It is a bit odd that on the day restraining orders were streamed a couple of things happened.

First, just as they started the RO hearing the camera was adjusted so that viewing of the plaintiff was clear to the public, something I thought they were trying to avoid.

Second, the hearing is as most RO hearings go, no legal basis for the RO is every stated for either of the RO’s. In the case of the first RO, the judge makes it clear he is relying only on the Affadavit, there is no testimony.

In the second RO, it is very clear that the judge is not following the law. No basis is made for the RO, the judge acknowledges that there is a case in front of Probate, yet chooses to make a decision that affects the children, big no no. As an excuse for his behavior he claims that since the mother already obtained sole physical and sole legal, he could issue the RO on the children.

This is why we need ALL RO’s streamed, to encourage these judges to show respect for the court by FOLLOWING THE LAW.

So we don’t spend all day searching for something that has been removed.

I am disappointed by the Website “Terms Of Use”, which clearly were crafted by an overeager lawyer. They are impenetrable to the average person (whom I thought was the target audience of this site?) and asking everybody to read them and agree to them is both unreasonable and unrealistic.

Example: I agree that “I will maintain the accuracy and completeness of this information on a prompt, timely basis” in perpetuity? Why should I ensure that you have a permanent record of my identity just to access *potentially redacted* archives of *public* proceedings?

I could continue to pick it apart, but the real solution is to throw it out and start simpler. Your privacy policy is similarly huge and impenetrable.

I am glad to see you are licensing all submitted content as CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike. Please try and keep your site license either non-existent, or as simple to read as those licenses.