Tag: lawsuits

Missouri AG Andrew Bailey Files Lawsuit Against Media Matters for Refusal to Cooperate with State Investigation and Turn Over Documents Related to Twitter-X Fraud Investigation

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed suit on Monday against Media Matters for America for refusal to cooperate with a Missouri State investigation.

This comes after AG Andrew Bailey sued Media Matters in December for violating state consumer protection laws and defrauding Missourians.

AG Andrew Bailey accused Media Matters of using fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers.

Attorney General Andrew Bailey made this explosive accusation, “We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America.”

The Missouri Attorney General did not hold back in his attacks on Media Matters alleging the enemies of free speech, like Media Matters for America, are attempting to kill Twitter-X because they cannot control it now that Elon Musk took over. Bailey added, “I’m fighting to ensure progressive tyrants masquerading as news outlets cannot manipulate the marketplace in order to wipe out free speech.”

Media Matters for America (MMFA) refused to turn over court ordered documents so on Monday Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed lawsuit against MMFA for their refusal to cooperate in the state’s investigation.

Keep reading

FDA Loses its War on Ivermectin: Agrees to Remove All Related Social Media Content and Consumer Advisories on Ivermectin Usage for COVID-19

In December 2021, the FDA warned Americans not to use Ivermectin, which “is intended for animals” to treat or prevent COVID-19.

“Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous,” FDA said at the time.

This was a very controversial statement at the time since the FDA pushed the drug on African migrants back in 2015, and the drug was praised in several scientific journals.

There have now been 101 Ivermectin COVID-19 controlled studies that show a 62% lower risk in early treatment in COVID-19 patients.

A group of brave doctors had filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the agencies’ unlawful attempts to block the use of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Southern District of Texas in Galveston, argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority and unjustifiably interfered with their medical practice.

The plaintiffs, Drs. Mary Talley Bowden, Paul E. Marik, and Robert L. Apter, are contesting the FDA’s portrayal of ivermectin as dangerous for human consumption. They note that the FDA has approved ivermectin for human use since 1996 for a variety of diseases. However, they allege that with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA began releasing documents and social media posts discouraging the use of the anti-viral drug for COVID-19 treatment.

“We’re suing the FDA for lying to the public about ivermectin,” said Dr. Bowden.

Keep reading

Federal Marijuana Prohibition Has ‘No Rational Basis,’ Companies Say In New Court Filing

In a new federal court filing, lawyers for a group of marijuana companies argue that ongoing broad cannabis prohibition has “no rational basis,” pointing to the government’s largely hands-off approach to the recent groundswell of state-level legalization.

The lawsuit alleges that while Congress’s original intent in banning marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was to eradicate illicit interstate commerce, lawmakers and the executive branch have since abandoned that mission as more states have moved to regulate the drug.

“Dozens of states have implemented programs to legalize and regulate medical or adult use marijuana,” the new filing from the plaintiffs in the case says. And by providing consumers with “safe, regulated, and local access to marijuana,” those states “have reduced illicit interstate commerce, as customers switch to purchasing state-regulated marijuana over illicit interstate marijuana.”

The new 32-page document comes in response to the government’s effort in January to dismiss the cannabis companies’ underlying suit. At the center of the case is a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, in which justices held that federal prohibition preempts state-level legalization because of Congress’s interest in preventing illegal marijuana from entering interstate commerce.

Plaintiffs argue that given the changes since then—not only at the state level, but also in terms of the government’s own tolerance of commercial cannabis activity in legal jurisdictions—”the federal government no longer has any basis for insisting that state-regulated, intrastate marijuana must be banned to serve Congress’s interstate goals.”

“The ground-shaking shifts in marijuana regulation since Raich, together with the nation’s long history of marijuana cultivation and use prior to the CSA,” lawyers wrote in the new filing, “demonstrate the widely-held understanding that Plaintiffs’ marijuana activities implicate a liberty interest that requires protection.”

In the overarching lawsuit, filed in October, the businesses behind the case claim that perpetuating marijuana prohibition in state markets is unconstitutional, creating undue public safety risks while precluding licensed cannabis operators from accessing critical financial services and tax deductions that are available to other industries.

Keep reading

Kentucky prison officers accused of forcing inmates to drink urine or be tased upon failed drug test

A lawsuit filed on behalf of seven inmates at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex claims they were forced to either drink their own urine or be tased after failing a drug test while in custody.

And Department of Corrections spokeswoman Lisa Lamb acknowledged in a statement that some employees have been fired and disciplined in other ways.

“This incident was thoroughly investigated and multiple disciplinary actions were taken including employee terminations,” she said. “As of now, the Department of Corrections has not been served with the lawsuit and cannot provide further comment.”

She would not discuss details of the disciplinary action or terminations, including the results of the investigation. 

WDRB News has requested the investigation and disciplinary action taken through the Kentucky open records law. 

In a June 6th memo to Randy White, deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections, an investigator said the findings substantiated that staffers were tasing inmates who failed drug test. 

“This determination is based on the preponderance of evidence,” according to an investigative memo obtained by WDRB. “This evidence includes video footage, staff and inmate witness statements , electronic Taser evidence log … and inconsistencies in suspect interviews.” 

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court’s Eastern District in Ashland, claims four correctional officers told the inmates who failed drug tests “they would be able to ‘throw away’ their urine sample if they chose to be subjected to electrocution by taser or to drink their own urine.”

However, the suit also claims the seven inmates were “forced” to either be tased or drink their urine.

Keep reading

23 States and District of Columbia File Amicus Briefs in Favor of Joe Biden and Government Censorship and Regulation of Speech in America – via the MO v. Biden Case

Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and banning of free speech in the United States.

These 23 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden administration in the SCOTUS case is Murthy, et al v. Missouri, et al, 23-411 (Missouri v. Biden) case.

The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.

The list of un-American states that support government censorship include:

New York
Colorado
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Vermont,
Washington,
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico,
Oregon
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island,
Delaware,
Hawaii,
Illinois,
Maine,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Nevada

HOWEVER, a number of courageous states filed an Amicus Curiae brief in SUPPORT of Gateway Pundit and the Free Speech Respondents. These (16) heroic states include:

Montana,
Alabama,
Alaska,
Florida,
Georgia,
Iowa,
Idaho,
Tennessee,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
Ohio,
South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Utah,
Virginia,
West Virginia,
and the Arizona Legislature

The “most important free speech case in a generation” Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri), is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18th.

Keep reading

Missouri v. Biden Lawsuit Discovery: Biden Regime Designates YOUR THOUGHTS as Part of Government Infrastructure – They Call It “Cognitive Infrastructure” and They Believe It Is Their Right to Control It

The Gateway Pundit previously reported in May that then Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, along with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry,  filed a lawsuit (Missouri v. Biden) against the Biden Administration, including Biden himself, Anthony Fauci, the Department of Homeland Security, and nearly a dozen federal agencies and Secretaries.  Schmitt has moved on to represent Missouri in the US Senate.

The suit alleges a massive coordinated effort by the Deep State (permanent administrative state) to work with Big Tech to censor and manipulate Americans – from average citizens to news outlets – on issues including the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, 2020 Election Integrity, COVID-19 origin and extent skepticism, COVID-19 vaccine skepticism, among other issues.

The Gateway Pundit reported back in August 2022, that TGP’s Jim Hoft himself became the lead non-governmental plaintiff in the lawsuit against the government.

Tracy Beanz at UncoverDC has been closely following the Missouri versus Biden case for several months now.

On Wednesday Tracy posted on recent findings in the case.  The most shocking item discovered is that the Biden regime designates YOUR THOUGHTS as part of the government infrastructure.  They call it the “cognitive infrastructure” and they believe that they have the right to control it.

Talk about Orwellian!

These lawless beasts believe they have the right to control your thoughts.  And that is exactly what they have been doing.

Keep reading

US govt. claims immunity from dozens of PFAS lawsuits, citing Federal Tort Claims Act

The United States government has asked a federal judge to dismiss more than two dozen lawsuits filed against it for allegedly contaminating water and soil at hundreds of sites near military bases and facilities across the country with toxic “forever chemicals.”

The U.S. told a federal judge in Charleston, South Carolina, late Monday that it is immune to the lawsuits filed by state and local governments, businesses and property owners who say the U.S. military is liable for property and environmental damage caused by its use of firefighting foams containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

PFAS are used in hundreds of consumer and commercial products including the firefighting foams, non-stick pans, stain-resistant clothing and cosmetics, and have been linked to cancer and hormonal dysfunction. The military has used PFAS-containing firefighting foams since the 1970s for things like firefighting training.

The chemicals are often referred to as forever chemicals because they do not easily break down in nature or in the human body.

The 27 lawsuits were filed in the past six years against the U.S. government by states including New Mexico, New York and Washington, cities, private property owners and local businesses near military facilities where firefighting foams were used.

The plaintiffs say they are seeking potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in damages to pay for groundwater and soil remediation near military sites across the country. Some businesses among the plaintiffs, including a dairy that claims PFAS-contaminated water caused its cattle to die and a property owner whose blueberry cropland was allegedly damaged by the chemicals, are also seeking punitive damages.

The government said it was immune to the lawsuits under a provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act that protects it from tort liability for the discretionary acts of government employees. That law allows plaintiffs to sue the U.S. government for damages only if the government violates specific, mandatory policies.

Texas Sues NGO for Potentially Facilitating Illegal Immigration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing a nongovernmental organization following evidence that the group may have helped aid illegal immigration.

Annunciation House is located in El Paso where it operates a series of shelters and offers assistance to illegal immigrants from Central America. In addition to food and medical support, Annunciation House connects migrants to legal assistance. The nonprofit began its operations in 1985.

“The chaos at the southern border has created an environment where NGOs, funded with taxpayer money from the Biden Administration, facilitate astonishing horrors including human smuggling,” said AG Paxton in a statement on Feb. 20. “While the federal government perpetuates the lawlessness destroying this country, my office works day in and day out to hold these organizations responsible for worsening illegal immigration.”

The AG’s office reportedly served the nonprofit with a request to review its records on Feb. 7. The organization requested and was granted a temporary restraining order on Feb. 8 by District Court Judge Francisco Dominguez. In turn, the state is now countersuing to gain access to the information. 

According to the filing, Paxton’s office has asked the court to revoke Annunciation House its organization registration “on the grounds that it has violated the law and failed to permit OAG to inspect, examine, and make copies of Annunciation House’s records in response to a valid Request to Examine.”

The complaint states:

Based on public reporting and Court documents, Annunciation House appears to be openly and flagrantly violating many provisions of law in a systemic fashion. Annunciation House staff also made multiple admissions that they had assisted migrants in the past in the United States who had not surrendered to border patrol, had assisted persons in Mexico in crossing over to the United States in the past, and they intended to continue these activities in the future. … By definition, there are no documents to corroborate the presence of an undocumented migrant who is in the United States illegally while residing at one of Annunciation House’s locations except for those in Annunciation House’s possession.

Ruben Garia, the founder and director of Annunciation House, denounced the lawsuit.

“The attorney general’s illegal, immoral and anti-faith position to shut down Annunciation House is unfounded,” he said, per El Paso Matters. 

Keep reading

Jeffrey Epstein Had Secret ‘Panopticon’ Recording Room To Monitor ‘Guests’: Lawsuit

In late 2019, Jeffrey Epstein victim Maria Farmer alleged that the deceased pedophile had a “media room” on the first floor where high-profile johns were allegedly recorded having sex with women and children.

“So if you’re facing the house, there’s a window on the right that’s barred – that’s the room, the ‘media room’ is what he called it,” Farmer said. “And so there was a door that looked like an invisible door with all this limestone and everything and you push it and you go in and I saw all the cameras.”

Maria said: “What it was – was like old televisions basically, like stacked.“

“They were monitors inside this cabinet and there were men sitting here and I looked on the cameras and I saw toilet, toilet, bed, bed, toilet, bed.

“And I was like I’m never going to use the restroom here and I am never going to sleep here.” –The Sun

In 2020 a former jewel thief who says he had group sex with Ghislaine Maxwell but ‘drew the line at under-age girls’ claims he was forced to watch pedo videos involving ‘two high-profile US politicians’ and ‘two high society figures having a threesome with an under-age girl.’

The jewel thief, who goes by the name William Steel, claims that in the mid-1990s he met Epstein in the “upstairs room at a very high-end diamond dealer, the kind of place where only a few people are allowed in at a time.”

“I was there doing what I do. I was meeting my fence.

“I saw Jeff with a young girl who looked only about 13 or 14 and he had his hand in the back of her shorts.

“That’s what first got my attention.

“She was so young and he was much older. That’s when I knew that he was dirty.

“I had about 200,000 dollars worth of jewellery that I was getting rid of and later I struck up a conversation with him.

“He later said the girl he was with was his niece but I called bulls**t on that, telling him I saw what he was doing with her. –The Sun

Now, two women who have filed a recent lawsuit in Manhattan federal court are claiming the same. According to the Washington Times, the plaintiffs – Danielle Bensky and Jane Doe 3, say Epstein employed a sophisticated system involving constant CCTV surveillance within his New York mansion.

Keep reading

SOUTH CAROLINA BAN ON PRISONERS’ MEDIA INTERVIEWS VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT, LAWSUIT SAYS

South Carolina violates the First Amendment by forbidding incarcerated people from speaking with the press, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of South Carolina against the state’s Department of Corrections.

“The South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) enforces the nation’s most restrictive policy on media access to prisoners,” the complaint says. The suit alleges that the state “bans interviews by anyone, on any topic, and by any real-time means: in person, by video, or by phone. And although correspondence by mail is allowed, publication of a prisoner’s written speech is similarly prohibited.”

According to a copy of the SCDC’s media policy, the agency prohibits “personal contact interviews with any SCDC inmate, untried county safekeeper, or death row inmate by anyone,” and bans “news and non-news media representatives” from taking photographs, or audio or video recordings of SCDC prisoners.

In a press release last summer, the SCDC said, “Inmates in the custody of the S.C. Department of Corrections are not allowed to do interviews.”

“The department believes that victims of crime should not have to see or hear the person who victimized them or their family member on the news,” the press release said. “Inmates lose the privilege of speaking to the news media when they enter SCDC.”

The press release also included a copy of a letter from an SCDC official to the attorney of Richard Murdaugh, a former lawyer convicted of murdering his wife and son. (Murdaugh maintains his innocence.) The letter scolded Murdaugh and his legal team for speaking to the press.

The department’s letter stated that, in violation of the SCDC policy, Murdaugh read excerpts of his journal to his attorney, who recorded Murdaugh’s voice and sent the audio files to the media. Murdaugh received a disciplinary infraction. The letter warned the violation could jeopardize Murdaugh’s access to his attorney.

Keep reading