following the other person or unwanted communication or unwanted contact; and
(c) “Repeated” means two or more incidents evidencing a continuity of purpose. (Bolding as in original; italics added.)”
Okay, that took some doing, however you should come away with a better understanding of the seriousness of a full order of protection by reading this: “Because there is real harm that can result in abusing the Adult Abuse Act and its provisions, including the stigma that may attach to a respondent who is ultimately labeled a ‘stalker,’ trial courts must exercise great care to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to support all elements of the statute before entering a full order of protection.”
You should also note that the appropriate reason for a petitioner applying for and obtaining a full order of protection is when the petitioner reasonably feels that a person is a threat to their physical safety and well being. A full order of protection is NOT used to settle petty differences, it is NOT used to try to collect money that one feels they are owed, it is NOT used as a means of revenge; it is used solely to protect oneself from a reasonably felt threat to their physical safety and well being. I hope that you have been reading this, clicking on the links and reading the case law, and paying attention to the paragraphs under the quoted cases; because this is something that EVERYONE should know about.
So, let’s go back to my last thought before I gave you some information on full orders of protection; “What Manner Of Fuckery Is This”? So, the next day I go to the Boone County Sheriff’s Department and pick up the ex-parte. I called a friend of mine that is also an attorney, Lorri Kline. Lorri is one of the nicest people that you would ever want to know, down to earth and just a hell of a good person, and she is an attorney that believes in fighting for her clients, she is smart, unafraid to stand her ground, and very practical. If I ever have a legal problem, she is the first person I call’ although I just don’t have many legal problems. So, Lorri agreed to meet me for lunch and take a look at the paperwork and advise on it a little. When we met for lunch and Lorri started looking through my paperwork, she found that there was a possibility that she could have a conflict due to having represented one of the petitioner’s relatives in the past, so she stopped right there and told me that it would be better to consult with another attorney and she recommended another attorney. Lorri is very “by the book” and that is another reason she is such a good attorney. So, Lorri and I just had lunch and talked a little bit and parted ways with me having gained an attorney to contact.
Enter Gretchen Yancey. I made an appointment with Gretchen and we met so she could look at the paperwork I had. Gretchen went over the paperwork I had and was I paid her a retainer, and we were “off to the races”. As Gretchen worked my case I began to realize, Gretchen knew what was going on, she was WAY ahead of the game. Gretchen immediately made some motions to the court that evened the playing field quite a bit for me. This full order of protection case did get dragged out a little, but that was not my fault or Gretchen’s fault, that was the petitioner’s fault, having a little too much fun trying to play the female version of Perry Mason; honestly stupid people should not try to imitate smart people, it never works out well for them. Gretchen Yancey turned out to be one of the brightest, most strategic minded, calm and cool, and brilliant about the law attorneys that I have ever had represent me. In a phrase, Gretchen Yancey Kicked Some Serious Ass At My Hearing! Gretchen Yancey is simply one hell of an attorney, and if you ever have a family law matter, or you want to contest an ex-parte temporary order of protection so that it is not turned into a full order of protection; Gretchen Yancey is the attorney to call! The Yancey Law Firm (573) 514-4061
So, to sum this up; after approximately five (5) months, Gretchen Yancey had this ex-parte temporary order of protection dismissed, as we can see here:
What this came down to was a matter of my attorney, Gretchen Yancey demonstrating to the court that the petitioner was, for lack of a better term: FULL OF SHIT! And the Judge, who by the way is a very no-nonsense lady that was also a hell of an attorney practicing in family law before she took the bench, and was one of the most respected attorneys in Boone County when she practiced, seemed to catch on to what was going on very quickly. The Judge was very fair, and made sure that she heard every aspect of the case and considered every aspect of the case. I can assure you, if I would have done something wrong here, that Judge would have “dinged me” for it, she is just fair, by the book, and again very no-nonsense.
In the next installment I will be writing about this redneck, low-class dilettante named Bonni Arnold. I call her a “redneck, low-class dilettante”, because that is what she is. She is a low-class, country bumpkin, dipstick that believes she is smarter than everyone around her, when the reality is that she is the dumbest person in the room. If you listen to her, you’d think she knows EVERYTHING there is to know about the Private Investigation business, when the reality is that she only held a Private Investigator License for just over six (6) months. What she learned how to do was write a chronological report, pick up garbage, look through garbage note relevant information, hold a video camera and a camera, and take notes; in all honesty this is hardly a Private Investigator make. The fact is that she does not even know the difference between an S.I.S. and a S.E.S.; but I guess she should not feel too bad about that because her attorney did not know the difference either! She tried to tell the court that her stealing convictions were “SISed”, from when she was caught shoplifting like the THIEF she is. The fact is that her charges were “SESed”. Here is the difference:
S.I.S.: Suspended Imposition of Sentence – Here your charges don’t even show up on CaseNet.
S.E.S.: Suspended Execution of Sentence – Here the Judge chooses not to execute sentence on the defendant.
Take a look at Bonni Arnold’s theft convictions and see if this looks like an S.I.S. to you:
This just does not look like an S.I.S. to me!
Tune in for the next installment about this redneck, low-life dilettante where we will show her theft convictions in greater detail, discuss how she tried to abuse the process of law in regards to my case and how she is still trying to game the legal system in a Personal Injury Case that she is claiming that she is hurt on, when in reality she has been working while claiming she was injured, and one of her jobs was a construction job that consisted of working manual labor for long hours! It is only a few days away!