This article originally appeared on Julie M. Anderson-Holburn’s Substack, Unveiled and Uncensored
SAN JOSE, Calif., June 25 — Journalist and publisher Nik Richie, filed a federal lawsuit against NHL player Evander Kane, seeking a declaration that a permanent Canadian court judgment restricting speech about Kane cannot be enforced against Richie in the United States. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (Case No. 5:26-cv-06348), invokes the federal SPEECH Act, which bars U.S. recognition of foreign speech judgments that don’t meet American constitutional standards. Richie demands a jury trial.
Richie, an Orange County resident, filed the federal action in Santa Clara County’s judicial division, where the case is required to be brought under the court’s local rules. The underlying dispute — and the parallel civil harassment case, (Case No. 30-2026-01575619-CU-HR-CJC) still pending against Richie — originated in Orange County.
The suit centers on Richie’s First Amendment right to report on matters of public interest, and arises from his May 21 interview with Anna Kane —where Kane discusses her personal experiences, including intimate partner violence and allegations regarding the marriage and the couple’s family law case.
At the center of the dispute is a default judgment entered May 14, 2025, by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta against Kane’s ex-wife, Anna Kane. That judgment permanently bars her from posting about Kane, his family, their children, or even “these or past legal proceedings” on any social media platform. Richie was not a party to the Alberta case and was never served in it — but according to the complaint, Kane’s attorneys argued the judgment’s restrictions could also be enforced against Richie after he published his May 21 interview with Anna Kane.
The complaint traces a sequence of escalating legal pressure: a May 22 demand letter from Kane’s counsel at Blank Rome demanding Richie retract and remove the interview; a June 5 request for civil harassment restraining orders filed in Orange County; and a June 8 ex parte temporary restraining order that, for roughly two weeks, barred Richie from specified social-media posts about Kane — an order the complaint says relied in part on the Alberta judgment.
That TRO was later dissolved by an Orange County commissioner. Separately, Kane registered the Alberta judgment with the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on June 10 — a move Richie’s complaint calls an attempt to enforce it against him specifically, since Anna Kane does not live in California.
This suit comes as the parties separately litigate a civil harassment case in Orange County Superior Court, where a judge ruled July 7 that both Kane and Anna Kane must appear in person if they intend to testify at an Aug. 26 anti-SLAPP hearing and a Sept. 8 evidentiary hearing.
Marc Randazza, Richie’s attorney, said the Alberta judgment was never meant to reach Richie in the first place. “The Canadian order purports to gag Anna Kane, but these nitwits are trying to use it as a basis to gag Nik Richie, an independent journalist,” Randazza said. “Accordingly, we are seeking a SPEECH Act judgment that should tell them what they should have already known. We do not care if some foreign sovereign thinks that our citizens should be gagged. We live in a free country with a strong Constitution. Canada, on the other hand, has the version of the Constitution you would get if you ordered it from Temu.”
Richie characterized the suit as bigger than his own case. “This federal filing isn’t just about one case. It’s about drawing a line,” Richie said. “Free speech cannot become a privilege reserved for the powerful while everyone else is silenced. If we don’t defend the First Amendment when it’s inconvenient, we won’t have it when we need it most.”
Richie’s complaint argues the Alberta judgment amounts to “libel tourism” — using a foreign jurisdiction with weaker speech protections to accomplish what U.S. courts would never allow. Congress passed the SPEECH Act in 2010 specifically to prevent foreign defamation judgments from chilling protected speech in the United States.
JT Morris, deputy director of litigation at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, (F.I.R.E.). addressed the case’s broader stakes. “Other nations may not cherish an unshakable freedom to speak out on matters of public concern,” Morris said. “But America does — that’s why the First Amendment so staunchly protects that freedom. When someone comes to a United States court and tries using a foreign judgment to impose a prior restraint against protected speech, it’s an insult to our Constitution and our national commitment to a robust public debate. Thankfully, Congress passed the SPEECH Act to prevent that from happening.”
Raees Mohamed, a partner at RM Warner P.L.C. who practices internet and free-speech law, echoed that assessment. “The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the border,” Mohamed said. “A foreign court cannot become a backdoor to censor American journalism. Victims don’t lose their voice simply because powerful people prefer silence. Our legal tradition rejects prior restraints because the answer to disputed speech is more speech — not government censorship.”
Mohamed said the case’s significance lies in the underlying subject matter. “The speech at issue concerns allegations of rape, domestic abuse, coercive control, and other misconduct made by Evander Kane’s ex-wife,” he said. “Regardless of how anyone views those allegations, the First Amendment strongly protects the public’s ability to hear them and the press’s ability to report on them without fear of foreign censorship being imported into American courts.”
Preston Byrne, a dual-qualified American and English technology lawyer at Byrne & Storm, P.C., and architect of the proposed federal GRANITE Act — legislation that would let Americans sue foreign sovereigns for damages over foreign censorship enforcement — offered a more measured read on the suit’s prospects. “This lawsuit’s attempted use of the SPEECH Act is a novel interpretation; it will be interesting to see what the Court does with it,” Byrne said. “I think the plaintiff [Richie] is more likely to succeed on the First Amendment grounds outlined in the Complaint. The foreign orders at issue in this case are an example of escalating attempts by foreign states and litigants to get censorial foreign edicts enforced on U.S. soil. This is an enormous problem, and one that only Congress can adequately fix.”
Richie is asking the court to declare the Alberta judgment unenforceable against him in the U.S., and to declare that any further state-court action by Kane based on the same speech would be subject to anti-SLAPP protection under California law. A case management conference in the federal matter is set for Sept. 23, 2026, at 10 a.m. in San Jose.
This case is one worth watching closely — not just for its First Amendment implications, but for what it may signal about a broader cultural moment. Survivors of abuse are increasingly using media, litigation, and public platforms to challenge institutions and individuals who have historically controlled the narrative around their experiences. Whether that shift ultimately reshapes how family courts, foreign judgments, and press freedom intersect remains to be seen.
Kane’s counsel at Blank Rome, Joseph Mellema and Ryan Coy, did not respond to email requests for comment on either the Orange County hearing or the federal suit. Mellema was notified in person on two occasions that a request for comment would be sent by email.
This article is investigative reporting intended for public-information and public-interest purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney or qualified legal professional. References to laws, court proceedings, or legal processes are presented for journalistic and informational purposes.
Julie M. Anderson-Holburn is a California-based investigative journalist reporting on criminal and family court corruption, judicial abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and systemic failures. Her work is published on NewsBreak, Substack, and The Family Court Circus, and has been featured by the Center for Judicial Excellence and National Safe Parents. Julie believes that exposing the truth is the first step toward meaningful reform.
0 comments