We produce a summary of the judge’s ruling that concluded the legal tussle between Mariam Issakka and Eunice Cromwell recently.
RULING BY THE COURT:
The verdict dismissing the case was rendered by Honorable Geri Pinzur Rosenberg as follows.
First of all, I have to compliment both attorneys. You were both very well prepared and did a really great job of representing your client and it’s always nice to see good lawyering.
What I need to do in coming to my ruling is looking at the statute. And under the stalking no — let me start with petitioner is correct. Petitioner’s counsel is correct that the petitioner bears the burden of proof based on a preponderance of the evidence. That is the standard.
Under the Stalking No Contact Order Act, stalking means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person. And he or she knows, or should know, that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety, the safety of a workplace, school, or place of worship, or the safety of a third person or suffer emotional distress. Reasonable person means a person in the petitioner’s circumstances with the petitioner’s knowledge of the respondent or the respondent’s prior acts.
Based on the evidence that has ben presented, petitioner simply does not meet her burden pursuant to the act. This is a reasonable person and that’s what I have to look at.
Mr. Freidberg, you may be correct that your
client may have felt fear, that may be how she’s feeling, but I have to look at the reasonable person standard. And a reasonable person would not look at this as having safety or a fear of safety or suffering emotional distress.
What I see is an ongoing dispute at which times it appears that the respondent was often reactive to what the petitioner was instigating. I think there is some real credibility issues in terms of the petitioner’s testimony in terms of the fact of not acknowledging the fact that she did call the Respondent’s mom a bitch.
I found the respondent to be extremely credible. I found the respondent to be credible in terms of incident that happened with the water. It doesn’t make sense that someone would react that way unless something was said or done in advance of that.
So I’m looking at what a reasonable person would look and not finding that the actions of the respondent are acts of stalking under the law. And therefore, the emergency order is going to be vacated and the case will be dismissed.
With that , the case was summarily dismissed.
Source: The Cromwell Family.
Disclaimer: “The views/contents expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of sankofaonline.com. sankofaonline.com will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. Our site offers content for informational purposes only. Sankofaonline.com does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment. Always consult with a physician or healthcare professional.”