Tiffany Bredfelt’s Free Speech Suppression, Prior Restraint Court Order Against Todd Greene

Tiffany Bredfeldt
Tiffany Bredfeldt

I have previously written about Tiffany Bredfelt’s unwarranted legal attacks against Todd Greene (of RestrainingOrderAbuse.com) using an unconstitutional court order (issued by Judge Carmine Cornelio of the Pima County Superior Court of Arizona) which overly restricts and unfairly suppresses his free speech rights to express facts and opinions on his own website about her, her friends, her allies, their prior relationship, and their legal disputes.

The purpose of this post is to draw attention and put on display specific court orders so that the general public can see for themselves how individuals can lose their free speech rights from misguided and uninformed judges that work within local and lower court systems. This happens far more often that most people realize in local and lower courts (where there is little oversight or accountability) and they frequently happen with individuals who do not have knowledgeable lawyers representing them.

 

.

For reading convenience, I have pasted below the core text of the court order (BOLD is my emphasis):

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause to issue a Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED.

2. The defendant is ordered and enjoined from having direct communications, or initiating any direct communications with any of the plaintiffs’ employees, employers, or family members.

3. The defendant shall immediately remove from his website, images of the plaintiffs. The defendant is given the opportunity to show the Court how to fashion an order and solve the problem as the Court does not want to issue an order requiring the defendant to remove significant portions of his website or blog or order it removed in its entirety. This Court will issue future orders that require him to remove, replace, filter or change the website as he is characterizing the plaintiffs in a false light, invades their privacy or is defamatory. This includes, but is not limited to referring to her as a perjurer, skank, dishonest, etc. The Court is also troubled by the amount of “tags” and personal connection of the plaintiffs to many of the “tags”. The Court finds the “tags” used by the defendant has been done for purposes of retaliation, vindictiveness or vengeance.

4. The defendant shall no later than August 4, 2013, file with the Court along with a copy to Mr. Marks, in writing, his plan to redact, remove, replace or otherwise “sanitize” significant portions of his website and all of its postings from the beginning through now, with respect to charges against the plaintiffs regarding fraudulent conduct, perjury, criminal conduct, “skankiness”, sexual impropriety, etc., which shall be removed from the public discourse on the Internet which will demonstrate to the Court the defendant’s purpose, how to proceed, and what the defendant has done and what he is seeking to accomplish.

5. Mr. Marks shall prepare an order and submit same to defendant Greene, and upon approval as to form, Mr. Marks shall submit same to the Court for review and signature regarding the defendant not having contact, direct, or otherwise with the plaintiffs, their family members, employees, employers, prospective employers, past employees and employers, friends, etc. and removal of photographs regarding the plaintiffs.

6. The defendant shall immediately cease and desist all future publications on his website or otherwise.

7. Mr. Marks shall review and file any proposed changes or alternatively his own order no later than August 15, 2013. Upon receipt and review, the Court will set the matter for hearing regarding additional orders. The Court will, at that time, conduct a Status Conference on the balance of the case.

8. Until that time, the defendant, shall not make additional publications, oral, written, web based or other communications / publications, regarding the plaintiffs to colleagues, national organizations, family members, employees, employers, regarding the Injunction Against Harassment, the appeal and the history surrounding the Injunction Against Harassment, the factual and contested factual basis and plaintiff Tiffany Bredfeldt’s testimony from this date forward, including reference or inference to the defendant’s own case until further order of the Court.

9. The parties shall attend a Settlement Conference with a judge in early September 2013; plaintiffs may appear telephonically. All parties shall be present, including those telephonically, and all parties shall be engaged in the process and treat the matter with all seriousness.

LATER IN CHAMBERS,

The Court sees no need for a bond greater than $1.00, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED same shall be posted by the defendant forthwith.

Further, the defendant shall immediately remove all “tags” associated in any way, direct or indirect, to plaintiff, her employer, or occupation.

The Court signs the minute entry in lieu of a formal order.

Honorable Carm Cornelio

.

As you can plainly see, there is plenty of troubling verbiage in this Order that is excessive, overbroad, overly suppressive, and overly restrictive.It is an order Todd looks to appeal one day but doesn’t currently have the financial or legal resources to pursue.

As some of you know, my opinions have been greatly shaped and influenced by direct experience of my own cases:  Ellis v. Chan and the subsequent appeal, Chan v. Ellis which I was handed a unanimous victory and reversal by all seven Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court.

There are two very influential legal papers that have greatly shaped my opinions of the epidemic of abusive restraining orders / civil court orders that illegally and unconstitutionally restrict and suppress the free speech of individuals:

Anyone who is placed under an overly-restrictive, free-speech suppressive, prior restraint, court order must read these two legal papers. What is extremely troubling is that it is actually quite common and it happens throughout the U.S. in lower courts (where there is little oversight) against individuals unrepresented by a knowledgeable attorney/lawyer.

I will be posting more overly-restrictive, free speech suppression, prior restraint, court orders that come to my attention.

=====

Follow Defiantly on Twitter at http://twitter.com/defiantlynet or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at http://facebook.com/defiantly.net. Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.

=====

About Matthew Chan 103 Articles

Matthew is the Publisher and Editor of Defiantly.net. He is also the Founder, Editor, and Host for ExtortionLetterInfo.com. Matthew is the author of several business books & audio programs. He is an entrepreneur, real estate investor, and First Amendment advocate.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. If a Judge Has Unlawfully Ordered You Never to Speak or Write ABOUT Someone, Matthew Chan Wants to Tell Your Story | TALKING BACK to restraining orders

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*