I'm going to build a law firm with the sole mission of exposing, punishing and destroying the Cabal.
I'm a top graduate of a top tier law school with 30 years of experience at elite law firms doing consequential legal work. I know how things work and I know the challenges this enterprise will face. And I also know lots of great lawyers who are conservative and who are tired of waiting on others to fix things.
But it is time. It's up to every one of us to do more than post on message boards and talk with friends who are safe. We all need to find a way to advance this cause. Or, quite simply, it will not happen.
My vision is to find and partner with top lawyers all over the country who feel the same passion to act.
The areas of attack will be:
-
FOIA requests on EVERYTHING from covid to the Iran deal to Epstein to Benghazi to Uranium1 to the Clinton Foundation to government spending to missing Pentagon trillions to lobbying abuses to vote fraud ... and on and on. Followed by quick and merciless litigation for every delay in submitting responses to each FOIA request. Basically, Judicial Watch on steroids.
-
Citizen lawsuits against government and politicians for failing to use our tax dollars appropriately.
-
Citizen lawsuits on behalf of every family who lost anyone arising from government employee fraud, corruption and coverup. Think every war, Benghazi, false flag, Afghanistan, Fast & Furious, covid, you name it.
-
Citizen lawsuits for depriving us of our right to vote through manipulation of the results.
-
Class action lawsuits against the media for misrepresentation of its product as "fact" and "news."
-
Civil RICO cases for criminal enterprise activity.
This won't be without risk, both financially and in terms of personal safety. But the more prominent and widespread we become, the harder it will be to stop us with violence.
If you're considering joining me, know that there is plenty of potential upside too. Judgments in #5 and #6 could be massive and attorney's fees could be huge as well. Few lawyers will ever have a chance at such massive judgments. Even more, the satisfaction at having made a difference will be impossible to calculate. So there is plenty of upside for the risk.
This is where I'm headed. Who is in?
Posting here for visibility.
Not quite a lawyer pede, but close.
I would suggest your first task to be suing Biden, and the Biden Administration, for not allowing comments on the official White House YouTube Channel.
There already is precedent under Knight Institute v. Trump.
Comments are turned off on every video: https://www.youtube.com/c/WhiteHouse/videos
Here is the case: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9996943476269818670&q=knight+first+amendment+institute+v.+trump&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1
Information on the case https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739906562/u-s-appeals-court-rules-trump-violated-first-amendment-by-blocking-twitter-follo
The key take away, "a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's decision that found that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain Twitter users, because he uses his Twitter account "to conduct official business and to interact with the public." By preventing critics from accessing his feed, the president is barring them from participating in what the judges deemed a public forum."
If the court system has ruled that a President/Government Official cannot block or violate critics from accessing their feed, or a public forum, by that logic wouldn't turning off YouTube comments be doing the same?
no
trump blocked CERTAIN CRITICS
Presumably if he simply blocked comments it would have been a different thing
I am a mere tradesman but I see this
Yes, he prevented certain critics from accessing his feed, which the judges ruled as a public forum.
By that logic Biden's YouTube comments are a public forum.
No, because biden is not preventing certain critics. He has comments turned off.
The argument against Trump was that the selectivity was the problem.
I think we are making different arguments, my friend.
I am arguing that if blocking certain critics was found illegal, because it is a public forum. That should mean that YouTube comments qualify as a public forum.
If YouTube is a public forum, turning comments off would be the equivalent of silencing all political debate at a public park, sidewalk, etc. Which would violate the first amendment.
Does that also make twatter a public forum? 🤔
no
So only Trump's twatter feed that they deleted. Got it. I wonder if they violated a records retention schedule when they deleted it?