I have recently read of a rather controversal recommendation by a German judge, Christa Datz-Winter, in a case where a Muslim woman abused by her husband filed for a quick divorce. Apparently, the judge decided that this behavior by the husband was supposed to be expected by the wife. Now, in my searches on this topic I have also found this opinion column. It would appear that this case wasn't alone in its rabid idiocy. Respecting culture is one thing, but surely the law is where the line is drawn. Or is wife-beating in male-dominated societies a respected cultural trait nowadays?
It is a little worrying, well a lot actually I suppose, but it's good that it's possible to even have a trial on the subject in the first place these days. It at least creates an awareness that not all the Muslim women who are being slapped around or mistreated are happy to be that way, and will encourage others to speak up sooner or later. The outrageuos result of the judgement may itself create enough of an outrage.
The trial's final ruling isn't out yet, but Mal, such a completely idiotic recommendation by a judge may very well discourage other Muslim women to complain of beating husbands. After all, it would appear to them that the husband has the law on his side, just like in the old country. I can't look at the bright side here. In Western society having a trial on such a subject is a given, or so I thought. This recommendation, and the similar cases mentioned in the opinion column, actually go a long way to overturn the current laws and state of affairs. If laws are applied selectively, then why apply them at all? This is not only spitting in the face of every Muslim woman who expected a different way of life in Germany, this is sawing away at the core ideals of society. Once you start applying laws selectively in this manner, where will it end? And how many lives will it cost?
I meant that the outrage might encourage other women to come forward. It's good that she hasn't simply accepted the judgement and thought, oh well that's that then. I can't see the situation lasting for long after this.
Just a short note for now, but the case has been taken out of her hands when the quotations got known.
In my humble view, this wont encourage any more women to come forward. I read lots of reports like this. Women taking men to court blah blah blah. Its nothing to the amount of stories i heard of women going to the police and basically getting laughed out of the interview rooms. One word against anothers. There are two sides to this story. She actually managed to get that far. I know for a fact that as the police couldn't protect me, i could not have taken it that far without being seriously hurt or killed. In other faiths/cultures this threat is alot worse than it would be for me. I only had Mark to worry about, others have whole families threatening them as they don't want to see their honour dragged down. My friend is going through something similar and has had the courage to move out. She has been to the police and they have said there is nothing they can do. He can keep all of her posetions, all of her family heirlooms, basically her life is still his because she can't prove any of it. Witnesses have said all they have seen and they still refuse to do anything as they say they wouldn't be able to prosecute. She has been told the best thing that could happen would be for her to get beaten so they could do him. This story gives me little hope as it is one in a million, the other stories like mine and hers are far more common. The judge was wrong in the ruling, but the uproar won't help her in any way. She is still going to have to live with all the wrong doings and the lack of support and help from the judicial system
Ouch, Missy :-( ::hug:: Is there no such thing as a restraining order where you live, or did you need something entirely different? By the way, I wonder if there have ever been any rulings recently in the US, that are the equivalent of "it's his culture, he has the right to beat his wife"
Yes they do have restraining orders here but they don't put an invisible barrier around you. You have to be constantly on guard, even to the point of relying on others to tell you when he is around. Then there is the time it takes for the police to get to you, in which time if hes breached his restraining order, you are either in hospital or worse. I moved in with my Mom for 1 month after i left him. I had to move county in the end. I didn't have to move in here as i had made friends with a pair of Daves friends and they offered to put me up just to get me away. If i had gone for a restraining order i think i would have angered him that much that i honestly believe i wouldn't be here today. The law is good if it is there protecting you all the time and the other person is scared of it. I don't think that was the case with my ex. He went into a mental home and was violent there, threatening to kill Dave. We only know this as the doctor thought he was that serious it was worth a phone call to Dave to tell him. All the police could say was "well if he does show up call us" thats too late for my liking. Luckily he has no clue as to where i am. The poor woman in the above article must have thought it would all be fine and finished after taking him to court. How wrong can you be.
I vaguely remember something a while back, involving a Chinese couple in the US. (It may have involved him beating her with a hammer?) Edit: I found the case, it was in 1987, on the website for the Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence. The article goes on to mention the following case, which I had never heard of before.
Missy, I hope your husband is one of those cases where life does the punishment that the state wouldn't do. As to the cultural thing: It is absurd. If you argue it through to the end, you could as well accept female genital mutilation within the boundaries of your country, or stoning to death, if some families should insist it is what their culture does with adulterous people. Some papers- for example the Spiegel in a horribly polemic article- claimed it was hipocricy that all media and parties portraied themselves as outraged by the verdict, yet some of them had taken a more tolerant stance to, say, teachers wearing headscarfs in front of their classes - as the schools have to be secular, that is quite an issue of discussion in Germany, and plainly forbidden in France, Turkey and other countries. It is an entirely different matter in so far though -in my eyes- that having to cope with a teacher that wears a headscarf and so signals her religious beliefs to me is not quite the same as someone being allowed to beat me up because of our common religious background. I think all tolerance should work towards the goal of enabling people to live with each other without being harmed or killed. That means I shouldn't frown at my neighbour for wearing a headscarf if that is what she wishes to do, and she shouldn't frown at me for wearing a bikini to tan on my balcony as long as that is what I wish to do. That also means that there are a lot of things that I should not tolerate, and if I don't, nobody has a reason to call me intolerant or whatever. To use the humanistic virtue of tolerance to shield atrocities is actually bizarre. But what can we except from societies which are quite proud of establishing human rights within their own country, but as soon as you cross another country's borders, the companies and often political powers these societies gave birth to give a damn about them? Not even mentioning the question if those human rights are actually established within all segments of those societies, or if some groups are just as excluded from them as the faraway fisherman from Victoria lake, the diamond miners, the neighbours of leaking oil pipelines, or Chinese factory workers. I personally don't think you should even ask "Does being tolerant mean we should tolerate all?". I regard tolerance as an indistinguishable part of a set of virtues I believe in, not to be seen isolated from every human's right to live, every human's right for physical inviolability, and a few more, who are all meant to establish every person's right to live with some dignity. That judge seems to have ignored all the other virtues our constitution mentions, and the virtue of tolerance was used as a tool to create this absurd verdict. Again, bizarre. Only as a side note, the verdict also put a restraint on the husband, and gave all possessions of the couple and custody for both children to the woman. In Germany, you have to wait for one year after a year of separation (Trennungsjahr) from your spouse; only after that, you can be formally divorced, except under special circumstances like unusual hardships, or being able to proove that you have split as a couple a year ago (an accepted way out when both partners agree to the divorce). These special circumstances have been denied in this case, with above bizarre verdict. I am only mentioning this because at least in the column, it didn't come across quite clear that these two things- on the one hand the actual living conditions on which the court can more or less decide in cases of divocrce such as who gets what, and the formal act of divorce on the other- are two different things in German law, and in this court statement.
Marcia, I found a follow-up to the Narinder Virk story - seems she has a shot at a somewhat-normal life ::spit spit knock::, although her children are currently God-knows-where http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=fe3692d5ae2773ab697c1a56a3208254
Missy, sadly the law only works if everyone lets it. When fear of the consequences becomes irrelevant... That's a scary situation to be in. And you're right, you usually have to jump through a lot of hoops if you actually want to get all the way to court. Mind you, sometimes you can have the other extreme as well. Here in Israel, about seven years ago, you didn't actually need much in the way of proof with regards to rape (or attempted rape). The burden of proof usually lay on the accused, not the accuser. This may have led to more rapists being removed from the streets, but it also led to quite a few innocent people being sent to jail. Or being extorted in plea-bargains over compensation and/or employment issues. Mind, this was combined with a generally liberal approach with regards to the actual sentences, in general. Community-service for rapists is a bit... dangerously idiotic, in my opinion. There's rehabilitating offenders, and there's plain moronic naivety. Marcia, those two stories you brought are interesting. In both grossly oversimplified bad stereotypes were used by the lawyers, and while I'm more sympathetic to the second case, the mere usage of generalist arguments rather than only those relevant to the specific case makes me cringe. And while the result of the second case may be somewhat satisfactory (I hope), in the first case the husband simply got away with murder with nothing but a slap on the wrist. I agree wholeheartedly. People are fairly self-centered as a rule. Most of the time we only care about what happens in other countries if it is relevant to us, or is "hip". And with that said, I'd expect us to at least look to our own backyards so we'd have something to be proud *of*. If we're crap at exporting human rights, then can we at least put *some* effort into not importing the lack of them? Indeed. Tolerance is directly connected to a set of ideals our society strives towards. But apparently that judge believed that they are irrelevant. Or only relevant to those who wrote your constitution. Quite... racist, really. I do hope it's comfy in her ivory tower. As for the issue of her wanting a fast divorce, I think she just wanted to sever all ties from her husband in the hope that that will serve as message for him to stop bothering her. Him sending threats to her, and all his previous abuse taken into consideration, would constitute as special circumstances in *my* book. But oh well, it wouldn't have been much of an issue if the official divorce was given later for being a mere formality. They have, after all, taken all the practical issues into consideration. But the reasoning... It isn't just bizzare. The reasoning of that judge is insane. I can somehow swallow indifference, you expect that from civil servants. But *this*? It's basically "I care, but you getting the living crap beaten out of you is quite normal by the standards of you people."
In the UK, you need to tell the person where they are not allowed to go, which means that we would have needed to tell Missy's ex where we were... This would have meant more potential danger, as you may appreciate. The moron knows that we are a different county, but not much else. As an aside - After he was released from the loony bin, he actually saw me - for the first time. I had my back to him at the time, and seeing that I was only little, he turned and almost ran - terrified was I not!
Yes Dave. A unlikely knight in shining armour but its always that good guys that come through in the end...
In a perfect world, restraining orders are good things...unfortunately, it is not a perfect world. I have spent the last year trying to persuade my friend to leave her husband, especially since he has thrown her through their back door several times, and on one occasion broke a chair across her back. She refuses to get a restraining order because they categorically do not work. Something we witnessed when a good friend of hers, and the sister of a schoolmate of mine was murdered several years ago by her ex boyfriend. She had a restraining order out on him, too. I have to pass her memorial every day on the way to work. Not a month later, the same kind of thing happened in a neighbouring town. Same story...same result. Irish Examiner - 2001/10/09: Jilted lover shoots ex-girlfriend and then turns gun on himself In the end, I don't think that either the courts, or protection orders will ever work. Only yourself, your friends and family can help you to keep you safe. If someone is cracked enough to knowingly hurt you in any physical or emotional way, they are never going to let you alone unless you or they vanish. Missy, I hope you are doing well and that karma bites him in the butt.
Yes I think I can think of somewhere much more painful for karma to bite... And yes it is that little bit of thin skin in the middle between your fingers, you know that little bit of webbing thats a bastard if it gets a paper cut.
Its sad to know that no one in authority can help you. We were actually advised by a police officer NOT to take out a restraining order as my ex would have to know where he was restrained from. It makes sense, if they don't know where you are, they don't know where to stay away from. I'd just rather stop at the "he doesn't know where i am" part of that sentance. Its awful knowing there is someone out there that wants to do physical damage to you. But to your friend Mazekin, please never stop trying to get her out. I was lucky and had my Mom and Dave to help me. Alone (before my Mom knew what he was like) i was no way strong enough. I read an article today about a girl stoned to death by family and "friends" of the person she had fallen in love with. He was the wrong religion and that was her fate sealed. I can't tell you my reaction/thoughts as i know how liberal minded you guys are but i don't even think you would forgive my feelings. The short description is pure hatred.
I think you would be forgiven , Missy, Actually you probably would not be alone with those feelings. I am never surprised how bloody minded people can be but I am appalled. Why people are so afraid of"other", thoughts, views, faiths, colors, whatever, will always be a mystery to me.
there's no forgiveness required for that, Hon, especially not from someone who has been through what you have. I know a few people who have been through violent and/or sexually abusive partners/parents situations, some have barely escaped being killed, and even been blown off by judges after that, with a history of hundreds of days of sick leave because of injuries and visible marks of violence still on their faces in the courtroom. Hatred is a mild way of describing what one can feel towards someone like that. And yes, maze, do keep trying, it's not easy to escape situations like that but it's even harder with no-one to help, and there's nothing worse thant lookin back and thinking "if only I had tried to help..."
Heh, good going, man. As for this moronic law... it basically makes a restraining order dangerous rather than simply half-useful. Whoever thought this up cared a little too much for a criminal's human rights and too little for the victim's human rights. As the Jewish saying goes, he who is merciful to the cruel will become cruel to the merciful.
I dunno, I think it's a hard one. What would you suggest as an alternative form of restraining order? "Don't go anywhere south of the Wapping Gap. Ever." You could just stop someone from going anywhere - in which case, why not prison - or you have to be specific about where they can't go. I see the real problem being when people like this are not treated as criminals, or not until it's too late. For those who have been through abuse, are going through it or dealing with the consequences of it in their own lives or those of others, you have all my support.
How on earth is that even remotely practicable? It might sound like a good idea, but there are even more problems with it than with the law that we actually have. How is the offender supposed to know where they can or can't go? Either they have to ignore it totally or just never go anywhere. Suppose I took out a restraining order against my sister. She's told she may not come near me. I think she can reasonably assume that I'll be at family gatherings and so she shouldn't go to them, and that I'll be in my house, so she shouldn't go near there - but can she go to the local shops, where we both do our shopping? Not without running a very good risk of seeing me. Can she go to church, where I might be attending or preaching? Could she go to a pub, when I might be at the pub too (as of July, yay smoking ban)? In every situation, she runs the risk of seeing me, which means she is effectively ignoring the order. What you're suggesting is that, if she sees me, she should turn round and walk away, or that I should. And given the nature of situations in which one might consider taking out a restraining order, that's not going to happen. That's why something more extreme is needed. Furthermore, not only would such a law be difficult to obey, but it would also be difficult - and, as a direct result, hugely expensive - to enforce. The big problem with restraining orders is the one that's already been identified in this thread. That doesn't mean that it's a stupid law - I think it's actually about as practical as such a law can get. It just means that there are people who behave in a way that is destructive and difficult to control. And we knew that already. Restraining orders work in situations where the offender has some respect for the law, if not for the person they are victimising. In Wendy's ex's case, this clearly isn't happening. As the Jewish saying goes, the problem isn't the law, it's him. Oh wait, that's not a Jewish saying, just good sense. :wink:
But surely this is exactly the kind of case where the 'discomfort' factor of possibly breaking the law is likely to be entirely disregarded? The sort of person who is likely to pay attention to a restraining order is, I would have thought, the sort of person who either doesn't need one at all or who is likely to actually obey rules about where to go and not to go. And the 'discomfort' of the offender is not the issue. The problem is not which party feels uncomfortable - I'm not suggesting we should be looking after the person's feelings, although, as it happens, I see no reason to stoop to the level of the people we abhor, even in revenge - but that there is no meaningful, logical way for that offender to obey that order. The order is meaningless, and that's just stupid. How can you expect someone to do as they're told when what they're told doesn't follow common sense? What sounds great in your head doesn't necessarily work in the real world. The suggestion here is that the one prevents the other. I am saying that that is precisely what it doesn't do. I don't think any kind of restraining order would actively prevent a murder, as previously discussed in this thread. Restraining orders are only good in other situations, in which case they need to make sense or else they're no kind of order at all.
I suggest we rivet a bracelet to their ankle, and if they go anywhere at all outside a 1 mile radius around their house, their ankle explodes. If we're going to stoop, let's do it right.
:resents a ginormous virtual wine-and-cheese basket to Katcal:: Thanks for making me snort-laugh at work p
Lets not stoop. There are alot of other places that the idea could work. His manhood for instance, good one for rapists. Wrists for thieves. But for a wife beater, well i would say a one mile radius where just men live. They can't ever see another female again, that would please me! i dread to hear my ex has a girlfriend.
ie An open prison! This is why it would be better if these people were treated as the criminals they are, because then a solution that would actually work could be applied.
I keep saying that in work and people look at me like I have two heads. Thankfully M knows we are there for her, and that she has somewhere to go if she needs to get away from him. Unfortunately, she has all the self confidence of a brick, which I guess is a product of him, considering she is tall, blonde, willowy and beautiful. I like the idea of the exploding ankle braclet. Why the hell should the abused be the ones to live in fear. Reset the distance every day so they don't know exactly how far they can walk without fear. Let them have a taste of their own medicine. Let them be the physical / emotional prisoners.
Um… I’m not trying to address the uselessness of a restraining order (as a deterrent) in some cases. I’m just trying to address the fact that it HELPS a potential murderer, thus becoming dangerous and not just useless in such extreme cases. I understand that the order is useless with people who do not care about the law, I thought I said as much in this very thread quite clearly. Now, you want to address the fact that a restraining order is useless in some cases. I can understand that line of thought, though I don’t think you can take it too far beyond today’s state of affairs, short of placing people under arrest for crimes they MAY commit in the future rather than crimes they HAVE committed or actively PLAN to commit (said active planning being a crime in itself). Of course, if you plan to arrest criminals before the commit their crimes, I would recommend watching Minority Report to see why such a venture is too fallible a system, unless you’ve already watched it. Hollywood movie though it may be, this one actually had a good message for a change. What we can and should change is the punishments given in those cases where physical abuse can be proven beyond doubt, because such abuse goes far beyond mere Assault and Battery, and use restraining orders only when you don’t have enough to put someone in prison. The active benefit of a restraining order, other than its questionable usefulness as a deterrent, is that breaking it acts as proof of hostile motives, and allows the police to send away a potential murderer before he commits said murder. The police already track people under restraining orders, though this procedure is grossly inefficient. I believe that in cases of a wide-range restraining order one should make use of anything short of clamping a GPS to his leg (with or without an explosive charge ;-) ), rather than generally relying on witness reports and residency registers. The simplest method to start with is to force one under a wide-range restraining order to register himself into a central database of known offenders (similar to the sex offenders database many countries have) and have him report his location and movements periodically. Further tracking methods could include credit-card usage, for example, though such methods are often frowned upon as a breach of privacy and being too close to police-state methods.
I understand what you're trying to address. I'm pointing out that it still doesn't work, because, instead of a dangerously specific order, you get a meaningless and therefore nonviable order. You're trying to address something, and I'm telling you that what you're coming up with is still useless. No. I want to address your argument that making a restraining order less specific makes it more useful and less dangerous. I believe that it becomes totally, instead of partially, useless. More or less my original point to you! Roman, I sometimes wonder what on earth kind of person you think I am. Firstly, I am not suggesting arresting people before they commit crimes (and watch your definitions - they aren't 'criminals' before they've committed the crime, are they?), I am suggesting a police response to domestic abuse that actually addresses it as a crime, takes victims seriously and works harder towards finding evidence. Secondly, I don't need to watch a film to understand the problems with unlawful detention as a preemptive measure. Don't insult me, please. I believe we should also start taking potential cases of abuse more seriously. The treatment of rape victims has got better over the years - though it still has a long way to go - and I think we need a similar campaign for fair treatment of victims of domestic abuse. It needs to start before we even get to the point of proof beyond doubt. A very good point. However, this benefit is lost if your suggestions are followed, because breaking the restraining order ceases to act as evidence of intention and only acts as evidence of an unworkable order. Furthermore, is it worth putting the victim in danger by placing a restraining order, just to potentially get proof of hostile motives? Although it's probably a good idea, I don't think this can be justified given a lack of evidence against the individual, assuming he or she would be in jail if there were more evidence. Providing this was available only to officials and not to potential vigilantes. Registers of sex offenders have caused enough problems. I would call this unnecessarily intrusive and definitely too close to police-state methods.
I know it doesn't work. I said it doesn't work. Twice now. We don't have that many alternatives that *do* work, though, is what I'm saying, so I'm trying to address a flaw that turns "useless" into "fatal", because we're still stuck with the "useless" in many cases. Perhaps the answer in such cases where the legal system fails in such a manner is indeed to simply cut and run. The default option when there's not enough physical evidence is still a restraining order, though. And people will still use that option. I was referring to your own arguments, rather than your replies to mine. And I merely argued that this makes a restraining order less dangerous, not more useful. It's useless in such cases. Now I'm saying it yet again. Your arguments try to address this issue before it even gets to a restraining order (which can be useless), thus making it less relevant an issue altogether. Does that make the way I've read your arguments clearer? Same point, different facet of the issue. Your point addressed restraining orders, mine addressed what you do before restraining orders become a relevant issue. I was replying to your arguments, rather than to your reply to my arguments. You know, I'm not quite sure who's saying what anymore myself. Potential criminals, then. And I did not intend to insult you. I was merely addressing the issue of possible prediction of human behavior by way of psychology, social science, and even chaos theory. Minority Report had psychics with limited sight into the future. It is by way of this limit (of not seeing the entire picture) and how easily such a system can be abused, that the movie tried to pass along its smarter points. And I haven't even gone into the philosophical aspects of freedom of choice and whatnot. See? Merely an extremely obscure issue of the kind I'm so fond of raising (which I thought you noticed by now) rather than an insult. ;-) And as usual, my mistake is in assuming that other people follow the same obscure lines of thought like myself. You have my apology for any insult you have taken from my words. Yes, you're right. The legal benefit of a restraining order is lost until such a point as it can be legally proven that the recipient was aware (and actively seeking) the person protected by said restraining order. Perhaps it is indeed best to simply not take out a restraining order if one is in such a situation, but some people still will. People believe in the legal system, and not every policeman is clever enough to say that in such a case relying too much on it is dangerous. So perhaps it would be best to more clearly stress the risks involved and advise not to take one in so dangerous a scenario, as a rule rather than to rely on the initiative of this or that policeman or lawyer. If there's enough evidence for a restraining order, there's enough to assume potential risk. Is that enough to implement better tracking methods of such people? Maybe, maybe not. It's a very gray issue. I agree completely. I tend to agree, personally. I can justify such methods for matters of state security, just barely.
Part of the problem here is that people seem to be assuming that every person against whom a restraining order is filed is likely to be a potential killer. This isn't the case. Not every restraining order is filed for cases of domestic violence. Granted, in cases where the person is truly dangerous, a restraining order is useless. But in cases where the man (or woman!) is simply an asshole who harasses the victim, a restraining order can do a fair amount of good. It is for these cases, Ba believes, that restraining orders were created. There, it's helpful for the victim to be able to say, "Go, or the police will come." Given that, the rules the restraining order start to make sense. The person has to know where he or she cannot go so they can reasonably avoid them. Telling them simply to "avoid the victim" is useless, since they can't possibly be expected to do so if they don't know where the victim is likely to be. What if they truly accidentally run into them? It surely wouldn't be reasonable to arrest them for that. But what if they arrange to "accidentally" run into them, and use that to continue their harassment? Nothing has changed. There's not a lot they can do against someone who might truly be dangerous in any case. But against someone who's simply making trouble, restraining orders can do a fair amount of good.
I fail to see how beating up one's wife/girlfriend (or husband/boyfriend, come to that) fails to be a crime just because they don't get killed. I have personnally seen several b****s get off scot free despite the proof, depite over a hundred sick days due to injury, that, to me, is the part that needs to be changed, I think we have established that restraining orders only work on people that don't need them. A preventive prison sentence for repeated assault on the same person would be a good start, or it would be if the prisons weren't already too full. Superman's interdimensional prison wouldn't be hanging around somewhere would it ?
What Ba said is a very good summary of what I have been attempting to say throughout, and clearly failing to get over. I also agree with Kat except to say that restraining orders do work on those with a respect for the law, which is not necessarily the same as those who don't need them. Roman, I didn't even understand all of your post, but we seem to be raking over ground that was covered by the others before you or I even posted.
Well, there is a way to make a restraining order work when dealing with an unmitigated bastard. 1. Issue a restraining order 2. Get a private investigator monitor his moves and get him to call you when the bastard walks in your home. 3. Wait for the bastard with a baseball bat. 4. As he weeps for his lost knee caps, smile sweetly and say "what you have failed to understand is that the restraining order was for your own protection. Biatch" 5. Chop an onion to get the tears flowing and call the police to clean up the mess.
Avgi,I may have to adopt your technique if my unmitigated bastard gets any worse. So far he's only guilty of being totally unoriginal and lame. Plastic ziptie wedding ring, my god what is the other woman thinking?
I like the way you think, Avgi. Only, I'd aim a bit higher than kneecaps :biggrin: I don't know how restraining orders work here, I can only imagine they are absolutely useless, looking how ineffective the police is when confronted with things that are hard to prove. My frend was harrased by and addict who lives down the street from her, stalking around her house, yelling that they should be together, in front of her window in the middle of the night, talking about her to the neighbours, slandering her.... you know, the usual idiotistic creten... The police were called, said they couldn't do anything about it. She was afraid to leave the house. The most effective was another frend, who knocked on the guys door, and politely told him that if he ever bothered her again, he'd probably disappear and never be found again, also some slum mafia was mentioned. She hasn't had any problems for 2 months now. But that only works on cowardly types who think they can pick on the weak, I'm afraid.
hmm... private investigators are expensive! Tape a LowJack silent tracking device onto the bottom of the unmitigated bastard's car? Other than that, I like Avgi's plan!
