Last Updated: June 2026
The appellate court affirmed a plenary order of protection after finding that the parties were in a dating relationship in 2016 and that later online videos constituted harassment. This page presents a transcript‑anchored rebuttal showing that the factual findings relied upon by the appellate court conflict with the certified record, sworn testimony, statutory definitions, and the petitioner’s own statements.
| Court Said | Transcript Shows |
|---|---|
| The parties went on three dates. | Petitioner twice: “I went on one date.” (R‑2, R‑3) |
| The relationship was romantic. | Petitioner: “I would not have called him my boyfriend.” (R‑4) |
| They communicated for nearly three months. | Messages show scattered, comedy‑related exchanges — not romantic, not daily. |
| The arm‑grab occurred the day after the bar incident. | First appears 4.5 years later; no witnesses; date discrepancy (“July” vs. May 23). |
| Bar visits were dates. | Both parties: she was bartending; he was a patron. Statutorily excluded as “ordinary fraternization.” |
“For purposes of this paragraph, neither a casual acquaintanceship nor ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute a dating relationship.”
All three in‑person interactions occurred in business/social contexts: comedy open mics and bartending shifts. The appellate opinion does not address this statutory exclusion.
These upgrades track litigation posture, not memory. Exhibit B contradicts Stage 3 entirely.
Business/social context. Not a date.
She was bartending; he was a patron. Statutorily excluded.
Open mic + bartending shift. She asked him to leave. Her own text: “second time you’ve been here.”
First appears in 2020. No witnesses. No report. Denied under oath. Date discrepancy (“July” vs. May).