Request from FB: Sample Motion to Vacate Gag Order as being Unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights

See below. In far too many corrupt cases, GAL’s Child Reps and attorneys are asking the judge to place gag orders against Facebook Blogging, posts and pages. All of this is highly unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Below is a sample Motion to Vacate a Gag Order. In most states, you have to file a Motion to Vacate based upon “good cause” in 30 days, or where a gross mistake of law was made, within 2 years.

Gag orders are considered immediately appealable because they are injunctions in effect. Illinois has a 2 day shortened period to appeal with a decision being made in about a week, or the aggrieved party can file a normal Notice of Appeal in 30 days and ask for an expedited briefing schedule.

Other states may have different rules for appeals of gag orders.

Sample motion:

                                    Firm Code pro se






Case No. XXXX

Hon Judge’s Name

Court Room x

Zoom Information X


Now comes Respondent  Mother X and motions this honorable court to vacate the following gag orders on the grounds they are patently unconstitutional, overbroad, and not issued in accordance with 7th circuit law which requires strict strutiny:   1) Order of X date that litigants could not talk about the case on social media and 2) Order of  Y date where it was added to the previous order that litigants could not talk about the case or the attorneys on the case on social media.  In addition on Z date the court order stated that DCFS (who is not a party to this case and the court accordingly has no jurisdiction over them) was  ordered not to permit any additional sexual assault kit testing on the children. 
Each of the foregoing gag orders are unconsitutional and violate the rights of Respondent Mother and must be vacated.  Further, the Order against DCFS is invalid because DCFS is not a party to the case and this court has no jurisdiction over DCFS which is an agency of the State of X or its employees.  DCFS has not filed an appearance in this case.


  1. On X Respondent Mother was raped by the Petitioner in this matter, (father’s name). She reported it to the police 3 days later. She then had a rape test kit done at X Hospital in Elgin, Illinois. The Elgin police department has now received back the results of the test kit and have found a DNA match with Father.
  2. On March 25, 2019, Respondent Mother filed for an Order of Protection in the X County Court system, Case No. Y. That case has since been consolidated into the above case.
  3. Respondent Mother was granted both an Emergency Order of Protection and a Plenary Order of Protection which expires 4/11/21,
  4. The parties have two children, SW born X date and JB born Y date.
  5. In August 2018 Mother was raped by Father. This rape was not reported to the police, but the parties separated and Father was told he could not live with Mother until he received counseling and got a job. He never went to get DV counseling, nor has he obtained a job.
  6. In October of 2018, Father lied to Mother and told her he was in counseling for psychopathy. Mother did not know at the time that psychopathy is not curable, and there is no treatment for it. She has spent long hours since then studying up on what a psychopath is, how dangerous they are and how there is no cure for psychopathy because a psychopath enjoys being a psychopath.
  7. In December of 2018, Father was trying to pressure Mother into sex, he was mean, cruel, and abusive. He locked her out of the house, called her a whore, slut, a bitch, etc….. and threatened to murder her. This was done in front of the children. He threatened to take the children to X country and she would never see them again.
  8. Petitioner Father continued to live with Mother because his name was on the lease and he threatened to kill her if she left and take the kids and she would never see her children again. He repeated these statements to Mother’s boss on March 22, 2019.
  9. In January or February of 2019, Father hit SW so hard he left bruises because she refused to go to bed.
  10. On Feb. 27, 2019, Petitioner Father told Mother that she had to have sex with him and she refused and he became enraged.
  11. From the first time that Mother was raped by Father until March 22, 2019, Petitioner Father insisted he was seeing a counselor for his antisocial behavior. . In addition, Petitioner Father admitted he lied to Mother about seeing a psychologist.
  12. On March 22, 2019 Petitioner Father admitted in a text message that he never went to counseling.
  13. In November, 2018, Mother was told by SW that her grandfather Father was hitting her. In December of 2018, SW then reported that her Grandfather hit Grandmother, his second wife.
  14. In March of 2019, SW complained that grandpa was touching her “down there” and there was a large bruise on her lower backside. She made it clear he was not just touching her vulva, but was inserting his fingers in her vagina. She was 3 at the time. Mother called a child psychologist to make an appointment, but the child psychologist insisted on Mother taking SW to her pediatrician for a sexual assault exam. She took SW to the pediatrician on March 25, 2019. Mother showed a bruise on her lower back and she examined the child and referred the case to DCFS. The pediatrician believed that there was a problem with either the father or grandfather but not with Mother.
  15. The diagnosis from the pediatrician was parental concern regarding child sexual abuse and a referral to DCFS to investigate.
  16. On April, 19, 2019 SW came home after visitation with her dad, and her lower back was even larger than before and there were scratches on her legs, and there was a large bruise under her right butt cheek, and her vulva was bright red and looked irritated. SW said that grandpa hit me and threw me down and that Grandpa had given her a bath. Mother took her to the police station who then advised Mother to take SW to Hospital.
  17. Mother took SW to Hospital and the doctor diagnosed her with contusions and domestic concerns. The police took pictures of the child’s back. Doctors at Community Hospital said they could not do a rape test kit for children there, that Mother had to take the child to Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago. One doctor did not think it was necessary, so Mother did not take the child to Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago because it was 4 am.
  18. A doctor then contacted Mother the next day from Children Memorial Hospital and that doctor asked her to bring in SW. SW was brought in the following Monday as requested. On that Monday, SW had an anal swab and a rape kit test performed. This was done in April of 2019. SW has been observed on numerous occasions in the late part of 2018 through 2019 acting out sexually, particularly with men. This was not normal behavior for a three year old child.
  19. In May of 2019, SW told Mother and the court appointed supervisor, Heather W, that Grandpa had touched her with “mommy finger and daddy finger” on her vulva, this is a reference to a children’s song which would be index finger and middle finger. Mother contacted her DCFS case worker and the case worker continued her investigation for abuse of the child by the father and/or grandfather.
  20. In June of 2019, SW had bruising on her sides and back. SW reported that “grandpa threw me down.” SW said that this was because grandpa was mad at her.
  21. In June 2019, JB had a bruise on his forehead over his left eye. Since he was about 2 years old he could not say what happened to him. He was non verbal at the time.
  22. On July 9, 2019, SW had a black eye. She said that Grandpa got mad and hit her. This was reported to DCFS and a photo was sent to the caseworker.
  23. On July 22, 2019, SW came home with a split lip. She refused to say how it happened. Whenever Mother asked her about the injury, SW would start to cry.
  24. In retaliation for Mother filing an Order of Protection against Father, Father filed a Petition for Parentage on April 8, 2019 and asked for temporary and permanent residential custody of SW and JB, despite his long history of abusing both Mother and the children.
  25. On April 24, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Rule to Show Cause because allegedly Mother did not sign up for Our Family Wizard and she was not responding to Petitioner’s messages. This was a false petition. However, the Judge ignored the Petition and never ruled on it. Mother in fact did sign up for Our Family Wizard and did in fact answer all of Petitioner’s messages in a timely manner.
  26. On April 15, 2019, without any Petition having been filed, the court granted an order to allow Petitioner 4 days per week parenting time.
  27. On April 24, 2019, Respondent Mother filed an Emergency Petition to Restrict the parenting time of Father due to his abusive behavior and the abusive behavior of the grandfather who lived with Father in P suburb. The judge ignored the pleading, but issued an order that the Grandfather would be barred from seeing the children SW and JB. When asked how that would work because Grandfather and Father live together, Judge X stated that “grandfather could just go into another room.” Judge X also said there would be an evidentiary hearing on the issue of parenting time on May 2, 2019, but that never happened, instead the court held a status conference.
  28. In Mother’s Petition which was filed on April 24, 2019, she made numerous serious allegations of abuse, detailed on pages 2 to 3, ¶ ¶ 8 to 10 therein.
  29. On April 30, 2019, Petitioner filed for a continuance of the evidentiary hearing set for May 2, 2019.
  30. On May 15, 2019 Petitioner filed an “Emergency Motion” to Restrict Respondent’s parenting time based upon a plethora of false allegations not found in the records at all. The Petitioner falsely accused Mother of screaming at the police and DCFS, of acting irrational in front of them, of threatening suicide, of harming the children, etc. when there is nothing whatsoever in the medical records, DCFS records or police records to substantiate these claims. The May 15, 2019 Petition was not filed with any evidence whatsoever to support these claims and it was utterly false. It is believed that the Petition was filed in retaliation for Respondent Mother revealing a history of psychopathy and abuse by the Petitioner to both Mother and her children. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mother has PTSD around her children or has any suicidal thoughts. That is not reflected in any reports whatsoever of DCFS, the police or her medical records or psychological evaluation. Again, this pleading is false and baseless.
  31. On July 10, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Rule to Show Cause against Mother for her posts on social media. Specifically, in ¶ 6 on page 1, Petitioner claims that Mother cannot refer to him as a “rapist” or “liar” despite the fact she has filed a police report against him for rape, she has reported the rapes to this court and to her therapists and is obtaining counseling for the DV. In addition, since Respondent has admitted to being a psychopath (i.e., narcissist or sociopath), he is a liar, has admitted numerous lies to Respondent, and Petitioner is only presenting the truth on social media. Also he has admitted to raping Mother and lying to her and to possessing child pornography.
  32. Petitioner has a constitutional right to talk about her case on social media in an honest and truthful fashion. Since Respondent has admitted he lies and has raped her and has possessed child porn, the statements are truthful and are protected by the First Amendment.
  33. In addition, Mother has a page on her Facebook Account, which is a public group with over 1,000 members. Mother publishes frequently on the status of her case, her struggles and on the status of many other troubled custody cases in Illinois and the U.S. Mother has a First Amendment right to do this and she is a protected reporter and part of media in Illinois and the U.S. Respondent, the lawyers and court have no right or authority to interfere in her First Amendment rights.
  34. In addition, those who have stated on the transcript that she should not or cannot contact DCFS or the police may be charged with Obstruction of Justice, for which there is no immunity. Mother reports truthfully on her case and on other cases.
  35. Media and its reporters may assert defenses to defamation and false light suits for: litigation privilege, reporter’s privilege, hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion and other well recognized defenses. Father has not sued Mother for defamation, false light or libel.
  36. On August 30, 2019, counsel for Father filed a Motion for a Restraining Order against Mother for her reporting activities on Facebook. He claims that he and his employees have been threatened by unknown third parties. However, he is the one who chose to represent an abusive Father. He is getting paid handsomely to represent an abusive Father, perhaps $300 per hour or more. He has a law degree and bar admission. He has been practicing law for over 26 years. He claims to be an award winning attorney. Mother has received repeated death threats over the years from her ex partner and she is not whining about them that she needs to stop counsel’s social media posts, if he ever makes any, nor has she ever asked for a gag order against him or his client.
  37. Further, Attorney Scott Sheen claims that Mother is “mentally ill” but she has had two psych evaluations that reveals she has no known mental illnesses. Her transcripts show she is lucid, clear thinking and does a better job arguing her case than Mr. Sheen. Perhaps Mr. Sheen is the one that needs a psych evaluation. (In one recent pleading, he filed a Rule to Show Cause and repeatedly moved for sanctions against “SW”–the couple’s three year old child. He needs to read his pleadings before signing them. His client does too, but his client has an excuse, he does in fact have a mental impairment as shown by Father’ psych evaluation.

In the present case, the court has made it clear that they do not want Respondent Mother to talk about the case, the litigants or even the attorneys. This is tantamount to a sealing of the case, without actually sealing the case. Respondent Mother is a mother of two young children who has suffered severe physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her ex partner for years, and now believes that her children may also be suffering from abuse at the hands of her ex partner, an admitted liar, rapist and abuser. She is also working on her case pro se and needs the support and advice of other people who have suffered the same fate in the court system.
The presumption of public access “disallows the routine and perfunctory
closing of judicial records.” Cendant, 260 F.3d at 193-94. Before records can be
sealed, the party advocating secrecy must meet its “burden of showing that the material
is the kind of information that courts will protect” and that “disclosure will
work a clearly defined and serious injury.” Id. at 194 (internal quotations omitted).
Only specific and identifiable privacy interests, such as genuine trade secrets,
privilege, or interests created by statute or court rule justify sealing the record in
civil cases. Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002);
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6th Cir. 1983).
“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated
reasoning, are insufficient.” Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381-82, 662 A.2d at 559; Cendant,
260 F.3d at 194.
Even assuming that the parties satisfy their burden of identifying a compelling
privacy interest, they must still show that the interests in secrecy substantially
outweigh the strong public presumption of access. Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381, 662
A.2d at 559; Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194. This balancing process must be conducted
separately for each document to be sealed. Hammock, 142 N.J. at 381-82, 662 A.2d
at 559. Moreover, “to have the least intrusive effect on the public’s right-ofaccess,”
an entire document should not be sealed when it is possible to redact just
the private information. Hammock, 142 N.J. at 382, 662 A.2d at 559.
In addition to the common-law right of access, the First Amendment provides
a right of access to judicial decisions and other sorts of filings in civil cases.
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.B., 120 N.J. 112, 119-123, 576 A.2d 261,
264-66 (N.J. 1990); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1067-71 (3d
Cir. 1984). The presumption of openness under the First Amendment is even
stronger than the common-law presumption and can be overcome only by showing
“an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1073
(internal quotation omitted); In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.
In the present case, there is absolutely no need to place a gag order on anyone. The Petitioner has already admitted to rape, lying and possession of child pornography. Those are his admissions and he should live with them. Respondent has published truthfully about her case and she is seeking the advice of some 1,000 members of her Facebook page for how to proceed in this case. She reports on her case and is part of the media. Likely her Facebook page is shared on other Facebook Pages, timelines and other blogs. She has the right to disseminate blow by blow information about her case, publish anything filed in her case, and neither the court nor the attorneys should interfere with or suppress her First Amendment rights.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Mother respectfully moves for an order reversing the gag orders of August 14, 2019 and September 5, 2019 wherein she was ordered not to discuss, comment upon or disclose any case information regarding the parties, the court or the lawyers. Such Orders are clearly overbroad and violate her First Amendment Rights. Copies of these orders are attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,

                    By: /s/Mother/

                    Mother , pro se Appellant

Prepared by:


I hereby certify that I have served on the following parties a copy of the foregoing Motion to Vacate Gag orders via the Clerk of Court’s ECF system on October 8, 2019.

                    Respondent Appellant Pro Se


This is to notify you that on October 8, 2019 I filed the foregoing Notice of Appeal electronically with the Clerk of Court’s website via the ecf online filing system.

Respondent Appellant, Mother , pro se Mother


I hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection and where based upon information and belief, were believed to be true at the time the statements were made.

Respondent Mother , pro se


You are herewith notified that I shall present the foregoing Motion to Vacate Gag Orders on October 9, 2019 in Court Room 100 of the X County Circuit Court at 9:00 am.

Respondent, Mother, pro se

1 thought on “Request from FB: Sample Motion to Vacate Gag Order as being Unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s