How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask N Cal Attorney Your Own Question
N Cal Attorney
N Cal Attorney, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 9223
Experience:  Since 1983
9653905
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
N Cal Attorney is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Citations Civil Harassment -Define Stay Away and Home

Customer Question

You answered a question about civil harassment restraining order violations at http://www.justanswer.com/questions/2ggun-civil-restraining-order-neighbor.

Can you provide any case law citations to support your answers? In particular, I am interested in your claim that the protected person is not allowed to approach or antagonize the restrained person.

Also, what is a home? My neighbors and I each have 2.5 acres. Does "home" include all the 2.5 acres or just the house?

Judge David Mazurek of Joshua Tree explicitly declared during the findings and orders statement that, in California, the restrained person is required to leave the area when the protected person moves into an area. I am the restrained and the protected parties claim they have an easement across my property. (The the CH request was a sham to gain control without filing a quiet title to a non-dedicated privately owned shared dirt driveways in the desert) We have the case at the Forth District Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds (interference of petition to government, prior restraint to publish photos of plaintiffs, improper mandatory order confiscating photographs). The Judge threw the book at me (gay outside newcomer) and did everything he could during the findings to make the appeal difficult (declared me to be not credible, carefully avoided mentioning the massive amounts of exculpatory evidence and 10 witnesses we produced.)   At the least, let us say I personally have no clue how the Judge might see anything - as far as I am concerned the only explanation is that he is biased and chose to support the renegade Catholic family of nine who have been in the area for 20 years as opposed to the gay liberal couple who recently moved in from the city. I think he will do anything he can to manipulate the system to further repress my same-sex spouse and me so we need hard case law to back up everything we do. I've learned the CH procedure is routinely abused by Judges so I set up www.Customer to help people stage a defense.
Submitted: 7 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  N Cal Attorney replied 7 years ago.
Byers v. Cathcart (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 805 , 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 398 might be helpful:

The complained-of conduct which generated this appeal was parking a car along the side of a driveway. Although the order appealed from contains many provisions, and the appeal is generally stated as an appeal from the entire order, the only provision attacked in the briefing is the provision enjoining plaintiff from parking along the side of the driveway. We therefore focus on whether, under the facts of this case, plaintiff could properly be enjoined pursuant to section 527.6 from parking along the side of the driveway. [57 Cal.App.4th 808]

Plaintiff has an easement to use the driveway. The scope of the use authorized by the easement is in dispute. It can hardly be disputed, however, that parking a car is a legitimate necessity. Parking generally is not conduct having "no legitimate purpose." There is no evidence here that the parking was done for the purpose of annoying defendants as opposed to the purpose of storing a vehicle between periods of use. The no-parking provision of the injunction was therefore beyond the scope of section 527.6.

Although improper use of an easement can be enjoined, potentially complex issues of real estate law such as rights and duties pursuant to an easement cannot properly be resolved pursuant to the summary procedures of section 527.6. That portion of the section 527.6 injunction which bars plaintiff from parking along the side of the driveway must therefore be reversed, without prejudice to review of that issue according to normal injunctive procedures.

From http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/57/805.html&search=527.6

I glanced at http://www.Customer/
You should be aware of http://mediaradar.org/

I hope this information is helpful.
Customer: replied 7 years ago.
Although Byers v. Cathcart is useful (we cited it in our trial) it does not respond to my question about:

"Can you provide any case law citations to support your answers? In particular, I am interested in your claim that the protected person is not allowed to approach or antagonize the restrained person.

Also, what is a home? My neighbors and I each have 2.5 acres. Does "home" include all the 2.5 acres or just the house?"
Expert:  N Cal Attorney replied 7 years ago.
I will opt out and refer this back to the first expert who helped you before.
Customer: replied 7 years ago.
OK. Thanks for taking a shot at this one.

The Points and Authorities submitted at trial in my particular case are at: http://www.Customer/property_dispute_points_and.html.

I am trying to stay out of jail while the long appeal takes place.