Missouri v. Biden moves forward

Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at declarationsoftruth.locals.com!
1 year ago
528

Missouri v. Biden moves forward
By Terry A. Hurlbut
The case of Missouri v. Biden, arguably the most important civil liberties case in modern memory, will move forward. Judge Terry Doughty yesterday handed down a ruling mostly denying a motion to dismiss. The judge cut out only one named defendant (President Biden) but left the rest of the case intact. Now pre-trial discovery can continue.
Background of Missouri v. Biden
The plaintiffs in the case include the States of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individuals:
• Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya,
• Jill Hines,
• Jim Hoft,
• Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, and
• Dr. Martin Kulldorff.
The defendants read like a Who’s Who in Government. They start with the President (or they did; more on that below). The suit also charges Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Surgeon General, and the infamous Dr. Anthony S. Fauci. After that come a dizzying variety of agencies and their heads – for a total of 67 defendants. This link has the Second Amended Complaint, all 164 pages of it.
The plaintiffs filed their first Complaint on August 2, 2022, and their Second Amended Complaint on October 6, 2022. On November 1, 2022 (a week before Midterms), The Intercept published its “Thought Cops” piece. That piece confirmed for the first time that social media, including Twitter before Elon Musk bought it, were State actors.
From the beginning, the government has tried to argue that private actors are not and never can be State actors. Therefore no court could hold the government liable for anything they did.
But Judge Terry Doughty, in whose court the case rests, is having none of that. Yesterday, in seventy-seven pages, he said so.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance maintains this landing page for Missouri v. Biden with links to all available documents.
Several threads
Tracy Beanz, Editor-in-chief at Uncover DC, dropped a lengthy thread on Missouri v. Biden on December 16, 2022. It has links to articles at Uncover DC, and some deposition transcripts in the case.
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603776541732782083
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603776566865133568
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603777903103250433
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603778411771875328
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603779148002037761
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603779901525348352
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603780580663263232
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603781018644893697
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603781944650747905
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603782152927301636
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603782931906007041
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603783569930854402
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603784129044221954
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603785033357352960
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603785964555538433
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603786333176172544
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603787723222831104
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603787741245755392
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603788215433179136
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603794350462345217
Then beginning in January 2023 Ms. Beanz released several more threads and embeds of filings:
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1612158735731785735
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1612833151562256388
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1613338489780637696
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1613694840163770369
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1616222404841201664
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1618348645983870977
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1628799710386421761
Then last week (March 15) came this ruling, denying a motion to strike the Statement of Fact from the Second Amended Complaint.
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1636039535493623810
That memorandum also gave the defense twenty days to respond, and set a hearing date for May 12, 2023.
All parties were still waiting on a ruling on a motion to dismiss the case outright. That ruling came down yesterday. Jenin Younes, Attorney for Jill Hines and for the three doctors, dropped this thread linking to and explaining the ruling:
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637856485001551890
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637860109119283202
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637942180571480066
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637856775725539329
She initially had a tweet directly after the anchor tweet, saying this:
The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.
But subsequently she deleted it, for reasons best known to herself.
Reaction to Attorney Younes’ thread was almost entirely congratulatory. A few users wanted some explanations of concepts they didn’t understand. Why a court cannot enjoin a sitting President, for example.
Analysis: the ruling…
Here CNAV offers its own analysis of the ruling, in addition to that of Attorney Younes. The defense tried to throw the case out on three main grounds. First they denied that the Plaintiffs had Article III standing. The judge said yes, they had. The States and individuals had alleged injuries-in-fact, traced the injury to the defendants, and suggested a remedy within the court’s power to grant. Furthermore, the court found that the States had a type of standing called parens patriae (“parents of their country”). That means any injury to the “sovereign interests” of a State is an injury to the State itself.
Next the defendants tried to claim federal sovereign immunity. No go, said the judge. Sovereign immunity cannot excuse violations of the First Amendment, exceeding one’s lawful authority (i.e., acting ultra vires, or “beyond one’s power”), nor violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Finally, the defendants argued that all the actions taken against plaintiffs were by the private social media companies, acting privately. No, said the judge; the plaintiffs alleged that, while the companies are private, their acts are not. Not when the government orders them so to act.
The only success the defense had was to dismiss all claims and prayers for injunctive relief against the President. Courts do not enjoin Presidents with regard to their official acts. But declaratory judgments might still be valid.
… and the Missouri v. Biden case itself
The case of Missouri v. Biden, now that it can move forward, will set boundaries where this administration has clearly crossed them. But that doesn’t apply only to this President. Several of the censorship orders came earlier, in time to skew public opinion about then-President Trump and then-candidate Biden. The flip side of a court not directly enjoining a President is that the injunctions do not “go away” after that President leaves office. Nor do they have any limit on their force or effect by reason of whether a given agency, agent, or supervisor acted before, or after, any particular President entered office. Which makes Dr. Fauci, for example, liable for all his acts, under Biden, Trump, and perhaps even Obama.
More to the point, Missouri v. Biden will put paid to the notion “this is a private company, so you have no standing.” Thus far a court has now said those of us who had our voices stilled, do have standing to complain. That same court has also set a standard for determining when private acts become State acts. As Clarence Thomas has already said, private acts become State acts when the State threatens, cajoles, pleads, orders, or otherwise induces those acts.
All eyes will turn to the court again, when the case comes to a hearing for a preliminary injunction.
Link to:
The article:
https://cnav.news/2023/03/21/editorial/talk/missouri-v-biden-moves-forward/

Missouri v. Biden:
Second Amended Complaint:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23129287/second-amended-complaint-missouri-v-biden.pdf

Memorandum ruling denying MTD:
https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ECF-224-Order-Granting-in-Part-and-Denying-in-Part-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

NCLA Landing Page:
https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

Tracy Beanz’ main thread and other anchor tweets:
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603776541732782083
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603776566865133568
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603777903103250433
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603778411771875328
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603779148002037761
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603779901525348352
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603780580663263232
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603781018644893697
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603781944650747905
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603782152927301636
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603782931906007041
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603783569930854402
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603784129044221954
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603785033357352960
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603785964555538433
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603786333176172544
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603787723222831104
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603787741245755392
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603788215433179136
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1603794350462345217
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1612158735731785735
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1612833151562256388
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1613338489780637696
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1613694840163770369
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1616222404841201664
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1618348645983870977
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1628799710386421761
https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1636039535493623810

Jenin Younes’ thread announcing denial of the MTD:
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637856485001551890
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637860109119283202
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637942180571480066
https://twitter.com/JeninYounesEsq/status/1637856775725539329

Declarations of Truth Twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/DecTruth

Conservative News and Views:
https://cnav.news/

The CNAV Store:
https://cnav.store/

Our Silver Lines
https://oursilverlines.com/

Loading 1 comment...