Arrest Warrent Issued ET III

[bigskydoc]

because once again... this isn't how it works. Especially when there are children involved and some form of custody arrangement.
And yes she is, if you read the entire thread or even did a google search (or simply ask someone who's experienced it, such as myself) then you'd ALSO know that regardless of who its against.. it applies to both parties. Her and Him. Doesn't that the court or her has an NCO order against him, same rules apply to her and visa-versa, He slaps her with NCO, rules of it also apply to him doesn't matter. Lastly if a Judge issued an arrest warrant (which clearly he did) it means the prosecution has enough to show (probable cause) he's violated the NCO more than once. Usually 2-3 times = Arrest and (depending on state and conditions of the violation) automatic felony charges. Which also means they have both sides of the Texts in which they clearly felt he was the main aggressor who was in violation where as she was not, nor was she the instigator or provocateur in this scenario.

Which part, exactly, is not how it works? Because what I typed is exactly how it works in the Thomas divorce case, followed by some supposition.

Nina petitioned the court for a protective order against Earl on 12/29/2020. She received a temporary, Ex Parte order on Jan 7th, 2021, and filed to extend it on Feb 4th. The Ex Parte order was closed on 6/14/21, and a permanent protective order was issued. Per Texas law, that order will remain active until 6/14/23, although Nina can petition to have it closed once 12 months have elapsed from the issuance. The only protective order issued against Nina was on April 13, 2020, and it expired on June 15, 2020.

Courts have wide latitude in the exact composition of these protective orders. The Thomas order stipulated that Earl have no contact with Nina, except through the court, or through a court approved, 3rd party, co-parenting app. This has been widely reported in the news. Nina claims that Earl refuses to even download the app to his phone, that he continues to contact her via text, and that he shows up at places where she is known to frequent.

Earl's texts were sufficient probable cause for an arrest warrant. Nothing in my first post argues otherwise. However, this does not preclude Nina as initiating and/or participating in these text conversations. Nor does it mean that any texts she might have sent were benign. With no protective order in place against her, she can pretty much text anything she wants, to Earl, without legal jeopardy. If Earl feels that her texts are legitimately threatening, he can show them to the court, and request an order of protection against her.

In the State of Texas, a protective order is unidirectional. The fact that the respondent is prohibited from contacting the applicant, does not prohibit the applicant from contacting the respondent. In fact it is so common for applicants to successfully goad respondents into breaking protective orders, either by initiating text conversations, or phone calls, or by inviting the respondent to meet at prohibited locations, that some attorneys address this very issue in the FAQ section of their website.

In the event that the court finds it necessary to prohibit contact initiated by either party, Texas law requires the court to issue two separate orders of protection. Texas Family Code (Title 4, subtitle B, Sec. 85.003). Further, it specifically says that, "A court may not render one protective order under Section 85.022 that applies to both parties."

Because there was an active order of protection against Earl, and none against Nina, he was the only one with legal jeopardy here. It was in his best interest to completely block her as much as possible, especially given his volatile, reactive nature. He definitely should not have engaged in any form of responding to any messages she might have sent, except through the co-parenting app.

I did speculate that Nina may have provoked him into the violation. No proof, just an educated guess, based on the way these turbulent divorces commonly play out, and the fact that all that has been leaked is his portion of the conversation. Partners are very good at pushing just the right buttons to goad each other into responding reactively. Women are exceptional at it. With no protective order in place to prevent her from doing so, it is not impossible that she did just enough to provoke his angry response. The court would grant her significant leeway, but hold him to the line of the order. This happens all the time. It is one of the major ways that men get screwed over in divorce and custody cases.

Even if she blatantly provoked him, he would still be in violation of the order, and subject to arrest. At trial, he can present any provocation as a mitigating defense. It might result in the judge reducing his sentence, or even throwing the charges out, but it would not prevent the judge from issuing the warrant in the first place.

It is also possible that Nina is entirely innocent. Possible that Earl's texts were completely unprovoked. Possible that he was the only participant in the texting conversation, and she limited herself to communicating through the co-parenting app. Given their history, I find this highly unlikely.

 

[flv2]

Yea, he should have left race out of his equation. Unless you can show me some sort of genetic evidence, race doesn't have anything to do with a person's predisposition to becoming a criminal. It's almost exclusively an environmental problem.

I have no proof but there's no reason why brain disorders couldn't or wouldn't be genetic. Where multiple generations of one family have shown a propensity towards mental instability or violence it would seem more likely to be a genetic trait than environmental circumstance.

 

[toffee]

Earl is all but unemployable in NFL, not sure what other skills he has for employment. The key question now is how much $$ he has left in his bank after the divorce and lavish lifestyle.