Here’s the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) that was served on me a few days ago. Lauren got one exactly like it. I would have posted it sooner, but I couldn’t figure out how to redact text in Adobe Acrobat Standard and for good reason; you can’t. You need Acrobat Professional to redact. Huh.
A few highlights to note…
On page 4, in order to avoid paying a filing fee, Alan checks the boxes that say there have been threats of violence or stalking even though that isn’t mentioned anywhere else in any allegations he makes. That’s because there isn’t and never has been any threat of violence directed at him - he’s just worried that if people find out about this that it will hurt his business. But by checking the box about violence, he avoids a fee. So Alan Boxer once again lies in order to spend less money.
The only thing I’m being accused of is publishing stuff that mentions him and yes, I’ve done that. I have the right to do that not just under the law but by the decision of the judge in the original TRO case three years ago. The only thing we’re prohibited from doing is encouraging people to contact him - and we don’t do that.
I don’t see how this could be clearer - I’ve added some emphasis to the relevant bits.
Here’s a lengthy quote from the transcript where the judge gave his order…
With regard to your website, the Court prohibits the following;
You may not directly or indirectly encourage, solicit, invite, facilitate third persons to contact Mr. Boxer. At either his website, his e-mail, his residence, his business, or his telephone number.
You have to decide what that means, directly or indirectly.
Facilitating may be linking his website with your website. And so you have to be very careful, because if the natural consequence of putting that link in there is that people out there are going to go directly to his link and send him e-mails you may be in violation of this court order, because I think that the purpose for that is to annoy and harass him. You are not doing it for any other purpose.
This does not prohibit you from having a website in which you complain about your dad.MISS STRANAHAN: Right.
THE COURT: I hate to use the expression “get over it”, because it’s not my dad so you don’t have to get over it. You are entitled to carry on in whatever lawful way you believe you can with regard to your dissatisfaction with him as a father. Okay? I can’t prohibit that under the free speech, you can write a book. You can go out in Central Park you can go out, what’s the main park in Las Angeles. You can sit on a soap box and you can tell everybody in the world what you think about your father and we could not prevent that.
But, you could not tell people on that soap box, and here his telephone number, call him. You couldn’t say, go to his website, here’s his website. Write to him. Here his e-mail address. Tell him what you think. That becomes an annoying, harassing conduct.
This order will be in place for 3 years.
