Darkness Cannot Hide the Corrupt Family ‘Courts’

A Disgrace to American Jurisprudence

Far from adjudicating the Law, Family Courts function more like Star Chambers, where the most heinous crimes are committed against the most vulnerable members of society with impunity. Thousands of children and women have died unnecessarily over decades in the “anti-Courts” of Family Court. They are the epitome of judicial abuse par excellence, trafficking innocent lives in a(n at minimum) 50-billion-dollar industry, but no reform is possible as long as they keep Sunlight away from their atrocities. Their genocide-level crimes are hidden through the isolation and decimation of victims, elimination of witnesses, intimidation of reporters, and mayhem and murder — much like in totalitarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia or Russia.

As I started to speak about the horrors I was witnessing, it became clear to me that Family Court abuses are above all a First Amendment problem: they stalked, harassed, and falsely arrested me, while news agencies publishing my interviews were threatened and ordered to take down their articles. Then, they tried to silence me through an unconstitutional “protective order,” a bogus contempt finding, and the threat of incarceration. There is a reason why Free Speech is in the very First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as the first defense against tyranny. I have therefore filed a federal lawsuit against the violators of my Free Speech, as follows, with the help of a celebrated advocate of constitutional rights, Bruce Fein, Esq.:

COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiff, BANDY X. LEE, through her undersigned attorneys, and files this Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages against Defendants EVELYN NISSIRIOS and MICHAEL ANTONIEWICZ for flagrant violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process and freedom of speech under color of state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff states as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

1. This Court possess federal question subject matter over Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because they arise under federal law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they reside in this District the transactions and occurrences that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) (1) and (2) because Defendants reside in the District and the transactions and occurrences that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Dr. BANDY X. LEE is a forensic and social psychiatrist and a world expert on violence who taught at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Law School for 17 years before joining the Harvard Program in Psychiatry and the Law. Plaintiff resides in New York City.

5. DR. LEE is currently president of the World Mental Health Coalition, the largest professional organization to address the problem of dangerous leadership and its contribution to a “mental health pandemic.’’ During medical school, DR. LEE also obtained a divinity degree to expand her understanding of the human condition and later did a fellowship in social psychiatry. Trained at Yale and Harvard Universities, she was chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and a research fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health. At Yale Law School, she taught clinical courses covering the mental health aspects of asylum law, criminal justice, and veteran legal services. Her clinical practice consists of psychiatric services at maximum-security prisons and in state hospitals, in addition to working as an expert witness for criminal and civil courts. At Yale College, she was a popular professor who taught the Global Health Studies course, “Violence: Causes and Cures.” Most recently, with multiple world experts in the field, she helped to co-found the Violence Prevention Institute, which has been commissioned to investigate reforming all forty-four prisons of New York State. Lee served as Director of Research for the Center for the Study of Violence (Harvard, U. Penn., N.Y.U., and Yale), co founded Yale’<; Violence and Health Study Group at the MacMillan Center for International Studies, and has led an academic collaborators project for the World Health Organization’s Violence Prevention Alliance, helping to translate scholarship into implementation and to support research in low- and middle-income countries. She has consulted with governments on prison reform and community violence prevention, such as for France, lreland, Alabama, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. She has also played a key role in initiating reforms at Rikers Island, a correctional facility in New York City known for extreme levels of violence.

6. DR. LEE authored what is considered the most comprehensive textbook on the subject to date, “Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Causes, Consequences, and Cures” (Wiley­ Blackwell, 2019), used in university courses worldwide, published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and chapters, and edited 17 scholarly books and journal special issues. She penned over 300 opinion editorials in outlets such as the Guardian, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Independent, and Politico. The World Mental Health Coalition is an educational organization that assembles mental health expe11s to collaborate with other disciplines for the betterment of public mental health and public safety.

7. Defendant EVELYN F. NISSIRIOS is a New Jersey attorney. Defendant Nissirios has been appointed guardian ad /item for Plaintiff’s niece and nephew in Plaintiff’s brother-in-law’s divorce proceedings against Plaintiff’s sister.

8. Defendant Judge MICHAEL ANTONIEWICZ sits on the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part-Bergen County.

INTRODUCTION

9. Family courts are notorious for discounting claims of domestic violence against women and minors in child custody proceedings. The phenomenon has been meticulously documented by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly, 53rd session, 19 June-14 July 2023, Agenda item 3, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, 13 April 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/specialprocedures/sr-violence-against-women. Among other things, the report noted, “The tendency to dismiss the history of domestic violence and abuse in custody cases extends to cases where mothers and/or children themselves have brought forward credible allegations of physical or sexual abuse. In several countries, family courts have tended to judge such allegations as deliberate efforts by mothers to manipulate their children and to separate themselves from their fathers.”

10. Parties in family court commonly are without knowledge or resources to defend their rights. Transparency thus plays a pivotal role in deterring judicial abuses. It discourages perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret or open bias or partiality. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 569 (1980). Jeremy Bentham similarly noted, “Without publicity, all other checks are insufficient: in comparison to publicity, all other checks are of small amount.” 1 J. Bentham Rationale of Judicial Evidence 524 (1827).

STATEMENT

11. Plaintiff, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, has written extensively about mental health issues that often arise in Family Court or otherwise.

12. Plaintiff naturally took a keen interest in her sister’s divorce-child custody case in Bergen County, New Jersey. She posted scores of articles about the case alleging bias and unfairness on Medium and Substack often using pejoratives to characterize Co-Defendant Nissirios’ actions as guardian ad litem of her niece and nephew.

13. None of the Plaintiff’s postings disparaging Co-Defendant Nissirios prompted the latter to sue for defamation where truth is a constitutional defense under the First Amendment.

14. Instead, Co-Defendant Nissirios obtained a temporary protective order (TPO) from Co­ Defendant Judge Antoniewicz to evade truth as a defense on December 5, 2024, sub. nom. Evelyn Nissirios v. Bandy Lee, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No.: FV-02–74–25. Among other things, the TPO falsely declared, “By consent, Bandy Lee shall remove all posts regarding [Evelyn Nissirios] including any links that Bandy Lee has control over pending further Order of the Court.”

15. Plaintiff Bandy Lee immediately informed the Court that she had not authorized her then attorney to remove her posts regarding Co-Defendant Nissirios; and that she was silenced from raising this objection by the Court clerk who muted her microphone. Plaintiff later submitted an undisputed Declaration repeating that she had never authorized her attorney to consent to removing Plaintiff’s posts. Plaintiff’s former attorney Tricia Lindsay has not disputed Plaintiff’s Declaration.

16. Plaintiff’s posts regarding Co-Defendant Nissirios (four in number) are fully protected by the First Amendment. See e.g., Exhibit 1 (https://medium.com/@bandyxlee/my-proposal-to-a-family-court-judge-jane-gallina-mecca-e3eaf24e3938). No court has ever found any of the postings defamatory or otherwise unlawful. To the extent Co-Defendant Nissirios knew about the postings, it was because she voluntarily chose to visit relevant websites.

17. Notwithstanding the December 5 TPO, Plaintiff did not remove her posts regarding Nissirios because the TRO was flagrantly unconstitutional on at least two grounds: Plaintiff never consented to remove her posts; and, the posts were fully protected by the First Amendment.

18. On January 10, 2025, a hearing was held before Co-Defendant Judge Antoniewicz on Co­ Defendant Nissirios’ motion to hold Plaintiff in contempt for violating the flagrantly unconstitutional TPO in declining to remove her posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios.

19. Co-Defendant Judge Antoniewicz held Plaintiff in contempt of the TPO, and ordered Plaintiff to pay $5,381.25 in counsel fees to Co-Defendant Nissirios. Co-Defendant Antoniewicz prohibited Plaintiff from reiterating the twin constitutional defenses she had previously raised against the December 5, 2024, TPO but which Co-Defendant Antoniewicz also refused to entertain at that time: namely, that (1) Plaintiff did not authorize her attorney to consent to the removal of her posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios; and, (2) Plaintiff’s posts were protected under the First Amendment.

20. Since the January 10, 2025, hearing and contempt finding, Plaintiff has removed her posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios under duress. Plaintiff has been chilled against writing new posts about Co-Defendant Nissirios in violation of the First Amendment for fear of another court finding of contempt and possible jail time. Because of the chilling effect against Plaintiff, transparency in judicial proceedings-especially Family Court — that deters lawlessness, wrongdoing, or misbehavior has been diminished contrary to the public interest in the fair administration of justice.

COUNT I-FREE SPEECH-NISSIRIOS

21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–20 as if they were alleged anew.

22. Co-Defendant Nissirios acted jointly or in cooperation with Co-Defendant Antoniewicz to issue the TPO on December 5, 2024, unconstitutionally requiring Plaintiff to remove her electronic postings relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios in violation of due process and free speech and to find Plaintiff in contempt of the TPO on January 10, 2025, and impose sanctions in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

23. The violation of Plaintiff’s free speech contravened clearly established constitutional law as expounded by the United States Supreme Court.

24. Suppression of free speech even provisionally automatically establishes irreparable harm under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) and its progeny. Everyday Co-Defendant Antoniewicz’s December 5, 2024, TRO remains in effect is a further violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights. See e.g., New York Times v. United States, 401 U.S. 713 (1971).

COUNT 2-FREE SPEECH-ANTONIEWICZ

25. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–24.

26. Co-Defendant Antoniewicz acted jointly or in cooperation with Co-Defendant Nissirios to issue the TPO on December 5, 2024, unconstitutionally requiring Plaintiff to remove her electronic postings relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios in violation of due process and free speech and to find Plaintiff in contempt of the TPO on January 10, 2025, and impose sanctions in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

27. The violation of Plaintiff’s free speech contravened clearly established constitutional law as expounded by the United States Supreme Court.

28. Suppression of free speech even provisionally automatically establishes irreparable harm under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,373 (1976) and its progeny. Everyday Co-Defendant Antoniewicz’s December 5, 2024, TRO remains in effect is a further violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights. See e.g., New York Times v. United States, 401 U.S. 713 (197 l ).

COUNT 3-DUE PROCESS-ANTONIEWICZ

29. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1–28.

30. Co-Defendant Antoniewicz prohibited Plaintiff from disavowing her lawyer’s unauthorized consent to remove her postings regarding Co-Defendant Nissirios in issuing its December 5, 2024, TPO against Plaintiff and refused to entertain Plaintiff’s due process and First Amendment challenges to Co-Defendant Nissirios’ January 10, 2025, contempt motion for violating the TPO in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. An unconstitutional court order like an unconstitutional statute cannot serve as the predicate to sanction a violation, a clearly established constitutional rule expounded by the United States Supreme Court.

31. Suppression of free speech even provisionally automatically establishes irreparable harm under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,373 (1976) and its progeny. Everyday Co-Defendant Antoniewicz’s December 5, 2024, TRO remains in effect is a further violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights. See e.g., New York Times v. United States, 401 U.S. 713 (1971).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to grant the following relief:

(a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on Counts 1, 2, and 3;

(b) Declare the December 5, 2024 TPO directing Plaintiff to remove her online posts relating to Co-Defendant Nissirios unconstitutional and enjoin Co-Defendant Antoniewicz from enforcing the TPO, including invalidation of the January 10, 2025, sanction imposed on Plaintiff for violating the unconstitutional order.

© Award nominal damages against Co-Defendant Nissirios and Co-Defendant Antoniewicz;

(d) Award attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988; and,

(e) Such other relief as this Court finds just and proper in the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

ls/Bruce Fein

Bruce Fein

Law Offices of Bruce Fein