good work, joy. that is great information. 
i hope that helps anthony. 

--- Joy Welan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Anthony,
> 
> I did a little bit of research while I was
> procrastinating today, and
> it seems like your friend's husband's claim would be
> really unlikely
> to succeed.  Here's the statute that governs
> restraining orders in
> North Dakota (12.1-31.2-01 of the Criminal Code):
> 
> "1. "Disorderly conduct" means intrusive or unwanted
> acts, words, or
> gestures that are intended to adversely affect the
> safety, security,
> or privacy of another person. Disorderly conduct
> does not include
> constitutionally protected activity.
> 
> 2. A person who is a victim of disorderly conduct or
> the parent or
> guardian of a minor who is a victim of disorderly
> conduct may seek a
> disorderly conduct restraining order from any court
> of competent
> jurisdiction in the manner provided in this
> section."
> 
> According to a case called Tibor v. Lund (1999),
> "merely showing that
> a person's actions are "unwanted" is not sufficient
> to support a
> restraining order; the petitioner must show specific
> unwanted acts
> that are intended to adversely affect the safety,
> security or privacy
> of another person."
> 
> Basically, this means that the fact that he didn't
> want the attendant
> there wouldn't be good enough to get a restraining
> order.  He would
> have to prove that she was acting with intent to
> affect his safety,
> security, or privacy, which she wasn't.
> 
> Does that help?  I'd be happy to do more research if
> you want/need me to.
> 
> ~Joy~
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com