Women’s Advocacy, Quasi-Law Not Law
The Alaska Court System Family Law Self-Help Center defines Domestic Violence:
|Domestic Violence or Abuse
|Violence or abuse is a pattern of behavior used to establish power and control over another person through fear and intimidation, often including the threat or actual use of violence. Abuse of family members can take many forms, including emotional abuse, economic abuse, sexual abuse, using children, threats, intimidation, isolation, and a variety of other behaviors used to maintain fear, intimidation and power. In Alaska you can get a Domestic Violence Protective Order if you have a “household” relationship with the opposing party and he/she committed a crime of domestic violence against you, such as assault, burglary, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, terroristic threatening, violating a domestic violence order, or harassment. See AS 18.66.100 to read more about protective orders.|
The Alaska Family Law Self-Help website is specifically there to offer legal advice, yet their definition of domestic violence is intentionally conflated to include more than the actual statutory definition.
Interestingly, Judge Praxidike said in her findings in the divorce decree that Westley had committed “domestic verbal abuse” during the marriage. It’s a term not defined in Alaska Statute, thus it could have a variety of meanings, even a common argument. The Judge actually coined the phrase, plus there was no evidence, and none stated in support of her finding.
Alaska Statute defines Domestic Violence as a crime: Sec. 18.66.990.
Definitions In this chapter:
(3) “domestic violence” and “crime involving domestic violence” mean one or more of the following offenses or an offense under a law or ordinance of another jurisdiction having elements similar to these offenses, or an attempt to commit the offense, by a household member against another household member:
(A) a crime against the person under AS 11.41;
(B) burglary under AS 11.46.300 – 11.46.310;
(C) criminal trespass under AS 11.46.320 – 11.46.330;
(D) arson or criminally negligent burning under AS 11.46.400 – 11.46.430;
(E) criminal mischief under AS 11.46.475 – 11.46.486;
(F) terrorist threatening under AS 11.56.807 or 11.56.810;
(G) violating a protective order under AS 11.56.740 (a)(1); or
(H) harassment under AS 11.61.120 (a)(2) – (4);
The following is an excerpt of a motion Westley submitted in another court action, which shows how perverse the concept of “abuse” is conflated with actual law. And this is just one other blatant example, selected out of several choices.
I draw this court’s attention to the first sentence on page 2, of the Opposition documents. Quoting Mr. Shiser: “Ms. Karenko raised claims for domestic verbal abuse which were sustained at trial.” There are several reasons I ask this court to notice that assertion. First is because it has nothing to do with the situation before this court regarding Nomos’ behavior in violation of the automatic stay. Thus the question arises – Why would Mr. Shiser mention it? Second is because I want this court to recognize that the terms “domestic verbal abuse” has no context in the law, especially bankruptcy law, but also none within civil or criminal law. Mr. Shiser has made the mistake that Mr. Nomos made. He has blatantly attempted to use the claims of a Ukrainian sociopath scammer to slant the opinion of this court, and with no basis in context with the law.
Most notably, the irony is that it’s not relevant in a no-fault divorce bench trial, with no standard or burden for proof. Also, it’s a defendant concept, and Westley was the plaintiff, at least in theory and on court records. Likewise, even if it exists, it’s no defense for fraud. Those three words “domestic verbal abuse” were discretionary words coined by Judge Praxidike. Above all they are a clear window into the mind of a presupposed activist judge, who will readily trump law with her personal moral mandates, and who was obviously influenced by Karenko’s false claims. In Westley’s view, simply coining those words, and using them in a quasi-legal context in family law cases is “Discretionary Judicial Abuse”. Although they had no legal basis, she gave them effect within the Trial and in her Findings, the Judgment and Opinion, and they were not proven as fact to have occurred or to have consequence on the marriage.
The simple FACT that the judge included the term “domestic verbal abuse” in her findings means she wasted court time, plaintiff time, the public’s time, in adjudicating something that has no context in law, but instead founded entirely in her personal moral mandates.