Summary of Protection Order Filing

E’Lise Chard’s narrative in her June 12, 2018 Petition for Temporary Order of Protection at every stage attempts to insert herself as a central figure—both as an alleged target of threats and as a supposed causal factor in the demise of the relationship between Mr Nuno and Danielle Chard. These claims collapse under basic scrutiny of both documented factual history and legal standards for witness foundation, relevance, and prejudice.

Analysis of False Narrative

1. Absence of Foundational Knowledge: Parties Are Strangers

Legal Principle: Montana courts recognize that for testimony to be relevant and admissible, the declarant must have firsthand knowledge (Rule 602, Montana Rules of Evidence). Statements that constitute speculation, conjecture, or are plainly outside the declarant’s personal experience or observation are subject to exclusion.

Facts:

• All available evidence and documentation show minimal direct contact between E’Lise Chard and Mr Nuno: a hostile high school introduction in 2001, emergency outreach by Mr Nuno in 2015 to request housing help for Danielle after Mr Nuno had already ended the relationship due to abuse, and a handful of communications related strictly to Danielle’s well-being and mental health concerns stemming from ongoing communications displaying escalating erratic behavior.
• Both Danielle and E’Lise are estranged, with no history of mutual support, advice-giving, or significant familial interaction; E’Lise communicated to Mr Nuno that she had “disowned” Danielle when they were 18 (in 2001), as she described Danielle as a “pathological liar” and “abusive to men.” This “disownment” was also confirmed by Danielle and regularly a topic of discussion with Mr Nuno. Their estrangement extended to the point where E’Lise did not know which college degrees Danielle spent 6 years of graduate and post-graduate work to receive.

Legal Consequence: E’Lise’s claims about her involvement in the relationship, her knowledge of its inner workings, or any influence she exercised are fundamentally inadmissible speculation. She had neither proximity, nor practice, nor invitation to be privy to the couple’s private matters.

2. No Causal Role in Relationship Termination—Direct Contradiction to Documentary Evidence

Facts:

• Documentation, email, and contemporaneous witness statements all show that Danielle’s abusive behavior in 2015 led Mr Nuno to end the relationship, requiring her to leave his home causing Mr Nuno to fear for his safety, and despite the target of extreme abuse Mr Nuno seeking out E’Lise’s intervention solely as a matter of personal conscience to avoid forcing Danielle into a situation where she was left homeless without safe or stable housing. This further demonstrates Mr Nuno displayed no animus towards either Danielle or E’Lise, presented no threat, and went out of his way to see that Danielle did not come to any harm, in spite of her abuse.
• At no time did Mr Nuno attribute any responsibility for the relationship’s failure to E’Lise; no communication indicates any statement to that effect, nor did Danielle’s own claims in court filings ever include any mention of E’Lise.

Legal Analysis:

E’Lise cannot attribute to herself a motive or blame assigned by Mr Nuno that has no foundation in the words, conduct, or actions of the parties actually involved. Any assertion that Mr Nuno blamed or threatened her for “destruction of the relationship” not only fails any evidentiary standard (lacking even hearsay support), but is contradicted in records and actions of Mr Nuno.

3. Estrangement and Complete Lack of Relevance or Insight

Facts:

• E’Lise and Danielle’s estrangement predates all events relevant to the order. Their only contact was “short, superficial, and impersonal discussions,” making E’Lise “far outside the judgement” of either Danielle or Mr Nuno.
• E’Lise could not, from her position as an outsider, have observed or meaningfully opined on the circumstances at issue.