In my previous post I discussed a citation I received from the Panamanian National Police, which I later learned was a request by Mr. Sigler for a retraining order against me. I also posted an image of the document submitted by Mr. Sigler, where he outlines the basis for his request.
In summary, there were false accusations in the document Mr. Sigler submitted. Also, the claim to having received threats from me is, I feel, unsound, as I have made it clear to Mr. Sigler in the past that any pressure I have, and will continue to put onto him, has been, and will continue to be through civil means.
Yesterday, the court issued their resolution regarding Mr. Sigler's request for a restraining order against me. The decision was made to grant Mr. Sigler the restraining order, in addition to to granting me a restraining order against Mr. Sigler (copy of my protection notice below). The resolution is confusing to me as I have never requested a restraining order against Mr. Sigler. The terms of the order state that neither party can carry out a physical or verbal act of aggression towards the other. As I stated in my previous post, I have never threatened Mr. Sigler, so I do not understand why it is necessary to issue a restraining order against me to protect Mr. Sigler from something that I have not done, and have made clear I wouldn't do. I believe this entire idea of requesting a restraining order against me is an attempt by Mr. Sigler to come across as being a victim.
In summary, there were false accusations in the document Mr. Sigler submitted. Also, the claim to having received threats from me is, I feel, unsound, as I have made it clear to Mr. Sigler in the past that any pressure I have, and will continue to put onto him, has been, and will continue to be through civil means.
The following is an update to my previous post:
------------------------------------------------
Also, I believe this resolution that was given is another example of how inefficient the Panamanian system is. Instead of making a decision, based on the facts, they issue a resolution, based on lies and half truths, in an attempt to try to please both parties, and wipe their hands clean of the responsibility of doing a proper and thorough job.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Mr. Sigler claims that on October 15, 2013, I arrived at a local restaurant, while he was having lunch with his family, and began handing out flyers in the restaurant, as well as in the streets. As I've stated before, this claim is untrue. To elaborate my side of the story, I was nowhere near the restaurant that Mr. Sigler claims I was at, and I have witnesses to confirm this.
Nonetheless, Mr. Sigler was not able to prove his false claim in court. I will pursue this attempt at obtaining a restraining order via false claims, and I can only imagine how Mr. Sigler will attempt to argue the sincerity of this claim.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Mr. Sigler claims that on October 15, 2013, I arrived at a local restaurant, while he was having lunch with his family, and began handing out flyers in the restaurant, as well as in the streets. As I've stated before, this claim is untrue. To elaborate my side of the story, I was nowhere near the restaurant that Mr. Sigler claims I was at, and I have witnesses to confirm this.
Nonetheless, Mr. Sigler was not able to prove his false claim in court. I will pursue this attempt at obtaining a restraining order via false claims, and I can only imagine how Mr. Sigler will attempt to argue the sincerity of this claim.
In any event, the criminal case has been filed, and Mr. Sigler will eventually have to answer for his actions in court. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Sigler will attempt to contest the charges that will be brought against him.
