You know you’re living in a nightmare when a court ruling “against” you is a major victory—the best progress you’ve made in years. This is Restraining Order Hell, courtesy of Star Crazy Pauley Perrette. (And she compares herself to a Holocaust survivor) Last week Perrette was forced to testify in court, in order to have her ten year old temporary restraining order against ex-husband Francis (Coyote) Shivers made permanent. After hearing testimony for two days, Judge Michael J. Convey ruled in her favor. The restraining order is now permanent, but it’s a hollow victory for Our Dear Pauley. The door is now wide open for Coyote Shivers to obtain the mutual order he requested back in 2008—the one she’s been fighting against.
In addition to granting Perrette yet another restraining order to add to her prized collection, Judge Convey made a few points she probably didn’t want to hear. Karma couldn’t care less what Pauley Perrette wants to hear. A Voice for Men will make the official transcript available as soon as we have it, but here is a paraphrased partial summary, from an observer present in the courtroom, of what he had to say:
The use of social media can be considered abuse by both parties, and can be considered grounds for “reasonable apprehension.”
One can only hope that the phrase “reasonable apprehension” was a mild rebuke, a subtle rejection of Our Dear Pauley’s theatrical display of patently fake terror.
He noted genuine fear on Shivers’s part.
It is almost beyond belief that any official in this entire circus of a legal battle actually acknowledged that Shivers might have reason to be fearful. Who wouldn’t be afraid of the (rather likely) possibility of being falsely arrested and falsely convicted again? The night Shivers was arrested for violating the order, Our Dear Pauley had “tweeted” that she was settled in at home for the evening, so Shivers felt safe taking his wife to his favorite restaurant. Perrette lied to 911, her lapdog boyfriend Thomas Arklie assaulted Shivers, and the security video mysteriously disappeared after a visit from a “detective.”
He said that sometimes the person with the order continues to engage the person restricted.
He noted that both of them will not disengage.
Shivers has been stuck for a long time between two bad choices: “engage” Perrette by responding in an effort to protect his reputation and his family or remain silent in the onslaught of lies backed by money, influence and official corruption.
Yes, he “engaged.”
He asked Shivers if he wanted a restraining order against Perrette.
Like the one for which he applied nine years ago?
These points are very significant, and for the first time in a decade, Shivers may see a modicum of justice. The order was made permanent, not due to a threat of physical violence or to a history of physical violence, but due to continued “harassment” via social media. Judge Convey saw, heard, and acknowledged on the record that Our Dear Pauley has engaged in quite a bit of that. To use a battered old cliché, “what’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.” When Shivers files for a restraining order against Perrette, there is no reason whatsoever why it should not be granted. None. I hope Our Dear Pauley enjoys her new little victory. For a while.