What Law Allows a Permanent Criminal No-Contact Order

[Cymulacra]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: IOWA

I have not visited the state of Iowa since a trial found me guilty of improper response to a criminal threat against myself, nor have I had any contact with the complainer for whom an initial No-Contact Order was issued in 2014. This order ran out and the court reissued it, citing the original case. I found this out on my own and would like to know the statute that allows permanent no-contact orders, or permits unwarranted No Contact Orders based on the desires of the judge and/or the named party.

[PayrolGuy]

What EXACTLY were you convicted of? I don't think "improper response to a criminal threat against myself" is a charge.

[RJR]

What Constitutional provision do you believe such an Order violates. If you answer Due Process, you are not correct.

[Mr. Knowitall]

See Iowa Statutes, Chpt. 664A.

[RJR]

https://www.iowacourts.gov/static/me...87F1EC11DC.pdf

[Cymulacra]

Replying in general to this thread, it looks like the murderous slimes must be accusing my existence inside my lawful domicile as threat of forcible felony. Either that, or posing for a photo of myself along a roadway in front of my house, since the state claims it was I who broke into an open truck window and damaged a perfectly operating iqueerphone in the possession of criminal operators who admit to concealing a tiger trap in the roadway, according to Iowa's murder conspiracy against myself. I should probably add that the state also secretly hired the complainers to drive around the neighborhood in their supertruck with their guns and their german shepherd claiming trespassing by law abiding residents (state's evidence).

Seems a truth table would prove out the applicability to this matter of the following:
All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Specifically, if a video of the roadway shows the crybabies' roadway tiger trap and the court approves of the use of this to threaten the public, then they are assenting to federal jurisdiction, which holds that anyone possibly obstructing any interstate highway may be run down to their death provided evidence shows ample warning was made available to said obstructor. Regardless, I thought this was criminal no-contact threads in here until I checked the top of the screen, not childish domestic squabbles. I still do not see the legal basis in rubberstamping an illegitimate permanent order against someone who has parted with the prosecution's crapola for several years. Should I repost to a beter forum?

[Cymulacra]

So it was claimed above the only basis for a restraint to be reissued would be Iowa 664A, and since the conviction denied any violent, domestic, or sexual element, then this leaves 708.7, "severe scariness." I just tire of the click bait of this site; the routine claim that everything is illegal, that there are no laws protecting individuals, that if an individual is to be entangled by the law then relief can only come from the state deciding it isn't so sure anymore. If there has been no contact, ever, then how can there be any harassment basis, per the above citation? If the basis need only go back to the contact prior to the initial period to the already claimed contact, why are public resources used to pursue a revolving door of issuance when permanent issuance was always available? Or has this case again proven itself to be an FBI matter?

[RJR]

It appears that the only Remedy is to challenge it in Court, nothing else can be done.

[Cymulacra]

I was afraid of that. What would I call that? The jerk has always run around in public with his "concealed" carry threatening to kill me. I have to sue in order to what, presume any right to exist? Sounds like legal suicide just going in to a lawyer on that basis! Any directions?

[jk]

I was afraid of that. What would I call that? The jerk has always run around in public with his "concealed" carry threatening to kill me. I have to sue in order to what, presume any right to exist? Sounds like legal suicide just going in to a lawyer on that basis! Any directions?

You don’t appear to even be in the same state as this other party. I’m not seeing the basis of your fears expressed here.