Lawyer Jessica Sprague wanted a quick gag order—judge says not so fast.
By Michael Volpe
Richard Luthmann and I were back for the thirty-first edition of The Unknown. We updated the latest in a Morris County, New Jersey family court case.
NJ Legal Mafia EXPOSED! Ex-Politician Tries to Muzzle Free Speech—Ex-Wife Fights Back
Richard detailed a recent proposed order from New Jersey which may force him to remove an article he previously published. (He’s already said that the only people he listens to are his mother, the Archbishop, and Donald Trump, and none of them are particularly fond of the NJ Courts.)
Sprague filed motions demanding that publications—including The Foundation for Child Victims of Family Courts, Family Court Circus, and even SLAM THE GAVEL—remove their reporting. She also asked the court to prohibit Badal from speaking publicly and to force her into a psychiatric evaluation or risk losing access to her child.
“This is pure intimidation,” Badal said. “They’re trying to silence journalists, gag me, and paint me as crazy—because they can’t refute the truth.”
Legal experts say Sprague’s moves could backfire spectacularly. The First Amendment vigorously protects journalists and whistleblowers from prior restraint—government attempts to silence speech before it happens. And New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP laws could open Sprague, her law firm, and her client to a significant civil liability lawsuit.
“If they think they can bully the media into submission, they’re in for a rude awakening,” Badal said. “A lot of powerful people are about to get hit with an anti-SLAPP lawsuit.”
The lawyer, Jessica Sprague, tried to have her motion heard on an expedited basis, which the judge denied.
The judge will hear the motion on March 31, 2025.
This case was similar to one I followed in North Carolina, where another family court judge temporarily blocked the release of a news report, arguing it was defamatory and amounted to election interference.
A Mecklenburg County judge took WBTV to court, trying to get a temporary restraining order to stop WBTV from broadcasting and publishing a story that she believed would be defamatory and inaccurate. The story deals with how Judge Aretha Blake handles family law cases.
Blake and her attorney were seeking what they called a “narrowly tailored injunction” to stop WBTV from broadcasting a story about Judge Blake’s handling of family law cases.
The unpublished story, produced by WBTV reporter Nick Ochsner, was a follow-up to previous WBTV reporting that called into question the number of matters in Judge Blake’s cases that hadn’t been ruled on in months, or in some cases, a year or more.
The court eventually denied the judge, and WBTV aired the news story.
