A judicial ruling, like a law, is among what the U.S. Copyright Office terms edicts of government, and edicts of government cannot be hushed. “If either statutes or decisions could be made private property, it would be in the power of an individual to shut out the light by which we guide our actions.” Wheaton v. Peters, 33 US (8 Pet) 591, 668 (1834). Public access to judicial documents is a common law right.
Why is this worthy of mention?
Below is an excerpt from testimony given during an aborted trial proceeding that sought to have this writer jailed in 2016 for contempt of a judicial injunction. The speaker is Phil Bredfeldt, husband of Tiffany Bredfeldt, a woman the writer knew for three months in 2005 and hasn’t had any contact with since 2006, who admitted during the same prosecution that she had accused the writer “to the Court multiple times [and] to multiple police departments, detectives, federal agencies, and other officials in several states [over what has become an 11-year period].” She was eager to impress this upon a judge but less keen for the whole world to know about it. The Bredfeldts petitioned an injunction against the writer in 2013 that unconstitutionally prohibited him from talking about his own case.
One of the many heinous consequences of a restraining order process run amok is the erroneous faith, held by both trial court judges and complainants eager to conceal mischief, that judicial rulings may be suppressed. They may not be. Similarly, defendants may not be prohibited from talking about their experiences in the judicial meat mill. It’s unconstitutional.
American plaintiffs want to exploit court process yet remain anonymous; American attorneys want to bend or break the rules without having reminders of infractions they’ve been caught at available for public consumption; and American trial judges want the freedom to enter sketchy rulings and the security of knowing that those sketchy rulings will never be scrutinized.
They’re in the wrong country.
Copyright © 2017 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
Hi guys, my life is in ruins from Nebraska’s Civil Harassment Protection Order Law. I am wanting to challenge the constitutionality of the law below, because it sweeps up alot of protected speech. Nebraska mimicked California’s stalking/harassment law in 1993. It hasn’t changed much since then. If anyone has some advice on the harassment law below and its constitutionality– I’d be so so grateful!! Thank you in advance, I cannot believe how much emotional distress this has caused in my life.
28-311.09
(1) Any victim who has been harassed as defined by section 28-311.02 may file a petition and affidavit for a harassment protection order as provided in subsection (3) of this section. Upon the filing of such a petition and affidavit in support thereof, the court may issue a harassment protection order without bond enjoining the respondent from (a) imposing any restraint upon the person or liberty of the petitioner, (b) harassing, threatening, assaulting, molesting, attacking, or otherwise disturbing the peace of the petitioner, or (c) telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with the petitioner.
28-311.02-
(a) Harass means to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously terrifies, threatens, or intimidates the person and which serves no legitimate purpose;
(b) Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including a series of acts of following, detaining, restraining the personal liberty of, or stalking the person or telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with the person.
Any order issued under subsection (1) of this section may be issued EX PARTE without notice to the respondent if it reasonably appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit of the petitioner that irreparable harm, loss, or damage will result before the matter can be heard on notice.
A court may treat a petition for a harassment protection order as a petition for a sexual assault protection order or a domestic abuse protection order if it appears from the facts in the petition, affidavit, and evidence presented at a show-cause hearing that such other protection order is more appropriate and if:
(a) The court makes specific findings that such other order is more appropriate; or
(b) The petitioner has requested the court to so treat the petition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You would serve yourself well by consulting works by Prof. Eugene Volokh on civil injunctions. Try googling Volokh + civil protective order. The basic distinction is this: speech ABOUT someone is constitutionally protected; speech TO someone may qualify as harassment.
LikeLike
I intend to publish a detailed account of my own personal experience but am delaying it on the advice of my attorney. I would love to share and discuss it with you however. I have shared with several family law attorneys and have received largely positive feedback. Email me at vatech1988@gmail.com
LikeLike
Will do that now.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Falsely Accused.
LikeLike
The judges have clearly exceeded their authority of law and by nature, and therefore are subject to the justice of human nature.. The time may be coming to let our judges count their infringes upon free speech with the body bags of their brothers. Such is a part of an argument made to the SCOTUS in a petition for a writ of certiorari.
LikeLike
Would you like to write about your case here (subject to editorial review)? If you’ve already done it, you’re welcome to post a link.
LikeLiked by 1 person