Another Police Call: What I Was Told and How I Responded

What I was told about another report

After the earlier police contact I have described, I received another phone call from someone I understood to be an officer with the police department where I live. The caller said my mother had contacted them again and asked whether I felt like killing myself or harming somebody else.

I asked whether she had just called and said that. The caller answered, “Yes, she did.” My understanding is that my mother, Luisa Mora, had again reported that I was at immediate risk of harming myself. I dispute that account of how I was feeling. I did not hear her conversation with police, and this transcript does not reproduce her original words.

I was eating dinner, and I denied those intentions

I told the caller that I had no intention of harming myself or anyone else. I explained that I was eating pasta with my girlfriend and a good friend, enjoying our evening. I said I had nothing like that on my mind. That was my account of what I was doing and how I felt during the call.

The caller responded that they had to ask. I want that exchange to be clear: a concern was put to me, and I directly denied the intentions described. This is not a clinical assessment. It is what I said in response to the questions during that conversation.

Why this felt like another attempt to control me

I believe this was another attempt to have police come into my apartment and have me taken to a hospital against my wishes. I experienced it as an attempt to control me and pressure me into silence while I am sharing my story. That is my interpretation of the report and its timing, not knowledge of my mother's intentions.

It connects, for me, to the earlier hospitalizations and family experiences I have written about. The phone conversation supplied here does not establish that police entered my apartment, attempted to remove me, or hospitalized me on this occasion. I am describing what I feared the report was meant to cause, rather than claiming those events occurred during this call.

I do not want the fear of another disputed report to erase my voice. I want to document what I am told and how I respond, while keeping the differences between my own experience, another person's statements, and my interpretation visible to readers.

What the caller said about the order and my website

The caller then said they had noticed a reference to cyber harassment in the material they were looking at. They said they did not know what my mother was claiming. They warned that if I broke the protection order and an extraditable arrest warrant resulted, local police would have to arrest me. That was a conditional warning, not a statement in this call that a warrant had already been issued.

I asked whether they were telling me to delete my website. The caller said, “It doesn't say you have to delete your website.” The same response also referred to cyber harassment, and the caller repeatedly warned me not to put myself in a situation that could give grounds for arrest. I am not treating the sentence about deleting the website as permission for everything that might be published on it.

I said I was not contacting my parents. The caller also discussed contact with relatives and warned against using another person to pass a message indirectly. These were statements made to me in a phone conversation. This page is not a reading of the written order, a court decision about this website, or a determination of what the order permits.

The second call: “Stop, stop, stop with the online blog posts”

I identify the second conversation as a call from the West Milford Police Department. The caller introduced himself as Officer Canova. The transcript records that introduction, but it does not separately establish the department or verify the caller's identity.

At the start, the caller said the conversation was recorded on their side too. He asked whether I had been served with a restraining order, and I answered yes. I told him I was not reaching out to my parents and had not communicated with them in over a year.

The caller spoke about posting online and harassing communications. I denied that I was harassing my parents. He called the conversation another warning and then directly told me to stop the online blog posts.

The words “Don't get yourself in any trouble.” were part of that same warning. To me, being told to stop the posts about my experience was an attempt to intimidate and silence me, not simply an abstract discussion of an order.

Read the complete second-call transcript ↗

Why I feel West Milford police are taking my parents' side

From my perspective, the West Milford Police Department is siding with the people I describe as having abused me. The instruction to stop my online posts left me feeling that my account of that abuse was being treated as something to suppress. That is how I experienced this interaction; the call does not establish the views or actions of every person in the department.

I believe my mother's reported contact with police is part of an effort to intimidate and silence me. Taken together with these warnings, it feels like harassment to me. I am describing the pattern as I experience it, not claiming that this page establishes a legal finding of harassment or a shared plan between my mother and police.

In the exchange, I asked whether I was being told to stay quiet about the abuse I describe. My question included an accusation about my parents, and I ended the call with an insult. Both are retained in the transcript. My wording during the call is not independent proof of that accusation.

The caller's final response included, “Whatever happens next, that's on you.” I found that intimidating. I want readers to see the actual exchange, including my own responses, rather than only my description of it.

The first caller's statement about not deleting my website and this second caller's instruction to stop blog posts are preserved separately. I am not treating either phone conversation as a substitute for the written order or as a court decision about what I may publish.

Keeping a record without replacing the main story

At the end of the first call, I asked for the report number and asked what it covered. The caller said it concerned our phone conversation and confirmed my question about my mother having just called. The public transcript replaces the report identifier with a marked redaction; it does not include a police record or purport to authenticate one.

This is a further update, not a replacement for the anonymous contributor's account. Her account remains the featured announcement on the homepage. I am keeping these conversations together on their own page so that readers can follow the sequence without combining different people's experiences or treating one account as proof of another.

For me, documenting these calls is part of making the pressure I feel visible. I believe I am being intimidated into silence, and I want to describe that experience clearly without presenting my interpretation as something the transcripts independently prove.