When the Findlay Docket Goes Wrong

This blog post is opinion inherent to the author

This docket entry caught our eye as this is a story we have been following since April, 2019.

First, there is a mutual restraining order in place and “the man” and “the woman” were in court on December 4, 2019, because “the man” filed a Motion for Contempt for “the woman” violating the terms of the mutual restraining order, entered into judgement June 18, 2019.

“The woman” filed for and was granted a temporary civil protection order, ex-parte, on April 15, 2019, but “the woman” ended up having to agree to a mutual restraining order because “the woman” perjured herself in her sworn ex-parte statements establishing the temporary civil protection order.

“The man” spent over one hour presenting his evidence of “the woman” being in violation of the terms of the mutual restraining order and the case required continuation until sometime in January, 2020, because the hearing was only scheduled for one hour. The case currently is in the hands of “the man” who will be calling his first witnesses when the case resumes in January, 2020.

Upon leaving the courthouse, in front of seven people, “the man”, feeling bad because the day went so poorly for “the woman” asked, “is there any chance of being adults from here on out and motioning out of the contempt”?

“The woman”, before “the man” could even finish his statement, began screaming at “the man” “Don’t talk to me” and then began screaming at “the man’s” domestic partner “He won’t stop. He won’t stop.” “The man” said nothing further and walked away.

According to “the man”, the terms of the mutual restraining order do not apply regarding legal proceedings and since both parties are representing themselves during contempt and modification to mutual restraining order hearings, his question to “the woman”, after the hearing, was appropriate and based on “the woman’s” response, “the man” looks forward to when the proceedings continue in January, 2020 because “the man” is confident his evidence will prevail in the proceedings.

You don’t report the news Courier. You distort it. And you distort the truth. Responsible journalism requires the Courier to print a correction. And there’s little doubt “the woman” has again lied to law enforcement.

#Findlay, you would have no clue what to do with real investigative journalists publishing real news stories on real websites.