Missouri v. Biden:
“This is a state suing the federal government,”
“It’s not some individual — their rights infringed upon. It’s a state — two states — and a bunch of other folks. And the people who wrote the Great Barrington declaration, their attorneys are involved in it, too.”
THREAD: The Missouri v. Biden case will go down in history as one of the most important civil liberties cases ever tried in a United States court. A ruling was issued recently and I would like to explain this to you. The judge in this case just smacked the government down once again.
The parties have been going back and forth. As we know, the judge has made two exceedingly rare rulings in this case; first, he granted expedited discovery. For details you can read this: https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/09/06/ruling-today-government-cornered-in-court-on-social-media-censorship/
Then, once discovery started coming in, the Plaintiff attorneys couldn’t believe what they were reading, and petitioned the court for expedited depositions. His order declared that several claims the Plaintiffs had made about social media censorship had already been PROVEN. Unheard of, but true. The claims were PROVEN, and there is an active and wide ranging effort to censor and target Americans based on their THOUGHTS and speech.
If you haven’t yet, please read this: https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/10/23/bombshell-court-order-outlines-proven-government-big-tech-censorship/
This article details everything in the judges order, and it’s something.
This piece was written before “The Intercept” wrote their piece. The Intercept piece that went viral was based on the discovery in THIS CASE.
So, once the judge ordered expedited discovery, the government shenanigans began.
The government (Defendants in this case) started filing motions to stop people from being deposed, and in other cases to delay it due to circumstances they outline that are inane and ridiculous. I will detail these in this thread, because I feel like a deep dive follow of this case is something everyone needs.
Then, they filed a mandamus in the appellate court to stop the depositions altogether. The Plaintiffs (MO and LA) consented to a SHORT delay in deposition, bringing them to early Dec.
That wasn’t good enough, of course, so the Defendants filed a motion to stay the depositions and outline all of their nonsense reasons why they would be IRREPARABLY harmed by having to expedite their depositions. They also claimed that the appellate court may rule that the parties won’t have to sit for deposition at all, and that some of the material is privileged- all of which the judge had ALREADY addressed.
Judges don’t like that. Today, the judge ruled on their request.
He ruled that their request for a stay was DENIED, which means that no matter what happens in the appellate court, they must sit for these depositions, because as the judge so eloquently writes, the HARM they are causing to Americans far supersedes any of their nonsense excuses. I am about to do a run down on this 7 page order now, so you have the sauce, but that is a summary.
Here is a link to the order so you can read along: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.104.0.pdf
Please take the time to read this. It outlines all of the topics at hand where the government is actively working to censor views and facts that counter their approved narratives. Understand that this lawsuit covers every major issue in this country today- not just COVID, but also election integrity and the Biden Laptop story.
They filed their appeal to bar CISA, the Surgeon General and the director of Digital Strategy for the White House from having to testify. Their depositions are scheduled for December.
The judge outlines the four criteria the court will use to decide a stay. Note the last one is the Public Interest. Now he will go on to analyze each of these. This is where it gets good, and where we see just how seriously this judge is taking this case."
It's been obvious that the globalist members of the uniparty have been trying to silence anyone who shares information that goes against their narrative. Now evidence is to be presented in a court of law. I pray that fair judge(s) rule the intent of the Constitution at trial and through the appellate level up to SCOTUS if necessary.
I believe this is a big reason why the Plan is/has taken soo long. IT MUST BE DONE RIGHT.
Action COULD have taken place after J6. Let’s be real though, Civil War WOULD have ensued if Trump took action. All roads lead to letting the American people SEE for themselves what WILL occur if we keep a BLIND eye.
This is a war and has been ongoing for a LONG time. If you can’t understand that you have been duped. (Not saying directly to you, just to people in general.)
We are following the laws. You can read the laws, the EOs the law of war manual, the u.s. governments counterinsurgency manual etc. All of them guide the strategy employed by the WHs. The rest is busy work to keep people from Revolting amd going kinetic.
Thank you so much. I will be doing quite a bit of reading this weekend.
Have not even heard about this. Thanks for the great write up!
Seconding this. An excellent outline and a smoking fucking gun on the regime's fascism (and yes, that is the correct term, just without the nationalism).
Thank you BQnita. I did not know about this. You are a good digger for information. Keep up the good work.
The judge didn't kill himself.
I really hope this judge is protected. The WH must know that the beasts will go after him as they do anyone who poses a serious threat to their power. I get a strong and rather uncomfortable feeling that there are a whole lot of 187 thugs roaming about still and until they're all picked off, success for good people will remain in a precarious position. This case, as u/BQnita stresses, is hugely important.
I was surprised that Eric Greitens didn't get that coveted DJT endorsement. That said this now Senator elect plus our feisty Senator Josh Hawley are as we like to say "Are gonna set things aright." Roy "Monsanto" Blunt and Claire McCaskill that's absolutely embarrassing. Come on Show Me's let's get this new blood pumping. No Jabs allowed.
Well, I’m from Missouri on it.
This is the type of shit we should be more focused on and disseminating. Memes are fun and all, but if you want it to land, start meming people to find this story. There's nothing that can be spun here except trying to blame all the COVID censoring on Trump... which might be what he wants. To illustrate how much of the swamp is actually infested and into which branches and just how deep.
Either way, I would personally put more effort into spreading this story far and wide.
We need lawsuits like this, but even more important is the court of public opinion. The less outcry in the court of public opinion, the more likely judges are going to rule in favor of censorship inside the courtroom.
All of us need to influence those around us and inform them of how evil censorship is. Censorship should be considered an evil and a crime against humanity on the level of slavery, genocide, abortion, holocaust, etc. Any government official conspiring to censor viewpoints they disagree with should be eligible for the death penalty. Same with social media. Social media companies should be as afraid to censor people as they would be to own slaves. As long as the public treats censorship like it's no big deal, then censorship will continue to happen like it's no big deal.
Wanted to say thank you for this post. I think I saw something about this sometime ago, but I forgot about it. Keep it up!
Nothing was proven as claimed. The judge found that plaintiffs “proved” the specific people they sought to depose had personal knowledge of issues related to censorship based on the statements plaintiffs introduced. (p.10, 12, 15, 17 of order). The entire reason to depose them is to find out what that personal information is. So no, there is no finding by the court that “censorship was proven.” What happened is plaintiffs met their burden of proof for the particular relief they were seeking. Which is not even close to “proving” the existence of a particular fact. If they had done so, there would be no need for a deposition. The judge could simply rule on the motion for injunction and either grant or deny the TRO.
It always matters what an appellate court does. But timelines alter what that might be. If the deponents refuse to show up and an appellate court vacates the subpoenas before the trial court can compel them to appear, the issue is moot and nothing will happen to them. But if the appellate courts don’t rule for 6 months, they will appear or be held in contempt.
I have not seen if a protective order was issued on the depositions. I am guessing it probably was. Typically it is inappropriate to discuss deposition specifics even in the absence of a protective order until the transcripts are approved by the deponent. They have 30 days from notice that transcripts are available to make the review request.
Would also not read too much into the stay analysis. It is just a CYA. Why would a judge stay an order they just granted, pending appeal? They already ruled. Judges don’t like saying “I could be wrong on that. Will hold off on it till someone else above me chimes in.” It happens, but typically where the relationship between the parties is fundamentally altered by the order and cannot easily be restored to prior condition if reversed on appeal.
Looks interesting - will read more into this. However, I would advise not to put too much emphasis on some of the words in this order such as "irreparable harm". It's not unheard of or monumental - it's the same verbiage for every injunction granted for the last 50 years.
That is just part of what must be proven if you want the judge to grant an injunction. The public interest factors are also an element of getting an injunction.
Way to go Missouri! Can we get other States onboard?
The link does not work. Do you have a good link the one that says go here to read along
I believe this is it fren. Apologies idk what happened.
Came here to say the final link is all sorts of broken.