Minuteman founder's restraining order

[johnhp]

• Tweet

What is it with rightie?  He can't beat down or threaten to beat down his wife, kids and the cops anymore?  Is permanently pissed off an ideology?

An Arizona court has upheld a restraining order against former Minuteman (and Minuteman co-founder) Chris Simcox, granted in April to his wife Alena Simcox and their children, after she alleged that he made several threats against his family and the police.


Maricopa County Superior Court Commissioner J. Justice McQuire writes that "there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an act of domestic violence within the last year," and that "good cause exists to continue the order of protection in this case."


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/arizona_court_ex-minuteman_chris_simcox_still_a_th.php#more

[Observer]

Just about anyone can get a restraining order just by making an allegation. Unless someone is convicted in a Court of Law in which actual evidence is presented, a Restraining Order is meaningless.

I once had a judge tell me that he considered one spouse raising his voice to another to be an act of domestic violence and he would issue a restraining order based on no more than "He yelled at me".

That said, I don't know anything about Simcox or his marital relationship. He may be a punk or he may be the nicest guy on the planet. This restraining Order tells us nothing about him.

However, the fact that you posted this and the manner in which you posted it tells us a lot about you... and what it tells us isn't very nice.

[johnhp]

Just about anyone can get a restraining order just by making an allegation. Unless someone is convicted in a Court of Law in which actual evidence is presented, a Restraining Order is meaningless.

Too bad that you did not actually read the story (a link in the story to which i linked).  Eveidence was weighed in a hearing on this issue:

The petition, sought by Alena Simcox, alleges that Mr. Simcox threatened her and their children with a loaded handgun, saying he would kill them and any police officers who came to their aid. The order initially was signed April 16 and continued after a hearing Thursday in Superior Court in Phoenix.

"The court finds that conflicting testimony has been presented on every allegation and the court must make a determination of credibility. Defendant has a prior conviction involving dishonesty," wrote Maricopa County Superior Court Commissioner J. Justice McQuire.

"The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an act of domestic violence within the last year," he said. "The court further finds that good cause exists to continue the order of protection in this case."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/5/minuteman-chief-deemed-a-threat/

Reading these stories would really help you to do something other than flail blindly in response.  Maybe.

I once had a judge tell me that he considered one spouse raising his voice to another to be an act of domestic violence and he would issue a restraining order based on no more than "He yelled at me".

Maybe you shouldn't raise your voice to your spouse.

That said, I don't know anything about Simcox or his marital relationship. He may be a punk or he may be the nicest guy on the planet. This restraining Order tells us nothing about him.

Because you did not read the actual story.

However, the fact that you posted this and the manner in which you posted it tells us a lot about you... and what it tells us isn't very nice.

That you find the presentation of factual material not very nice says a lot about you.

[Observer]

Too bad that you did not actually read the story (a link in the story to which i linked).  Eveidence was weighed in a hearing on this issue:

Reading these stories would really help you to do something other than flail blindly in response.  Maybe.

There was a hearing before the judge. There was not a trial. Maybe if you knew the difference and the significance of that difference, you wouldn't have to wear your dunce hat so often.

Maybe you shouldn't raise your voice to your spouse.

Tell us again why your wife dumped you.

That you find the presentation of factual material not very nice says a lot about you.

It isn't the presentation of fact (something you seldom do) that bothers me. It is your deliberate attempt to twist and distort the facts that bothers me.

[johnhp]

There was a hearing before the judge.

Yes, a hearing at which evidence was weighed concerning the threats this man has allegedly made.

There was not a trial.

Who claimed it was a trial?  Certainly not me.  Unlike you, i read the story and discovered, contrary to your over-generalized assertion, that actual evidence was weighed in this hearing for the ruling.  Had you actually read the story rather than inserted your foot in your mouth you would not be suffering from asskickitis right now.

Tell us again why your wife dumped you.

This is supposed to be some sort of payback for comment about the judge lecturing you?  Pretty weak tea.  We were discussing a hearing in which evidence was taken and weighed and you chimed in about what a judge lectured you about.  You drew a target on yourself with that.  i cannot help it if you were trying to imply something other than you were lectured by a judge not to raise your voice at your spouse.  Either that or you are just lashing out because i hit a nerve.  Which is it?  You just stupid or did you get the marital boot?

It isn't the presentation of fact (something you seldom do) that bothers me. It is your deliberate attempt to twist and distort the facts that bothers me.

i have twisted and distorted nothing.


This is what i have claimed in these posts:

1. This man is one of the founders of the Minuteman movement.  Fact.

2. This man has had a restraining order upheld against him for allegedly threatening his wife, kids and the police.  Fact.

3. There was a hearing before a judge that weighed the evidence before this, second, restraining order was upheld.  Fact.


Do i draw inferences from these facts about him and the political right in general from things like this?  i certainly do.  But those are my beliefs, not facts.  Your inability to distinguish between the two and between the presentation of the two is singularly amazing.  You are, let me say, fantastic at being spectacularly stupid.

[Observer]

Yes, a hearing at which evidence was weighed concerning the threats this man has allegedly made.

A hearing at which there was no "finding of fact".

Back to your corner... Don't forget your hat.

This is supposed to be some sort of payback for comment about the judge lecturing you? 

Payback... no.

Just making fun of you. You are such an easy target.

Why DID she dump you, anyway?

[Velleity]

Just about anyone can get a restraining order just by making an allegation. Unless someone is convicted in a Court of Law in which actual evidence is presented, a Restraining Order is meaningless.

Court convictions don't faze you either. The operative fact here, as far as you're concerned, is that this guy is a "conservative". You never, ever go against a "conservative".

[johnhp]

A hearing at which there was no "finding of fact".

Because there did not have to be a finding of fact as this was not a trial.  It is a hearing in a civil procedure in which his wife is divorcing him.  As you may or, most likely, may not, know, for this hearing there is no need for a finding of fact, just a preponderance of the evidence.  Which, had you read the story, the judge found.

Why are you trying to confuse what is going on here?  You are pretending as if there is some larger criminal trial on the horizon for this guy.  In fact, what has been shown by a preponderance of evidence gathered at the hearing, in which the judge is the final authority for the issue.

Back to your corner... Don't forget your hat.

You were the one who could find nothing i distorted in my post.  the corner, as usual is yours.

Payback... no.

You are right not payback, it was an attempt at payback and like all of your attempts fell flat.

Why DID she dump you, anyway?

Didn't happen...and you claim to be a detective.  Pitiful.

[/quote]

[Observer]

Court convictions don't faze you either. The operative fact here, as far as you're concerned, is that this guy is a "conservative". You never, ever go against a "conservative".

I have never been a fan of the "Minutemen". I don't know anything about this guy.

What I do know is that both you and your boy toy have little if any, regard for the truth. Anytime you can smear, slander, or libel, you jump on it.

[Observer]

Didn't happen...

So you say... but then, you are a well known liar.

[johnhp]

little if any, regard for the truth. Anytime you can smear, slander, or libel, you jump on it.

Point out any false statement.

[johnhp]

So you say... but then, you are a well known liar.

Why are you running from the legal questions you raised?

[Observer]

John, your "why are you running" schtick got old a long time ago. It was never effective. Now, it just sends a signal to let everyone know that you have lost the argument and are blowing smoke.

[johnhp]

Observer,

It has certainly fallen on deaf ears and hasn't stopped you from running, but that does not mean you will not be held to a standard.

[Velleity]

I have never been a fan of the "Minutemen". I don't know anything about this guy.

What I do know is that both you and your boy toy have little if any, regard for the truth. Anytime you can smear, slander, or libel, you jump on it.

Projection much?

Obs, is there a single dysfunction you're not afflicted with? Really. You cover the gamut. You are the classic dry alcoholic personality, steeped as you are in your denial and your temper tantrums, unable to admit you're wrong, and remaining amazingly unaccountable.

No one smears as frequently and unthinkingly as you. I haven't smeared anyone although I'm sure you will bring up the Headbutter lie about the fraud for whom you apologize (is there a single one for whom you don't?). Nor have I libeled or slandered anyone, you ridiculous, self-absorbed moran.