You are telling me not to answer my door to strangers..

Actually, what that means is that I must NEVER be out in my yard and must go to the door and peek out at mormons whenever they choose to show up.

NO.

Every mormon in the stake where i live knows there is a restraining order against them.

YOU are wrong to say that I must follow YOUR rules and hide within my house in case a mormon shows up every two or three years.

It might be someone you know and care about who comes the next time. I will drench them with the garden hose before I have them arrested.

JWs are smart enough to keep no contact lists. Unfortunately, mormons don't seem to have that much sense. That's their problem, Bigred, and your problem, not mine.

For the record, I would certainly classify violating a restraining order as evidence that a gift was not given with gracious intent.

I did not post anything about rules - mine or anyone else's, simply made a suggestion. Do whatever you want - I don't give a s hit. I was simply making a suggestion - you seem to think everyone should follow YOUR rules, feel the way YOU do and have the same shitty attitude. I could care less that you don't like me - the feeling is mutual, but your attempts to belittle me are getting a bit childish.

Just because someone - not just me - disagrees with you, you go on the rampage. I've seen you do it again and again to other posters - good grief - again, THIS WHOLE FORUM IS NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2011 12:33PM by bigred.

Mormons can't come onto my property. That's where my boundaries happen to be. Even so, staying in my house to avoid their intrusions is not an option, nor is peeking out and cowering in my house. Those who claim that I must move my boundaries within a foot of the front door are wrong. They can treat mormons any way they choose on their property but don't have a right to call me names because I have a different situation.

After twenty=five years, we're handling the mormon trespass problem my husband's way. We did it my way for the first 25 years and now he gets a turn. That was the agreement.

I don't feel sorry for unconnected strangers who are told to target former mormons and do it in spite of knowing they are not welcome.

I realize some people don't think through directives they issue to strangers at RfM. I had a troll in Australia and one in Belgium who excused mormons made up stories about me and inserted them several times a day for years no matter what the topic of a thread. I'm not about to let that sort of thing slide by for years again. Anyone who consistently takes the morg side of an issue without knowing or asking for facts is an apologist on that issue. It's especially so if they launch into name calling or admit they're bored and just like to try to anger someone or start making off the wall medical pronouncements.

Some posters think mormons have an absolute right to officially go onto private property and not leave when told to do so, even after decades of never complying with the law. Those who make this assumption are way out of line.

It's easier to avoid posts with differing ideas on any issue than to avoid unwelcome mormons on the phone, sitting in cars in the driveway, peeking in windows, pounding on doors, or confronting family in their own yard.

I will say this, your rants are good for a laugh - especially when directed at me.

I call BS.

Having worked in law enforcement you cannot take out a restraining order against an organization, only individuals. You can serve a Stake President, and Bishop, or a RS President as individuals and have them named as such but you can't serve a company, church, or group with an order. Especially when the membership is fluid and current members may not know about past members issues with the petitioner.

But go ahead and spray away when those evil Mormons show up on your doorstep. But good luck having them arrested for violating your so-called restraining order.

Kind of like when Clark Griswald attempts to plug the leaks inside of Hoover Dam. No matter how many leaks he tried to plug another one would pop up and he eventually had to walk away in frustration. Well-intentioned LDS members think they are doing the Lord's work and don't understand boundaries or personal space and will never back down when there are souls to be saved.

from coming onto my private road and onto my property.

He sent them each a letter, phoned each one and sent a black and white car with an officer to explain the letter and phone call in person.

Also went to the county offices and picked up papers for filing in court. To do that, one uses the same forms for organizations. as are used for retraining orders against individuals.

My lawyer said that wouldn't be necessary as the local police were already informed and cooperating.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2011 02:05PM by Cheryl.

> Having worked in law enforcement you cannot take out a restraining order against an organization, only individuals.

Not true at all. You can get restraining orders against cities, corporations, government, etc.

In fact that is what people do when they are trying to stop the government from doing whatever they believe is harmful--get a temporary restraining order from a judge.

Cheryl probably isn't talking about an actual judge's order, but it is legal to get one against an organization.

But my lawyer said that court orders run out and my police restraint stays on file as long as the current chief is agreeable.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But my lawyer said that court orders run out and
> my police restraint stays on file as long as the
> current chief is agreeable.


Your lawyer is correct in saying that court orders run out. But a Police Chief's restraint stays on file is just that, on file. He is just appeasing you and telling you what you want to hear so he doesn't have to bother with a do-nothing case anymore. It isn't worth his time to deal with a go nowhere case for an angry less-active Mormon who is upset that people stop by her house with an occasional gift. He has bigger and better cases to deal with.

> But a Police Chief's restraint stays on file is just that, on file. He is just appeasing you and telling you what you want to hear so he doesn't have to bother with a do-nothing case anymore.

Wow, that's a boatload of assumptions. And wrong to boot. Having the complaint on file is the first step for getting a restraining order in the future. It becomes part of the court record if further action is taken. It is far from meaningless and could be the deciding factor in a future lawsuit.

It is what a good Police Chief would do, under the circumstances. The next move depends on the church complying.

If he wasn't "appeasing" her, what would he be doing, exactly?

...and when telemarketers interrupt dinner-time, I should quit complaining about it and talk to them because they're really only calling for a friendly chat, right?

...and when spam invades my e-mail inbox, I should just STFU about it because they're really only writing because they care, right?

...and when I get an obscene phone call, I should STFU and be grateful that some nice man cares about my sexual gratification, right?

You can minimize any invasion of privacy or personal assault if you are willing to frame it using dismissive wording. Mormon leadership (and some members) have this blame-the-target (or blame-the-victim) tactic down to an art. You obviously have the aptitude for it.

Just to make sure I understand your point-of-view...

You want Cheryl to just ignore these people who come onto her property and knock on her door or ring her doorbell even though it's impossible to UNhear them, but you don't take your own advice and just ignore Cheryl's posts that are on a public board, not brought to your doorstep, where you have the choice to not ever "hear" them. Makes perfect sense!

I hope my tax dollars aren't paying your salary as "law enforcement" when you find the complaints of someone who truly feels harassed a "hoot." Speaking of BS, a police chief personally thanks (and is aware of) an officer who would be at the rank to respond to such "insignificant" complaints? It's either Podunkville or the complaints were important enough to draw the Chief's attention. Either way, the scent of BS is strong.

Rant on, Garth! Rant on.

Those only apply to employees and officials of the organization. Individual members of the LDS church are in no way officials or employees of the organization. The Bish/SP can "counsel" them all they like, they cannot force a member to visit or not visit a given individual nor can they control what they do on their own time.

From the leaders who have agreed to prevent the stalking and harassment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2011 11:27PM by Cheryl.

The Police Chief can verbally warn individuals about tresspassing but it takes a court order called a Restraining Order or Stalking Order to make it more serious. I cannot tell you how many times I've responded to a residence where the occupant told me that they had a court order against someone else and as I dug into their story what really happened is different from what the law says. I had one lady who claimed to have an order against UPS, the package delivering company, but after a little investigation and a couple of calls to the court, all she had was a complaint against UPS for delivering unwanted packages to her home. Apparently she was tired of receiving her "Fruit of the Month" box from her grandchildren.

She figured that if she called us enough that her "restraining order" was in effect. I told her to call the gift company and ask them to stop sending her the gifts. Occasionally one would slip through and she would call us all in a huff and we had to repeat it all over again. No matter how hard she tried she couldn't get a restraining order against UPS as they are a corporation and cannot be responsible for every single package delivery sent her way. But it was always a hoot to respond to her home and listen to her rant about the evil UPS drivers and how they didn't respect her privacy.

Eventually I convinced her to stop answering her door when they showed up and to refuse to sign the slips they left on her door. That seemed to lead to a decrease in calls for service at her house. My Captain thanked me solving her perceived issue as it really wasn't an issue at all.

And to think if she'd just accepted the packages, closed the door, and thrown them in the trash and looked at the big picture there would have been a lot of time saved, both by the UPS guy and our Department. And fewer phone calls by her to everyone as she complained that her rights were being violated by her grandchildren as they were trying to do something nice for her.

Sheesh!

Tell you what, thedrive, check out criminal trespassing laws.

Here's a line of BS I got from the local cops the other day after complaining about my hillbilly neighbor's incessant noise:

"The noise ordinance is in effect from 9:00pm to 6:00am."

So I pulled out my copy of the city ordinances (I once sat on the city's ZBA) and showed them that the noise ordinance is in effect 24/7.

Know what they said?

"We don't interpret the law, we just enforce it."

So I went to city hall and explained to the chief that if his occifers can't interpret the law, they certainly have no business enforcing the law. He agreed and sent them out to shut-down my hillbilly neighbor.

In most states, should an individual or individuals unknowingly step on private property, said individual or individuals are guilty of negligent trespassing which, in most states, carries no fine or penalty. However, once the individual or individuals are made aware that they are on private property and their presence is not welcome, said individual or individuals are guilty of criminal trespassing which does carry, in most cases, misdemeanor penalties. Should the trespassing individual or individuals refuse to leave the property upon request of the property owner, said individual or individuals are subject to arrest and fines (not to mention a good hosing or butt kicking ). Simple "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting" signs do the trick, but the property owner can open a criminal trespassing file with the local PD that grants said PD authority to take action upon the property owner's request.

Alerting the local Bish and SP via written notice from the PD that neither they nor their minions are welcome on your property creates a paperwork trail in anticipation of the matter going to court.

Its not a restraining order. Its a criminal trespassing charge and file. Again, a simple "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting" sign does the trick, but for those who don't want to clutter things up with ugly signs, there's another option.

Law enforcement types would be wise to intimidate criminals rather than those they are bound to protect.

But what should I expect from a pig but a grunt?

Timothy

The problem I see here is the common misinterpretation of what a "restraining order" is. I've heard it several times in real life, where a person who is being bothered complains to the police, the police talk to the offender, and the complainer assumes that they now have a restraining order against the offender. Restraining orders can only be issued by a court. A warning, a police file, or a record of a complaint is not a restraining order.
On the other hand, no one needs a restraining order to keep unwanted persons off of their private property. Cheryl is perfectly justified in spraying them with a hose and calling the police to report the trespassers.

Both kinds of orders do restrain people and/or organization from property or from approaching target individuals.

As I've said before, the police chief phoned and wrote to the bish, the SP, and the MP, telling them to restrain their underlings from my property and warning them that non-compliance could result in arrest and incarceration. The chief also sent an officer to explain the instructions face to face and phoned me several times to say they had agreed to the restraints.

Any fool who thinks an organization still has a right to come onto my porch and not be prosecuted is a fool.

The next step is to have them arrested and also spray them with the hose, then go to court and have the morg smeared in the press.

I have worked hard for a lifetime to earn my home and pay for my property. I've spent days and weeks living with hives and the embarrassment of cultists hounding me in front of my husband, children, and neighbors.

Mormons and exmos are stupid who tell me I must die and still have this kind of intrution in my home after working for fifty years to live a mormonism/polygamy free life.

In temple square mormons arrest demonstrators for showing up and demonstrating once.

Private property owners have the equal rights to determine who comes to their door and if they can stay.

The law is clear and it's the HIGh road that I'm choosing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2011 10:42PM by Cheryl.

In Utah and Colorado, there's a Make My Day Law where you can shoot someone who enters your house w/o asking. I'm sure it's meant for burglaries and assaults, but why not tell the Mos you're gonna test it and see what happens with the next Mo who defies your wishes? Might make them stop and think before they violate your property rights.

That is not at all what the law says or what it means. For starters, you must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home, among a long list of other conditions.

No you can't just shoot someone for simply coming unto to your property or even into your house without asking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2011 02:44AM by goldenrule.

I would think most residents in their homes might assume they and their family are in extreme danger if they walk into a room find a an unknown unexpected perfect stranger.

Anyone entering private property needs to have a reason. If they do it knowing they're unwelcome, the reason needs to be extrordiary.

Breaking and entering a door or window is very dangerous for anyone involved. As a lawyer on this board pointed out, breaking and entering means going inside someone's car, home, or other enclosure without permission. No breakage is required.

Please show me where I said anything of the sort.....nor any of the other assumptions you have made in your latest post.

Good grief, stop making assumptions. It seems you are reading a lot more into anything I have written or suggested and frankly, what you are saying now never even crossed my mind.

Just gotta ask - how's that working for ya?

That's an assumption that the resident will never care they're on the property unless they open the door to them.

Your directive that I must do what you want in my yard and house doesn't work. Nor does changing your mind and calling it a "suggestion" and it's unfounded to say if I do what I feel I must, my health will be damaged. You've already discounted the medical condition triggered by official mormons at my door, then you bring up some more severe mythical health problem you claim I might have, perhaps one of your own.

Thank you Susan I/S

Twenty-five years of saying leave me alone should be enough for anyone to get the message. Far from being crotchety, Cheryl was the soul of patience. The point isn't that Cheryl is [insert derogatory term here] for hosing the "innocent" missionaries but rather that the Mormon Church won't take a simple no for an answer.

I don't really know why Cheryl has to keep explaining that over and over and over. Maybe it'll take twenty-five years on the exmo board for people to "get it" but I sure hope not.

How many times should a person have to say NO???????

I have a telemarketer calling me every single night at dinnertime, supposedly trying to complete a **very long** questionnaire regarding a service that was completed at my home, by mandate of the govt - nothing I had ordered, something I had no choice about doing. No matter how many times I say I am not interested in spending 15 minutes answering questions about something I didn't want in the first place and have no time or desire to continue dealing with, they continue to phone. Sure, I can call their company and ask a supervisor to stop calling or any other action that will result in cessation of their calls.

But I shouldn't have to. I should be able to say no to the first guy that called and have done with it. It's irritating, even maddening, for them to keep calling and to answer every 10th call and say NO - again - and have them ignore me.

Now, with Mormons, multiply that by 1000 or more degrees. Many of them will just not take no for an answer. For the beleaguered person to take more aggressive action should not be a surprise or a castigation against the innocent party who just wants to be left alone.

Hey, twenty-five years of no's didn't stop the missionaries from calling repeatedly. One episode of hosing and taking action with the local police accomplished the purpose, which was just to get them to QUIT CALLING.

How is that a black mark against Cheryl?

Some of the comments, too, illustrate the points in our recent discussion about minimizing someone's experience with Mormonism. Because one person apparently doesn't mind saying NO a thousand times doesn't mean we should feel the same way.

It's not even the effort and nuisance of having to repeatedly express our preferences, and being ignored, although that is irksome to the nth degree. It's having someone else decide that our wishes are insignificant and that the universe should proceed as they direct, even for our lives, that is so annoying.

I can't imagine getting to the point of hosing Mormon missionaries to get them off my porch. But then again, I have never had them continually calling on me and ignoring my stated wishes.

It's not up to me to tell someone else how they should feel or what they should do to handle Mormon intrusion into their life. Even if I think that what they describe as irksome wouldn't bug me, the point is that it's not me it's happening to, but them, and they are expressing annoyance and are being criticized by (supposed) exmos on this board, where they should actually feel free to vent or ask for support or expect that other exmos will understand where they're coming from.

The point is how the poster feels and thinks and what they want and need and not what **I** think their reactions should be.

It's a good thing that Jerry supported his wife when the Mormon missionaries were ignoring her instructions. They make a good team - Jerry with his unmistakeable explanations of how things are and Cheryl with her garden hose, wielded as necessary, and effective in the extreme.

Again, it's not that she used the hose on the missionaries' first visit - more like on their 100th or 1000th - certainly they had enough time to get the message but they chose not to.

So tell me again who is at fault here?

I'd rather be "crotchety" than terminally stupid or worse, purposely annoying.

It's unfair and illogical to climb on high and judge some other person's perceived emotion especially when it flies in the face of reality and the laws of the land.