The Predator’s Paper Trail: How the Law Arms the Male Stalker

​In the American legal system, there is a comfortable fiction that laws are gender-neutral. We are told that a restraining order is a "shield"—a civil tool designed to protect the vulnerable from the predatory. But for women who have lived through the reality of being hunted, this "shield" is more often a bayonet, handed by the state to the very men who intend us harm.

​This is not a failure of the system; it is the system’s design. It is what I call the "Thick as Thieves" doctrine: a collective, unspoken strategy where parasitic men utilize "neutral" laws to maintain control, steal property, and silence victims, all while law enforcement watches—or worse, assists.

​Case I: The Kidnapper’s Alibi (Camden, Maine)

​The first time the state was weaponized against me, I had just been kidnapped. I was forced to Camden, Maine, by a man who saw me as a possession rather than a person. In any sane society, the arrival of the police would have meant my rescue. Instead, it meant my entrapment.

​My predator, well-versed in the DARVO playbook (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender), didn't wait to be caught. He ran to the courthouse and filed a restraining order against me. He claimed I was stalking him and—most maliciously—threatening his son. Many years previously, back in California, I had gone to the FBI office in San Francisco and named him as a potential criminal. This patriotic act as a citizen earned me nothing.

By getting to the paper first, he flipped the script. The law didn’t see a woman escaping a kidnapper; it saw a "defendant" who was legally barred from speaking the truth. I nearly went to jail for the "crime" of being his victim. The local ADA, Chris Ferneld, was certainly a part of this trafficking ring and one of my rapists. There is a file in Camden Maine filled lies, nonsense, and illegal actions taken by Mr. Ferneld. I tried to retrieve this file myself using FOIA roughly 2 years ago, Knox county retaliated using a 90k fraudulent tax lien against me by the IRS. I had been out of the state for 5 years, but this was 2 months after I filed for the FOIA. They dropped out of contact and I never received it.

​Case II: The Squatter’s Shield (1070 Glen)

​The second time, the law was used to facilitate theft. I built my home at 1070 Glen with my own hands, I initiated the property purchase, hired the architect, and supervised the build. When my ex-husband began illegally occupying it, I did what any homeowner would do: I went to my property.

​But in the eyes of the patriarchy, a woman’s right to her own property is secondary to a man’s desire for "undisturbed" occupation. He called the police and filed a restraining order to keep me away from my own front door. The court granted it instantly. By treating a property crime as a "harassment" issue, the state effectively gave him a legal deed to a house he stole. The law didn’t protect a person; it protected a squatter from the woman he robbed.

​Case III: The Lethal System (Shared Housing)

​The third time, the system almost killed me. Living in HUD housing after having my assets stripped, I was forced into proximity with a hardened sex offender. He was a professional abuser of the legal system. According to other residents, he had filed over 20 restraining orders against the previous woman in the house to keep the police on speed-dial.They were called regularly about this woman.

​He assaulted me. He followed me into bathrooms; he cornered me in kitchens. I have extensive video evidence of his stalking on my public youtube page: Jodi Schiller, Abolitionist.

Every time I had to leave my room, I took my phone with me for safety--and still wasn't safe. It's a miracle I'm still alive.

Yet, because he had his "protective" paperwork, the police treated him as the victim every time he called--and even when I did, jailing me multiple times, him none. I was told by other members of the household that he was an ex-con with a history of being jailed for harming women. It was illegal for him to even be in the house.

This systemic immunity emboldened him until he started pulling a knives on me regularly in the kitchen. Even then, the police arrived and looked at his paper instead of his blade. They arrested the victim because the "Thick as Thieves" bond between the predator and the state was stronger than the evidence of my hundreds of videos.

​The "Thick as Thieves" Problem: A Data Conspiracy

​Why is this allowed to happen? Because the men in charge refuse to collect the data.

​When a man files 20 restraining orders against 20 different women, the system should flag him as a predator. Instead, it treats every filing as a "fresh start." This lack of data is intentional. If we tracked the "Filer History," the myth of the "scared male victim" would evaporate, revealing a reality of Litigation Abuse and Coercive Control.

​In the patriarchy, men stalk women to own them. When they accuse women of stalking, it is almost always a tactic to silence, bankrupt, or kill. They know that as long as they play the "neutral" law, the police will act as their personal hit squad.

The Primary Demand: A National Audit of Legalized Terror

Before any "fix" can work, we must break the state’s monopoly on the narrative. We don't need more "neutral" laws; we need the truth about how the current ones are being used to hunt us. Our first and most critical demand is the Mandatory Collection and Publication of Gendered Legal Data across all 50 states.

1. The "Filer-to-Victim" Ratio

We must track the history of every individual who files a restraining order.

• The Reality: Data would likely reveal a small percentage of men filing a massive percentage of orders against multiple, different women.
• The Data Need: The state must publish how many "petitioners" have prior records of violence, kidnapping, or sexual assault. This exposes the "Housing Predator" and the serial abuser not as "isolated incidents," but as statistical patterns.

2. Property Theft via Protective Order

We need a specific dataset tracking how often restraining orders result in a legal owner being barred from their own property.

• The Reality: This will expose the "Squatter’s Shield"—the use of the court to facilitate financial domestic abuse and theft.
• The Data Need: Track the direct correlation between home ownership and "defendant" status in restraining order filings.

3. Outcome Disparity: Death vs. Jail

We must track the ultimate outcome of the "protection" the state claims to provide.

• The Data Need: Compare the rates of femicide in cases where a man was the "petitioner" versus cases where a woman was.
• The Goal: To prove a lethal double standard: when men stalk women, they kill; but when men accuse women of "stalking," they are frequently using the police to facilitate a crime—be it theft, silencing, or physical entrapment.

4. The "Thick as Thieves" Police Audit

We need transparent data on the "boots on the ground" response.

• The Reality: Officers often arrest women for "technical violations" of an order while ignoring violent felonies committed by the man who filed it.
• The Data Need: Public records of all arrests made during "Protective Order" calls, cross-referenced with body-cam footage of the "petitioner's" behavior at the scene.

Closing: Ending the Dark Ages

The patriarchy survives on the anonymity of the victim and the secrecy of the predator. By demanding "lots and lots of data," we are demanding an end to the "Thick as Thieves" era.

If the data shows that 90% of "female stalkers" are actually women trying to reclaim their homes, escape kidnappers, or survive sex offenders, the current legal system loses its moral authority. We cannot fix what the state refuses to measure.