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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent post.
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!
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
Came here to say the final link is all sorts of broken.