When Justice Fails: The Suppression of Freedom of Speech

Supreme Court Rules

3-17-24 Temporary Restraining Order

In a troubling turn of events, Judge Megan Julian has issued a ruling that raises serious concerns about the suppression of freedom of speech and the potential misuse of the judicial system. The current situation highlights a system that seems more focused on protecting the interests of lawyers, guardian ad litem, and the court rather than ensuring justice for those involved, particularly when there is no proof of harm.

Understanding the Case

At the heart of this issue is Stephanie, a concerned parent who has found herself navigating the complex world of family court. Despite the absence of any real evidence suggesting that her speech poses a threat, Judge Julian's order restricts her ability to speak freely about the case. This suppression not only violates her First Amendment rights but also raises questions about the motivations behind the ruling. It appears that the focus is not on protecting a child, but rather on shielding the judicial system and its representatives from scrutiny.

The records that the court is trying to keep hidden detail the misuse of the justice system itself and the abuse of a young girl. Instead of prioritizing the well-being of the child, the emphasis seems to be on protecting the status quo of those in power—judges, lawyers, and guardian ad litem. This collaboration among these parties raises significant concerns about their commitment to justice and the truth.

The Struggles of Self-Representation

What makes this situation even more frustrating for Stephanie is that she has been left to represent herself in court. With limited resources and no ability to hire another attorney, she faces an uphill battle against a system designed to work against her. The ruling not only drains her financial and emotional resources but also shows a clear misuse of power by the judge, especially in the absence of a court reporter to document the proceedings.

It is deeply concerning that the judicial system seems willing to work together to undermine families rather than support them. The lack of transparency in these rulings, combined with the suppression of voices like Stephanie's, creates an environment where truth and justice are sacrificed for the sake of convenience and the greed of money.

A Call for Change

This situation highlights a pressing need for reform within the judicial system, particularly in family courts. It is crucial to prioritize the rights of individuals and protect their freedom of speech, especially when there is no evidence of harm. The system should be designed to support families, not tear them apart.

As we consider these issues, we must advocate for transparency, accountability, and fairness in the judicial process. It’s time to ensure that all voices are heard and that the system truly works for the people, rather than for the interests of a select few.

Being Silenced: The Restraining Order

In our court system, the words and details in legal rules can greatly impact cases, especially those involving temporary restraining orders (TROs). This post looks at the concerning gap between what is needed to issue a TRO and the actual language used in these orders. We’ll focus on how this can lead to unfair cooperation among those in power, which might harm the justice system.

Understanding the Law: A Closer Look at Rule 92.02

According to Rule 92.02(a)(1), a court is not permitted to grant a temporary restraining order unless the party seeking relief can convincingly demonstrate that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result without such relief.

This legal requirement serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that the issuance of a TRO is not taken lightly and is justified by a clear and imminent threat.

Contrast this with the often-used language in restraining orders themselves, which states that harm "may" occur. This subtle yet significant difference raises questions about the integrity of the judicial process. The word "will" imposes a definitive expectation of harm, while "may" introduces ambiguity, potentially undermining the seriousness of the order.

Additionally, temporary restraining orders (TROs) must be backed by a verified petition or affidavit that details specific facts, as stated in Rule 92.02(a)(2). However, if courts begin to accept unclear claims of potential harm, this can create opportunities for collusion.

Furthermore, the absence of a court reporter during the proceedings raises significant concerns regarding compliance with the law. Rule 92.02 requires that a temporary restraining order (TRO) be issued only after a clear demonstration of immediate harm and that specific facts supporting this claim be documented.

Without a court reporter to accurately record the proceedings, there is no official account of the evidence presented, making it difficult to ensure that these legal standards are met.

This lack of documentation can undermine the integrity of the judicial process and potentially violate the rights of those involved by obscuring the truth of what transpired in court.