The following excerpt is from United States v. Veon, 538 F. Supp. 237 (E.D. Cal. 1982):
16 The court does recognize that under certain circumstances a restraining order may interfere with a defendant's right to select counsel of his choice. Compare United States v. Bello, 470 F.Supp. 723, with Slappy v. Morris, 649 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 2005, 72 L.Ed.2d 464. I also recognize that, as in this case, problems may arise as to state taxes due or necessary repairs on the property. While the first consideration is not without substance it does not appear of such overriding concern as to require a higher standard of proof. The latter consideration again appears to implicate property interests only. Moreover, both concerns may be adequately addressed by a properly framed order upon a motion made by a defendant for modification of the restraining order. Accordingly, neither consideration appears to warrant application of a higher standard of proof.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.