I think the strongest argument other than any improper contact or violations since the injunction was issued is why would she spend the time and money to vacate the injunction if she has moved on with her life and never harrassed you? If you have any evidence that she has violated the injunction let the judge know, does the injunction provide she cannot possess a gun, if so the picture is important, also whether she has committed any crimes since the injunction, anything that would indicate she is still a threat. I agree with the other lawyer it is hard to predict what the judge will do.
Legal disclaimer:This message does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Any statements are made for general informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client privilege is created by this communication. Attorney is licensed in California only.
It's impossible to know what the chances of a judge dismissing an injunction that has been in place for 8 years without knowing all of the facts. How does this person intend to prove that you lied? What evidence does she have? If there is a video from 8 years ago where you admit to lying and that you will be filing for an injunction under false pretenses, then it might be vacated. But it's hard to imagine that a scenario exists where she will be able to prove any of her "outlandish" claims. The mere fact that she has a picture holding a gun is frankly irrelevant.
This is not to be considered legal advice nor does an attorney-client relationship exist.
Lots of possibilities because there are arguments on each side. Hard to predict what judge will think about both sides' evidence. The other party as posted abiout this on Avvo already.
So long as you prove to the court that you still have valid grounds for the injunction it will remain in place. Contact my office for free consultation 727-446-7659
It depends on what kind of competent evidence she has to support her claims. If, as you say, the Motion is filled with lies she will be unable to substantiate her claims other then lying herself. The gun in itself is not enough to keep your injunction in affect. As another attorney pointed out, this would only be relevant is she is not supposed to be in possession of firearms.