SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DIVISION

GREGORY SLATE Petitioner

V. Case Number: 2010 CPO 4129

TYRA RASMUS aka TYRA FERRELL Respondent

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 7(d) of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the Domestic Violence

Unit of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the Civil Protection Order will

remain in effect until the Court rules on Petitioner's Motion to Extend.

Petitioner, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court extend the Civil Protection Order (CPU) that was entered in this matter on April 13, 2011.

In support of this Motion, Petitioner states as follows:

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Prior to Petitioner filing for this CPO, Respondent had been stalking Petitioner fbr

approximately three years. In addition, in September 2008, Respondent threatened Petitioner

with bodily harm. On April 13, 2011, Petitioner obtained a consent CPU without admissions

against Respondent. The CPO ordered, inter a/ia, that Respondent remove all content under her

possession, custody or control relating to Petitioner from any and all websites under her control.

On May 10. 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion to Adjudicate Criminal Contempt against

Respondent after discovering numerous websites under Petitioner's control on which material

was posted about Petitioner. On September 16, 2011. Petitioner withdrew this Motion to

"serves as a potential deterrent and provides a measure of peace ol'mind for those for whose

benefit it was issued." 14 at 43).

In considering the "balance of harms." the potential harm to Petitioner if the order is not

extended is substantial. If the Court does not extend the CPO it could result "in loosening the

inhibitions against the resumption of [Respondent's] ... prior assaultive conduct," Cruz-Foster at

930. In contrast, the potential harm to Respondent if the CPU is extended is minimal.

Given the events leading up to Petitioner obtaining the CPO, the finding of contempt, and

the Respondent's indication that the only thing restraining her behavior is the CPU, Petitioner

fears that Respondent will resume stalking him as soon as the CPU expires and therefore requests

that the Court extend the CPU for another year.

Respectfully submitted,

IRVIN B. NATHAN Attorney General for the District of Columbia

k CORY CHANDLER Deputy Attorney General, Family Services Division

JANESIE BECIITUL Assistant Attorney General Bar Number: 449179 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7832 E-mail: janese.beehtoldc.gov

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE UNIT

* 500 INDIANA AVENUE, NW / WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

- - (202) 879-0157

GREGORY SLATE, Petitioner Case No. 2010 CPO 004129

TYRA RASMUS,Respondent

TO: TYRA RASMUS

NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER TO APPEAR

You are commanded to appear in person in Courtroom Courtroom 113 of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C., on 04/1012012. at 9:00 am for an evidentiary hearing, where the Court will consider:

E A Petition and Affidavit for a Civil Protection Order which has been filed against you. A copy is attached.

F A Motion to ModifCEeCivil Protection Order has been filed against you. A copy is attached

F- A copy is attached.

You should carefully review the document that has been filed against you so that you can be fully prepared for the court hearing.

The attached Petition or Motion contains a request for: F child support

r spousal support

F property damage reimbursement

F attorney's fees

F other:

As a result, YOU MUST bring the following documents to the hearing:

1- Two recent pay stubs or wage statements from your present or most recent employer; 2- Income tax returns for the past two years: AND 3- An Employer's Statement form (attached), fully completed and signed by your current or most recent

employer.

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THIS HEARING A BENCH WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST

Witnessed by the Honorable Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

By: Laurel Simon Deputy Clerk

Copy: Court Record - Respondent - Petitioner/ACC/Attorney DVNOH&OA.doe

SUPERIOR COURT OF

ü?

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DIVISION ThU ta 20 PU:

GREGORY SLATE Petitioner

;tLED V. Case Number: 2010 CPO 4129

TYRA RASMTJS aka TYRA FERRELL Respondent

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 7(d) of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the Domestic Violence

Unit of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the Civil Protection Order will

remain in effect until the Court rules on Petitioner's Motion to Extend.

Petitioner, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court extend the Civil Protection Order (CPO) that was entered in this matter on April 13, 2011.

In support of this Motion, Petitioner states as follows:

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

Prior to Petitioner filing for this CPO, Respondent had been stalking Petitioner for

approximately three years. In addition, in September 2008, Respondent threatened Petitioner

with bodily harm. On April 13, 2011, Petitioner obtained a consent CPO without admissions

against Respondent. The CPO ordered, inter cilia, that Respondent remove all content under her

possession, custody or control relating to Petitioner from any and all websites under her control.

On May 10, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion to Adjudicate Criminal Contempt against

Respondent after discovering numerous websites under Petitioner's control on which material

was posted about Petitioner. On September 16, 2011, Petitioner withdrew this Motion to

Adjudicate Criminal Contempt in exchange for a Motion for Civil Contempt. On October 14,

2011, after a contested hearing, Respondent was found in civil contempt and ordered to remove

all website content related to Petitioner or pay a fine of $50 per day to Petitioner. Under threat of

contempt sanctions, Respondent complied with the order. Respondent, however, indicated her

intent to resume these actions as soon as the GPO expired.

ARGUMENT

Petitioner must show good cause why the GPO should be extended. $çç D.C. Code § 16-

1005(d). The factors to be considered in deciding whether "good cause" exists are described in

Cruz-Foster v. Foster, 597 A.2d 927, 930 (D.C. 1991). First, the Court must consider the "entire

mosaic," or the entire history of violence in the relationship between the parties, including past

violations of civil protection orders, when determining whether there is "good cause" to extend or

modify the CPO. See id. The Court in Cruz-Foster noted that "a Defendant's past conduct 1

important evidence—perhaps the most important—in predicting his probable future conduct."

Id. Another factor to consider in making this determination is the "balance of harms," which

weighs the potential danger of not extending the CPO against the harm caused to Respondent in

granting the extension. j.

There is good cause for the Court to extend the Petitioner's CPO. Prior to the CPO being

entered, Respondent stalked Petitioner and threatened him. Based on this history, the Court has

reason to believe that unless the GPO is extended, Respondent will resume, and may escalate,

this behavior. In addition, Respondent has failed to comply with the GPO. Moreover, this GPO

has been a deterrent to the actions of Respondent, and this important deterrent effect was noted

by the Court in Maldonado v. Maldonado. 631 A.2d 40 (D.C. 1993) (a Civil Protection Order

"serves as a potential deterrent and provides a measure of peace of mind for those for whose

benefit it was issued." Id. at 43).

In considering the "balance of harms," the potential harm to Petitioner if the order is not

extended is substantial. If the Court does not extend the CPU it could result "in loosening the

inhibitions against the resumption of [Respondent's] .. prior assaultive conduct." Cruz-Foster at

930. In contrast, the potential harm to Respondent if the CPU is extended is minimal.

Given the events leading up to Petitioner obtaining the CPU, the finding of contempt, and

the Respondent's indication that the only thing restraining her behavior is the CPO, Petitioner

fears that Respondent will resume stalking him as soon as the CPU expires and therefore requests

that the Court extend the CPU for another year.

Respectfully submitted,

IRVIN B. NATHAN Attorney General for the District of Columbia

CORY CHANDLER Deputy Attorney General, Family Services Division

JANESE 19ECHTOL Assistant Attorney General Bar Number: 449179 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 724-7832 E-mail: janese.bechtoldc.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 hereby certify that on March 20, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Motion was mailed by

first class mail, postage pre-paid, to Respondent at 9217 Hampton Glen Court, Tallahassee FL

32312.

JANESE ECHTOL Assistant Attorney General Bar Number: 449179