Typical of cases stemming from court injunctions, the case that occasions this post, Raines v. Aristeo, is a he-said/she-said quagmire. Not disputed is that the woman and the man had a four-month relationship in 2010. He says he ended the relationship after learning “disturbing…information” from her ex-husband about her. She says she ended the relationship because he became “strident,” “demanding,” and “threatening.” Both acknowledge they had a business relationship outside of their personal relationship. He says she owed him money and brought criminal complaints against him to get out of paying. The specifics of this matter, which has now spanned nearly six years, are painstakingly chronicled in 18 installments by Matthew Chan on Defiantly.net, in his usual objective, comprehensive, and sleekly polished style. This post instead raises some questions: Is this, as in so many similar instances, a tempest in a teapot? Has a public interest been served by a…