« First « Previous Comments 471 - 494 of 494 Search these comments
Yesterday, Variety ran an exciting story headlined, “Elon Musk’s X Sues Advertisers Accused of an ‘Illegal’ Boycott: ‘Now It Is War’.” Space billionaire and the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, declared war on a monopolistic cartel of advertisers that boycotted Twitter/X:
We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war
Here’s the link to Twitter’s newest lawsuit, filed yesterday. According to the lawsuit, a shady Belgian ‘industry trade group’ called the World Federation of Advertisers formed another ‘media watchdog’ group called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The WEF calls the two groups “a flagship project.”
Twitter alleges they launched a conspiracy — joined by dozens of advertisers — to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from Twitter/X. The conspiracy caused Twitter’s 2023 advertising revenue to dive -52%, to $1.13 billion, and revenues are still falling.
That’s a lot of damages.
The lawsuit followed hearings last month in the House Judiciary Committee, where Jim Jordan questioned a GARM representative and exposed internal emails revealing awkward internal discussions like, “we blocked Daily Wire, why not block Fox News?”, and one GARM advertiser member begging to please be allowed to go back on Twitter because it was an “important tool to reach our audience.”
Another email from a top GARM executive said that he “hated their ideology and bulls**t,” referring to Fox, Daily Wire, and Breitbart.
On June 10th, the House Judiciary Committee published its interim report, titled, “GARM’s Harm: How the World’s Biggest Brands Seek to Control Online Speech.” The Committee’s findings fueled Musk’s new lawsuit. Yesterday, video platform Rumble announced it was also joining the lawsuit (link includes video explainer):
Rumble @rumblevideo • 20h
BREAKING: Rumble has joined @X to sue a cartel of advertisers and ad
agencies who conspired to block ad revenue from going to certain
platforms and content creators.
GARM was a conspiracy to perpetrate an advertiser boycott of Rumble and
others, and that's illegal.
Other platforms will surely follow. The Judiciary Committee report is a dream for lawyers, a gift-wrapped windfall, having already assembled the evidence it would otherwise have taken years of discovery to obtain.
So never say Congressional hearings never go anywhere.
The other noteworthy item about this story is how much is happening behind the scenes, or even right in front of the scenes, but we don’t see it, because more urgent news is constantly coming at us through an anti-riot fire hose.*
(* anti-riot fire hoses were never deployed in Minnesota, having been accidentally buried under Tim Walz’s large-print copy of the Communist Manifesto).
As Elon said, echoing Andrew Breitbart, it’s war.
Tulsi Gabbard will be taking legal action against the Biden/Harris admin over putting her on a terrorist watch list:
‘My own government, my president, my commander-in-chief is targeting me as a potential domestic terrorist, the closest word that comes to mind is a complete sense of betrayal.'
‘After serving over 21 years and continuing to serve in our nation's military, my own government has labeled and is targeting me directly now as a domestic terrorist.'
‘They're using people like the air marshals as weapons and pawns to target their political opponents.'
‘Of course, there's no explanation given, which is why we are taking legal recourse.'
‘Obviously, I've been very outspoken about the dangers of the Biden-Harris administration to our democracy and to our freedom and to our national security. This is what happens as a result.'
Shouldn't matter where you land on the political spectrum, a former congresswoman and veteran being put on a terrorist watch list simply for speaking out against the current administration should enrage you. It should enrage you because it's not only a waste of your tax payer money, but because it is what some of the [worst] governments in history do and that doesn't represent America.
The weaponization of government against outspoken political opponents is things you see in governments such as Russia and Iran not America
If you are a Democrat thinking "that's what she gets for betraying us," please remember the Pendulum always swings back the other way. Eventually a non Democrat will take power and the precedent has now been set.
Americans deserve better.
Conservative professor reaches multimillion-dollar settlement after free speech lawsuit
A California community college district settled with a conservative professor, agreeing to pay $2.4 million after years of legal disputes.
Matthew Garrett claimed the Kern Community College District retaliated against him for questioning fund misuse in social justice projects.
Under the settlement, Garrett will receive $154,520 immediately and monthly payments for 20 years, and agreed to resign.
Garrett's attorney's argued that school officials retaliated after the two questioned whether grant money was being improperly used to fund woke social justice initiatives.
On Wednesday, CNN ran a terrific story headlined, “Sarah Palin granted new trial in defamation lawsuit against the New York Times.” On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals revived Palin’s case, which was oddly dismissed in 2022 during jury deliberations. The judge wasn’t taking any chances.
Palin and her lawyers sued the Times for defamation, over its false implication that Sarah had been responsible for the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-Az.) and 18 other people (six people were killed, including a federal judge). After Palin had gone through the whole case and her lawyers put on the entire trial, and after the jury went back to deliberate, only then did federal Judge Jed Rakoff rule that “no reasonable jury would find that the newspaper and editor acted with actual malice in publishing the article.”
While they were still deliberating, many of the jurors got push alerts on their phones about the judge’s decision, as joyful corporate media rushed to announce the happy news. Unsurprisingly, the jury, having been told how to vote, returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict for the Times.
On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case and ordered a new trial The decision is a fascinating read, carefully describing the media’s disgusting sausage-making and editorial character assassination. This is the second time the appellate court overruled Judge Rakoff and reinstated Sarah’s case.
The bungled dismissal and the poisoning of the jury were only two of the many problems the Court of Appeals noticed:
Despite the district court's Rule 50 dismissal, the jury was
allowed to reach a verdict, and it found the Times and Bennet "not
liable." Unfortunately, several major issues at trial -specifically, the
erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, a
legally erroneous response to a mid-deliberation jury question, and
jurors learning during deliberations of the district court's Rule 50
dismissal ruling -impugn the reliability of that verdict.
Not only that, but the Court of Appeals essentially found Sarah had proven her defamation case at the sky-high clear and convincing standard. “After reviewing the record and making all reasonable inferences in Palin’s favor,” the Court noted, “we conclude that there exists sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.”
In legal terms, that’s what we call a “burn” on the trial judge.
The New York Times would be well advised to settle at this point. They say justice delayed is justice denied, but Sarah Palin may finally be about to get paid for the Times’ horrible reporting.
At Amherst College, the share of Black students decreased sharply — by eight percentage points — for this year’s entering class, according to data released on Thursday. ...
Amherst’s data showed that the percentage of white students enrolling rose sharply, while the percentage of Asian American students rose slightly.
Proud to Be Suing Hospitals and Doctors That Inject Hep B Vaccines Into Newborns Without Parental Consent
Hospitals and doctors across the nation: You are on notice
ICAN is supporting an initiative that is long overdue: suing doctors and hospitals that inject newborns with a hepatitis B vaccine without parental consent.
The hepatitis B vaccine is a case study in agency capture. The target for this product was sex workers and intravenous drug users, and the rare pregnant mother who was hepatitis B positive. The problem was that CDC could not get the sex workers and intravenous drug users to take this product. The story would have ended there if pharma didn’t stand to earn billions through a wider mandate of this product.
If your newborn received a hep B vaccine at the hospital without your consent, you may be entitled to compensation. Don’t let the hospital get away with doing this to other parents in the future. Contact us today.
Simply fill out the form on this page and one of our attorneys will provide a free evaluation of your potential claim.
So the Supreme Court justly ruled that "Affirmative Action" is unconstitutional, because it is obviously racism in itself, judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character or any other personal qualities.
Pfizer is tripping over its arguments
These lawsuits are revelatory.
Pfizer is contradicting itself between the Brook Jackson case and the Kansas case.
1. Contract Conditions:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer claims the contract had multiple "specific terms for Pfizer's performance" and various contractual conditions.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed the contract had only "a single condition of payment: Pfizer's delivery of an FDA authorized or approved vaccine for COVID-19."
2. Statement of Work Requirements:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer argues there were many contractual obligations in the Statement of Work.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer specifically rejected the "allegation that the [Statement of Work] somehow tied payment to Pfizer's compliance with every particular of the clinical protocol or related FDA regulations" as "mistaken and refuted by the [Statement of Work] itself."
3. Clinical Trials:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer suggests clinical trials were part of contractual requirements.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer stated that the Statement of Work "states explicitly that Pfizer's 'clinical trials' are 'out-of-scope,' 'not related' to the agreement, and that the relevant studies were undertaken at Pfizer's expense 'without the use of Government funding.'"
4. Contract Clarity:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer argues for complex contractual obligations.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed "the agreement is crystal clear" that delivery was the only contract condition.
Kansas could raise the doctrine of judicial estoppel meaning a party cannot just change a position to gain advantage when you asserted a different position in a prior case. The test is simple:
Clear contradiction in positions.
To gain tactical advantages in different courts.
Holding Pfizer accountable for its position would protect judicial integrity.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25245990-kansas-motion-for-remand-1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25245991-kansas-v-pfizer-notice-of-removal-1-1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25245992-pfizer-opposition-to-motion-for-remand-kansas
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A federal jury has sided with fired BART workers who sued the agency claiming they lost their jobs over a COVID vaccine mandate.
There are six of them total in the lawsuit and each will receive more than $1 million.
The employees claimed religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate but say they were not accommodated by the transit agency, and subsequently lost their job.
BART did initially grant vaccine exemptions, but the plaintiffs argued they weren't accommodated. An accommodation could have meant that they were able to work from home or get tested regularly for COVID. They argued none of that happened and they lost their jobs.
In total, BART must now pay a combined $7.8 million to all six former employees.
BART is a transit agency that is already between $350 and $400 million in the red, but BART's board of directors did vote eight to one for the vaccine mandate in 2021.
"There are six of them total in the lawsuit and each will receive more
than $1 million. The employees claimed religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate
but say they were not accommodated by the transit agency, and subsequently lost
their job."
Trump sues CBS News for $10B alleging ‘deceptive doctoring’ of Harris’ ‘60 Minutes’ interview
Former President Trump is suing CBS News for $10 billion in damages, stating the network practiced “deceptive conduct” for the purpose of election interference in its interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Yesterday, Axios reported a highly amusing story headlined, “Trump sues CBS News for $10 billion over Harris interview.” Yesterday, President Hilariously, Trump’s lawyers sued CBS in a conservative district in Texas, for deceptively editing Harris’ interview answers to make her look smarter and more well-spoken than she really is, which amounted … wait for it … to election interference.
Here is a link to the Complaint, which if you have any interest in legal matters is very entertaining: -20241031 Trump’s Ten Billion Dollar Halloween Lawsuit vs. CBS.-
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/87shfd7v0tb3gs3pljhsm/20241031-Trump-v.-CBS-Dist.N.D.Tex._2-24-cv-00236.pdf?dl=0&noscript=1&rlkey=buqtyadvdozd72rba5hvefvzg
The claim is based on Texas’s consumer protection statute, the same one Texas AG Ken Paxton is using to sue the vaccine manufacturers. Comically, Trump’s lawsuit alleged that CBS “deceptively edited Kamala’s answer in the October 5 Version to create the appearance that she was articulate and decisive, when in reality her full answer to the question was a jumbled ‘word salad’ that further exposes her and harms her electoral chances.”
Let the games begin!
Supreme Court rules Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board must comply with state law in choosing election judges by Nov. 1
A petition in the Minnesota Supreme Court accusing Hennepin County of failing to comply with election law by not appointing election judges from a chosen list for its Absentee Ballot Board was granted on Tuesday.
The petition was filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance, the Republican Party of Minnesota, Karen Attia, Marlene Stoick and Richard Sutter on Oct. 15 against Hennepin County, Ginny Gelms — the elections official for Hennepin County — and Daniel Rogan, the County Auditor for Hennepin County.
The petitioners accused the county and county officials of violating Minnesota law under allegations they didn’t “appoint any election judges from the Republican Party of Minnesota’s dedicated list… of candidate election judges as required by law.”
In a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Natalie E. Hudson said the governing body of the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board “must appoint election judges from the Republican Part List and may appoint Republican-affiliated election judges not appearing on that list only after it has exhausted the candidates on the list.” The county has until Nov. 1 to comply.
DETROIT — A jury awarded more than $12 million Friday to a woman who lost her job at a Michigan insurance company after declining to get a COVID-19 vaccination.
Much of the award - $10 million - is for punitive damages against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, according to the verdict form.
Lisa Domski, who worked at Blue Cross for more than 30 years, said she was a victim of religious discrimination. The company in 2021 did not grant an exemption from its vaccine policy, despite her insistence that it clashed with her Catholic beliefs.
Rumble Sues California Over Censorship Law That Impacts Satire
A new legal challenge, spearheaded by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, has thrust the state of California into the spotlight once again over allegations of infringing on free speech rights. This federal lawsuit, lodged on behalf of video-sharing platform Rumble, argues that two new California statutes unconstitutionally restrict users’ ability to share political content online.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/rumble-v-bonta.pdf
Under these controversial laws, specifically AB 2655, platforms like Rumble are coerced into policing and removing content that the state deems harmful. These regulations have been criticized for compelling platforms to censor speech, thereby becoming unwilling agents of government censorship. According to ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, in a press release sent to Reclaim The Net, “California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates.” He emphasized the importance of platforms like Rumble, which resist governmental pressures to curtail free expression.
The complaint details the operational challenges: “The law forces Rumble to undertake the impossible task of training its team to recognize and then remove and label content based on inherently vague and subjective terms on which even pollsters and government officials cannot agree, such as what content may be ‘likely to harm’ electoral prospects or may likely undermine confidence in an election.”
Further, Rumble contends that AB 2655 oversteps by altering and compelling the speech of private entities, thus infringing upon their rights to free speech. It argues that neither the Constitution nor Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows California to “alter and compel Rumble’s speech while also mandating that it censor its users’ speech. As such, this Court should enjoin AB 2655 and declare it unlawful.”
AB 2655 oversteps by altering and compelling the speech of private entities, thus infringing upon their rights to free speech. It argues that neither the Constitution nor Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows California to “alter and compel Rumble’s speech while also mandating that it censor its users’ speech. As such, this Court should enjoin AB 2655 and declare it unlawful.”
Florida Lawsuit Seeks Injunction to Prohibit mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Because They Are Bioweapons
On December 1st, 2024, psychotherapist, Joseph Sansone, M.S., PhD filed a new case in Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida (2024-CA-001977) seeking an injunction to prohibit Governor DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody from allowing the continued distribution of mRNA nanoparticle injections because they are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.
The complaint also seeks declaratory judgements that the COVID 19 injections and all mRNA injections violate Weapons of Mass Destruction § 790.166, Fla. Stat. (2023); Fraud § 817.034 Fla Stat. (2023); and clearly violate Florida Medical Consent Law § 766.103 Fla Stat. (2023).
In Official Bulletins, the Florida Department of Health has previously called for a halt to the mRNA injections, advising that they are unsafe for humans and a threat to the human genome. Surgeon General Ladapo has publicly described the mRNA injections as the ‘Anti Christ’ of drugs.
Sansone says the mRNA nanoparticle injections deployed against 23 million Floridians cause multiple disorders and diseases, including death, “Heart attacks, strokes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, neurological disorders, are just a few of the devastating results of these weapons of mass destruction”.
On March 3rd of 2024, Dr. Sansone filed a writ of mandamus in the Florida Supreme Court seeking to compel Governor DeSantis to prohibit the mRNA nanoparticle injections and Attorney General Ashley Moody to confiscate the vials and conduct a forensic analysis. The case was transferred to the Circuit Court in Leon County where it was dismissed in April. Sansone filed an appeal in May that was eventually denied in October.
Dr. Sansone said, “It is time to mount up and ride to the sound of the guns. If you are not in this fight, get in it”. He continued, “It is time that Governor DeSantis listen to the Florida Department of Health and prohibit these mRNA nanoparticle injections in the state of Florida.” He went on to say, “Each time someone gets an mRNA nanoparticle injection, there is a danger of harming others through shedding of this technology. We are informed and we do not give our consent”
Sansone’s 80-page complaint includes an additional 50 plus pages of affidavits from legal, medical, and pharmaceutical industry experts asserting that the COVID 19/mRNA injections are bioweapons. Affidavits were provided by Francis Boyle, J.D., PhD; Karen Kingston; Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD; Rima Laibow, M.D.; Andrew Zywiec, M.D.; Marivic Villa, M.D., and Avery Brinkley, M.D.
The affidavits list a wide range of disorders and diseases caused by the COVID-19/mRNA injections. The affidavits include stunning statements that the mRNA injections are biological and technological weapons and cause a host of disorders.
« First « Previous Comments 471 - 494 of 494 Search these comments
Corporations in particular are afraid of lawsuits because they have a lot of money. Sue them first.
But it's also useful to sue the government when they are violating our rights.
A nice suit started by https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/ :