IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CourtAMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORSPETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERvs.XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND John & Jane Does I-V; Black & White Partnerships; and ABC Corporations I-V,Defendants.Dear Friend,Today America’s Frontline Doctors filed a petition for a temporary restraining order against the U.S. Secretary of the U.S. Department of HHS, Xavier Becerra.Here’s why:Children are not guinea pigs: There is a statistically zero percent chance of young people dying of COVID-19. To promote an investigational product that has no long-term studies and no animal studies, to pressure parents and teens to use an experimental product that has not been fully approved by the FDA breaks all of the rules of medicine and the HHS’ own goal to protect Americans.The expansion of the Emergency Use Authorization (EAU) for younger children is all risk and no benefit. HHS is ignoring the science and the data.HHS is betraying its mission to, “enhance the health and well-being of all Americans…and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.”Sadly, millions of parents are being misled by HHS Secretary Becerra and the FDA, and we are calling on the Federal Courts to stop Becerra and compel HHS to suspend the promotion and rush to administer a vaccine that has not been fully tested and approved.COVID 19 Vaccine Side Effects: We’ve never seen this level of side effects for any vaccine without the FDA taking action. The Rotavirus vaccine was canceled for 15 cases of non-lethal side effects and the Swine Flu vaccine was canceled for 25 deaths. But now, by the CDC’s own data, we are seeing a 12,000 percent increase in deaths with these vaccines and they’re still promoting this to our kids.Support the Science: Under the age of 20, the survivability rate for COVID-19 is 99.997 percent. More than 4,000 deaths have been tied to the administering of COVID-19 vaccines in the last four months as opposed to 1,500 total in the previous ten years for all vaccines.This last fact alone should be enough to STOP this dangerous vaccine. But HHS, the FDA and the CDC are ignoring the science and they are putting the lives of our children on the line.
« First « Previous Comments 331 - 369 of 369 Search
Ramaswamy Wins Lawsuit Against World Economic Forum After Being Labeled A ‘Young Global Leader’Republican candidate “explicitly rejected their ridiculous award”Ramaswamy, who is running a presidential campaign, explained that he “explicitly rejected their ridiculous award,” two years ago and that Klaus Schwabb’s outfit “repeatedly failed to remove my name despite escalating demands. So I sued them. And we just succeeded.”He claimed that “I’ve been the leading opponent in America of the World Economic Forum’s agenda.”
Former Evergreen schools teacher who brought MAGA hat to staff training settles case for $400K9th Circuit ruled in December that former Wy’east Middle School principal violated his First Amendment rightsA former Evergreen Public Schools teacher who alleged retaliation by his principal after he brought a “Make America Great Again” hat to a staff-only training reached a settlement of $400,000 in the case.In December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Caroline Garrett, then the principal at Wy’east Middle School, violated Eric Dodge’s First Amendment rights by alleging the hat was inappropriate given the setting. The incidents occurred on two occasions just before the start of the 2019-2020 school year, the first of which was during a staff-only cultural sensitivity and racial bias training hosted by a professor from Washington State University.The settlement was reached on June 22 with the Schools Insurance Association of Washington, a property and liability risk pooling program for school districts with enrollments in excess of 2,000 students, of which Evergreen is a member. The funds were paid for by the association on behalf of Garrett.
Elon Musk Sues Leftist Group over Campaign to ‘Scare’ Advertisers Away from Twitter
1. Defendants Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. (“CCDH US”) and Centerfor Countering Digital Hate Ltd. (“CCDH UK,” collectively “CCDH”) -- activist organizationsmasquerading as research agencies, funded and supported by unknown organizations,individuals and potentially even foreign governments with ties to legacy media companies --have embarked on a scare campaign to drive away advertisers from the X platform. CCDH hasdone this by engaging in a series of unlawful acts designed to improperly gain access toprotected X Corp. data, needed by CCDH so that it could cherry-pick from the hundreds ofmillions of posts made each day on X and falsely claim it had statistical support showing theplatform is overwhelmed with harmful content.2. CCDH intentionally and unlawfully accessed data it sought regarding the Xplatform in two ways. CCDH US, as a registered user of X, scraped data from X’s platform inviolation of the express terms of its agreement with X Corp. CCDH also convinced an unknownthird party -- in violation of that third party’s contractual obligations -- to improperly share logincredentials to a secured database that CCDH then accessed, and retrieved information from, onmultiple occasions without authorization. CCDH, in turn, selectively quoted data it obtained viathose methods. It did so out of context in public reports and articles it prepared to make itappear as if X is overwhelmed by harmful content, and then used that contrived narrative to callfor companies to stop advertising on X.3. CCDH’s underhanded conduct is nothing new. It has a history of using similartactics not for the goal of combating hate, but rather to censor a wide range of viewpoints onsocial media with which it disagrees. CCDH’s efforts often rely on obtaining and intentionallymischaracterizing data in “research” reports it prepares to make it appear as if a few specificusers (often media organizations and high profile individuals) are overwhelming social mediaplatforms with content that CCDH deems harmful. CCDH uses those reports to demand thatplatform providers kick the targeted users off of their platforms, thus silencing their viewpointson broadly debated topics such as COVID-19 vaccines, reproductive healthcare, and climatechange. In this manner, CCDH seeks to prevent public dialogue and the public’s access to freeexpression in favor of an ideological echo chamber that conforms to CCDH’s favoredviewpoints.
RFK Jr Files Lawsuit against Google over Repeated Censorship on YouTubePresidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has filed a lawsuit against YouTube’s parent company Google over the streaming platform’s repeated efforts to censor him.Kennedy’s lawsuit was filed Wednesday and accuses Google of violating his First Amendment rights.RFK Jr. contends his speeches and interviews were expunged inappropriately from the platform, despite his status as a candidate in the 2024 election.Kennedy is the lead challenger to President Joe Biden in the Democrat primary.However, as the presidential primary elections loom, RFK Jr. predicts that the censorship efforts will persist as the establishment colludes to cut him off from voters.Examples of YouTube’s censorship include Kennedy’s speech at Saint Anselm College, as well as his interviews with Jordan Peterson and Mike Tyson, all of which were deleted by the platform.The lawsuit argues these content removals are a blatant disregard for his constitutional rights and echo a worrying trend of suppression across the breadth of the campaign.Kennedy’s legal argument centers on allegations of overreach and the weaponization of government.The lawsuit condemns the Biden administration for orchestrating a censorship campaign attempt to silence dissenting voices.“This complaint concerns the freedom of speech and the extraordinary steps the United States government has taken under the leadership of Joe Biden to silence people it does not want Americans to hear,” the filing states.
A class action lawsuit has been lodged in the Federal Court of Australia against the Australian Government, the Department of Health and Aged Care Secretary Dr. Brendan Murphy, and the Deputy Secretary of Health Products Regulation Group Adjunct Professor John Skerrit.The suit, which includes over 500 claimants, seeks compensation for injuries allegedly sustained from COVID-19 vaccines, according to Sydney Criminal Lawyers.The court documents allege that the respondents’ promotion and use of approved COVID vaccines amount to negligence and/or misfeasance.The claimants argue that this negligence or misfeasance led to various damages, including personal injury, healthcare costs, additional expenses, economic loss, and non-economic loss.The lawsuit asserts that the government owed a duty of care to the public, which was breached by not adequately informing about vaccine risks, not thoroughly researching vaccine impacts, and creating repercussions for those who chose not to get vaccinated.These breaches, they claim, resulted in injuries.The suit also alleges civil misfeasance in public office, where government officials intentionally inflicted injury or acted with the knowledge that their conduct could cause harm, Sydney Criminal Lawyers notes.The government’s power to act in this manner will likely be a focal point of this part of the claim.Despite the lawsuit, the government has not formally responded.However, a Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) safety report from April stated that the adverse risks from COVID vaccinations are extremely low, with a rate of just 0.2%.The report emphasized that “The protective benefits of vaccination far outweigh the potential risks.”The class action is led by Queensland GP Melissa McCann, who raised over $100,000 through crowdfunding to initiate it.Three representatives named in the suit allege severe injuries, including myopericarditis leading to open heart surgery, a debilitating neural disorder, and severe spinal cord inflammation resulting in the inability to walk unassisted.The lawsuit comes amid criticism of the Australian Government’s handling of vaccine information and injury reports.Critics argue that the government and health authorities silenced doctors and downplayed potential vaccine side effects, while mainstream media largely ignored personal accounts of vaccine injuries shared on social media.The Australian Government established a compensation scheme for vaccine injury claims, but it has been criticized as “not fit for purpose.”Claimants have reported slow responses, high costs for additional medical tests, and complex requirements, including the need for a medical professional to certify a link between a person’s condition and a vaccine reaction.As of April 12, Services Australia had received 3501 applications and paid 137 claims totaling over $7.3 million.The lawsuit also raises questions about the ability of victims to sue vaccine manufacturers.In the U.S., legislation protects vaccine manufacturers from liability for COVID vaccine-related injuries.In Australia, compensation was initially set up for two vaccine manufacturers, AstraZeneca and the University of Queensland vaccine from Seqirus.It remains unclear whether other manufacturers, including Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax, have been granted similar protections.
State Police Association of Massachusetts@MSPTroopers“Earlier today, I had the distinct honor and privilege of informing seven of our Troopers, who have been suspended without pay due to Executive Order 595, that they would be returning to work. This fight began in October of 2021 when the Association filed a grievance on their behalf. Since then, the Association has been committed to making these members whole. Through this lengthy and grueling grievance and arbitration process, the Association has remained steadfast in our fight to right the injustices of the Baker Administration. Executive Order 595 was more than just an affront to the hard-working members of the Mass State Police, it was an attack on organized labor and the rights of our members. Governor Baker and his administration refused to listen or work with our Association, but today we can no longer be ignored. These members, whose religious convictions were trampled, and who were left without pay or benefits, now can choose to return to work and will be made whole through retroactive pay and earned seniority. ...
Doctor Coalition Sues California Medical Board for Insisting ‘White Individuals Are Naturally Racist’Two doctors, one black, and the other an Iranian-American, have sued the Medical Board of California for its requirement forcing a continuation of medical education courses that are focused on “implicit bias.” ...The lawsuit points out that all state-licensed physicians must complete 50 hours of continuing medical education every two years.It describes “implicit bias” as the “idea that medical professionals unconsciously treat patients differently based on their race or other immutable characteristics,” as reported by The Messenger.In a Fox News Op-Ed, Singleton blasted the California law for what it truly is.“While the law doesn’t say it, the accusation is clear: White people are oppressors and Black people are oppressed. Nationwide, implicit-bias trainings for medical professionals routinely discuss systemic racism, White supremacy, and other race-based attacks on classes of people,” she said.“I don’t care that I’m not the target. This still represents the kind of racist thinking that was starting to fade 50 years ago. I don’t want to be taught this evil, nor do I want to teach it to others,” she added.
All in all, the company's commitment to its DEI and ESG goals cost it billions in sales and market cap, eroding the value of its brand.Now, investors that have seen their portfolios take a hit are suing the company for misrepresenting those goals to investors.Investor Brian Craig filed a lawsuit against Target Chief Executive Brian Cornell, and the Target's board of directors.Craig claimed Target's board misstated its oversight of "social and political risks" to the company, focusing on the wishes of progressive activist investors and failing to account for potential backlash from customers.And Target is not the only brand in the proverbial crosshairs.There's also Anheuser-Busch and Mulvaney-Gate.Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has ordered an investigation into the state's holdings of Anheuser-Busch stock.It turns out that Florida's pension fund is a massive shareholder in the company.It appears to me that AB InBev may have breached legal duties owed to its shareholders, and that a shareholder action may be both appropriate and necessary. To protect BA and the retirees of Florida from losses attributable to AB InBev's disregard of those duties, all options are on the table.Mulvaney-Gate has not just lost the company a bunch of money. It has cost Florida's civil servants' pension funds a lot of money, and the state is looking to sue over the company's representation of DEI and ESG.It remains to be seen how successful these lawsuits will be, but it's certainly another tool in the kit of dismantling corporate Marxism.
The New York Post ran a hopeful and encouraging story yesterday headlined, “COVID victims’ families sue NYC-based EcoHealth for ‘funding, releasing’ virus.”Over the last couple years, military contractor and bioweapons-moneysink EcoHealth Alliance and its shady president, Peter Daszak, have been shown to be up to their dirty little necks in the early pre-pandemic coronavirus gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. EcoHealth received — and continues to receive — millions from U.S. health agencies like the NIH for very questionable scientific bioresearch conveniently located outside the country. I’m not saying EcoHealth is a deep state laundry service; I’m just saying.Anyway, the Post story reported on a lawsuit I’ve long hope to see filed, and now one has hit the docket. On August 2nd, four New York families with relatives who died from covid sued the Manhattan-based NGO that funded coronavirus research in China, alleging it “created” the bug — and “released it, either intentionally or accidentally.”The lawsuit directly alleges two types of injury. First, that EcoHealth and Daszak knew the virus was dangerous and “capable of causing a worldwide pandemic,” but failed ensure necessary safety measures were followed. Second, Daszak helped obscure the virus’s lab-engineered origins, preventing effective treatments from being developed when they could have been useful.I think a negligence lawsuit against EcoHealth has legs, and should survive dismissal so as to get to do discovery. EcoHealth can’t claim it didn’t know the research was dangerous. It will have to argue that (1) its particular research project didn’t create covid, and/or (2) it wasn’t responsible for safety at the Wuhan lab. Only the second point could result in a dismissal if the court agreed.To the extent Daszak was personally involved in the grotesque covid origins coverup, he could be tagged with individual liability that might stick. That claim could be a little more difficult, because — unless I’m missing something — they’ll still have to show Daszak had a duty to these plaintiffs, and that effective treatments could plausibly have been developed.The lawsuit was filed by excellent small-firm attorney Patricia Finn, who was one of the best and smartest pro-freedom lawyers in New York during the pandemic. I wish her good fortune, that a good judge is assigned to her case, and that discovery is fruitful. Patty, let me know if I can help.
💉 Australia’s Umbrella News reported yesterday on a July lawsuit filed Down Under seeking to enjoin all further distribution of the modRNA jabs, headlined “COVID vaccines and your DNA: What the science tells us (and what it doesn’t).”The case was filed in the Federal Court of Australia by Victoria doctor and pharmacist Dr. Julian Fidge. It alleges that covid shots violated Australian law by containing unlicensed genetically-modified products that can, in fact, enter the cell nucleus and permanently change a person’s DNA.As you know, the CDC and corporate media have ceaselessly sworn on a tall stack of witchcraft grimoires that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for the artificial modRNA to ever get into a cell’s nucleus because Science! Shut up! Anti-vaxxers! Hesitation!But two subsequent developments have fueled Dr. Fidge’s lawsuit. The first was a study (reported in C&C) clearly showing reverse transcription of the modRNA into liver cells in a Petri dish. The reverse-transcription happened fast, too; the modRNA practically sprinted into the liver cell DNA. Almost like it was designed to do it. The second development was Kevin McKernan’s recent discovery of unlawful amounts of unexpected e-coli DNA in the shots, which McKernan is generously referring to as “contaminants,” since he doesn’t know for sure whether it was intentional.As described in previous C&C posts, extra e-coli DNA in any kind of shot is ‘no bueno,’ as they say down at the border. Full DNA strands get into the cell nucleus even easier than modRNA does. If the cell nucleus is like a swimming pool, it’s not quite like a crowd of kids wearing e-coli t-shirts leaping into the water at a pool party, but it’s close.So far, the Australian government has defended against the lawsuit’s claims by laughably pointing to corporate media “fact check” websites and the CDC’s Q&A website. I guess when you’re the government you can just use websites and you don’t need any published studies. That’s Science™!We’ll see. There was a time in the early pandemic, when mask mandates were first rolling out, that my regular refrain became: “more and better lawsuits.” It’s beginning to feel like we might be at that kind of inflection point again.Go lawyers, go.
The Hill ran a very encouraging story last week headlined, “Southwest to appeal judge’s ‘religious freedom training’ order.”Last Monday, Texas U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr entered an order sanctioning Southwest for violating a previous order. The case revolved around the illegal firing of a Southwest flight attendant, who was laid off because she posted a pro-life tweet on her social media. A jury found Southwest and the flight attendant union were guilty of violating the attendant’s free speech rights and religious liberties, and awarded her $5.1 million dollars, which was later reduced by the judge to $800,000.As part of the original decision, the judge ordered Southwest to notify all its employees, to make sure they know about their religious freedom rights under Title VII. But Southwest and its lawyers tried to circumvent that order, and instead of following the judge’s instructions, sent a watered-down note to employees implying Southwest had been found innocent, and failed to mention their religious liberty rights or Title VII.So the judge sanctioned Southwest and included two interesting provisions. First, the judge ordered Southwest’s three lawyers to attend “religious freedom education” training provided by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Hill described the ADF as “a Christian conservative legal advocacy group,” a sign of how upset that part of the order has made liberals.Liberals are the ones who force conservatives to go to reeducation training, not the other way around, silly.The judge also wrote out an exact notice that he ordered Southwest to send to its employees, to make sure they get the correct instructions this time.So of course, instead of complying with a little training and a one-paragraph notice that could be emailed to employees at zero cost, Southwest is spending tens of thousands of dollars on appealing the sanctions order and the underlying judgment. “We plan to appeal the recent court order and are in the process of appealing the underlying judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Southwest said in a statement Wednesday.Good luck. The Fifth Circuit was reliably pro-freedom during the pandemic, issuing some of the best anti-mandate orders in the country. District judges have a lot of freedom to sanction parties that violate orders. It could have been much worse, including jail time for contempt. A little training and a note to employees seems like the minimum a judge could do when a company refuses to follow its orders.As to Southwest’s appeal of the underlying judgment, it is well known that appeals of jury verdicts are the most difficult types of appeals to win. Appellate judges hate disturbing all the work that a jury invested in listening to witnesses and reviewing evidence and so forth. So I don’t predict the appeal will be well taken. I predict that the flight attendant’s lawyers will soon be getting even more of their fees paid by Southwest. But we’ll see!Judge Starr was a Trump appointee. So.
So of course, instead of complying with a little training and a one-paragraph notice that could be emailed to employees at zero cost, Southwest is spending tens of thousands of dollars on appealing the sanctions order and the underlying judgment.
Dr. Meryl Nass Sues Maine Medical Board Over Suspension, Alleges Board Violated Her First Amendment Rights
If you have a Facebook account, you are entitled to share in a $725 million dollar settlement, so don’t neglect submitting your claim, if you can hold your nose long enough.The settlement resolves a lawsuit about Facebook sharing users’ private information without their consent. It’s legit, here’s the FTC website announcing the deal.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/08/ftc-approves-final-settlement-facebook
Newsweek ran a highly encouraging story yesterday headlined, “Conservative Journalist Gets $300,000 After 'Antifa' Assault at Protest.”Andy Ngo, the terrific editor-at-large of The Post-Millenial, filed a civil lawsuit in 2020 after he was assaulted by three members of "Antifa.” The attack happened while Andy was covering a protest in downtown Portland, Oregon, in late May 2019, purportedly organized by a group called "Rose City Antifa.”The lawsuit alleged that three Antifa members—Katherine Belyea, Madison Allen, and Joseph Evans—attacked Andy during the protest. Evans, who is totally not suffering from undiagnosed mental illness, has since legally changed his name to ‘Sammich Overkill Schott-Deputy.’ I did not make that up. If you can believe it, Schott-Deputy started the fracas by sucker-punching Andy. Ms. Allen then piled on by hitting Andy with a sign, and Ms. Belyea threw a milkshake at him.The three hooligans failed to appear for a virtual court hearing yesterday, so Multnomah County Circuit Judge Chanpone Sinlapasai found the three youths civilly liable for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, ordering them to pay Andy a total of $300,000 in damages. Schott-Deputy’s lawyer, who did attend, tried to argue that his client was unable to appear due to being homeless, and at the time the lawsuit was originally served, Schott-Deputy was doing time for an unrelated prison sentence (so he couldn’t have been properly served).But the judge overruled the lame excuses, citing the length of the trial and that the suit was initially filed back in 2020.Progress! Keep the lawsuits coming.
“Conservative Journalist Gets $300,000 After 'Antifa' Assault at Protest.”
The Wall Street Journal ran another uplifting, counter-revolutionary lawfare story Tuesday, headlined “Activist Behind Supreme Court Affirmative Action Cases Is Now Suing Law Firms.” The sub-headline explained, “Ed Blum’s organization accuses firms offering fellowships for diverse candidates of racial discrimination against straight, white men.”Ed Blum started the American Alliance for Equal Rights two years ago, advocating to end “affirmative-action.” Separately this summer, in a case involving Harvard College and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Supreme Court overturned nearly 50 years of race-conscious affirmative action at colleges and universities.Fueled by that ruling, earlier this month the Alliance sued an Atlanta-based venture-capital firm fund that only supports Black small businesswomen. The lawsuit accused the VC firm of unlawful racial discrimination. On Tuesday, the Alliance filed two more lawsuits, this time against two prominent democrat-connected law firms, Perkins Coie and Morrison & Foerster, that only give fellowships to diversity candidates.According to the story, the law firms’ fellowship positions are open only to applicants who are ‘students of color,’ ‘students who identify as LGBTQ+,’ or ‘students with disabilities,’ and other similar wacky categories that have nothing whatsoever to do with legal skill, and which include five-figure starting bonuses and salaries right out of law school starting at $200,000 and up.Straight white men need not apply, regardless of law school grades, accomplishments, or capabilities. So.Blum’s newest lawsuits accuse the two Big Law firms of violating Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which bars racial bias in private contracts.You might wonder why a giant law firm would disregard the best candidates, and instead hire people based on skin color or atypical sexual preferences, who barely passed law school. Don’t the clients object? Don’t clients want the best lawyers working on their cases?Not when your biggest customer is the government. When your biggest customer is the government, you hire the lawyers that the government wants. If the government doesn’t want smart lawyers, but only lawyers of a certain color or who have sex a certain way or with certain types of people, then you hire those lawyers.Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once famously said, “whenever you see a distortion in the market, look for the withered hand of government.”Well. There it is. Right there.Best wishes to Ed Blum for his terrific counter-revolutionary work, and we hope to see him (or his lawyers) arguing at the Supreme Court soon.
California mom Jessica Konen settles landmark victory against Spreckels Union School district for $100,000 after she claims her daughter was 'socially transitioned'Jessica Konen said her daughter Alicia, 11, was told by Buena Vista Middle School that she was upset because she didn't know who she 'truly was inside' Single mom Konen accused teachers of encouraging her daughter to think she was a trans boy when she was at the school in 2019 READ MORE: California SUES school district that required teachers to notify parents if their child changes their gender identity or pronouns
A former executive with Morgan Stanley is suing the company for discrimination, alleging he was let go and replaced with a Black woman with “significantly less experience and qualifications” as the part of the financial giant’s efforts to meet its diversity, equity and inclusion goals.Filed Tuesday in federal court in the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit alleges that Kevin Meyersburg was unfairly terminated this spring from his role as managing director and head of executive services after three years with Morgan Stanley. According to the lawsuit, the executive who relayed the news to Meyersburg that he was being terminated expressed “concern” about the experience level of his replacement and “could not explain to Meyersburg why the decision had been made.”…“This is an example of DEI run amok,” Meyersburg’s attorney, Louis Pechman, told The Washington Post. “Race cannot be a factor in employment decisions, period. Full stop.”
Louisiana man wins appeals case against sheriff's office that arrested him for making a joke about Covid...On March 20, 2020, right when things began to be locked down across the country, Bailey posted this joke on his Facebook page:
SHARE SHARE SHARE ! ! ! !" Bailey wrote in an emoji-filled post. "JUST IN: RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER, IF DEPUTIES COME INTO CONTACT WITH ‘THE INFECTED' SHOOT ON SIGHT….Lord have mercy on us all. #Covid9teen #weneedyoubradpitt.This was a clear joke and reference to the movie World War Z starring Brad Pitt.But the Sheriff's Office in Rapides did NOT find this joke funny.Just a few hours after this post, a literal SWAT team showed up at his door and placed him under arrest for making a terroristic threat!The post had no threat in it. It wasn't an instruction anyone would take seriously. It wasn't even really making fun of the Sheriff's department. It was just a silly "Everyone is scared of Covid!" joke.Without a warrant, according to court documents, they arrested Bailey and locked him up with a $1,200 bond.Over a Facebook joke.Fortunately for Bailey, the DA decided not to prosecute him, surely realizing he had no case and that Warren was just making a joke.But by that time, Warren's face had been plastered all over the news, he had been destroyed in the press, and called a threat. The Sheriff's Office, according to Bailey, really messed up his life.Bailey decided he was going to go on the offensive, taking the case to court himself by suing the department.In September 2020, Bailey filed a lawsuit alleging Detective Randell Iles and Sheriff Mark Wood violated his First and Fourth amendment rights.The first court ruled on the side of the cops, saying that the post could be legitimately perceived as a terrorist threat.But justice was still coming. In the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a judge has finally ruled in Bailey's favor, overturning the lower court's ruling.In Friday's ruling, the appellate judges declared that Bailey's Facebook post was not a threat and did not incite violence. The reference to Pitt's fictional character was a giveaway that it was not serious, the court said."The post did not direct any person or group to take any unlawful action immediately or in the near future," the judges wrote. " … at worst, his post was a joke in poor taste, but it cannot be read as intentionally directed to incitement."The sheriff is now being ruled to have violated Warren's 1st Amendment right to free speech and 4th Amendment right by arresting him with no probable cause.I'm a back-the-blue kind of guy, and it honestly helps the police's credibility when jokers like this officer are punished for pushing the envelope."It's a great victory for Waylon and for the Constitution," Field said. "It clearly lays out that police have to respect First Amendment rights online, and that they can't wantonly arrest people who make jokes about them."Honestly, I am shocked that WaPo is writing this pro-First Amendment piece. But I am glad to see it.Bailey isn't sure his life will return to normal, but said he hopes he will no longer fear his hometown's sheriff's office. He's still seeking money for damages and attorney's fees and an apology from the sheriff'soffice.In my non-legal opinion, he deserves every cent from that department and a public apology from everyone involved.Hopefully, this puts a fear into other vindictive sheriffs and police departments.
SHARE SHARE SHARE ! ! ! !" Bailey wrote in an emoji-filled post. "JUST IN: RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFFS OFFICE HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER, IF DEPUTIES COME INTO CONTACT WITH ‘THE INFECTED' SHOOT ON SIGHT….Lord have mercy on us all. #Covid9teen #weneedyoubradpitt.
Teachers in New York City, who were fired for refusing to comply with Covid vaccine mandates, must be given their jobs back and awarded full backpay, a judge has ruled.The case was taken to the State Supreme Court by 10 employees of the New York City Education Department.State Supreme Court Judge Ralph Porzio ruled that the decision to fire the teachers and deny them religious exemptions was unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious.The group included school principals, teachers, and other educators.They sued the city after they were fired over the draconian mandates.In his 22-page opinion, the judge blasted the city for forcing teachers to get vaccinated against their will.
The New York Times ran a delicious story yesterday headlined, “Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped 1st Amendment on Social Media.” “Overstepped” is a bit understated.The story referred to the case of Missouri v. Biden. In what the Times goofily called “a victory for conservatives,” rather than for all Americans, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court injunction banning the White House, CDC, and FBI from influencing social media companies to remove so-called “disinformation.”In the delightful 75-page order, the judges opined that the White House and its Surgeon General had "coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences" and "significantly encouraged the platforms' decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes."The appellate court also found that the FBI had illegally coerced the companies, which had taken down 50% of the online material that the bureau's agents flagged as problematic. "Given the record before us, we cannot say that the F.B.I's messages were plainly threatening in tone or manner,” the judges wrote. But "we do find the F.B.I's requests came with the backing of clear authority over the platforms."It’s not an exaggeration to say this case is probably the most important civil rights case in our lifetimes. This ruling is terrific news. To give you some inside baseball about how good it was, I’ll explain some injunction law.There are four main elements that a party must prove to get an injunction. Three of them are tough. One of the tough ones is that the party must show a “substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.” In simpler words, that means the party seeking the injunction has to convince the court it will probably win the whole case.So when a court grants an injunction, it must also find that, at this point, it looks like the party is probably going to win. It’s like an early trial, a preview of the court’s final decision, a trial-before-the-trial. The party that wins the injunction then has a huge, permanent advantage in the case.So the fact that in Missouri v. Biden, the trial court and now the appellate court have both agreed on the injunction, things are looking very bad for the government and its censorship machine. Which explains why the New York Times finally reported on the case.According to the story, the White House “is considering” appealing to the Supreme Court, and I hope they do. But I would be very surprised if that happens, because we all know the Supreme Court is probably dying to weigh in on this issue.Major progress.
AB 587 requires large social media companies like X Corp. to (1) post terms of service dictated by the government and include terms about how content is moderated on their platforms (the "Terms of Service Requirement") and (2) submit, on a semi-annual basis, to the California Attorney General a "terms of service report" that includes, among other things, (a) "a detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media company for that platform"; (b) information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates (i) hate speech or racism, (ii) extremism or radicalization, (iii) disinformation or misinformation, (iv) harassment, and (v) foreign political interference; as well as (c) information and statistics about actions taken by the social media company to moderate these categories of content (the "Terms of Service Report").AB 587 violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution because it compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will, impermissibly interferes with the constitutionally-protected editorial judgments of companies such as X Corp., has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech that the State deems undesirable or harmful, and places an unjustified and undue burden on social media companies such as X Corp.
The estimates are that the average overturning of anti Constitutional laws, mandates, actions etc. is 18 months,
In 2017, Christian Ard began to scrutinize the bills for his daughter’s regular psychotherapy appointments. He noticed that besides the roughly $400 charge for the therapy, she was also being charged over $500 for each patient visit.Even though insurance was covering two-thirds of the cost, something didn’t seem right. He called his daughter’s nurse practitioner, but she had no idea what the $500 charges were for. The insurance company said it meant his daughter’s sessions had run over 50 minutes—only they hadn’t. UCSF billing said the charges were for documentation but couldn’t tell him what was being documented. “If you don’t know, why should I pay for it?” Ard recalled asking. The response? “Good health care is priceless.”“That’s when I said, ‘OK, I’m going to go and file in court,’” he told The Standard.That decision sent Ard on a yearslong quest to defeat UCSF Health, San Francisco’s leading medical center, in court. Ard was not alone in his frustrations. Many patients have complained about the high cost of health care at UCSF and the University of California medical system’s opaque billing procedures.But Ard was persistent and knew his way around small claims court. He fought the bills, and he won. His path to victory offers a window into the long and, at times, Kafkaesque struggle that can await patients who battle what they believe to be unjustified or inexplicably large medical bills. It’s a microcosm of a larger problem plaguing American health care, experts say.
Finally, in more terrific legal news, yesterday the LA Times ran a story headlined, “Controversial law punishing doctors who spread COVID misinformation on track to be undone.” Gosh. That was fast!A few days ago, California bill SB815 was sneakily amended to include a provision to repeal AB2098, the state’s currently-enjoined doctor censorship law. Everything you need to know is in the LA Times’s description of that law as “a well-intentioned poorly worded and ultimately doomed effort to curb the most flagrant cases of COVID-related falsehoods by people wielding medical licenses.”Haha, “people wielding medical licenses.” Just say ‘doctors,’ morons.The LA Times reported there are four separate pending lawsuits attacking AB 2098. The state clearly doesn't like its chances of winning, especially since one group of plaintiffs has already obtained a preliminary injunction against the unconstitutional law. Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the law’s “unclear phrasing and structure” could have a “chilling effect,” and even called the law “grammatically incoherent.”Last year when the law was passed, the censorship law was critical and essential to save the lives of patients too stupid to make up their own minds. But now, all of a sudden, woke California legislators don’t think the original bill was even necessary. Much ado about nothing, and so forth. As they say, success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
Haha, “people wielding medical licenses.” Just say ‘doctors,’ morons.
You've never had your landlord storm out of court when they were forced to repay $300 of fake paint charges because they failed to provide receipts.
A man in Louisiana has just won a lawsuit against the town of Grand Isle.Ross Brunet flies anti-Biden flags on the back of his truck. He has been ticketed multiple times and the town even went so far as to pass an ordinance in an effort to stop him.He won the lawsuit on free speech grounds. This article doesn’t specify what the flags say, but one could easily assume it says something like ‘F’ Joe Biden. ...The report goes on to say that Brunet is receiving $40,000 in legal fees, and that the town is reversing the ordinance. That is good news. ...Why was this even an issue in the first place? When Trump was president, celebrities and members of the media said vulgar things about the president every day. It was inescapable. Why the sudden outrage now?
For most people lawsuits are not the answer but just a major legal bill.
« First « Previous Comments 331 - 369 of 369 Search