Restraining Orders Against Fox

Desiree's petition, falsely alleging Fox had threatened to shoot her.

Even though Desiree didn't provide any evidence of her allegations, the court still issued the order.

This is a recording of the entire hearing. Note: This is the same audio as the one for James' case.

The court's order keeping the previous order in place and adding a Notice of Positive Brady Indicator (firearm prohibition). The order only prohibits Fox from contacting Desiree, and from possessing firearms within the US. It does not prohibit Fox from continuing to publish information about Desiree on this website, and it doesn't affect Fox's firearm possession outside the US.

Based on the Municipal Court not having jurisdiction to issue the order of protection; the court incorrectly applying the statutory definition of "harassment" because there was already a pending family matter before the Superior Court; and the court using public, constitutionally protected speech as a basis for a finding of prior harassment.

Desiree retained a hack attorney to delay the appeal process.

From the first day, Desiree's new attorney is already making mistakes and having to re-file documents.

Motion to add "evidence" to the appeal record. This is an entirely frivolous motion, likely just to delay the appeal process. Desiree is now claiming she had the "evidence" with her at the hearing but just didn't submit it.

Desiree's responsive appeal brief. She argues that the content of the website constitutes harassment, even though the contents and statements were not made to her. Her attorney actually changes the wording of relevant statutes in order to make them fit his arguments, e.g. substituting the term "action" with "matter" in the A.R.S § 13-3602(P). A desperate ploy by a hack attorney - typical for Arizona attorneys, though.

Opposing to the motion to add evidence to the appeal record, based essentially on the "evidence" not really being relevant to Desiree's case, and an appeal not being the appropriate venue to seek to have evidence considered.

Desiree is requesting the court prohibit Fox from recording the hearings. She claims he has been using the recordings to "harass" and "intimidate" her. Her attorney, Peter Limperis, attempts to incorrectly apply Arizona Supreme Court, Rule 122(h), and falsely claims Fox recorded the order of protection hearing without notifying the court. In reality, Desiree doesn't want the hearings recorded because Fox has been using them to prove that she has been lying and committing perjury.

Opposing Desiree's request for an order prohibiting him from recording the court hearings, based on Desiree's allegations of him previously recording hearings without the court's approval being false, court proceedings being matters of public record, and Rule 122(h) not requiring a party to obtain the court's approval to use a personal recording device to record hearings.

Desiree's attorney requested oral arguments for their responsive memorandum to Fox's appeal. Why? The only reasonable explanation would be so he could bill her more hours.

This is Desiree's reply to Fox's response to her objection to him recording their court hearings. Desiree doesn't want Fox recording the hearings because they prove that she has committed perjury and repeatedly contradicted herself. Also, it proves to the world that she's not the poor, helpless victim she tried to convince you she was on the news. Her entire argument in this matter is based on the false presumption that making truthful, public statements about someone, but not to them meets the statutory definition of "harassment". It does not!

James' petition, alleging Fox had been "harassing" him by publicly speaking about him - though, not actually to him.

Even though James didn't allege Fox had ever had any contact with him, the court actually issued the injunction.

This is a recording of the entire hearing. Note: This is the same audio as the one for Desiree's case.

The court's order keeping the previous order in place. The order only prohibits Fox from contacting James or going "near" James' residence. It does not prohibit Fox from continuing to publish information about James on this website.

Based, primarily, on the James admission that he and Fox have never actually had any contact (which is a necessary requirement of "harassment"); the court incorrectly applying the statutory definition to include public statements made about James, but not to him.

James retained an apparently incompetent attorney to delay the appeal process.

From the first day, James' new attorney is already making mistakes and having to re-file documents.

Motion to add "evidence" to the appeal record. This is an entirely frivolous motion, likely just to delay the appeal process. All of the supposed "evidence" that is being requested to be added to the record pertains only to Desiree's case, not James', so this entire motion is irrelevant to James' case.

James' responsive appeal brief. He's trying to argue that the passive content of the website constitutes harassment - even though there has never been any contact between him and Fox.

Opposition to the motion to add evidence to the appeal record, essentially based on the lack of relevance any of the supposed "evidence" has to James' case.

James is requesting the court prohibit Fox from recording the hearings. He claims Fox has been using the recordings to "harass" and "intimidate" him and his mother. James' attorney, Peter Limperis, attempts to incorrectly apply Arizona Supreme Court, Rule 122(h), and falsely claims Fox recorded the injunction against harassment hearing without notifying the court. Likely, James' real reason for not wanting the hearings recorded is because they make him look like an fool.

Opposing James' request for an order prohibiting him from recording the court hearings, based on James' allegations of him previously recording hearings without the court's approval being false, court proceedings being matters of public record, and Rule 122(h) not requiring a party to obtain the court's approval to use a personal recording device to record hearings.