New neighbor spergs out because the people across the street have a tree in their yard. She then files a restraining order, lawsuit claiming she's being harassed, and false accusations of domestic violence against them while threatening and attempting to murder their tree (CAUTION: EXTREMELY DRAMATIC - VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED)

With Mrs. Nguyen’s petition for a restraining order dismissed, and the temporary order dissolved, Mr. Wallingford was no longer prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under Penal Code section 29825. He was therefore able to retrieve his firearms that were being stored with a licensed firearms dealer. But Mrs. Nguyen’s threatening and abusive behavior towards the Wallingfords was far from over.

Late at night on May 7, 2019, the same day Mrs. Nguyen’s civil suit was dismissed, the Wallingfords’ security cameras captured Mrs. Nguyen sneak onto their front lawn and pour bleach on the Melaleuca tree. The Wallingfords called the police, who responded and were shown the video captured by the Wallingfords’ security cameras. Id. After contacting Mrs. Nguyen, law enforcement noted that “she immediately was very rude” and advised the Wallingfords to seek a restraining order.

The next month, Mrs. Nguyen placed four images of a nude female with a large octopus tattoo along a make-shift wall facing the Wallingfords’ property. Interpreting this as a threat, the Wallingfords again called the police, who again advised them to seek a restraining order “as it seems [they were] being harassed.”

The Wallingfords’ security cameras continued to capture Mrs. Nguyen damaging the Wallingfords’ property, making rude gestures, and making verbal threats of violence. On January 3, 2019, Mrs. Nguyen was recorded yelling “old fricker white trash, next time you’ll be dead, I’ll be lucky this time, white trash, I going [sic] be lucky, you’ll be dead, fricking white trash.” And on May 24, 2019, Mrs. Nguyen was also recorded yelling “fricking pig, one shot, one shot, that’s all I need, one shot.” Video images of Mrs. Nguyen making several throat-slitting gestures, at least one of which involved the use of a knife or similar cutting instrument, were also captured. Fearing for both her and her husband’s safety as a result of Mrs. Nguyen’s verbal threats of violence and escalating behavior, Mrs. Wallingford took local police officers’ advice and petitioned for a restraining order against Mrs. Nguyen.

Before the hearing on Mrs. Wallingford’s petition, Mrs. Nguyen filed her own petitions for restraining orders against the Wallingfords. She raised the same false allegations of assault against Mr. Wallingford that the court had rejected before but also claimed that the Wallingfords’ installation of security cameras constituted harassment that needed to be restrained. The Orange County Superior Court again issued a temporary restraining order against Mr. Wallingford until a formal hearing could be held. Mr. Wallingford was thus once again forced to relinquish his firearms to a licensed firearms dealer in accordance with Penal Code section 29825 and Code of Civil Procedure section 527.9, while the temporary restraining order was in effect.

At an initial hearing, the court acknowledged that it had mistakenly read the false allegations raised by Mrs. Nguyen as new, separate allegations from those previously raised. The court added that had it realized that was the case, it would not have issued the temporary restraining order against Mr. Wallingford. Even so, the court inexplicably declined to dissolve the order as requested by the Wallingfords’ counsel while the case proceeded.

At the hearing, Mrs. Wallingford testified that she had hired Del Moore Security Systems to install three security cameras following Mrs. Nguyen’s renewed allegations because she “didn’t want to not be able to have proof of some kind of allegation like that should it happen in the future.” She also testified that she had Del Moore return to install additional cameras that would capture the entrances to the Wallingfords’ property from the street and backyard through the side gate, as well as their property line because “damage was being done to [their] property that were not completely visible from the existing original cameras.”

Another hearing was held on October 21, 2019, at which Mrs. Wallingford testified that even after the last hearing, the security cameras continued to capture Mrs. Nguyen engage in rude and threatening behavior and throwing trash and debris into the Wallingfords’ backyard. She also testified that she, with assistance of the camera-company’s technical support, limited the cameras’ ability to record any images of Mrs. Nguyen’s property. No evidence was ever presented that Mr. Wallingford installed the security cameras or directed their placement. What’s more, he was never called to testify and was, in fact, ordered to remain outside for most of the hearing while Mrs. Wallingford testified. At the end of the October 21, 2019 hearing, the superior court took the petitions under submission. The court issued a decision on November 1, 2019.

In its opinion, the superior court found that Mrs. Wallingford had established by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Nguyen’s behavior constituted harassment under Section 527.6. Specifically, the court found “no legitimate purpose to making a throat-slashing gesture towards Miranda’s security cameras, or too mooning the cameras, spraying the cameras with water, or other similar conduct directed towards the cameras.” Id. The court also found Mrs. Nguyen had “no legitimate purpose to throwing leaves, bleach, or other items on Miranda’s property.” Id. The court thus granted Mrs. Wallingford’s petition for a restraining order against Mrs. Nguyen.

The court also held that the Wallingfords’ cameras constituted harassment under Section 527.6. But the court also expressly noted that the cameras “have since been repositioned such that they point only at areas of the Nguyen’s residence in public view, which the court finds acceptable.” In other words, where and how the Wallingfords’ security cameras were installed at the time of the hearing did not constitute “harassment” under Section 527.6. Even so, the court granted Mrs. Nguyen’s petitions for restraining orders against both Wallingfords—despite no other findings of harassing behavior or that either is a danger to the public or themselves, and even though there was no evidence that Mr. Wallingford was involved in the installation of the cameras.

Mr. Wallingford is suffering from leukemia and has had other health issues during the last two years. Coupled with the Covid-19 pandemic that precluded the Wallingfords from meeting with counsel during that period, the Wallingfords have been hindered in seeking this relief until now.