Those who control the courts in Miami-Dade do not believe the litigants whose lives they destroy have a first amendment right.
Eric Satin, Gabe Shapiro, and Jennifer Tolston each were interviewed on the livestream I do with Megan Fox.
Each was then faced with either the threat of their 1st amendment rights being removed or actually having them removed.
Satin was interviewed on the livestream on June 23, 2021, starting about forty minutes in.
The Former Husband’s Notice of Filing Video Recording of Former Husband’s Interview dated June 23, 2021 has a direct link to his social media posting about this case. The Former Husband posted his on social media page and stated “I’m sharing my interview from this afternoon about the corruption in my family court case. My segment starts at 42 minute mark”. Moreover, the Husband posted on his Facebook page the link to another video the “journalist’s” website, but also states “Start this video at 33 minutes... there is an investigation into the family court corruption involving my ex-wife, the judge and the guardian involved in my case. I still have no access to my children. Please pray for my kids and me.” As stated above, the video in the link is an interview of the Former Husband discussing the details of this case, the individuals in this case, the Former Wife, and the minor children. The Former Husband also plays a portion of a police body camera from a domestic violence incident in March 2020.
The motion continued,
To compound the above, the “journalist” posted a blog on his website including a video of a timesharing exchange from last year, conveniently blurred out the Former Husband’s cousin, but not the Former Wife. The minor children are present. The location is clearly visible. Furthermore, the website posts a supervision report of a previous supervised visit between the Father and the minor daughter. Clearly, this information was obtained from the Former Husband.
That motion led to a hearing in front of Judge Samantha Ruiz Cohen.
The Former Husband is hereby enjoined from providing any media outlet, social media platform, or any third party not directly associated with this case or otherwise authorized under this order from discussing or releasing any information related to this case, including, but not limited to, any filings or information provided verbally or in writing in this case, information related to the minor children as it relates to this case, information related to supervised visits, sexual abuse allegations, names of the children, videos related to the children or that disclose their residence, and information regarding any allegations in this case related any sensitive information of the children.
The Former Husband and his counsel, Leslie Ferderigos, esquire, upon entry of this Order, shall immediately serve a written request, copying the Wife’s counsel, to Michael Volpe and Kenneth Rosa and any other media outlet or third party, to remove any information related to this case, including, but not limited to, any information broadcasting the minor children’s names, their likeness or otherwise discusses or involves information related to the children or this case. This written request shall be issued immediately.Shortly after this "agreed" order was signed, a lawyer named Joel Hirschhorn reached out to me stating in part, "Please see the attached Order. Kindly comply with paragraph 5. You are on notice."
But paragraph five is the one above and I'm not required to do anything, furthermore, when I reached out to the Reporter's Committee on Freedom of the Press, any order which would require me to remove anything would be rare, almost never enforceable, and only an injunction prior to publication, not after.
"If it is an actual take-down order, there would likely be First Amendment and jurisdictional arguments you could make to challenge it. A take-down order is a type of prior restraint, which are rarely upheld by courts." they said.
Indeed, when I didn't back down, Hirschhorn initially continued to argue, but after we talked about it on the next livestream and in other media, he became silent.
As soon as this agreed order was signed, the judge issued an order entitled: "Judgment Adjudicating Eric Satin in Indirect Criminal Contempt." Satin was then let out of jail.
Shapiro appeared on the livestream on June 30, at about thirty five minutes in.
The Mother, a private person, has a constitutional right of privacy in Florida to keep her mental health evaluations and diagnoses confidential. (15) The allegations in the Mother’s Verified Emergency Motion for Injunction and the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on June 30, 2021 are sufficient to establish good cause, that the Mother and minor children will suffer irreparable injury, loss or damage if a narrowly tailored temporary injunction is not granted pursuant to Florida Law. (16) On August 18, 2020, this Court entered an Agreed Order Appointing Psychologists to Perform Evaluations of the parties and the children. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce and/or modify the terms and conditions of the order. Accordingly, this Court orders that all psychological evaluations and the information contain therein are to remain confidential and not be released and/or disseminated by either party and/or their legal representative to anyone. (17) This Court finds that the Mother has met her burden of proof and has determined that this injunction is necessary and that certain limitations must be made on the Father’s rights to disseminate information in this matter. The Court is narrowly tailoring this injunction only as to extra-judicial statements which are substantially likely to materially prejudice a final hearing in this matter and/or impede on the Mother's and minor children's right of privacy. Accordingly, this Court enjoins the Father from disseminating information that he learned from confidential court documents.
Jennifer Tolston came on the livestream on July 14, 2021, at about thirty seven minutes in.
"Moreover, the former wife's decision to publicize the most private parts of the children's therapy is in direct contravention to standard norms long established by this Court and demonstrates a parent who once again chooses to place her interest far and beyond what is in their best interest."