Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026_05_12 CCox_Protective ordersFrom:Reverend Crystal Cox To:James Kennedy; Chris Ashcraft; Andy Pernsteiner; Brandon Przygocki; Amanda Hamilton; Brian Gleason; Tom Olson; cityclerk@cityofpa.us; citycouncil@cityofpt.us; Board of Health; Philip Hunsucker; Mindy Walker; Lorraine Rimson; bmack@co.jeffersoncounty.wa.us; Stacey Souza; Maite Hollenbeck Cc:awatkins@cityofpt.us; Brett Anglin; countyclerks; Court Administrator; info@jeffcountychamber.org; jeffbocc; Jefferson County District Court; Leader Editor; Mallory Kruml; psegall@soundpublishing.com Subject:WA Appeals Court Ruling on Protective Orders Censoring Speech Date:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 6:18:27 PM Attachments:Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist"s Motion.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Jefferson County Prosecutors, Judges, and Law Enforcement The Washington State Court of Appeals Division II, Asbach v. Couto (Division II, Docket involving 60325-0-II) recently ruled that Protective Orders Cannot prohibit or restrict future speech. On March 31, 2026, Division II struck down the blanket future-speech restriction as an overbroad, content-based prior restraint violating the First Amendment. The court emphasized that such orders may not issue a total ban on discussing issues, even critically or in advocacy contexts, as this is unconstitutional. Courts cannot impose a broad prospective restriction: banning from posting, sharing, or transmitting any videos or media referring to the petitioners or their children "in any manner whatsoever." “The Courts cannot issue sweeping gag orders on lawful expression.” We want to make sure you folks know about this recent ruling. As there are 9 such Protective Orders from Jefferson County Courts against Reverend Crystal Cox that have directly interfered with our mission, removed massive amounts of online content and endangered Rev Cox and those she advocates for. Also stripping Cox of her guns and gun rights for 6 years based on “offensive speech”. The PO are Unconstitutional and have No Basis in Law. And have cost Jefferson County Law Enforcement and Prosecutors 100’s of thousands of dollars. Judge Walker keeps adding more orders onto Rev Cox. These PO were used to file over 20 malicious prosecution charges against Cox, all ruled to have never been crimes. Universal Church of Light (BBGC LLC) intends to file a Constitutional Rights Violation Lawsuit against the county and Judge Mindy Walker and Judge Lorraine Rimson personally and professionally for constitutional rights violations. And a separate lawsuit against the county and 7+ deputies for conspiracy against rights and malicious prosecution. In the meantime, we feel it is important that Jefferson County Courts know about this recent ruling. To stop this from happening to other Jefferson County Citizens. Reverend Crystal Cox provided Judge Rimson, Judge Mack and Judge Walker with dozens of pages of case law on Unconstitutional Prior Restraints, Parody Laws, First Amendment Cases and Cases that clearly showed Jefferson County Courts had no right to issue a protective order prohibiting or banning Future Speech. Cox was Ignored year after year. Yet the Petitioners continue to post online about Cox, terrorizing Cox, even at her own home. Jefferson County Judges and law enforcement were made aware of this over and over and continued to violate the civil and constitutional rights of Reverend Cox. We Hope You Take this Matter Seriously as it is costing taxpayers Millions. /s/Reverend Crystal Cox, Pro Se, Issue Advocate, Victim Advocate Universal Church of Light, WA Public Benefit Nonprofit -- Reverend Crystal Cox, Director, Head Pastor Universal Church of Light BBGC LLC, a Public Benefit 501(c)(3) nonprofit Victims Advocacy, Human Rights Advocacy, Issue Advocacy, Religious Organization, Community Support, Senior Advocacy, Homeless Advocacy, Victim Support. Lesbian Advocacy, Spiritual Advisor, Healer. UBI 603 388 411 Cour t of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion ANTHONY TOMASHEFSKY MAY 12, 2026 3 3 Share In a major victory for press freedom and First Amendment rights, the Washington State Court of Appeals Division II has granted a motion to publish a pivotal decision regarding the constitutional limits of civil protection orders. As an investigative journalist for The Olympic Herald, I spearheaded this motion, with additional support from public interest advocates. 12 D2 60325 Published Opinion 230KB ∙ PDF file Download Download 603250 Tomashefsky Motion to Publish 293KB ∙ PDF file Download 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…1/7 The newly published opinion, stemming from the consolidated cases of Asbach v. Couto, establishes crucial statewide precedent. It clarifies how trial courts must balance the state’s interest in preventing domestic violence with the free speech rights of citizens in the digital age. The Core of the Case The underlying dispute involved Domestic Violence Protection Orders granted to Karina and Aiden Asbach against Adam Couto. The trial court found that Couto engaged in “coercive control” by, among other things, posting a public YouTube video regarding his estranged family. Under Washington’s recently expanded domestic violence statute, RCW 7.105, “coercive control” is defined as a pattern of behavior that causes emotional or psychological harm and unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will. In granting the DVPOs, the trial court ordered Couto to remove the existing video. However, the court went further, imposing a prospective restriction that restrained him from posting, sharing, or transmitting “any videos or other such media which Download 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…2/7 refers to the petitioner or the parties’ children, whether by name or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever.” On March 31, 2026, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision affirming the DVPOs generally but striking down the blanket restriction on Couto’s future online postings. The Court held that prohibiting a citizen from discussing their family “in any manner whatsoever” was not narrowly tailored and constituted an unconstitutional content- based restriction under the First Amendment. The Olympic Herald’s Fight for Publication Because the March 31 decision was initially unpublished, it could not serve as binding precedent for future cases. Recognizing the critical First Amendment implications, as an investigative journalist, recognized member of the Society of Professional Journalists, and publisher of The Olympic Herald, I filed a Non-Party Motion to Publish the opinion. I argued that the 2022 legislative overhaul of RCW 7.105 has inadvertently caused confusion among trial courts, occasionally leading to the unconstitutional censorship of protected speech under the guise of preventing “coercive control.” 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…3/7 I emphasized that the press and the public share a vital interest in clearly defining the constitutional boundaries of speech, ensuring that journalists and citizens can scrutinize court proceedings and publish on matters of public concern without fear of unlawful prior restraints. “Binding precedent that strictly curtails this is of paramount public importance,” I stated in my motion, asserting that the protections articulated in previous case law must apply with equal force to modern digital media. Support from Victim Advocates The push to publish the decision also garnered significant support from the advocacy community. Gina Bloom, a legislative lobbyist, certified crime victim advocate, and parenting coordinator, filed a separate motion urging the Court to publish the opinion. Bloom highlighted a counterintuitive but severe consequence of overly broad gag orders: they frequently punish the very victims they are designed to protect. Bloom Motion To Publish 273KB ∙ PDF file Download Download 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…4/7 Bloom pointed out that in modern family court litigation, when victims speak publicly about their abuse, criticize institutional failures, or advocate for reform, their speech is increasingly weaponized against them and labeled as “harassment” or “coercive control.” By publishing the decision, Bloom argued, the Court provides essential guidance that “victims do not forfeit their constitutional right to speak publicly about abuse, family court experiences, or perceived failures of the legal system merely because the opposing party finds such speech unwelcome.” The Court’s acknowledgment that public discussion of perceived family court bias constitutes protected political expression is a massive victory for public advocacy. Binding Precedent On May 12, 2026, the Court of Appeals officially granted the motions, ordering the opinion to be published in the Washington Appellate Reports. This ruling ensures that while courts remain empowered to prohibit unprotected conduct—such as true threats, stalking, and actual domestic violence—they cannot issue sweeping bans that chill lawful advocacy, investigative journalism, or a citizen’s fundamental right to free expression. 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…5/7 Thanks to the diligent efforts of The Olympic Herald and allied advocates, Washington’s legal framework now has a robust and clearly defined constitutional guardrail for the digital age. I’m 100% reader-supported, with zero corporate backing. To help fund my work, please consider a paid subscription or a one-time GoFundMe donation. 12 Likes ∙3 Restacks Discussion about this post reverendcrystalcox@gmail.com Subscribe Previous Next Comments Restacks 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…6/7 1 more comment... Write a comment... Kristin 6h Nice! Congratulations on a job very well done by everyone involved. LIKE (2)REPLY SHARE Obser ver 5h What did we ever do before The Olympic Herald? I don't know, but i don't want those days back. So grateful for grass roots journalism. Great job with this! LIKE (1)REPLY SHARE © 2026 The Olympic Herald · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Substack is the home for great culture 5/12/26, 5:34 PM Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Olympic Herald Journalist's Motion https://www.olympicherald.com/p/court-of-appeals-rules-in-favor-of?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwosJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFoZEdmYzNWQXRCOFlxWWdIc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg…7/7