Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:29:03 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|