Dr. Bandy Lee accuses the Bergen County, New Jersey Family Court, and GAL Evelyn Nissirios of suppressing free speech and covering up child abuse with unconstitutional protective orders.
I recently helped with a motion for recon on a friend being held in contempt for violation of the gag. Even seen one go to jail here in sc for “violating” gag. I’m happy to send the draft of the motion with recent relevant case law if that could be helpful.
Feel free to send along. It is beyond the pale that these Family Court Judges and Court Appointees - all lawyers - believe they are above the Constitution. It smacks of TREASON!
Hope this helps. I can send the rest if you’d like - perhaps by email.
d. The gag order in this case is a “prior restraint,” enacted before communication occurs, and “[p]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”
e. Though it is settled law that the State has “legitimate power to protect children from harm,” but that… does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.
f. Since the gag order in this case is a “content based” order, it must be narrowly tailored and show that the compelling interest is likely to be achieved by such an order.
g. A notable case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court argued by Attorneys Richard Ducote and Victoria McIntyre involved their client, S.S, being “gagged” after S.S. held a press conference with graphic details of the child’s alleged, (unfounded), sexual abuse by Father.
i. The narrowly defined gag order of Mother stipulated that she and her attorneys COULD continue to talk and publish publicly, even to Congress or in a press conference, if done so with anonymity to protect the child.
h. Another recent case from the Arizona Court of Appeals found that “[A]s important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parent’s use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden of justifying a prior restraint.” In summary, to prove a compelling government interest for a prior restraint on a parent’s right to free speech, the record must offer evidence of actual or threatened physical or emotional harm to the child.
I recently helped with a motion for recon on a friend being held in contempt for violation of the gag. Even seen one go to jail here in sc for “violating” gag. I’m happy to send the draft of the motion with recent relevant case law if that could be helpful.
Feel free to send along. It is beyond the pale that these Family Court Judges and Court Appointees - all lawyers - believe they are above the Constitution. It smacks of TREASON!
Hope this helps. I can send the rest if you’d like - perhaps by email.
d. The gag order in this case is a “prior restraint,” enacted before communication occurs, and “[p]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”
e. Though it is settled law that the State has “legitimate power to protect children from harm,” but that… does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.
f. Since the gag order in this case is a “content based” order, it must be narrowly tailored and show that the compelling interest is likely to be achieved by such an order.
g. A notable case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court argued by Attorneys Richard Ducote and Victoria McIntyre involved their client, S.S, being “gagged” after S.S. held a press conference with graphic details of the child’s alleged, (unfounded), sexual abuse by Father.
i. The narrowly defined gag order of Mother stipulated that she and her attorneys COULD continue to talk and publish publicly, even to Congress or in a press conference, if done so with anonymity to protect the child.
h. Another recent case from the Arizona Court of Appeals found that “[A]s important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parent’s use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden of justifying a prior restraint.” In summary, to prove a compelling government interest for a prior restraint on a parent’s right to free speech, the record must offer evidence of actual or threatened physical or emotional harm to the child.