Mr. Corletta has always believed that Orders of Protection are subject to abuse by those getting the Order of Protection. Mr. Corletta helped family friend achieve a fair disposition in People v. Anonymous (Greece Tn. Ct., 3/18/19).

          In that case, the client was the target of a vindictive significant other. The significant other had already obtained an Order of Protection ex parte on specious grounds, removing the client from their home and keeping the client’s vehicle, worth approximately $15,000.00, and refusing to return it, although the parties were not married and the significant other had no legal right to it.

          The significant other, after getting the Order of Protection, then repeatedly contacted the client and “negotiated” for the return of something that belonged to the client already.

          As aforementioned, the parties were not married, and the significant other had no right to keep the vehicle. When the client answered repeated phone call, the significant other immediately reported the contact to police and had the client arrested again, subjecting the client to a potential jail sentence.

          Mr. Corletta argued vigorously that the significant other was “gaming the system”, and provided evidence thereof. The District Attorney initially sought a sentence of incarceration, or at a minimum, probation, which was grossly unfair. Mr. Corletta would not agree to it.

          However, the client did not want to risk a Grand Jury presentation and indictment for a felony, and did not have the funds to litigate the matter further. Therefore, Mr. Corletta negotiated a plea down to a minor charge, with virtually no punishment, and no probation or jail. The client was more than willing to pay a minor fine to be extricated from the matter.

The lesson to be learned is the system can be manipulated by those obtaining Order of Protection and then using them for personal purposes; i.e. vindictiveness, leverage in domestic or divorce matters, money, etc. In a high percentage of cases, people obtain Orders of Protection for ulterior motives that have nothing to do with “protection”. Such tactics are deplorable and require further action by legislature to incorporate procedural safeguards into the Order of Protection “process”.