Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Nita A., Petitioner v. A. A.

No.24._ Y7F

In the

Supreme Court of the Anited States

la et SP |

NITA A,

Petitioner,

v.

A.A.,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division

(ps foe

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Nita A.

Petitioner Pro Se

P.O. Box 527

Princeton, NJ 08540

(609) 915-4735

OCTOBER 26, 2024

SUPREME COURT PRESS O) (888) 958-5705 + BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the Illinois Domestic Violence Act,

750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 60/101 et seq., as applied by

the Illinois Courts, violated Nita’s First Amendment,

Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights

by interfering with Nita’s parent-child relationship.

2. Whether Petitioner was denied due process in

the proceedings.

3. Whether the [linois Courts had jurisdiction

over the Petitioner who lacked minimum contacts with

Illinois.

il

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

Supreme Court of Illinois

No. 180395

In re: A.A., Respondent, v. Nita A.. Petitioner

Date of Final Order: May 29, 2024

Date of Rehearing Denial: August 6, 2024

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division

No. 1-23-0011

A.A., Petitioner-Appellee, v.

Nita A., Respondent-Appellant

Final Opinion: November 22, 2023

Circuit Court of Cook County,

Illinois County Department,

Domestic Violence Division

No. 21 OP 78104

A.A., Petitioner, v. Nita A., Respondent

Final Judgment: August 9, 2022

Court Order Denying Motion to Vacate/Reconsider:

December 9, 2022

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...000000....ceceececceeeeeeeeceeeeees 1

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS ..........cccccsccsesecetsesenseeeneeees il

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......cssssssssssesessecsvesseceosens vi

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI............. 1

OPINIONS BELOW 00000... .occcccccccecesecceessseteeeeeceeeesseee 1

JURISDICTION... eeccccccsceeesssseceeseeeeeesesecereeseeesees a|

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED 0.0.0... cceccceeeseeeeeeeneeeees 2

INTRODUCTION 0.00... cccccceesecesseseeesecesseeeseeceessecenacs 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE............cccccccseceeeseeeeeeee 4

A. Factual History .... -ssssesimsacevacanmmuaswsevessecoccccens 5

B. Procedural History sccswissessssvnveavcseceaassswsnaestenters 7

1. Trial Court Proceedings ..............ccccceceeeeeees 7

2. Appellate Court Proceedings..........0...c6000 8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................. 8

ANALYSIS 20..00.00-+-0+++20+nn0 +70 001 Seni OSESSIGRIDURREI ERAN 8

I. Violations of the First Amendment............... 10

‘A. Mandating Government Compelled

MDEPCH on........... 5. asneannencnReamenEnEmpneniciemtean 15

B. Gag Order... cccccscccecsssessssecceesessseeeeess 16

C. Causing Irreparable Injury .......0....0.0000... 17

II. Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment .... 17

A. New Charges by the Appellate Court ...... 20

1. Deadnaming ................c:cccccesscscceseeseeeee 22

lv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

2. Transphobia..........cccccccessssesessseseseeneees 23

3B. Stalking... cccccecsseeseseeseeeesenenens 24

4. Suggestions of Violence... 24

B. Violations of Due Process ................::0000 25

C. Violations of Liberty Interests ................. 31

D. Violations of Personal Jurisdiction.......... 31

E. Muisapplcation of Statute of Limitations ... 33

III. Violations of the Eighth Amendment............ 35

IV. Violations of the Ninth Amendment ............. 36

V. Conflicts with Other Federal and State

Case Sxccrasssncessuacamageascnanvaveiabesbetaasebessaseisassvaiess 37

VI. Abuse of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act

CID VA ) svesiisuvnaanconncnnsunanssneveevasvaunvouacacsiaeeasuaine: 38

LONG-TERM REPERCUSSIONS..........cscccsceseeecesseeeseees 39

CONCLUSION. sissssssccnsnaraseaccsonspeascpanusaicnmeneaseys 41

Vv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Order Denying Petition for Leave to Appeal,

Supreme Court of Illinois (May 29, 2024)......... la

Opinion, Appellate Court of Illinois First District

(November 22, 2023) sisssscsrasscaveesvcssesouasacctanesens: 2a

Court Order Denying Motion to

Vacate/Reconsider and Relevant Excerpts

(December 9, 2022) .........cccccccsssessssssesseeesesenen 23a

Order Granting Protection Order,

Bench Ruling Transcript (August 9, 2022)...... 29a

REHEARING ORDER

Order Denying Leave to File Reargument,

Supreme Court of Illinois (August 6, 2024)..... 33a

al

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

FEDERAL CASES

Agency for Intl Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc.

Int, Inc., 133 8.Ct. 2321 (2018) wc. 15, 16

Brandenburg v. Ohio,

395 U.S. 444 (1969) oo... ecccceceesessesseceeseeeneeees 12

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez,

545 U.S. 748 (2005) ........cccccceseessececeseseeeeeeseeevees 39

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,

© 815 U.S, 568 (1942) oo ccceeceeecesseeseneenes 11

Cohen v. California,

403 U.S. 15 (1971)... cccseceeeeeeseceevereeenes 12, 13

Elrod v. Burns,

427 U.S. 347 (1976) ...... <casssusaseseecersubenncconaaesisebes 17

Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.,

336 U.S. 490 (1949) ooo ccceccseseceseseseeeeees 12

Goldberg v. Kelly,

397 U.S. 254 (1970) ooo. ccceccseesessseseeeeneees 17, 38

Griswold v. Connecticut,

381 U.S. 479 (1965) 200... cece ecceeeeeesecececeeesersesceeeees 37

Harjo v. City of Albuquerque,

326 F.Supp.3d 1145 (D.N.M. 2018) ....0....0..... 23

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises,

A71 U.S. 549 (1985) o.oo. cecccseeeereeerersrrees 12

Harris v. Quinn,

573 U.S. 616 (2014) ................ ssansaseswaveaswenapszvess 15

In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, .

907 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2018) .........cccceceeeee ees 16

vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

In re Oliver,

452 F.2d 111 (7th Cir. 1971) .......ceeccceeeeeeeeeseeees 17

International Shoe Co. v. Washington,

326 U.S. 310 (1945) oc ceeeeeeeeeeseneeseeeeees 32

Johnson v. Bergland,

586 F.2d 998 (4th Cir. 1978) ........ccccceeeeeeseeeeeeees 17

Matal v. Tam,

187 S.Ct. 1744 (2017) .....ccccecceecseceeeceeees 11, 12, 13

Mathews v. Eldridge,

APA US, 319 (1976) . sscccissisaccswscuiecsscuviense 20, 24, 37

Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893 (1976) .....cccceeeeeeeeeees 23

Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. 390 (1928) oo... cccseeesessetereenes 18, 37

Miller v. California,

413 U.S. 15 (1978) oo... cccessessneceeeeeeereeeeerereees 12

Neb. Press Ass‘n v. Stuart,

427 U.S. 539 (1976) :ccsisssssvensscesesasvscessigncaveceseacees 17

New York v. Ferber,

458 U.S. 747 (1982) .......ceccesssssssececeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeens 12

Parham v. J.R.,

442 U.S. 584 (1979) .......esecesseseseeteceeeceeeeseee 19, 37

People Who Care v. Rockford Board of

Education, 68 F.3d 172 (7th Cir. 1995)............ 23

Pierce v. Society of Sisters,

268 U.S. 510 (1925) oo... cecceeeesesssereteeeeeees 18, 37

Prince v. Massachusetts,

321 U.S. 158 (1944) ooo ccccceeceeeeseeeeeeeeeens 19, 37

Vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Santosky v. Kramer,

455 U.S. 745 (1982) .....ccceceeceeees 15, 19, 24, 37, 38

Shelley v. Kraemer,

334 U.S. 1 (1948) sscsscsvesssevsvsssuserventosoveanssoereamavecs 18

Smith v. City of Fontana,

818 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987) wc eee 31

Snyder v. Massachusetts,

291 U.S. 97 (1934) icssrscomssunenomenanuscessomesenacnnasasss 18

Snyder v. Phelps,

562 U.S. 443 (2011) ......cceccceeeccceseeceessesseeeeeenees 12

Solem v. Helm,

463 U.S. 277 (1988) ......ccccccccccceeeeeceeeeseeeeeeeeeenes 35

Stanley v. Illinois,

405 U.S. 645 (1972) oo... .eececceceeeeseeeececeeeeeeees 18, 37

Texas v. Johnson,

491 U.S. 397 (1989) eeccessusnsnssersrcnmeorsansscccess 12, 38

Troxel v. Granville,

530 U.S. 57 (2000) . wsssccsssavesrcveccassee 18, 27, 37, 39

United States v. Morrison,

529° U.S1.598. (2000) sssssssvsnanneseammatcarcnwesnswsnins 39

United States v. Stevens,

559 U.S. 460 (2010) u.....cceeeecceeesseececeeeeeserseseeeeees 11

Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy

v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,

Inc., 425 U.S, 748 (1976) ......cccccccccccceeeeeeeeseeeenees 12

Virginia v. Black,

538 U.S. 848 (2008) ooo... ccc ceccceceeesseersereeeeeeeees 12

1x

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Wallis v. Spencer,

202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000)....................5 19, 37

Wise v. Bravo,

666 F.2d 1328 (10th Cir. 1981)... eee 19

STATE CASES

AAR. v. ILR.C.,

471 N.J. Super. 584, 274 A.3d 674

(App. Div. 2022)...........:0+0++«<uavemasaaspuadssunaiesseaye 33

Best v. Best,

No. 101135 (September 21, 2006)..................0. 38

Botero v. Roque,

TIL App. 221576 (20228) ssssiccsssvrcceosesvovsscwseavcaveuees 38

Higgins v. Blessing Hospital,

IL App.4th, 231531 (2024) .......ccccecccceecceeeceeeees 32

In re Welfare of Luscier,

84 Wn.2d 135, 524 P.2d 906 (1974)... eee 19

Keller v. Henderson,

359 Il. App.3d 605, 834 N.E.2d 930

(TIL App.Ct. 2005)... cccccccsecscesssesccesssssreeeeeees 33

Landmann v. Landmann,

2019 Il.App.5th, 180137

(Fifth Dist. 2019) ..........cccceseecesceeeeeees 28, 29, 38

Malone v. Rose,

No. M2023-01453-COA-WR-CV

(Tenn.Ct.App. Mar. 26, 2024) ......... eee 17, 38

Martinez v. Singh,

172 So.3d 578 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App. 2015) .. 28, 29, 38

x

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

People ex rel. Minteer v. Kozin,

297 III. App.3d 1038 (Fourth Dist.1998)..... 29, 38

Richardson v. Booker,

TlL App. 1st. 210137 (2022) .wissssisssccecssvessavsocuevecess 34

Russell v. SNFA,

2013 WL 1683599, 30 (II. Ap. 18, 2018) ........... 33

Sherwin v. Roberts,

TL. App.4th 220904 (20238) .......ccsccccceessesceeeeseeeees 37

West Virginia State Board of Education

v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1948) ..... eee eee 16

Wilson v. Jackson,

312 TIL App.3d 1156 (8rd. Dist. 2000)............... 26

Wooley v. Maynard,

430 U.S. 705 (1977) ...ccccececceeessesssnseeeeeeesesssscenenes 16

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. amend. Dou... eee 1, 2, 4, 10-17, 39

U.S. Const. amend. IX oo. eeeeeeeee i, 2, 18, 36, 37

U.S. Const. amend. VIII .....ccccccccecccseeseesseeeeeee 2, 35, 36

U.S. Const. amend. XIV........... i, 2, 4, 9, 17, 18, 25-27,

snehwneanbaeinnsen vans sanesnanwanweneeasebesee---- 29, 31, 35, 37, 39

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ccecseccssccssecssseessssesssuesssevesssseseseeeseee 1

xi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

STATE STATUTES

750 ILCS 60/101 et seq.,

Illinois Domestic Violence Act ..............cccccceeseeeees 1

750 TLCS 60/1038(1), (7)......ccccccccessssssesesececeseceeeesesecees 2

750 TLCS GO/1O3(6) 20... ceceeececeesesseeerceeeeeeceeeeseesseees 2

750 TLCS 60/201 (a) () on. cccecececeesssesseeeceeeeeeeeceeeeeeees 2

TSO.ILCS 60/201()) G)icersnescsmcancurscsmsmcnesomcmnnannesnanencs 2

750 ILCS 60/214(a) oe ceeecccsesesecesessseeeceeeesersseeeeeeenees 2

750 ILCS GO/21A4(C).... ec ceceecesssceecessseeeeeceeesseeseceeenseeeee 2

750 ILCS 60/214 (C)(8) ooo. ee ceeeceeeeseseeeeeees 2, 27, 28, 29

JUDICIAL RULES

Sup. Ct. R. 80 oo cceececsssecceeesssssseeeceeessecereseeeerenseeeeeees 1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Nita respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari be

issued to review the judgment below.

—

OPINIONS BELOW

The Opinion of the Illinois Appellate Court is

officially reported at A.A. v. Nita A., 2023 IL App (1st)

230011, 230 N.E.3d 149 (2023). (App.2a). The Illinois

Supreme Court denied permission to appeal without

opinion. (App. 1a).

®

JURISDICTION

The Ilinois Supreme Court denied permission to

appeal on May 29, 2024. (App.1la). The Illinois Supreme

Court denied leave to file Reargument on August 6,

2024. (App.33a). Justice Amy Coney Barrett granted

an application to extend the time to file this petition

to October 26, 2024, which is a Saturday, so it is

extended by Sup. Ct. R. 30 to October 28, 2024. See Sup.

Ct. Docket No. 24A182.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1257(a).

Although the order has expired, the case is not

moot under the capable-of-repetition doctrine: (1) the

challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully

litigated before cessation or expiration, and (2) there

is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining

party will be subject to the same action again. See

FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 462

(2007); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) (per

curiam) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147,

149 (1975) (per curiam))); see also Norman v. Reed,

502 U.S. 279, 288 (1992).

8

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Amendment I

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV

United States Constitution, Amendment VIII

United States Constitution, Amendment IX

750 ILCS 60/201(a)(i), (b)()

Illinois Domestic Violence Act

750 ILCS 103(6)

750 ILCS 103(1), (7)

750 ILCS 214(a)

750 ILCS 214(c)

750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3)

U.S. Constitution and Illinois Constitution

Rights to equal application, equal protection,

equal access, and other legal protections were violated

by the Illinois courts, infringing on statutory and constitutional guarantees, the very underpinning of the U.S.

Constitutions and the I]linois Constitution.

—®

INTRODUCTION

Nita loves A.A., Nita’s only child, unconditionally.

Nita is an unwaveringly supportive parent. Nita does

not blame A.A. for this case or anything else.

In this case, the Trial Court adjudicated: “... but

there’s very hurtful language here. There’s judgmental

and mean language. ...” (Lines 18-19, Page 19, August

9, 2022 Transcript).

“You know, I think that—I don’t—I don’t—I am

not going to go back into the record and pull

out the exhibits right at this time, but there

was some rather inflammatory language

that I believe was admitted...”

(Lines 20-24, Page 7, December 9, 2022 Transcript).

“_..the language that I made my findings

based on, the language that the Court made

its findings based on was. extremely

hurtful...”

(Lines 8-11, Page 8, December 9, 2022 Transcript).

The Trial Court ruled by violating Nita’s right to

free speech. The Appellate Court imposed several new

charges that were neither previously raised nor adjudicated by the Trial Court, “Deadnaming,” “Transphobia,”

“Stalking,” and “Suggestions of Violence.” It affirmed

the Trial Court’s decision, resulting in violations of

Nita’s Constitutional Rights.

This decision, which conflicts with prior rulings in

Federal and State Courts, severed the familial relationship between Nita and A.A. in an injustice.

sg

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In defiance of the Constitution of the United

States of America, the First District Appellate Court

of Illinois egregiously overlooked its Trial Court’s violations of Nita’s First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights under the Constitution.

In this first-impression case, in a frantic rush to

set a precedent, the Appellate court enthusiastically

violated Nita’s freedom of Speech rights by affirming

the trial court rulings:

“...but there’s very hurtful language here.

There’s judgmental and mean language...”

(Lines 18-19, Page 19, August 9, 2022 Transcript).

“You know, I think that-—I don’t-I don’t-I am

not going to go back into the record and pull

out the exhibits right at this time, but there

was some rather inflammatory language that I

believe was admitted...”

(Lines 20-24, Page 7, December 9, 2022 Transcript).

“..the language that I made my findings

based on, the language that the Court made

its findings based on was extremely hurtful

”?

(Lines 8-11, Page 8, December 9, 2022 Transcript).

Additionally, the Appellate Court compromised

its judicial integrity by imposing new unadjudicated

charges and attributing blame to Nita in violation of

Due Process, giving its imprimatur to the Trial Court

violations.

The egregious legal precedent established by the

Illinois courts has profound national implications for

all parents. It compels speech, interferes with familial

relationships, punishes parents at the whims of

therapists misguiding children, and thereby imperils

the familial discourse of families of all shapes and

sizes.

This decision conflicted with prior rulings in

Federal and State Courts and severed the familial

relationship between Nita and A.A. in an injustice.

A. Factual History

Nita loves A.A. unconditionally. Nita’s unwavering

support always prioritized A.A.’s well-being and

fostered A.A.’s happiness, health, and appreciation for

life’s richness while ensuring a bright future per

A.A.’s choices.

Nita empowered A.A. to embrace self-respect,

revere their identity, pursue their dreams freely,

engage in regular exercise and meditation, get enough

sleep, maintain emotional and physical well-being,

nurturing self-integrity and strong work ethics.

Additionally, Nita emphasized the importance of

self-protection against charismatic characters with

ulterior motives.

Nita borrowed money so that A.A. would not have

to borrow money and be obligated to or exploited by

anyone.

Nita apologizes to A.A. for the lawyers who,

without Nita’s permission, blamed A.A. for taking

Nita’s support; Nita will always stand by A.A.

Nita did not “negate” or “buy” the rights to abuse

A.A., as the Illinois courts falsely ruled.

Instead, Nita was the safety net that steadfastly

shielded and protected A.A. from hate groups and

charismatic predators.

Nita is fighting this case because Nita has never

abused and harassed A.A.

Nita does NOT blame A.A. for this case or

anything else.

Nita remains A.A.’s fiercest champion and

steadfast supporter.

A.A. excels at everything.

After A.A. started college, the university informed

Nita that meals would not be provided to A.A., forcing

Nita to relocate nearby for A.A.’s nutrition and support.

Nita prepared meals and offered unwavering

support, enabling A.A. to manage the academic rigor

of the university.

Nita paid for A.A.’s dormitory, tuition, and all

expenses.

Encouraged by the therapist, A.A. began exploring

gender identity and transitioning. Nita’s steadfast

support of A.A. remained unwavering.

Nita attended A.A.’s graduation, a public event.

A.A. did not engage with Nita afterward.

During COVID-19, A.A. briefly visited Nita in New

Jersey.

B. Procedural History

1. Trial Court Proceedings

On October 6, 2021, Ascend Justice, a powerful

pro-bono legal organization representing A.A., filed a

petition for an Order of Protection (OOP) against Nita.

The Trial Court denied all emergency orders, as

A.A. was not in imminent danger.

In November 2021, Nita, who never lived in

Illinois, was served at Nita’s home in New Jersey.

Nita attended the December 2021 hearing via

Zoom.

A surprise judicial reassignment occurred in

January 2022.

Over five months after the case started, the new

judge permitted a discovery abuse, disguised as an

unsolicited document dump of 3,000+ pages and

amendment of the original affidavit by Ascend Justice,

causing Nita severe emotional trauma and financial

hardships, compelling Nita’s second attorney’s withdrawal permitted by the new judge over Nita’s objections. (May 25, 2022 Transcript).

Nita borrowed more money to hire a third attorney, whose request for an extension of time was denied.

On August 9, 2022, the Trial Court found Nita

guilty of abuse and harassment based on the “hurtful,”

“judgmental and mean,” “extremely hurtful,” and

“inflammatory” language, issuing a six-month OOP

against Nita.

Nita’s motion to reconsider was denied on December 9, 2022.

2. Appellate Court Proceedings

Nita’s appeal was denied by the First District

Appellate Court of Illinois, which published its opinion

on November 22, 2023, overlooking the laws and

misapprehending the facts.

Nita’s reconsideration motion was denied on

December 19, 2023.

Nita’s Pro Se Petition for Leave to Appeal,

raising four constitutional violations, was denied on

May 29, 2024, and the motion for reconsideration was

denied on August 6, 2024, without any explanations

by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Nita files this Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pro

Se with the United States Supreme Court from the

above denials by the Illinois Supreme Court.

— iB.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

This case reveals the Illinois appellate courts’

scorched-earth stance encouraging misapplication and

abuse of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (IDVA),

which blatantly violated Nita’s rights to due process

and freedom of speech, interfered with familial relationships, and resulted in severe harm, if not destruction, of Nita and A.A.’s relationship and their family.

ANALYSIS

In 2022, Nita was punished by the Illinois courts

with an order of protection (OOP) for abusing and

harassing A.A., their only child; thereby, it failed to

preserve the sanctity of Nita’s family, dealing with

some incredibly challenging and complex issues.

The Illinois Domestic Violence Act, as applied by

the Illinois courts, blamed Nita for the language of

messages sent to A.A. that, per Trial Court’s own

admissions, lacked foundation (See August 9, 2022

Transcript), were incomplete, out-of-context, cherrypicked, with alterations of Ascend Justice, many lacking

authorship, date and time-stamps, together with poor

Google transcription of the voicemail without the

actual voice messages.

The Illinois courts resurrected unsubstantiated

evidence (as “language”) from the past as a current

basis to punish Nita in violation of Nita’s constitutional

rights, including the freedom of speech and due process.

The Appellate Court’s affirmation and the Illinois

Supreme Court’s inaction ratified the Trial Court’s

overt infringements upon Nita’s individual constitutional rights.

Such judicial oversight raises profound concerns

regarding the integrity of the judicial process and the

safeguarding of individual rights, as guaranteed by

the Constitution of the United States.

The overwhelming necessity for the United States

Supreme Court’s intervention is underscored by the

need to rectify the manifest injustices perpetrated

against Nita by the Illinois Courts.

This case presents an opportunity for the US

Supreme Court to analyze the implications of the

intersection of domestic violence laws and constitutional

rights, especially the free speech and due process

10

clause. The court should grant the writ for the reasons

described in this petition.

I. . VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

The Illinois courts misused IDVA to punish Nita

for abuse and harassment of A.A. based on the language of the evidence (Pages 18-21, August 9, 2022

transcript).

However, this underlying evidence is constitutionally protected under Nita’s First Amendment rights.

During the August 9, 2022, ruling on this case,

the Trial Court stated:

“And there were various messages of a

harassing nature... I am not going to burden

everybody by reading all of these, but

there’s very hurtful language here. There’s

judgmental and mean language. ...”

(Lines 15-21, Page 19 August 9, 2022 Transcript).

On December 9, 2022, the Trial Court ruled:

“You know, I think that—I don’t—I don’t-I am

not going to go back into the record and pull

out the exhibits right at this time, but there

was some rather inflammatory language that

I believe was admitted...”

(Lines 20-24, Page 7, December 9, 2022 Transcript).

“I think under this Court’s discretion, that

the language that I made my findings based

on, the language that the Court made its

findings based on was extremely hurtful

...And that is where I will stand on that

issue.”

11

(Lines 8-14, Page 8, December 9, 2022 Transcript).

The First Amendment to the US Constitution

protects speech (including language and expression)

that others may find improper and offensive. Matal v.

Tam, 1378.Ct. 1744 (2017).

In Nita’s case, the lower courts predicated their

factual findings on the content of the speech (Gncluding

language and expressions) in the evidence, which,

according to the Trial Court’s admission, lacked

foundation.

“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment

means that government has no power to

restrict expression because of its message,

ideas, subject matter, or content.”

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Since

the United States’ founding, however, courts

have recognized historical and traditional categories of speech “long familiar to the bar” that the

government may regulate and even punish

without violating the First Amendment. Jd. at

468 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

These categories must be “well-defined and

narrowly limited .. .” though. Jd. at 648-49 (quoting

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568,

571-72 (1942)).

Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court

has only recognized a limited number of exceptions

to the First Amendment. These exceptions include:

e Fighting Words — Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,

315 U.S. 568 (1942).

12

e Actual Threats — Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343

(2003).

e Incitement — Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444

(1969).

e Obscenity — Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15

(1978).

e Child Pornography — New York v. Ferber, 458

U.S. 747 (1982).

e Fraud — Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia

Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748

(1976).

e Intellectual Property Infringement — Harper &

Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 549 (1985);

and

e Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct — Giboney

v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).

Exceptions for offensive or uncivil speech are

absent from the list of recognized exceptions.

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court

has repeatedly affirmed the First Amendment’s

protections for offensive or uncivil speech, Matal v.

Tam, 137 8.Ct. 1744 (2017), holding the band’s name,

“The Slants,” a racial slur, protected; Snyder v. Phelps,

562 U.S. 443 (2011), holding that, among other things,

the homosexual slurs on the signs of the Westboro

Baptist Church members protesting at the funeral of

an Iraq War marine protected; Texas v. Johnson, 491

U.S. 397 (1989) holding that the First Amendment

protected the burning of the American flag; Cohen v.

California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) holding that the First

Amendment protected the message “Fuck the draft.”

13

The US Supreme Court has clearly articulated its

reasoning for these decisions:

“The constitutional right of free expression is

powerful medicine in a diverse and populous

society. It is designed and intended to remove

governmental restraints from the arena of

public discussion, putting the decision as to

what views shall be voiced largely into the

hands of each of us in the hope that the use of

such freedom will ultimately produce a more

capable citizenry and more perfect polity and

in the belief that no other approach would

comport with the premise of individual

dignity and choice upon which our political

system rests”.

Cohen, 403 U.S. at 24.

Thus, even hate speech or speech that disrespectfully demeans enjoys First Amendment protection.

“Speech that demeans based on race, ethnicity, gender,

religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is

hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech

jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express

the thought that we hate.” Matal, 137 S.Ct. at 1764.

These precedents have long established that even

the profane, inflammatory, mean, hurtful, and “coarse

criticism” of others is constitutionally protected speech

and is not subject to the “fighting words” or any other

exception to the First Amendment protection.

No Civility Exception exists under the First

Amendment, and no Recognized Exception applies to

the language, speech, and expressions in this case

against Nita, which did not come close to being

14

hateful, let alone straying outside the First Amendment’s protection.

Nonetheless, the Appellate Court overlooked these

violations of Nita’s constitutional rights by the Trial

Court, which found Nita guilty of abuse and harassment of their child, A.A., an only child, based on “hurtful,

“judgmental and mean,” “inflammatory” language

(August 9, 2022, and December 9, 2022 Transcripts).

Hence, the Appellate Court’s egregious overlooking

and affirmation of the Trial Court’s ruling that Nita

has abused and harassed A.A. does not survive constitutional scrutiny.

The Appellate Court’s “distaste” for the “inflammatory language” (Footnote 2, Page 2, November 22,

2023, Appellate Court Opinion) and Nita’s unwillingness to capitulate to two influential pro-bono legal

organizations’ twisted and relentless vicious attacks on

Nita, a steadfastly supportive parent, is fatal to the

US Constitution, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act,

and this ruling against Nita.

The I]linois courts failed to do everything possible

under their powers to preserve the sanctity of the

family dealing with very challenging and “complex”

issues, especially since it had “no admissible evidence,”

“the strongest evidence was from 2014”, “the evidence

lacked foundation,” and its ruling was based on the

“language of the evidence.” (August 9, 2022, and

December 9. 2022 transcripts)

Through this ruling against Nita, the Illinois courts

have set a dangerously unprecedented legal precedent

against all parents from all walks of life nationwide

while interfering and severing Nita’s parent-child relationships.

15

Therefore, Nita respectfully requests this court to

overturn this ruling, vacate it, and redact this case for

the safety and protection of them and their loved ones

from hate groups.

A. Mandating Government Compelled Speech

Government, including the State of Illinois, does

not have:

1) the right to compel a parent how to speak to

their child and

2) the right to punish the parent by characterizing their free speech (including languages

and expressions protected under the First

Amendment) as abuse and harassment, ruling

it as a violation of IDVA, and issuing an OOP,

thereby completely subverting the parent’s

constitutional rights.

The First Amendment prohibits the government

from telling private citizens, including parents, what

to say and not to say to their children:

Agency for Intl Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc.

Intl, Inc., 1383 8.Ct. 2321, 2327 (2018).

The government must not force a private citizen,

including a parent, to utter or not utter what is not in

their minds to their child, thereby compelling parents

like Nita to Speak in a Certain Way and punishing

Nita for Not Speaking the Way they Wanted Nita to

Speak to Nita’s only child (Santosky v. Kramer).

Illinois courts here have violated the “bedrock

principle” that “no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party” Jd. at 1254

(quoting Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616, 656 (2014)).

16

IDVA, as used by the Illinois Courts, has disrupted

this parent-child relationship, severing familial ties

and imposing compelled speech (by punishing Nita for

alleged messages from 2014) in matters concerning

the child’s gender identity, raising severe concerns

about its constitutionality, subverting and undermining

the core tenets of the First Amendment and the Constitution.

The court’s decision coerces Nita into specific

speech targeted at their child regarding A.A.’s gender

identity, further infringing upon Nita’s expressive

rights.

Under this Court’s compelled-speech precedent,

the state invades this freedom of mind when it forces

a private citizen to speak the government’s message. 1

B. Gag Order

The order under review is effectively a “gag

order” violating Nita’s First Amendment rights. Gag

orders “warrant a rigorous review because they rest at

the intersection of two disfavored forms of expressive

limitations: prior restraints and content-based

restrictions.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788,

796-97 (4th Cir. 2018). Indeed, gag orders are “presumptively unconstitutional.” Id. at 797. Gag orders may

be issued only under an exceptionally narrow set of

circumstances. See id. at 797-98 (citing Neb. Press

1 See, e.g., Agency for Intl Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc. Inti, Inc.,

133 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 (2018) (private aid organizations mandated

to publish a policy opposing prostitution); Wooley, 480 U.S. at 715

(citizens forced to display the state motto on their license plates);

Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642 (students required to salute the flag

and recite the Pledge of Allegiance).

17

Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 569 (1976), Malone v.

Rose, No. M2023-01453-COA-WR-CV (Tenn. Ct. App.

Mar. 26, 2024))

C. Causing Irreparable Injury

Nita’s “loss of First Amendment freedoms...

unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod

v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion);

see Johnson v. Bergland, 586 F.2d 9938, 995 (4th Cir.

1978) (“Violations of [F]irst [A]mendment rights

constitute per se irreparable injury.”). Parties need

not endure repeated and irreparable abridgments of

their First Amendment rights.

There must be evidence or findings that the judicial officer finds imminent prejudice to the administration of justice. See In re Oliver, 452 F.2d 111 (7th

Cir. 1971).

There is no such finding here.

II. VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

An appellate court must review lower court legal

errors and is prohibited from introducing new, unadjudicated charges or altering the case’s legal framework.

The ideals of Due Process, Equal Protection of the

laws, and fair trials before impartial tribunals in

which every defendant stands equal before the law are

deeply ingrained in the legal jurisprudence of the

United States and have been upheld by the United

States Supreme Court. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S.

254, 271 (1970).

There is no question that an impartial decisionmaker is “a principle of justice so rooted in the

traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-88]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]