R. D. v. P. M.

PDF, Full Text, DCA Record

Danelski (R.D.) v. Mayans (P.M.) at the trial level

Note: the AOB of the unrelated case of Rainey v. Kaufman argued that R.D. v. P.M.  incorrectly decided that hearsay evidence must be heard at the hearing for "permanent" orders.

A rather ambiguous discussion of the relationship between 527.6 and First Amendment Free Speech issues.  However, considering the dearth of certified cases, R.D. v. P.M. will be quoted and misquoted by both sides of future cases.  Argued by two top ranked law firms.

For instance, using very round about language it eventually provides grist to deduce that the standard language of a 527.6 restraining order allows a restrained party to post to the Internet and distribute handbills about the Plaintiff unless the content is harassing.  Thanks for making circular reasoning so...,well, so circular Justice Chaney!  In the current nanny-state climate we are left to mark liberty as freedom from the presumption of Sin by a precedent that statements publicly distributed about a protected party can potentially be non-harassing.

"To the extent the order limits P.M.‟s speech, it does so without reference to the content of her speech. The restraining order does not prevent P.M. from expressing her opinions about R.D. in any one of many different ways; she is merely prohibited from expressing her message in close proximity to R.D. and her family" [emphasis added]

To insult the finding of People v. Johnson, 606 P. 2d 738 - Cal: Supreme Court 1980 that the "whole record" must be considered on appeal not just "any evidence" taken in isolation, R.D. v. P.M. contradicts in footnote 9 with  "But in examining the sufficiency of the evidence we must disregard the evidence that does not support the trial court‟s express and implied findings."

Possibly related:



"I think it's time Rebecca Danelski and Michelle Mayans stop this really destructive cyber cat fighting that is going on. "



Harassment History Matters in Restraining Order Requests

Nothing contained herein is tendered as nor should it be considered as legal advice.  What is legal is not necessarily justice.  Almost all of reality is non-"published", ergo, what is legally affirmed is always a retarded misrepresentation of reality.   Use at your own risk!