MISSOURI VS. BIDEN ABOUT TO REACH CRITICAL JUNCTURE
That the Federal government engaged in massive, coordinated, and unConstitutional censorship of American citizens, has already been convincingly established by the ongoing Missouri vs. Biden landmark court case.
An upcoming hearing may spell the beginning of the end of the ongoing government abuse. The judge in the case could issue a Cease order that will force the government to stop the censorship, much of which has been carried out via major social media platforms.
In early May, defendants including the Biden Administration filed a Memorandum in opposition to a Preliminary Injunction that would force the government to cease all actions of censorship alleged by the plaintiffs.
And on 22 May, plaintiffs filed their response to the defendant’s request for the Judge not to grant the injunction.
That response offered a blistering statement concerning the kind of censorship the Biden administration has been engaging in since its earliest days. And that was just in the intro to the court filing, which comprised 119 pages:
Suppose that the Trump White House, backed by Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, publicly demanded that all libraries in the United States burn books criticizing the President, and the President made statements implying that the libraries would face ruinous legal consequences if they did not comply, while senior White House officials privately badgered the libraries for detailed lists and reports of such books that they had burned—and the libraries, after months of such pressure, complied with those demands and burned the books.
Suppose that, after four years of pressure from senior congressional staffers in secret meetings threatening the libraries with adverse legislation if they did not cooperate, the FBI started sending all libraries in the United States detailed lists of the books the FBI wanted to burn, requesting that the libraries report back to the FBI by identifying the books that they burned—and the libraries complied by burning about half of those books.
Suppose that a federal national security agency teamed up with private research institutions, backed by enormous resources and federal funding, to establish a mass-surveillance and mass-censorship program that uses sophisticated techniques to review hundreds of millions of American citizens’ electronic communications in real time, and works closely with tech platforms to covertly censor millions of them.
The first two hypotheticals are directly analogous to the facts of this case. And the third is not hypothetical at all—it is a description of the Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project.
The entire court docket history can be viewed at courtlistener.com.
Case Moves Closer to a Significant Juncture
Missouri vs Biden was brought last May by state Attorney Generals of Louisiana and Missouri, and was joined by private plaintiffs including The Great Barrington Declaration co-authors, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and others.
It’s one of the few legal cases against the Biden Administration that has managed to proceed past preliminary stages.
A Preliminary Injunction would be viewed as a significant victory for plaintiffs.
But a cease of censorship at this point hardly undoes the damage to American democracy, nor does it hold the relevant authorities to account for what many consider Constitutional crimes of the highest order.
The larger question is, will the Biden administration, which oversaw, directed and coordinated censorship across multiple government agencies and high level officials, be held to account?
In the primary season of 2024, Donald Trump may be stuck in court defending a relative nothing burger involving hush money paid to a woman involved with him in a brief consensual sexual affair.
Will Republicans at that moment be holding Joe Biden’s feet to the fire over his wholesale destruction of First Amendment rights of Americans, along with allies embedded in government prior to his election, who suppressed damaging information that may well have changed the outcome of the 2020 election?
And as the Biden administration ramped up campaigns against election and COVID “misinformation” and “disinformation” in 2021 and 2022, it also widely conspired with Congressional allies and aides:
How early did the Biden administration begin its war against Americans exercising their First Amendment rights?
Just three days into their administration:
By July of 2021, the Biden Administration had overseen the removal of over 18 million COVID related social media instances of “misinformation.”
At the same time the government was kneecapping free speech, it was filling the public square space by churning out disinformation whoppers.
To name just a few:
- The Hunter Biden laptop was likely “Russian disinformation”
- J6 protests were not substantially infiltrated and egged on by government intelligence agency embeds
- J6 protesters were vilified as having engaged in a conspiracy of “insurrection,” when the vast majority that day lawfully protested election manipulation which they believed created serious questions regarding the election’s legitimacy
- Evidence that the U.S. was funding a Wuhan biolab near ground zero of the COVID-19 was engaging in dangerous virus gain of function experiments was “misinformation”
- Indications that the COVID virus disaster may have originated from the Wuhan biolab was “misinformation”
- COVID vaccines stopped spread of the COVID virus (Part of the “no one is safe until everyone is safe” Biden administration COVID vaccine mandate mantra)
- COVID Vaccines had 90+ percent efficacy rates
- COVID vaccines were superior to natural immunity
- COVID vaccines had negligible adverse event potentials, when information continues to surface concerning dangers of the treatments that were known early on (see, for eg. “Exclusive: New Evidence FDA, CDC Hid Early Data on Myocarditis Spurs Questions of ‘Criminal Coverup’,” childrendshealthdefense.org, 23 May 2023.)
- Lockdowns, masking and social distancing were effective in combating virus spread
- Ivermectin and other common, cheap drugs had no efficacy against COVID
Presiding Judge Terry Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, may rule soon on the Preliminary Injunction.
The Trends Journal has been following the case closely, and forecasting the potential importance of the case, which may lead to landmark reinvigoration of First Amendment rights for American citizens.
See, for example:
- “BIDEN PUSHES FOR MORE CENSORSHIP” (20 Sep 2022)
- “FIRST AMENDMENT SHOWDOWN: MISSOURI VS BIDEN” (13 Oct 2022)
- “BIDEN SMOKING GUNS SHOW SYSTEMATIC TARGETING OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS” (1 Nov 2022)
- “FAUCI IN DEPOSITION: ‘I DON’T REALLY RECALL’ APPROVING EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWED ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE TO CONDUCT DANGEROUS VIRUS EXPERIMENTS” (6 Dec 2022)
- “FREEDOM OF SPEECH UPDATE: FEDERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO DISMISS ‘MISSOURI VS. BIDEN’ CASE” (21 Mar 2023)
And for more, undercoverdc.com has this excellent recent article.