On Pandemic Censorship, part 2
Missouri vs. Biden to be heard by Supreme Court
Dear fellow Uncensored Citizens,
This is my second post as guest writer on this substack. Since spring 2020, I have been documenting the events of the past four years on Facebook with observations, analyses, and news briefs. I've been put in “Facebook jail” multiple times, regularly shadowbanned, but still going. My nuggets of truth have contributed to Mathew Crawford's data analysis and to FLCCC’s book research, but until now I have stayed relatively hidden on Facebook.
Time has come to become more retrospective, and to weave all those past tidbits into longer stories that reach wider audiences -- not only to document current events but to connect them to previous ones. I thank the awesome team at The Uncensored Citizen substack for giving me this platform for my endeavor.
Note that practically anything I mention in each story has a separate story of its own. Please use the COMMENTS section to ask questions and make requests for further stories. I look forward to interacting with my readers. I aim to serve my audience, my fellow Uncensored Citizens.
ON LAWSUITS
At least in the USA, the way to correct many of the wrongs of the past four years is through the courts, and an avalanche of lawsuits is in the works. Legal actions vary from individual citizens suing their former employers pro se (representing themselves without a lawyer) for being fired after choosing not to vaxx, to multiple plaintiffs, individuals and organizations, suing the federal government for First amendment violations (being censored), and everything in-between.
To keep this substack post to a reasonable size, I will focus today on one such First Amendment lawsuit, originally filed in May 2022 in the US District Court in Louisiana, and known as Missouri vs. Biden. Now, under the new name of Murthy vs. Missouri, it has reached the Supreme Court, where it is being heard this week.
THE MAVERICK STATE OF MISSOURI
The state of Missouri did not roll with the Covid narrative like some other states, such as NY and CA. For example, they were against vaccine mandates from the beginning. In the fall of 2021, when Biden’s administration (specifically, OSHA) mandated all large businesses to require vaccination of their employees, Missouri Attorney General Schmitt (joined by AGs of 10 other states) immediately filed a lawsuit against it, calling this mandate “unconstitutional, unlawful and unwise”.
For another example, in early June 2022, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed a bill that allowed doctors to prescribe ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine “without fear of retribution from the state medical board”, and barred pharmacists “from questioning the prescription of those two drugs”
Around the same time as this bill, Missouri also took the lead on standing up to the system with regard to the rampant censorship. In May 2022, Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana filed a First Amendment case against the White House and Doctor Fauci, that we now know as MISSOURI VS. BIDEN. The ball got rolling…
MISSOURI VS. BIDEN: DISCOVERY PHASE
MISSOURI VS. BIDEN first got on my radar on September 2, 2022 when the Brownstone Institute (an excellent organization) published a piece by Aaron Kheriaty, titled An Army of Censors. Aaron is one of the plaintiffs in this case, together with Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya and Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, both of the Great Barrington Declaration fame.
In An Army of Censors Aaron was discussing the joint statement on discovery disputes legal brief, made public on that day, which revealed “scores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor.” This bombshell document had been filed as part of the MISSOURI VS. BIDEN case, and I KNEW then that this case would be big.
As the discovery phase of this case proceeded and more details about the government’s censorship activities were emerging, the list of defendants kept growing. By October, the number of defendants on this lawsuit had grown to 67, including top officials at CDC, FBI, and White House. The case was looking BIG.
Note: the press release at AGO.MO.GOV link is no longer there, but here is a copy at WAFB.COM:
The case was looking BIG, but it was getting no coverage from the mainstream press. A month later, in mid-November 2022, the case made it onto Bill O’Reilly’s radar. He was FURIOUS that a story this big was being suppressed by the media.
MISSOURI VS. BIDEN: COMPELLING EVIDENCE
My next update about this case was half a year later. The plaintiffs had worked in expedited mode to depose certain officials and obtain some evidence, so as to make the case for a temporary injunction to stop the government's censorship activities. While the trial would take a while, the hope was that the injunction could be obtained right away.
There was encouraging news from the judges involved, who found their evidence that the government is engaging in alarming and unacceptable behavior compelling.
My post refers to an update on this case published by Aaron the previous day (actually written by Tracy Beans), titled “The censors are exposed: Major update to Missouri v. Biden”. It has lots of juicy details about the pre-trial discovery activities. All these details are enough to make a cliff-hanger movie. Here is just one small example regarding Fauci:
once Fauci was deposed the government sought to seal all depositions and video—along with discovery materials arguing that the government “employees” were being threatened and harassed and faced imminent harm. But they couldn’t produce any examples of that happening. The judge ruled against sealing anything except personal information like addresses.
Based on the evidence found so far, the plaintiffs had filed a request for an injunction, and were now hoping for a favorable decision from the judges.
MISSOURI VS. BIDEN: INJUNCTION GRANTED
In early July, the injunction was granted, as I triumphantly announced in a post. In that post, I also quoted from the injunction a summary of what the judges prohibited the Biden Administration from doing any further.
The case became even stronger in late July, when a separate case by RFK Jr’s and his organization Children's Health Defense was merged into this one. Here is a write-up about this from CHD.
MISSOURI VS. BIDEN: CENSORSHIP CONTINUES
Indeed, the case had gotten VERY BIG. Not surprisingly, the Biden administration was not happy. And mainstream media continued to suppress information about it. Interviews and discussions about it were getting removed from YouTube, here is my post about that.
Here are the two banned YouTube videos mentioned in this post, now found on Rumble:
What Missouri v. Biden Means for Free Speech
https://rumble.com/v32zj7e-what-missouri-v.-biden-means-for-free-speech.html
James O'Keefe Interviews RFK Jr.
https://rumble.com/v32sq9c-full-james-okeefe-interviews-rfk-jr.-53123.html
Indeed, the injunction against censorship never took force… Right after it came out in late July, the government appealed to a higher court. That appeal hearing took place two months later, in early September 2023, in the Fifth District Court. The court largely sustained the ruling of the lower court, demanding that the government parties can no longer censor American citizens. The 3-judge panel ruled that the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC & the FBI, were clearly in violation of 1st Amendment rights when they pressured social media companies.
The government would not let it rest, and took it to the highest court in the land, requesting the Supreme Court to postpone the July 4 injunction until the trial...
MISSOURI VS. BIDEN: RENAMED AND HEADED FOR SUPREME COURT
Half a year later, in October 21, 2023, there was major news: the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case under the name of Murthy v. Missouri, scheduling oral arguments for March 18, 2024. The Court also lifted the injunctions set by the lower courts, allowing the federal government to continue to contact social media companies without restrictions until the trial.
In preparation for supreme court, multiple AMICUS BRIEFS were filed. Those are legal letters in support of the case, offering additional information or arguments for the court to consider before making their ruling. One such group was AAPS (Assn of American Physicians & Surgeons) -- the "good" group of doctors, unlike the Pharma-captured American Medical Assn. Another was a group of 45 congressmen led by Jim Jordan.
Here are PDF links for those two briefs — check out the table of contents of the first one!
https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/23-411-bsac-Members-of-Congress.pdf
https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-amicus-murthy-v-missouri-2-7-2024.pdf
This hearing for this crucial landmark case is starting tomorrow, Monday March 18. STAY TUNED!!
Watch the Supreme Court oral arguments hearing live on CSPAN
Watch the Rally on the steps of the Supreme Court starting at 9AM ET