Giving the Finger to the Municipal Court?

One thing that courts, and judges in particular, hate is when a defendant points out to them that their order is meaningless, they have not complied with it thus far, they have no intention of complying with it, and there's not a damn thing the court can do about it.

And that is exactly what Fox did in court this morning!

James and I had to go to court this morning, about the restraining orders we got against Fox back in July. Fox had submitted a request contesting them.

Right from the outset Fox mentioned that we already have a child custody matter before the Superior Court. The judge, of course, immediately realized that under ARS section 13-3602(P) it had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to issue an order of protection. I whined and argued with the judge but she was clearly not buying it.

So, right from the outset, Fox had it in the bag. As a matter of law - a matter of jurisdiction - the court simply didn't have the authority to issue an order of protection in this matter.

But then, completely out of the blue, Fox goes and says - I mean, he actually made a deliberate point of expressly stating - that even though the order requires him to surrender all his firearms he has not, nor does he have any intention of doing so! And just to make sure the judge realizes how completely ineffectual she is in the matter, he points out that he's discussed it with the RCMP and they plainly told him that an order from the US has no legal weight in Canada, that he doesn't have to surrender or dispose of any of his guns!

Can you believe that? Why the fuck would someone sabotage their own case like that? Especially when all he had to do was just not say that single point!

But then, none of this makes much sense to me. Everything about how Fox handled this restraining order nonsense has been completely illogical. Let's consider:

1. How do the restraining orders affect him? They don't. Not at all. All they impose on him is that he can't have contact with me or James; he can't possess any firearms; and he can't go near James' house. But, then, the orders are completely unenforceable outside the US and Fox lives in Canada. So the prohibition on firearms - meaningless; not contacting me or James - why would he want to?; not going near James' home - he lives 1500 miles away.

2. So, why bother even contesting the orders? Whether he wins and the orders get vacated, or he loses and the orders get upheld - it doesn't affect him in any way at all.

3. Why not move to dismiss on lack of jurisdiction? The court, itself, pointed out it had no jurisdiction and wouldn't proceed with my order. It wasn't until after Fox thumbed his nose at the court and essentially told them they're impotent, that the judge decided to uphold the order just to spite him. It almost seems as though Fox actually wanted the order upheld. Now, the judge did repeatedly emphasize to Fox that he can appeal - and of course, he's going to, but still.

4. Why openly declare in court that you have no intention of stopping the harassing behavior? James flat out asked Fox if he intended to discontinue this website - he even asked whether Fox would discontinue it if a court of appropriate jurisdiction ordered him to. A normal person (and by normal, I mean someone like me) would have just lied and said yes. But Fox pointedly stated that he would not. He said if a court ordered him to take the site down he would just move it to another country. I'm surprised the court didn't hold him in contempt!

5. Why not object to clearly objectionable actions? Throughout the hearing both James and I repeatedly engaged in lines of question, and in declaratory statements which were clearly objectionable and inadmissible. Yet, not once did Fox object. What the fuck is up with that?

6. Pretending to care about the firearms prohibition. So, clearly, the firearms prohibition can't be enforced on Fox because he's not in the US. Maybe you think he is concerned about it for when he returns to the US. Except that he has no interest or intention of returning to the US. And, even if he did, he already has the perjury felony which bars him from possessing a firearm in the US anyway. So why would he claim to care about that particular order?

So, the court upheld the orders, but in doing so provided Fox a clear and unequivocal basis for appeal.

He's up to something, that's for sure. I just wish I was smart enough to figure it out.