Anatomy Of A Victory Over False Domestic Violence Allegations

For decades, the Massachusetts domestic violence statute (Massachusetts General Law Chapter 209A) has been an ordeal for many of those who have been on the receiving end of the notorious restraining orders that the statute creates.

The practical impact of some of these orders has been to estrange thousands of Massachusetts men from their families, removing them from their homes without notice and even going so far as to criminalize the sending of holiday cards to their own children or attending the children’s soccer games if their mother is also attending. Because a restraining order appears on the man’s record, the purported violent behavior he is accused of often forces the loss of his job, causing financial difficulties and often resulting in homelessness.

What is even sadder is that the statute can be abused, usually by hostile significant others, as leverage in divorce proceedings or for other ulterior motives unrelated to a serious fear of domestic violence. Numerous lawyers and even a few judges have acknowledged this. This is especially serious because restraining orders are often awarded without evidentiary hearings, meaning these very damaging limitations placed on the plaintiff can happen without any proof as a result of baseless or exaggerated accusations.

The Massachusetts Abuse Prevention Act (209A) defines abuse as the occurrence of actual or attempted physical abuse, placing another in fear of serious physical harm, or causing another to engage in involuntary sexual relations by force, threat of force, or duress.

Protective orders are issued under the statute in an attempt to protect household members or dating partners from physical or sexual harm.

Often issued without any notice to the defendant, 209A-restraining orders then force the wrongfully accused recipient to vacate immediately, often leaving behind possessions and having nowhere to go. Many will go months, if not years, without seeing their children. The hearings are often held informally with hearsay and wild accusations and the recipient is never given a chance to cross-examine.

Attorney David Grossack, a Hull resident whose office is in Newton, has been representing both men and women in restraining orders for his entire career. Grossack recalls one successful victory in the late 1980’s when a man was tossed out of his home without any notice, only for further examination of the allegations to reveal that his wife was just upset that he was complaining about the Cable TV bill, and that was her only grievance. Grossack got this one vacated, and uses it as perhaps an extreme example of restraining order abuse.

Recently he enjoyed a significant victory in Newton District Court. His client was a law professor and entrepreneur, divorced but still involved with his former wife in vigorously litigated post-divorce proceedings in Probate and Family Court.

Among the allegations against the defendant was the accusation that he was going to chop the woman into pieces and throw the pieces in the water. According to Grossack "These types of accusations are good copy for law and order, but lack credibility in real life."

Another allegation was that the defendant had physically assaulted his son in order to intimidate him into going to military academy, an allegation later denied by the now-adult son.

For three years, the defendant endured the restraining order. It resulted in the loss of his teaching job and made him unable to find another, and he suffered serious financial hardship as a result.

Even when he had judicial permission to drive to the curbside in front of his former home to pick up the children for visitation, his ex-wife attempted to turn it into a restraining order violation. Such cases are exemplary of how wives and girlfriends can abuse their status as “victims” in the restraining order game.

The defendant moved to Florida to try to rebuild his life. He continued to contest his divorce judgment, alimony, support, and property division, and maintained a good relationship with his children, who maintain a relationship with both parents.

In June of 2010, he hired David Grossack to prevent the restraining order from being extended permanently. Grossack was successful in methodically and systematically extinguishing every ounce of credibility of the plaintiff and her claim that she had any reason to fear the defendant, due to his substantial research and evidence to contradict her claims.

The plaintiff’s lawyer came to the domestic violence hearing with thick affidavits and exhibits describing in detail the continuing post-divorce litigation between the parties. Copies of judgments and motions were brought and an affidavit from the plaintiff which actually bore the caption “The Defendant’s Relentless Probate Court Litigation” was presented, which was intended to support her incorrect testimony that this counted as the type of abuse that merits a restraining order. Phrases like “on the order of”, “the defendant made me come to court five times,” and “the defendant brought five witnesses to the court” and “won’t stop filing baseless motions” were used to make perfectly legal and understandable post-divorce filings seem as though they were somehow wrong or threatening.

This was the opening Grossack needed to introduce Constitutional arguments. His talking points included that the plaintiff’s real grievance was that she was suffering abuse because the defendant won’t accept the outcome of the divorce and won’t stop litigating.

Indeed, on the stand Grossack inquired of the witness if she thought the “relentless Probate Court litigation” was part of the abuse. Of course, she answered in the affirmative. Actually, going to Court is constitutional protected activity and is in no way the type of violent behavior that merits a restraining order.

Although the plaintiff alleged that the defendant assaulted their son, Grossack was able to produce the son as a witness whose credible testimony contradicted his mother’s.

Worse for the plaintiff, Grossack was able to have the court consider a public document in which the parties’ other child had taken out a restraining order against the plaintiff after a number of assaults, including whacking him across the face with a coat hanger. Needless to say, this did not help the plaintiff’s credibility.

It was also brought out that the plaintiff failed to disclose all of the prior proceedings involving domestic violence on the court’s paperwork, including a different case in which she was the defendant. This further injured her credibility. Such details are what make an evidentiary hearing vital in these cases to expose such misrepresentations or contradictions.

A purported incident the plaintiff alleged of disruptive behavior by the defendant at one son’s graduation was exposed as being virtually imaginary after Grossack brought in witnesses and relentlessly examined contradictions in her assertions. Grossack also brought to the Court’s attention the plaintiff’s history of making claims of child abuse against the defendant that were not substantiated. According to Grossack, this is a common tactic used to acquire unjustified restraining orders, and its use further exposed the plaintiff’s issues with credibility.

It was fairly evident that no harassment of the plaintiff had occurred or was likely to occur. The plaintiff’s lawyer attempted to argue that the fact that the parties would still meet each other in future Divorce Court proceedings was enough reason to extend the order --- permanently, effectively saying that divorce litigation was equal to violent behavior and merited preventing the defendant from being able to acquire a job permanently.

Grossack countered that the plaintiff’s lawyer’s real message, one also advanced by some victims’ advocacy groups, was that any man who resists a woman’s position in divorce litigation is an abuser or potential abuser, despite various meritorious defenses or claims he may have to argue in court.

In fact, opposing counsel’s cross-examination of the defendant focused entirely on the fact that the defendant was upset with prior court decisions and was still litigating.

During his testimony, The defendant said he would “fight to the death” to have the restraining order removed, and the plaintiff’s lawyer tried to make much of that choice of words as though it should be construed as a threat of violence.

Grossack explained that his client was engaging in a “mere rhetorical flourish”, expertly showing how ridiculous it would to criminalize such commonly used hyperbolic sayings.

In the end, Grossack made constitutional arguments that obviously carried weight The plaintiff, he argued, was trying to chill his client’s ability to contest his divorce judgment by conjuring up frivolous allegations of domestic abuse, all in violation of his First Amendment rights to have access to the Court, and impairing his ability to find work or get a fair divorce settlement.

Grossack’s performance resulted in the judge vacating the restraining order, which is very rare.

Grossack, who earned national recognition and awards for attempting to raise awareness of gender bias in the Massachusetts court system, and for challenging the 209A-restraining orders in federal court on due process and equal protection grounds, says the victory was unusual. This is because once in place, restraining orders are quite difficult to remove despite widespread evidence of abuse of the 209A statute, and, in many cases, evidence to the contrary of the plaintiff’s allegations.

The difference here, he says, was having good evidence to contradict the plaintiff, and also being able to point out the plaintiff’s ill-advised strategy of characterizing divorce litigation as a form of abuse.

Preparation, said Grossack, was exhausting. But in the end, he says nothing feels as good as being a hero to a client.

David Grossack maintains an office in Newton, Mass. His phone number is 617-965-9300. Learn more at Grossack.com.

HOW ACTIVISTS CAN FIGHT CITY HALL AND WIN WITH RADICAL SELF THERAPY

By David Grossack

The human species is very skilled in adapting to difficult situations. Since time immemorial humans have built tools to hunt, farm, cook, eat, provide shelter and wage war. Our species has survived millennia of frosts, heat waves, natural disasters, invasions and epidemics and stands on the threshold of intergalactic exploration, the cracking of the genetic code and perhaps even immortality itself.

Humans have united in groups to form communities, governments and armies. Like insects who develop colonies, fish who travel in schools, birds who fly in formation, human beings are animals who use their tools to organize societies.

It is believed that there is a basic herd instinct which is at least in part responsible for this behavior.

In the animal kingdom, organized communities are controlled by leaders. From ants to elephants, hierarchies are entrenched social orders that govern the lower classes. A strong case can be made that a genetically transmitted instinct passes from generation to generation of animals to follow the herd and to stay under its influence.

What keeps human beings under the control and influence of social groups is more complex. The mechanisms of control by institutions are thrust upon children in our formative years. We watch the television programs that 70 million other children watch. We go to school and read the same text books that 70 million other children read. We go to houses of worship and get exposed to the same man-made theologies that millions of others are exposed to, and tithe to support huge "religious" bureaucracies.

In Eugene Ionescu's play "Rhinoceros" we observe a critical satire of the human herd instinct.

A significant portion of the indoctrination process into society is through forms of marketing and merchandising. The merchandising of religions, soap operas and fashion are examples of building and branding new herds within the human species. Not only are we white, yellow or brown, we are Lutherans, Sunnis, Reformed Jews or Mormons, or one of the many other brands. We use Crest, Gleem or Tom's Natural Toothpaste. Some women dye their hair any of dozens of colors, wear styles and colors found in great abundance in and the selection of our beverages and automobiles are said to identify our personalities.

We become "products of products," almost worshiping things society manufactures. The entire culture of our society, for many, many people, is based on "getting" things. If this is a remnant of our primitive days as "hunter gatherers" it nevertheless represents the basis of considerable neurosis found in those who constantly striving for "more," "better" and "what the neighbors have." In such a world, fighting injustice doesn't take a high priority.

People are too busy making payments on their installment credit debt, compound interest arguably being the source of establishment wealth and the misery of the rest of us.

Once the individual becomes part of society he or she is of course subject to its laws, courts and police powers. Questioning the legitimacy of the System becomes heresy.

This has been enshrined in the law and culture of social systems for ages.

The western world had embodied the Divine Right of Kings. The jurisprudence of the Talmud has stated that "the powers that be are ordained of God and must be followed." In the eastern world the Chinese believed the Emperors enjoyed "the mandate of heaven."

English common law and much of American law including the Eleventh Amendment of our national constitution tells us that the government cannot be sued, though this has eroded. This is the principle that you are not supposed to turn on the leaders of the herd.

Break away from the herd at your peril! Think outside the herd, and you'll become hunted or perhaps just an ignored freak, is the unwritten implication. If you do not know what Brittney and Madonna did, if you do not know who pitches for the Cardinals, if you do not watch Fox Reality shows, you are a minority group member.

What has the modern herd really become? It is like living on a Georgia plantation in the last days of the Civil War.

The powers that be, the leaders of the American herd, could not save folks in New Orleans from drowning .

The powers that be could not save 3000 Americans from death at the hands of Al Qaeda despite 101 warnings. They had even supplied the killers with $4 billion in our tax money years before the events of September 11!

In other words, the herd here has become dysfunctional. The dysfunction is reflected in the lawyers, judges and courts who serve it.

The dysfunction is noted in the widespread, rampant corruption in government at every level, the alienation many people feel from the national and local political arenas and the frequent low turn outs in many elections. A widespread view is that politicians are so in hock to corporate interests that communication with them is futile.

Against this context, an epidemic of abuse at the hands of the justice systems and the government is virtually a tradition at every level in just about every country.


The conditions resulting from legal and government abuse are not unlike those after a serious physical assault. Post traumatic stress syndrome has been documented among many victims.

Unlike the forms of psychotherapy which require intervention by therapists to deal with emotional disturbance, Radical Self Therapy (RST) recognizes that the expectations of positive results from a conventional patient therapist are unrealistic. More damage than benefit may very well result.

RST therefore is a tool to be used without a therapist unless the symptoms are so severe that medical intervention is necessary, i.e. hospitalization for severe depression or medication.

After all, what is the social role of the psychologist in American society?

A great number are employed by law enforcement, by prisons, courts and even the intelligence agencies. Their view of the patient's treatment may be to require him to adapt to the herd rather than to drop out or to try to change it because the therapist's own bias may lean that way.

The therapists are themselves "products" of the System, enjoying comfortable lives as servants of power, dependent on insurance agencies, hospitals and other bureaucracies for sustenance. And of course, they are licensed by the various states.

A field of study where entire branches are devoted to help manufacturers sell their products, to help politicians subliminally reach voters or to help armies launch propaganda campaigns are risky prospects for helping to heal anybody of anything. In fact, the role of the psychologist is one of counterinsurgent or bully in so many aspects. Troublesome patients are often drugged after criticizing their doctor or lawyer.

A litigant is sent by a judge or even his own lawyer to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist will inevitably make some judgments on him affecting the court case. The judgment may be coded in medical terminology and will no doubt be colored by a partisan view of the case. But the psychiatric opinion will be used an excuse by a judge or lawyer for making a decision, unless the judge really does not like it!

Parties seeking to divorce may have the welfare of the children investigated by a psychologist with close connections to a judge and biased, partisan reports will affect the family negatively for decades.

Psychologists continue to bill the insurance company as long as he tells you that you are not well and keep coming back for visits. They almost have a vested interest in you not getting well.

Modern psychology simply is not trustworthy.

For all of these reasons, it is my belief that it is safest for the victims to heal themselves with a minimum of outside assistance using RST tools and techniques that are easily applicable at home
or in leisure moments.

PRESS RELEASE!

AKRON, OHIO, April 16, 2010-While President Obama campaigned for the White House on a platform promising “transparency,” a conservative organization located in Ohio is disputing whether the promise is being kept.

Government agencies work for and are accountable to United States citizens, and the Freedom of Information Act was passed in 1966 to allow the people access to federal government records so that they can be politically aware and active citizens who participate in the policy decisions that affect all Americans. This transparency is crucial to American democratic political discourse, and although President Obama instructed all federal agencies to implement transparency policies on his first day in office, some folks say they have seen little evidence of this.

Although “Freedom of Information” laws exist on the books, the U.S. Citizens Association, a non-profit civic league based in Akron, is resorting to the courts to get them enforced. The Association’s lawyer, Massachusetts-based constitutional litigator David C. Grossack, has been sending demand letters to both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of Management and Budget, seeking to research a number of topics of concern to many Americans. These letters, which start the FOIA request process, require federal agencies to respond within 20 days,

Grossack asked the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for deciding how Americans’ tax dollars are spent, for correspondence between the Congress and the White House OMB concerning the costs and other details of healthcare reform. The USCA wants to learn more about this legislation, which they are concerned could negatively affect many Americans and violate constitutional rights.

Grossack asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency for details about the building of detention centers for dissidents reportedly now being built to contain American citizens who disagree with government policies, so that the USCA can defend fellow citizens against any attempts by the government to suppress dissent.

The OMB is resisting USCA’s quest to achieve greater government transparency by demanding that Grossack’s client pay for the costs of searching and copying the documents, something the USCA should be exempt from based on its non-profit status.

FEMA simply refused to respond to Grossack at all, despite the 20 day requirement.

With the help of local counsel in Washington, D.C., Grossack filed two lawsuits, and is serving them on the agencies and Justice Department lawyers on behalf of USCA in their struggle for access to this vital information that affects all Americans.

The U.S. Citizens Association is, according to its mission statement, devoted to educating the public about conservative, pro-capitalist ideas. It is committed to opposing abuses of and violations of constitutional rights. Its website is www.usca.com.

David Grossack, who practices law in the Boston suburb of Newton, is nationally known for a lawsuit he brought against the state court system alleging discrimination against men in domestic cases. The Boston Herald has described him as one of the state’s 10 best lawyers. His law office’s website is www.grossack.com