Categories
$85m Blazetv Class Action Despicable Facebook.com FBI Feds Innocent citizens Intelwars Lawsuit Pat Pat unleashed Patgray seizure Theft

‘That is theft!’ — Pat Gray calls out ‘despicable’ FBI for seizure of property belonging to innocent citizens

Unless a federal judge intervenes, innocent Americans may never see $85 million in cash, precious metals, and family heirlooms seized by the FBI during a raid on Private Vaults (USPV).

USPV was indicted by the feds for conspiracy to sell drugs and launder money, which led to the seizure of 800 safety deposit boxes, only a few of which were reported to have been included in the search warrant.

According to a report, “The asset list in the seizure notice discloses more than a dozen boxes containing more than $1 million each in cash, and many more in six figures. Others list jewelry, collectible coins, gold and silver, and ‘Precious Items’ with nominal $1 figures.The FBI appears to have exceeded the search warrant approved by the court, which prohibited snooping on the box contents except to ‘identify their owners in order to notify them’ about claiming their property.”

The report also stated, “The Institute for Justice (IJ) is seeking class-action status, for a May lawsuit by several owners alleging “shocking, unconscionable, and unconstitutional” behavior by the government. IJ attorney Robert Frommer accused the feds of an “$85 million cash grab” from people who were not accused of wrongdoing.”

On Monday’s show, Pat Gray called the FBI “despicable” for confiscating property belonging to USPV clients who were never charged with a crime.

After the lawsuit was filed, the FBI reportedly offered to return some property to the original owners but those included in the suit say they still have not received their property.

“That is theft,” Pat asserted.

He added that he wasn’t sure which constitutional amendment was more violated, the First Amendment — free speech or the Fourth Amendment — illegal search and seizure.

Watch the clip for the full scoop. Can’t watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
comply control CORRUPTION Courts dismissed lawsuit Employment experimental gene therapy government is slavery Headline News Houston methodist hospital incentives Intelwars Jennifer Bridges Lawsuit legal actions Lynn hughes mandatory vaccines Marc Boom Obey power punishment ruling class scamdemic system Theft wake up

It Has Begun: Want To Work? Get The Jab

The Houston hospital that required its employees to take the experimental gene therapy shot has “paved the way” for others to do the same. Several employees sued Houston Methodist hospitals for mandating the “vaccine” but a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit which will embolden other employers to require this shot.

COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines

In his strongly-worded ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes on Saturday knocked down arguments made in similar legal actions underway across the nation, limiting the likelihood that others will succeed.

Hughes discounted claims that the vaccine is experimental and dangerous. Unless they meet legal health or religious exemptions, the judge said that workers who refuse to get vaccinated, “will simply need to work somewhere else.” –USA Today

Whether Hughes’ ruling (note the word usage: ruling) will be the final word in Texas remains to be seen. The nurse leading the fight, Jennifer Bridges, has vowed to appeal on behalf of herself and 116 other plaintiffs, including at least three dozen nurses and others with medical training. The rest hold jobs ranging from patient liaison to lab tech to transplant coordinator.  All of them want the freedom of body autonomy to decide what they put in their bodies.

But this has been a long time coming.  Last year, before the vaccines (which aren’t vaccines by any definition of the term), were announced, medical journals were already talking about how to punish those who won’t submit to the reward-based system of free beer, lotteries, donuts, etc. and just take the shot because ruling class propaganda told them to.

Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY

So far, employers have been hesitant to mandate the “vaccine” as a condition of employment. Methodist’s CEO Marc Boom decided medical tyranny and force were the way to go. He soon began hearing from others eager to follow his lead, according to USA Today.  “My phone and email have rung off the hook,” says Boom, a fit, gray-haired doctor who urges people to call him by his first name. “We’re all going to go there. It’s just a matter of when not if.”

And how did Boom get away with mandating a vaccine?

Boom had started with an incentive: a $500 “hope bonus” for anyone who got the vaccine by March. He traded that carrot for a stick in April, telling those who did not comply their jobs were on the line. His success up to that point informed his decision to act.

“I would have never pulled the trigger on a mandate if we were sitting at 55%,” Boom said. “You do have to run a hospital and care for everybody, and you do need your staff to do that.” –USA Today

This is just the beginning.  If you plan to refuse this shot, have a backup plan. This won’t end until the “whole world is vaccinated.” They have already let that cat out of the bag. Start saving some money, invest in gold or silver or cryptocurrency to protect the wealth you have, and most importantly, stand firm. They will continue to treat us like slaves as long as we act like slaves. If we conduct ourselves as the free human beings we were born to be, they have no power and they know that.  All they can do is try to manufacture as much consent to be “governed” which means “controlled” as possible.

This lawsuit, if anything, should prove that trying to use the system to beat the system is never going to work. It wasn’t designed to work in our favor but in theirs.

The post It Has Begun: Want To Work? Get The Jab first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Farmers of color Intelwars Judge Lawsuit Program White farmers

Federal judge halts USDA program that bans white farmers saying lawsuit against it could be successful

A federal judge on Thursday halted the USDA loan forgiveness program exclusive to farmers of color, saying that a group of white farmers who have sued for discrimination over being banned from the government program have a good chance of winning.

What are the details?

NBC News reported that Judge William Griesbach of Wisconsin’s Eastern District, issued an order placing the program on a temporary hold, wherein he wrote that the white farmers “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim” that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “use of race-based criteria in the administration of the program violates their right to equal protection under the law.”

Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) — who represents the white farmers — said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The Court recognized that the federal government’s plan to condition and allocate benefits on the basis of race raises grave constitutional concerns and threatens our clients with irreparable harm.”

He added, “The Biden administration is radically undermining bedrock principles of equality under the law.”

The judge’s move stops the USDA from issuing debt relief payments to thousands of minority farmers, despite the agency vowing to begin their payouts this month.

In reaction to the decision, USDA spokesman Matt Herrick said in a statement:

“We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers. When the temporary order is lifted, USDA will be prepared to provide the debt relief authorized by Congress.”

What else?

The Washington Post explained:

The assistance program, which was passed by the Senate in March as part of the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion stimulus relief package, sought to correct long-standing disadvantages faced by Black, Latino, and other minority farmers in getting loans from banks and the government.

The program is open to any producer who is black, Native American, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander, yet white producers do not qualify.

But shortly after it passed, WILL sued on behalf of five farmers from four states, saying the program for “socially disadvantaged” farmers is unconstitutional because it is race-based.

Since then, seven more plaintiffs have joined that suit, and separate legal challenges on behalf of other white farmers have also been filed against the program.

Share
Categories
Alabma Capitol riot Eric Swalwell Intelwars Lawsuit Mo Brooks

Rep. Mo Brooks claims Eric Swalwell’s ‘team’ broke into his house, ‘accosted’ wife to serve Jan. 6 lawsuit

California Rep. Eric Swalwell (D) finally made good on his promise to serve Republican Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.) with a lawsuit over his alleged role in the deadly riot at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6.

After being served, Brooks alleged that Swalwell’s “team” broke into his personal residence and “accosted” his wife.

What are the details?

Swalwell filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr., and Brooks alleging they provoked the Capitol riot by alleging voter fraud marred the 2020 election.

Not only that, but the lawsuit claims the defendants broke laws in Washington, D.C., “including an anti-terrorism act, by inciting the riot, and that they aided and abetted violent rioters and inflicted emotional distress on members of Congress,” CNN reported.

The lawsuit was filed in March, but Swalwell’s legal team told a judge they had difficulty locating Brooks to serve him with the suit. Federal Judge Amit Mehta refused to allow U.S. Marshals to serve Brooks with the lawsuit, citing “separation of powers concerns.”

Swalwell’s legal team hired a private investigator to locate Brooks. But even the investigator could not initially find the congressman. Brooks taunted Swalwell on Friday over the private investigator’s inability to find him.

Over the weekend, the private investigator finally delivered the lawsuit to Brooks’ wife in Alabama, Matthew Kaiser, an attorney for Swalwell, told CNN.

What did Brooks say?

Brooks alleged the private investigator not only delivered the lawsuit, but committed criminal trespass in the process — and even alleged that his wife had been “accosted.”

“Well, Swalwell FINALLY did his job, served complaint (on my WIFE). HORRIBLE Swalwell’s team committed a CRIME by unlawfully sneaking INTO MY HOUSE & accosting my wife!” Brooks tweeted.

“Alabama Code 13A-7-2: 1st degree criminal trespass. Year in jail. $6000 fine. More to come!” he added.

How did Swalwell’s team respond?

Philip Andonian, an attorney for Swalwell, spoke with CNN, denied Brooks’ allegations, and attacked the congressman for not volunteering to be served with the lawsuit.

“No one entered or even attempted to enter the Brooks’ house. That allegation is completely untrue. A process server lawfully served the papers on Mo Brooks’ wife, as the federal rules allow,” Andonian said.

“This was after her initial efforts to avoid service. Mo Brooks has no one but himself to blame for the fact that it came to this. We asked him to waive service, we offered to meet him at a place of his choosing. Instead of working things out like a civilized person, he engaged in a juvenile game of Twitter trolling over the past few days and continued to evade service,” Andonian added. “He demanded that we serve him. We did just that. The important thing is the complaint has been served and Mo Brooks can now be held accountable for his role in inciting the deadly insurrection at the Capitol.”

Share
Categories
Anti-conservative bias George floyd Intelwars Lawsuit Racism accusation University of Oklahoma Volleyball player watch Woke culture

Star volleyball player — a conservative Christian — sues U of Oklahoma, claims coaches punished her for her views, violated her free speech rights

A star volleyball player and conservative Christian has filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Oklahoma, claiming coaches on the women’s volleyball team punished her for her views, excluded her from the team, and violated her free speech rights.

What are the details?

Kylee McLaughlin — who was the team captain and a first team All-Big 12 player for the Sooners in 2018 and 2019, according to OU Daily — named head coach Lindsey Gray-Walton, assistant coach Kyle Walton, and the school in the suit for a minimum of $75,000 in damages for financial loss, humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering, KFOR-TV reported.

The suit said that during the COVID-19 pandemic and after the death of George Floyd, the team “emphasized discussions about white privilege and social justice rather than coaching volleyball,” the station reported, adding that players were required to participate in discussions and watch a documentary on racism and slavery. OU Daily said it was the Netflix documentary “13th.”

When Kyle asked McLaughlin for her opinion on the documentary, according to the suit, she replied that while slavery was wrong, the film was slanted “left” and was critical of then-President Donald Trump. When asked for more input, the suit says McLaughlin replied with commentary directly from the documentary — that black people were incarcerated at a higher rate than other racial groups despite representing a smaller overall percentage of the population.

Following that discussion, a teammate accused McLaughlin of racism in a social media post, the suit says.

‘White privilege’

The suit adds that Gray-Walton in a 90-minute phone call “ordered” McLaughlin to remove a social media post that used a laughing clown emoji in regard to the University of Texas wanting to abolish its fight song, “The Eyes of Texas,” due to its alleged racist content and history. In addition, Gray-Walton told McLaughlin she needed to identify the “white privilege” inside her, the suit says.

Days later, the suit says McLaughlin was called a “racist and a homophobe” during a Zoom meeting with incoming seniors, coaches, and a representative from the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And despite McLaughlin’s attempt at an apology, he suit says it wasn’t accepted since it lacked sufficient “feeling.”

McLaughlin later called the University of Texas volleyball team to apologize for her “Eyes of Texas” post, the suit says.

‘Ultimatum’ allegedly issued

During another Zoom meeting with Gray-Walton and other OU staffers, the suit says McLaughlin “was told she did not fit the culture of the program, and they could not trust her based on comments she had made (according to teammates) in the past …” — and she was given an “ultimatum.”

The suit says she had three choices: 1) keep her scholarship, red shirt, practice only with the coach and not the team, and receive diversity training; 2) keep her scholarship and just be a student; 3) transfer to another college “with only two weeks left before volleyball started for fall semester.”

After the meeting, the suit says McLaughlin cried for three days, could not sleep, and refused to eat. The suit added that McLaughlin initially choose to red shirt but then decided to try to transfer to UCLA, which was unsuccessful — and that a UCLA assistant coach is a friend and former assistant coach of Gray-Walton.

What’s more, the suit says that after McLaughlin tested positive for COVID-19 last September and was quarantining in a hotel, Gray-Walton contacted one of McLaughlin’s roommates and asked if she was “doing okay” living with McLaughlin and her other “conservative” roommate. The suit adds that Gray-Walton and other volleyball coaches later helped two of McLaughlin’s roommates move out of the apartment they shared while McLaughlin was in class and without any notice.

In addition, the suit says McLaughlin was given a “growth plan” from the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion that included training about unlearning “classism,” “ableism,” “trans and homosexual negativities,” and “sexism.” The suit also says McLaughlin was forced to take courses on diversity and identities and privilege and race — all designed to “condition” her to “be woke.”

Soon she transferred to the University of Mississippi, the suit says.

Local lawyer appears to mock McLaughlin

KFOR’s report on the controversy included an interview with Oklahoma City criminal defense lawyer Jacqui Ford, who seemed decidedly unsympathetic to McLaughlin.

“What I see is that her feelings are hurt, and she’s filing a lawsuit because her feelings are hurt,” Ford told the station in what one might characterize as a condescending tone.

Image source: KFOR-TV video screenshot

Interestingly, a profile on Ford published at the hight of last summer’s rioting indicated she’s a member of the “OKC Protestors Lawyers Coalition, to serve as legal representatives for peaceful protestors arrested in Oklahoma City while exercising their First Amendment rights to free assembly and free speech.”

Ford also said in the KFOR interview that “when [McLaughlin is] creating a situation that is a hostile environment for some of her other teammates, then the coaches must act to the benefit of her team.”

The attorney added to the station that “from what I can tell she hasn’t suffered any damages. She was given options to remove herself from the situation, so she’s not damaged. I think that’s gonna be a huge obstacle for her and for her lawyers to overcome.”

Anything else?

OU told the station it’s aware of the suit but will not comment on pending litigation. KFOR also said it contacted McLaughlin’s attorney for comment but hadn’t received a response.

Share
Categories
Big Pharma COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity Doctors experimental gene therapies experimental shots gene therapies government is slavery Headline News Health Hoax human guinea pigs Illegally injections Intelwars Lawsuit Marc Boom mRNA Nuremberg codes plandemic scamdemic Study Suing Texas Threats use the system vaccines voluntary consent wake up

‘We Won’t Be Human Guinea Pigs’: 117 Doctors, Nurses Sue Over Forced ‘Experimental’ Vaccine

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project. 

Houston, TX — Over a hundred doctors and nurses who work in the Houston Methodist hospital network have filed a lawsuit against the company, arguing that they don’t want to be forced to take an “experimental” vaccine. This lawsuit could pave the way for other health care workers to make similar claims.

According to the lawsuit, the company’s CEO, Marc Boom gave all the employees of the network, some 26,000 people, a deadline of June 7 to be vaccinated or be fired.

A total of 117 plaintiffs are insisting that the hospital is “illegally requiring its employees to be injected with an experimental vaccine.” The hospital is forcing the staff to be “human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit says.

“This is my body, this is my choice, and I don’t think employers or anyone should mandate what goes into my body,” Kim Mikeska, a registered nurse, told the Houston Chronicle.

Houston Methodist nurse Jennifer Bridges, the lead plaintiff in the case, told the Washington Post this month that she had received “every vaccine known to man” in the past, but believed the coronavirus vaccines needed further study.

The lawsuit referred to the vaccines as “experimental COVID-19 mRNA gene modification injection.”

“It is a severe and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code and the public policy of the state of Texas,” attorney Jared Woodfill, who filed the lawsuit in Montgomery County, told local news, and he’s right.

Because the current Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J vaccines have been only authorized by the FDA under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), the safety and effectiveness data are still being collected. This means the current mass vaccination program is an experiment in an ongoing study in which researchers may still find small effect-size side effects.

It is a fact that vaccines that receive EUA are considered experimental until the FDA formally approves it as it is entirely possible that a rare side effect will be found after mass vaccination allows a longer term of observation on a larger number of people.

Therefore, it can be argued that forcing employees to take the vaccine is a medical ethics violation. According to the 1947 Nuremberg Code:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is
to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.

The fact that these vaccines are currently under EUA makes all attempts to mandate them, a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code as the number one premise behind it is that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

There is nothing voluntary about vaccine passports, forced vaccinations, or any other form of government or employee coercion methods to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.

On an ethical stance alone, the very premise of these ideas is based on violations of the Nuremberg Code. Nevertheless, government officials, media, and academia alike, continue to shame, coerce, and threaten those who choose to abstain from the vaccine.

Marc Boom, the company’s CEO disagrees, however, and says “it is legal for health care institutions to mandate vaccines, as we have done with the flu vaccine since 2009?

He then went on to completely dismiss the facts in the case, claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines are “not experimental.”

Given the recent changes to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines over forced vaccinations in the workplace, Boom may want to reconsider his stance.

As TFTP reported earlier this month, OSHA recently changed the “vaccine-related” requirement for on-the-job injuries. In three parts it details the liability.

Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?

In general, an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is recordable if the reaction is: (1) work-related, (2) a new case, and (3) meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7 (e.g., days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid).

If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?

If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.

In a third bullet point, OSHA explicitly notes that employers who do not require their employees to take the vaccine, will not be held liable through the recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7. The guideline notes that in order for an employer to be free from liability, the vaccine must be “truly voluntary,” meaning no negative reports for unvaccinated employees.

I do not require my employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. However, I do recommend that they receive the vaccine and may provide it to them or make arrangements for them to receive it offsite. If an employee has an adverse reaction to the vaccine, am I required to record it?

No. Although adverse reactions to recommended COVID-19 vaccines may be recordable under 29 CFR 1904.4(a) if the reaction is: (1) work-related, (2) a new case, and (3) meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7, OSHA is exercising its enforcement discretion to only require the recording of adverse effects to required vaccines at this time. Therefore, you do not need to record adverse effects from COVID-19 vaccines that you recommend, but do not require.

Note that for this discretion to apply, the vaccine must be truly voluntary. For example, an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot affect their performance rating or professional advancement. An employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice. If employees are not free to choose whether or not to receive the vaccine without fearing adverse action, then the vaccine is not merely “recommended” and employers should consult the above FAQ regarding COVID-19 vaccines that are a condition of employment.

Note also that the exercise of this discretion is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding OSHA’s expectations as to the recording of adverse effects during the health emergency; it does not change any of employers’ other responsibilities under OSHA’s recordkeeping regulations or any of OSHA’s interpretations of those regulations.

Finally, note that this answer applies to a variety of scenarios where employers recommend, but do not require vaccines, including where the employer makes the COVID-19 vaccine available to employees at work, where the employer makes arrangements for employees to receive the vaccine at an offsite location (e.g., pharmacy, hospital, local health department, etc.), and where the employer offer the vaccine as part of a voluntary health and wellness program at my workplace. In other words, the method by which employees might receive a recommended vaccine does not matter for the sake of this question.

This clarification by OSHA is especially relevant thanks to The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) which removes any and all liability from vaccine manufacturers even if their product kills someone.

You can actually prove that you or your child were harmed from a vaccine yet the vaccine maker is completely shielded from liability. Even if you are awarded monetary compensation through the NVICP, the taxpayers are put on the line, not the vaccine makers.

If companies have to start footing the bill for lawsuits related to COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions, the implications for vaccine manufacturers could be massive especially given the sheer magnitude of adverse events being reported to the CDC from the COVID-19 vaccine.

The most recent data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines reveals there have been over 200,000 adverse events reported. Of those adverse reactions, according to the CDC, 4,863 of them are deaths.

The post ‘We Won’t Be Human Guinea Pigs’: 117 Doctors, Nurses Sue Over Forced ‘Experimental’ Vaccine first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Ana Cabrera Charlie Chester CNN court battle Defamation Donald Trump Headline News Intelwars James O'Keefe Joe Biden Lawsuit LIES Mainstream media malice pays cnn political bias Project Veritas propaganda ruling class The Matrix the system United States wake up won't see on CNN

James O’Keefe Of Project Veritas Sues CNN Over Defamation

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has announced that he intends to take CNN to court for making false statements about his conservative media organization. He says more sensational revelations about the network are to come as well.

O’Keefe said “we believe we can win” hours after releasing bombshell videos of a director saying the network uses “propaganda,” according to a report by Sky News.  “Ana Cabrera is the host that lied about us and said that we were taken down for – she mentioned misinformation,” O’Keefe told Fox News. “That’s just simply not so. “Actual malice is the standard in the US, we believe we can win against CNN, so I’m announcing on your show I’m going to sue CNN for defamation.”

O’Keefe has an uphill battle, considering he’s using the United States government’s system, which pays the mainstream media to lie and propagate stories, to try to beat their lapdog. Maybe it’ll work, but it likely won’t have a lasting effect, unlike the propaganda already solidly stuck in the heads of the American masses. Using the system to try to beat the system is a guaranteed way to fail. As long as CNN is backed by the government and being paid to do their bidding, no court (which is the government) will go against them.  It’s probably past time to realize this and just exit the system entirely.

On the other hand, O’Keefe is doing what he feels is right, and hopefully, his lawsuit will have some effect on the muddles minds of the sheep. He is going to continue to release videos of CNN employees saying that what they are doing is literally “propaganda” and in one, a CNN employee can be heard saying “if it wasn’t for CNN, I don’t know that Trump would have got voted out.”

That doesn’t exactly sound unbiased. According to a report by RT, O’Keefe also teased the release of a second part of the video, saying that Project Veritas plans to continue to release more footage. He predicted that CNN would eventually have to explain itself, or fire technical director Charlie Chester, considering he actually says the media outlet is pushing outright fraud when it comes to the massive COVID-19 hoax.

We think [the second part] is even worse. It talks about Covid and some of the fraud and misrepresentation that the network does as it relates to Covid.

The post James O’Keefe Of Project Veritas Sues CNN Over Defamation first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Biden administration Bill barr Intelwars Joe Biden Justice Department Lawsuit Transgender athletes watch Womens Rights

‘Biological males’ competing as females ‘are just taking it away from us’: HS athlete blasts Biden DOJ for turning back on transgender lawsuit

Alanna Smith took it right to biological males who compete as transgender females and then steal awards, accolades, and attention leading to life-changing things like college scholarships from biological female athletes.

“A lot of biological females have missed out on making it to meets that really matter,” Smith, a Connecticut track athlete, told Fox News Wednesday, adding that “the transgender athletes have taken spots on the podium that belong to biological females. We train for so many days a week, so many hours to be able to be the best in our state and the best in our region, and these biological males are just taking it away from us, and we really deserve it.”

What’s the background?

Smith — as readers of TheBlaze may recall — joined Selina Soule and Chelsea Mitchell in a federal lawsuit about a year ago challenging the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s policy of letting males compete in girls’ sports. At that point a pair of biological males who identify as females — Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood — had been crushing the competition in girls’ high school sprint events in Connecticut.

What’s more, then-Attorney General William Barr signed a “statement of interest” arguing against the CIAC’s policy.

But those days are long gone — and with Democratic President Joe Biden now sitting in the Oval Office, his Justice Department unsurprisingly withdrew support for the lawsuit. And it’s a decision Smith told Fox News she found “disappointing.”

What else did Smith say?

Smith — who said she missed out on coming in second place in a 200-meter sprint when a transgender female finished ahead of her — told the network that she and other female athletes “have worked really hard to get our stories out there to get people to realize that fairness needs to be restored in our sport and in all other women’s sports.”

What did Smith’s attorney have to say?

Smith’s attorney, Christiana Holcomb of Alliance Defending Freedom, told Fox News that the lawsuit will proceed despite the new DOJ’s “politically motivated” decision to back away from it.

“What is even more concerning is this effort to gut legal protection for women is not just isolated to what we see in Connecticut,” Holcomb added to the network. “Even now, the Biden administration is pushing the so-called Equality Act, which ignores the physical differences between men and women and threatens women’s privacy, women’s homeless shelters, and yes, even women’s sports on a national level for female athletes like Alanna.”

Share
Categories
cops cops are the teeth of the slave state enforcers feared for life government is slavery Hannah fizer Headline News if they were good they wouldn't be cops immoral job Intelwars John Fizer killed Lawsuit left vs. rrrrrrrrr liars Masters murdered murderers police officers Prosecutor shot slaves speeding tax cattle the system is a joke thin blue line Traffic stop Violence wake up wrongful death

WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article will be upsetting for those on the right or “conservatives” still stuck in the left vs. right paradigm lie which the Matrix is built around. 

Last June, family and friends of Hannah Fizer, 25, were shocked to learn that their beloved daughter and friend had been killed during a stop over an alleged speeding violation. Then, four months later, they learned there would be no justice and the officer who killed the unarmed woman as she sat in her vehicle — was back on the job.

Now, Fizer’s father, John Fizer, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Pettis County this week seeking damages against Pettis County Deputy Jordan Schutte. The lawsuit argues the shooting was unjustified, excessive use of force and that Schutte did not follow several standard law enforcement protocols during the stop. When watching the video, it is entirely clear.

In October, the Pettis County prosecutor claimed that the officer shooting an unarmed woman during a traffic stop — dumping five rounds into her as she sat in her car — did not violate any policies. The officer “feared for his life.”

“Schutte had the ability and responsibility to prevent the use of deadly force against Ms. Fizer but failed to do so,” the lawsuit reads. “His actions contributed to Ms. Fizer’s avoidable death.”

On that fateful night on June 13, Fizer was on her way to work when she was targeted for extortion by the deputy. Just six minutes after the stop began, Fizer would have five bullet holes in her, still sitting in her car.

After killing Fizer, the deputy would claim the woman — who never made a violent threat in her life — had a gun and threatened to kill him. However, investigators found no such gun and it appears the only thing she was holding was her cellphone after letting the officer know that she was filming the stop.

Fizer’s family disputes the claims of their daughter threatening to shoot the deputy and their dispute is held up by the fact that Fizer was unarmed. Another ominous detail to the killing of Fizer was the fact that she was filming the stop and her phone was found on the floorboard of her Hyundai, according to a search warrant, but no video has ever been released.

Several months after her death, surveillance footage from a nearby business was released, showing the deputy attempt to open her car door before positioning himself in front of her car and dumping 5 rounds into her. Had he really believed she had a gun, he would have likely taken cover or moved out of the way. Instead, he stayed standing straight up and calmly began shooting into Fizer’s car.

The attorneys for the family agree, noting in the lawsuit that Schutte drew his firearm and fired repeated shots at Hannah Fizer at point-blank range without first moving or attempting to move to a position of better safety or cover while giving her commands or calling for support and backup.

“There is no objectively reasonable basis on which to conclude it was acceptable, lawful, and not excessive for Schutte to purposefully position himself toward the front of Hannah Fizer’s vehicle and discharge his firearm at her only minutes into a traffic stop without ever attempting to move to a place of greater safety or follow de-escalation techniques,” the lawsuit states.

 

Fizer’s father believes Fizer was simply holding her cell phone and dropped it, which caused the coward cop to dump five rounds into his daughter. As the cellphone was the only thing found in the car, this is the most likely scenario.

In his statement after the shooting, Schutte claimed Fizer refused to identify herself and that, because she refused to, he told her to step out of the car because he was going to arrest her for not identifying herself.

However, as FOX 4 pointed out, at the time of the incident, nowhere in the record of the radio traffic did Schutte report to radio dispatch that he was going to arrest her for refusing to identify herself. Instead, he can be heard on the radio telling dispatch she was more worried about recording him than giving him her identification.

Furthermore, the radio traffic reveals Hannah Fizer did in fact identify herself, as she can be heard on the audio recording clearly saying her name, “Hannah Fizer,” at a volume the Pettis County deputy would have been able to hear.

Despite prosecutors admitting the shooting was “avoidable” they cleared Schutte in Fizer’s death.

Special prosecutor Stephen P. Sokoloff wrote in his conclusion that “the shooting, albeit possibly avoidable, was justifiable under current Missouri criminal law” after claiming surveillance footage from the restaurant showed Fizer reach down to the floorboard. Apparently, reaching down is a crime punishable by summary execution on the spot.

“The evidence indicates that the deceased, who had been stopped for multiple traffic violations and who had refused to provide any information to the officer, had advised him that she was recording him, and then shortly thereafter, that she had a gun and was going to shoot him,” Sokoloff wrote in his statement. “At the time the officer discharged his weapon, she had reached down into the floorboard of the car and raised up towards him. Based on the information and circumstances available to the officer during the event, it cannot be said that the officer did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious physical injury or death from the actions of the deceased at the time he fired.”

This statement rings hollow given the facts of the case, and the new sheriff as well as the old have expressed their concerns over Fizer’s death. As of Dec. 31, 2020, Shutte is no longer employed by the department.

Adding to the tragic nature of this summary execution over a speeding allegation is the fact that Fizer actually attended the Sedalia Police Department’s academy in 2016, according to the NY Times. So she was well trained in how to handle a stop, likely the reason she began filming in the first place. According to friends and family, after attending the academy, she quickly decided that she did not want to be a cop, but would often talk about becoming a parole officer to help people get back on their feet.

Before Fizer left for work that evening, the Times reports that she had spent the last day of her life splashing around in a kiddie pool with her best friend, Taylor Browder, and Browder’s young children, talking about life and her future in Sedalia — a future, thanks to an unidentified deputy, that no longer exists….

The post WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
cops cops are the teeth of the slave state enforcers feared for life government is slavery Hannah fizer Headline News if they were good they wouldn't be cops immoral job Intelwars John Fizer killed Lawsuit left vs. rrrrrrrrr liars Masters murdered murderers police officers Prosecutor shot slaves speeding tax cattle the system is a joke thin blue line Traffic stop Violence wake up wrongful death

WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article will be upsetting for those on the right or “conservatives” still stuck in the left vs. right paradigm lie which the Matrix is built around. 

Last June, family and friends of Hannah Fizer, 25, were shocked to learn that their beloved daughter and friend had been killed during a stop over an alleged speeding violation. Then, four months later, they learned there would be no justice and the officer who killed the unarmed woman as she sat in her vehicle — was back on the job.

Now, Fizer’s father, John Fizer, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Pettis County this week seeking damages against Pettis County Deputy Jordan Schutte. The lawsuit argues the shooting was unjustified, excessive use of force and that Schutte did not follow several standard law enforcement protocols during the stop. When watching the video, it is entirely clear.

In October, the Pettis County prosecutor claimed that the officer shooting an unarmed woman during a traffic stop — dumping five rounds into her as she sat in her car — did not violate any policies. The officer “feared for his life.”

“Schutte had the ability and responsibility to prevent the use of deadly force against Ms. Fizer but failed to do so,” the lawsuit reads. “His actions contributed to Ms. Fizer’s avoidable death.”

On that fateful night on June 13, Fizer was on her way to work when she was targeted for extortion by the deputy. Just six minutes after the stop began, Fizer would have five bullet holes in her, still sitting in her car.

After killing Fizer, the deputy would claim the woman — who never made a violent threat in her life — had a gun and threatened to kill him. However, investigators found no such gun and it appears the only thing she was holding was her cellphone after letting the officer know that she was filming the stop.

Fizer’s family disputes the claims of their daughter threatening to shoot the deputy and their dispute is held up by the fact that Fizer was unarmed. Another ominous detail to the killing of Fizer was the fact that she was filming the stop and her phone was found on the floorboard of her Hyundai, according to a search warrant, but no video has ever been released.

Several months after her death, surveillance footage from a nearby business was released, showing the deputy attempt to open her car door before positioning himself in front of her car and dumping 5 rounds into her. Had he really believed she had a gun, he would have likely taken cover or moved out of the way. Instead, he stayed standing straight up and calmly began shooting into Fizer’s car.

The attorneys for the family agree, noting in the lawsuit that Schutte drew his firearm and fired repeated shots at Hannah Fizer at point-blank range without first moving or attempting to move to a position of better safety or cover while giving her commands or calling for support and backup.

“There is no objectively reasonable basis on which to conclude it was acceptable, lawful, and not excessive for Schutte to purposefully position himself toward the front of Hannah Fizer’s vehicle and discharge his firearm at her only minutes into a traffic stop without ever attempting to move to a place of greater safety or follow de-escalation techniques,” the lawsuit states.

 

Fizer’s father believes Fizer was simply holding her cell phone and dropped it, which caused the coward cop to dump five rounds into his daughter. As the cellphone was the only thing found in the car, this is the most likely scenario.

In his statement after the shooting, Schutte claimed Fizer refused to identify herself and that, because she refused to, he told her to step out of the car because he was going to arrest her for not identifying herself.

However, as FOX 4 pointed out, at the time of the incident, nowhere in the record of the radio traffic did Schutte report to radio dispatch that he was going to arrest her for refusing to identify herself. Instead, he can be heard on the radio telling dispatch she was more worried about recording him than giving him her identification.

Furthermore, the radio traffic reveals Hannah Fizer did in fact identify herself, as she can be heard on the audio recording clearly saying her name, “Hannah Fizer,” at a volume the Pettis County deputy would have been able to hear.

Despite prosecutors admitting the shooting was “avoidable” they cleared Schutte in Fizer’s death.

Special prosecutor Stephen P. Sokoloff wrote in his conclusion that “the shooting, albeit possibly avoidable, was justifiable under current Missouri criminal law” after claiming surveillance footage from the restaurant showed Fizer reach down to the floorboard. Apparently, reaching down is a crime punishable by summary execution on the spot.

“The evidence indicates that the deceased, who had been stopped for multiple traffic violations and who had refused to provide any information to the officer, had advised him that she was recording him, and then shortly thereafter, that she had a gun and was going to shoot him,” Sokoloff wrote in his statement. “At the time the officer discharged his weapon, she had reached down into the floorboard of the car and raised up towards him. Based on the information and circumstances available to the officer during the event, it cannot be said that the officer did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious physical injury or death from the actions of the deceased at the time he fired.”

This statement rings hollow given the facts of the case, and the new sheriff as well as the old have expressed their concerns over Fizer’s death. As of Dec. 31, 2020, Shutte is no longer employed by the department.

Adding to the tragic nature of this summary execution over a speeding allegation is the fact that Fizer actually attended the Sedalia Police Department’s academy in 2016, according to the NY Times. So she was well trained in how to handle a stop, likely the reason she began filming in the first place. According to friends and family, after attending the academy, she quickly decided that she did not want to be a cop, but would often talk about becoming a parole officer to help people get back on their feet.

Before Fizer left for work that evening, the Times reports that she had spent the last day of her life splashing around in a kiddie pool with her best friend, Taylor Browder, and Browder’s young children, talking about life and her future in Sedalia — a future, thanks to an unidentified deputy, that no longer exists….

The post WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
2020 presidential election Brad raffensperger Former president donald trump Georgia secretary of state Intelwars Lawsuit Lin wood Voter fraud allegations

Pro-Trump attorney Lin Wood — who helped lead the accusations of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election — is under investigation for voter fraud

Attorney Lin Wood is under investigation by Georgia officials for potential voter fraud, according to a Tuesday night report from NBC News.

Wood was one of former President Donald Trump’s biggest advocates in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election based on accusations of massive voter fraud.

The embattled attorney recently said that he has been living in South Carolina for the last several months.

What are the details?

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office confirmed the investigation in a statement to the network.

“The question is whether [Wood] was a legal resident when he voted in November in light of an email he sent to [WSB-TV reporter] Justin Gray saying he has been domiciled in South Carolina for several months,” the statement explained. “The investigation is ongoing.”

The secretary of state’s office added that “if a person removes to another state with the intention of making it such person’s residence, such person shall be considered to have lost such person’s residence in this state” — which would have made Wood ineligible to vote in Georgia if he were living in South Carolina during early voting.

On Tuesday night, Wood responded to the news and in a statement of his own announced, “I was domiciled in Atlanta in October of 2020 and was a resident of Georgia at that time. I have been a resident of Georgia since 1955.”

“I own properties in Georgia and South Carolina,” Wood’s statement added. “I changed my resident to South Carolina on February 1, 2021.”

What else?

On Wednesday, NPR reported that Wood took to the social media site Telegram on Monday, revealing that he was leaving Georgia and changing his permanent residency to South Carolina after insisting Georgia “falsely accused me and shunned me.”

“After news of the investigation broke, Wood wrote that he only became a South Carolina resident as of Feb. 1 and called Raffensperger a ‘loser’ who ‘is going to jail,'” NPR’s Stephen Fowler reported.

“Now, his posts on Telegram are under scrutiny as officials seek to determine if one of the loudest voices alleging election fraud committed a crime himself,” Fowler added. “Georgia state code 21-2-217 (a) (5) says that if a person moves to another state ‘with the intention of remaining there an indefinite time and making such state the person’s place of residence’ then they are no longer considered eligible to vote in Georgia.”

State investigators will now determine if Wood lived in South Carolina or in Georgia when he voted early in person for the November presidential election

Share
Categories
Gov. kate brown Intelwars Lawsuit Lindsey Graham oregon Salon

Salon owner sues Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, accusing Democrat of retaliating over lockdown defiance

Oregon salon owner Lindsey Graham has filed a lawsuit against her state, its Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, and a number of agency officials, seeking $100,000 in damages after being hit with fines and even a visit from child welfare workers after Graham defied COVID-19 lockdown orders.

What are the details?

Graham says Brown retaliated against her, her business, and her family for reopening her Glamour salon in May, violating the state’s stay-at-home order. After reopening, Oregon’s Occupational Safety and Health Division hit her with a $14,000 fine and the state’s Child Welfare Division sent workers to search her home, questioning her, her husband, and one of her kids.

“I’ve never expected such a violent, aggressive, vindictive thing could have ever been done to me or my family,” the business owner of 15 years said at the time.

Graham filed a lawsuit Dec. 18 against a slew of state officials including Brown herself, alleging that the defendants violated Graham’s U.S. and state constitutional rights, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the salon owner, and abused processes in order to target Graham in retaliation.

The lawsuit states:

“While individuals and businesses such as Graham and Glamour struggled to make ends meet for nearly six (6) weeks, government employees like Defendant Kate Brown and the other individual named defendants did not have to worry about where their next paycheck would come from.”

The suit also claims:

“Defendant Kate Brown grew increasingly frustrated with the fact that Graham and Glamour refused to bow down to her authority. Defendant Kate Brown publicly called Graham and Glamour’s ‘re-opening’ ‘unfortunate’ and ‘irresponsible’ — only further making Graham and Glamour a target by the government.”

‘She came at me with the full weight of the state’

“As soon as I tried to open my doors against the governor’s mandate back in May, she came at me with the full weight of the state,” Graham told Fox News‘ “The Ingraham Angle” with Laura Ingraham on Monday. “She terrorized myself, she terrorized my stylists, and she terrorized my family. She took every government agency she could, and she put her full weight into intimidating me into closing, including sending Child Protective Services to my home and threatening the removal of my children.”

Graham noted that CPS showed up on her doorstep just a few days after her salon reopening, claiming they were acting on an anonymous call.

“[They] opened a full-blown case against me which was completely bogus and unwarranted, and it didn’t come until I shot back at them with a threat of the lawsuit” that they closed the case, she told Fox News.

KATU-TV reached out to Gov. Brown’s office last week seeking comment on the lawsuit, but has not yet received a response.

Share
Categories
Cheerleaders free speech Intelwars Lawsuit Mahanoy area school district New York Times Supreme Court

Teen whose profane Snapchat message got her suspended sues school over free speech and wins. Now the district wants to take it to the Supreme Court.

A Pennsylvania school district is requesting the Supreme Court weigh in on a case after a freshman cheerleader and her parents sued the district after it disciplined the teen for a profane message she shared on social media.

What are the details?

According to a Monday report from the New York Times, titled “A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown,” the Mahanoy Area School District has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether students can be disciplined for remarks they make on social media.

In 2017, the unnamed student had just discovered that she didn’t make the varsity cheerleading squad when she sent the offending message.

She took to Snapchat, where she messaged about 250 friends with a message featuring herself and a fellow student with their middle fingers up. The unnamed student captioned the photo “[u]sing a curse word four times,” and expressed her unhappiness with “school,” “softball,” “cheer,” and “everything.”

“Though Snapchat messages are ephemeral by design, another student took a screenshot of this one and showed it to her mother, a coach,” the Times reported. “The school suspended the student from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to ‘avoid chaos’ and maintain a ‘teamlike environment.'”

Following the suspension, the teen and her family sued the district and was victorious in the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia. At the time, the court ruled that the First Amendment “did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.”

The student and her family, who are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Supreme Court that the First Amendment protected the teen’s “colorful expression of frustration, made in an ephemeral Snapchat on her personal social media, on a weekend, off campus, containing no threat or harassment or mention of her school, and that did not cause or threaten any disruption of her school.”

What is the school saying?

According to the Times, “the school district said administrators around the nation needed a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court” in order to ascertain their ability to discipline students for “what they say away from school.”

“The question presented recurs constantly and has become even more urgent as Covid-19 has forced schools to operate online,” a brief for the district’s appeal read, according to the outlet. “Only this court can resolve this threshold First Amendment question bedeviling the nation’s nearly 100,000 public schools.”

“Whether a disruptive or harmful tweet is sent from the school cafeteria or after the student has crossed the street on her walk home, it has the same impact,” the brief added. “The Third Circuit’s formalistic rule renders school powerless whenever a hateful message is launched from off campus.”

“The Supreme Court next month will consider whether to hear the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., involving a student’s freedom of speech while off school grounds,” the Times said.

Anything else?

Justin Driver, author and law professor at Yale University, told the Times that he partially agrees with the district.

“It is difficult to exaggerate the stakes of this constitutional question,” he said, pointing out that schools have no business “telling students what they could say when they were not in school.”

He continued, “In the modern era, a tremendous percentage of minors’ speech occurs off campus but online. Judicial decisions that permit schools to regulate off-campus speech that criticizes public schools are antithetical to the First Amendment. Such decisions empower schools to reach into any student’s home and declare critical statements verboten, something that should deeply alarm all Americans.”

Share
Categories
Arizona battleground states Dale Carpenter defendant states Donald Trump election fraud electors Headline News Intelwars Ken Paxton Lawsuit Supreme Court Texas

18 States Join Texas Supreme Court Election Lawsuit

Eighteen states, including Arizona, have now joined Texas in a Supreme Court lawsuit against the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief (amicus curiae) or ‘friend of the court’ brief was filed with the high court earlier Wednesday. The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia have all signed on to the brief that backs the Texas suit.

Arizona was the latest state to file an amicus brief on Wednesday bringing the total to 18 states.

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

Just as predicted before the election even occurred, it would be contested and handled by the Supreme Court. The following article was written back in September:

More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election

According to the American Bar Association, “‘Friend of the court’ or amicus curiae briefs are often filed in appellate cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, as well as intermediate courts of appeal. And there is considerable evidence that amicus briefs have influence.” On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant states to reply by 3 p.m. on Thursday, December 10.

“It’s not unusual,” SMU Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter told CBS 11. “I don’t think it indicates anything very important… I think the court will act quickly on Thursday.” Carpenter added: “Ken Paxton is asking that Republican state legislatures in four states be allowed to displace the will of the voters in those States and choose their own slate of electors, presumably to hand the election to Donald Trump in January. The Supreme Court is not going to allow that to happen.”

We will see.

 

The post 18 States Join Texas Supreme Court Election Lawsuit first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Constitution Donald Trump Election 2020 electors clause flip the election Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden Ken Paxton Lawsuit outcome States Supreme Court Texas voters

The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The End of the American Dream. 

Very few of the lawsuits that Trump’s legal team has filed since Election Day have really worried the left, but when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court on Monday night they immediately began freaking out.  The reason why they are so alarmed is because they understand that this suit has the potential to flip the election.

The suit alleges that the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin conducted their elections in ways that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if the Supreme Court agrees that would almost certainly mean that the Supreme Court would force the state legislatures of those states “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment”.

At this hour, we are being told that Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all joined the suit that Paxton has filed.  The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over controversies between states, and so this is why this case did not need to be filed in a lower court first.  But the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any particular case, and many on the left initially thought that the Court would never actually agree to hear it.

Well, it was put on the docket just 12 hours after it was filed, and so it will be heard.

And on Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defending states to file their answers by Thursday at 3 PM eastern time.

So this is really happening.

The Supreme Court will determine the fate of the 2020 election after all.

In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”

And he is absolutely correct.  When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.

According to the Electors Clause, state legislatures have the authority to establish how presidential electors will be chosen in their particular states, but Paxton alleges that government officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin made up their own rules and did not follow the election laws that had been passed by their own state legislatures

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” Paxton wrote in his filing.

“To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed,” he wrote. “Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.”

Unlike the allegations of election fraud that are floating around out there, these allegations are very easy to prove.

The following is a brief summary of some of the issues in each of the four states that comes from the Heritage Foundation

  • Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
  • Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
  • Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
  • Wisconsin: Lastly, Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

For these constitutional violations alone, the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

In addition, in his complaint, Paxton alleges that voters in various parts of these states were treated very differently

Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.

As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”

Once again, this should be a slam dunk to prove based on the evidence that has already been publicly presented.

And without a doubt, differential treatment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On top of that, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court clearly prohibited “the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”.

Since differential standards in the treatment of ballots occurred in all four states, that should mean that the election results in all four states should be thrown out.

Lastly, Paxton alleges that there were “voting irregularities” in each of the four states, and those allegations are going to be more difficult to prove.

But Paxton doesn’t need to prove them, because the violations of the Electors Clause and the violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should both be slam dunks.

Assuming that is the case, what is the appropriate remedy?

Paxton is asking that the state legislatures of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be forced “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”

In each of those states, those legislatures could opt to hold new elections, or alternatively, they could decide to choose new slates of electors themselves.

And since all four of those state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that would seem to favor President Trump.

Needless to say, if the current election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are overturned, the left will have a massive temper tantrum.  Cities all over the nation would burn and we would see endless civil unrest for the foreseeable future.

So that may make some members of the Court hesitant to overturn the current election results no matter what the Constitution actually says.

But if there are at least five justices that are willing to follow the Constitution no matter what the consequences are, we may soon see the most shocking decision in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe. I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions. I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter, and Parler, and anyway that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post The Texas Lawsuit Is On The Docket – The Supreme Court Will Determine The Fate Of The 2020 Election first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 Donald Trump Georgia Intelwars Lawsuit trump campaign voter fraud

Lawsuit requests ‘new statewide election’ in Georgia presidential contest over voter fraud allegations

The Trump campaign filed a new lawsuit in Georgia state court late Friday seeking to invalidate the results of the presidential contest in the Peach State over allegations of voter fraud.

What are the details?

According to WXIA-TV, Trump’s legal team claims “tens of thousands of illegal votes” were cast in last month’s election. The lawsuit requests the decertification of the state’s election results, and wants the court to “order a new election to be conducted in the presidential race.”

As alleged evidence of their claims, the lawsuit includes “dozens of signed affidavits from Georgia residents who claimed to have witnessed voter fraud,” WXIA reported.

The lawsuit also demands that the court direct Georgia’s Republican-controlled state legislature to appoint presidential electors.

Lead Trump campaign counsel Ray Smith said in a statement:

What was filed today clearly documents that there are literally tens of thousands of illegal votes that were cast, counted, and included in the tabulations the Secretary of State is preparing to certify. The massive irregularities, mistakes, and potential fraud violate the Georgia Election Code, making it impossible to know with certainty the actual outcome of the presidential race in Georgia.

The Secretary of State has orchestrated the worst excuse for an election in Georgia history. We are asking the Court to vacate the certification of the presidential election and to order a new statewide election for president. Alternatively, we are asking the Court to enjoin the certification and allow the Georgia legislature to reclaim its duty under the U.S. Constitution to appoint the presidential electors for the state.

The Trump campaign’s statement explained, “Attached to the complaint are sworn affidavits from dozens of Georgia residents swearing under penalty of perjury to what they witnessed during the election: failure to process and secure the ballots, failure to verify the signatures on absentee ballots, the appearance of mysterious ‘pristine’ absentee ballots not received in official absentee ballot envelopes that were voted almost solely for Joe Biden, failure to allow poll watchers meaningful access to observe the election, among other violations of law.”

What about voter fraud?

Despite the Trump campaign’s claims, Attorney General William Barr said this week that the Department of Justice has not uncovered credible evidence of voter fraud.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” Barr said.

The Georgia secretary of state’s office also has clarified on multiple occasions they have neither seen evidence of voter fraud, WXIA noted.

Share
Categories
campaign Intelwars Lawsuit Supreme Court trump Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump campaign election lawsuit — for now

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday declined to take up one of the lawsuits filed in the state by the Trump campaign earlier in the week, determining in a 4-3 decision that the petition seeking to toss out more than 220,000 absentee ballots should be heard by a lower court.

What are the details?

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their re-election campaign sued Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) and several election officials in the state, presenting what the campaign called “clear evidence of unlawfulness” that is says “affected no less than approximately 221,000 ballots out of over the three three million ballots cast.”

But the majority of the state’s highest court agreed that under Wisconsin law, the case should first be seen by a circuit court.

The Washington Post reported that “one conservative member of the panel, Brian Hagedorn, joined the court’s three more liberal members in declining to take the case,” writing “that he had determined the court should decline to take the case so the Trump campaign could ‘promptly exercise’ its right to seek action in a lower court.”

Courthouse News noted that “the other three members of the court’s conservative majority dissented.”

The outlet reported:

Grassl Bradley, an appointee of Republican former Governor Scott Walker, wrote that “the majority takes a pass on resolving the important questions presented by the petitioners in this case, thereby undermining the public’s confidence in the integrity of Wisconsin’s electoral processes not only during this election, but in every future election.”

In reaction to the court’s narrow decision, Trump campaign attorney James Troupis said in a statement, “We welcome the direction of the Supreme Court to file in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as we pursue making certain that only legal votes count in Wisconsin — and we will immediately do so.”

He added, “It was clear from their writings that the court recognizes the seriousness of these issues, and we look forward to taking the next step. We fully expect to be back in front of the Supreme Court very soon.”

Anything else?

The Trump/Pence campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits nationwide, alleging widespread voting fraud and irregularities in several states in challenging Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as the projected winner. The Hill noted that their litigation attempts “have largely proved unsuccessful.”

On Wednesday, the campaign filed another lawsuit in Wisconsin (in district court) against the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the mayors of the state’s five largest cities: Milwaukee, Madison, Kenosha, Green Bay and Racine.

The official Wisconsin tally indicates Biden won the state by more than 20,000 votes.

Share
Categories
Betsy fresse christian Discrimination Intelwars Lawsuit LGBT Starbucks

Lawsuit alleges Starbucks fired Christian barista who refused to wear LGBT ‘pride’ shirt

A New Jersey woman has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks claiming that she was fired from her barista job because she refused to wear a company t-shirt that promoted LGBT “pride.”

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

What are the details?

According to the lawsuit, Betsy Fresse, a Christian from Newark, was attending a meeting in her manager’s office at the Glen Ridge location in June 2019 when she noticed a box of Starbucks-branded “pride” t-shirts, NBC News reported.

Fresse proceeded to ask her manager if she would be required to wear one — which would violate her religious beliefs — and she was allegedly assured that she would not.

But several weeks later, Fresse was contacted by Starbucks’ ethics and compliance department about not wanting to wear the shirt. She told the company official that doing so would compromise her religious beliefs. Then, on Aug. 22, 2019, the lawsuit alleges that Fresse was fired because “her comportment was not in compliance with Starbucks’ core values.”

More from NJ.com:

While court papers state that Fresse “holds no enmity toward individuals who ascribe to the LGBTQ lifestyle and/or make up the LGBTQ community, (she) believes that being made to wear a Pride T-shirt as a condition of employment would be tantamount to forced speech and inaccurately show her advocacy of a lifestyle in direct contradiction to her religious beliefs.” Those beliefs, according to the lawsuit, include the idea “that marriage is defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman only, and that any sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is contrary to her understanding of Biblical teaching.”

Fresse has also filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The government agency, however, said in August that it could not determine whether Starbucks wrongly terminated Fresse by engaging in religious discrimination, according to NJ.com.

Fresse is seeking back pay with interest, compensation for emotional suffering, punitive damages, and payment of her attorney fees.

What did Starbucks say?

In a statement provided to the New York Post, a representative for the coffee chain said they are prepared to fight Fresse’s claims in court, denying that she was required to wear the “pride” shirt.

“We are very aware of the claims by Mrs. Fresse, which are without merit and we are fully prepared to present our case in court,” the spokesperson said. “Specific to our dress code, other than our green apron, no part of our dress code requires partners to wear any approved items that they have not personally selected.”

Share
Categories
absentee ballots GOP Intelwars Lawsuit Mail-in ballots Patricia mccullough Pennsylvania republican party

Pennsylvania judge rules GOP lawsuit challenging new absentee ballot law has ‘likelihood to succeed’

The Pennsylvania judge who temporarily halted the certification of election results in the Keystone State issued an opinion Friday explaining that the Republican plaintiffs in her case will likely win on the merits of their lawsuit.

What’s the background?

As TheBlaze reported, Commonwealth Judge Patricia McCullough issued an injunction Wednesday after Republican lawmakers made an emergency request to stop certification of the state’s election results over concerns about Act 77, a new law that allowed Pennsylvania voters to obtain an absentee ballot for the election for any reason.

From Sinclair Broadcasting Group:

The plaintiffs argue Act 77, which was signed into law in October 2019, wrongfully overrides the stipulations for absentee balloting established by the state’s constitution. The Pennsylvania Constitution states absentee ballots can be cast by those who cannot go to polling locations due to a work obligation, sickness, religious holiday, or “election day duties.”

As a result, the suit asks the court to prevent the certification of election tallies that include mail-in ballots resulting from the expanded rules of Act 77, and further moves to have the Pennsylvania General Assembly assign the state’s electors.

What is the judge saying now?

McCullough explained in a 13-page opinion that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their lawsuit because Act 77 appears to violate the Pennsylvania state constitution.

“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” McCullough wrote.

“Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77,” she continued.

“Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim,” McCullough said.

Anything else?

According to WESA-FM, Gov. Tom Wolf (D) and Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar have appealed to the state Supreme Court to intervene. Democrats currently hold a 5-2 majority on the Pennsylvania high court.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey noted at Hot Air that the “laches” doctrine could apply in this case, thereby hurting the plaintiffs’ argument, because they did not raise objections before or after Pennsylvania’s June 2 primary, which used the same absentee system as the general.

“Having raised no objection before the election, the plaintiffs have participated in the alleged violation, which would impact their standing to demand relief,” Morrissey explained.

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Intelwars Lawsuit Matthew brann Pennsylvania

Federal judge dismisses Trump lawsuit in Pennsylvania, blasts campaign in scathing opinion

A federal judge tossed out another lawsuit from the Trump campaign late Saturday, rebuking the campaign in a scathing opinion, and allowing the state to move forward with the certification of its election results.

In response, Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) congratulated Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris for winning the election.

What did the judge say?

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes in Pennsylvania and block the certification of the state’s election results, which is set for Monday.

But granting the Trump campaign’s demands would have been tantamount to violating the Constitution, U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann ruled.

“[T]hey ask the Court to violate the rights of over 6.8 million Americans,” Brann wrote in a 37-page opinion. “It is not in the power of this Court to violate the Constitution.”

In fact, Brann explained that Trump’s legal team did not come to court armed with evidence to prove why Pennsylvania votes should be invalidated.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann explained. “That has not happened.”

“Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence,” Brann continued. “In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.”

Brann, although he was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2012, was a longtime Republican official, and was active both in the National Rifle Association and Federalist Society.

What did Toomey say?

Toomey recognized Biden and Harris as the election winners because he said Trump has exhausted his legal remedies in the Keystone State.

“With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania,” Toomey said in a statement.

“I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory,” Toomey added.

Toomey went on to say that he is “disappointed” that Trump lost, but urged the president to “accept the outcome of the election and facilitate the presidential transition process.”

How did Trump respond?

Trump’s campaign said they welcomed Brann’s decision because it expedites their plan to go to the Supreme Court.

“Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although we fully disagree with this opinion, we’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly, rather than simply trying to run out the clock,” Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis said in a statement, according to Politico.

It should be noted that Brann dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning Trump’s team cannot file another lawsuit on the same grounds as the one he dismissed. That, however, does not stop the appeal process.

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 Intelwars Lawsuit Michigan Timothy kenny voter fraud Wayne county

Michigan court rejects appeal for ‘independent audit’ of ballots over allegations of voter fraud

The Michigan Court of Appeals on Monday ruled against an effort to conduct an “independent audit” of ballots in Wayne County, the Democratic stronghold and most populous county in the Wolverine State.

The ruling means that certification of the county’s votes will move forward as scheduled, unless a higher court intervenes.

What are the details?

Officially, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected a request to overturn a ruling made by Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny last Friday.

The request, made in a lawsuit filed by attorney David Kallman on behalf of two Wayne County voters, sought to force an “independent audit” of Wayne County’s ballots, separate from the audit already being conducted by the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, according to the Detroit Free Press. The lawsuit also demanded officials stop the certification of the county’s results and asked the judge to completely void the election results.

The plaintiffs argued that voter fraud had occurred, but Kenny did not buy the allegations. He called their claims “incorrect and not credible.”

According to the Free Press, Kallman plans to appeal the appeals court decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. But his efforts may ultimately prove futile, since ballot certification begins Tuesday, Nov. 17, at 3 p.m.

Any other lawsuits?

As TheBlaze reported, four Michigan voters filed a separate lawsuit last week seeking to invalidate approximately 1.2 million votes.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, requested that votes in three Democratic stronghold counties — Wayne, Ingham, and Washtenaw — be tossed out over allegations of voter fraud. Plaintiffs claimed there is “sufficient evidence” that voter fraud occurred, citing “issues with transparency, fraudulent changing of dates, a software glitch, clerical errors, illegal votes, and many other issues and irregularities.”

Tossing the votes would have flipped the state in President Donald Trump’s favor. But on Monday, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit.

According to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the purpose of the lawsuit was clear.

“This case was clearly designed to spread misinformation about the security and integrity of Michigan elections,” Nessel said.

Meanwhile, an additional lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on Monday demanding an audit of ballots — again, separate from the one that county officials statewide already conduct — before the state’s results are certified, according to the Free Press.

So far, no legal challenge launched by Trump’s campaign or his supporters alleging voter fraud have been accepted by the court system.

Share
Categories
Campaign 2020 Intelwars Lawsuit Michigan voter fraud Wayne county

New federal lawsuit seeks to throw out 1.2 million votes in Michigan, flipping the state for Trump

Another federal lawsuit was filed in Michigan this week that seeks to toss out up to 1.2 million votes, which would flip the Great Lakes State in President Donald Trump’s favor.

Media-declared president-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump in Michigan by approximately 146,000 votes.

What are the details?

The lawsuit, filed by four voters in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeks to toss out ballots in three Democratic strongholds — Wayne, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties — over allegations of voter fraud, according to Michigan Live.

Those three counties are responsible for about 1.2 million votes, favoring Biden by more than 2:1. Eliminating ballots from those counties would give Trump a victory in Michigan.

Plaintiffs claim that “sufficient evidence” exists “to place in doubt the November 3 presidential-election results” in the three identified counties, citing “issues with transparency, fraudulent changing of dates, a software glitch, clerical errors, illegal votes, and many other issues and irregularities.”

More from Michigan Live:

Plaintiffs also cite ongoing investigations launched by the Michigan Legislature and a variety of other claims that have been debunked. The allegations include charges of Republican ballot challengers being harassed and illegal tampering with ballots.

Plaintiffs conclude that “this evidence suffices to place in doubt the November 3 presidential election results in identified counties and/or the state as a whole.” However, the group of voters also claims to have additional evidence of illegal ballots being included in unofficial results, based on “expert reports” and data analysis.

The lawsuit further says that certifying the votes would violate voters’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by “vote-dilution disenfranchisement.”

Defendants include Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, members of the Michigan State Board of Canvassers, Wayne County Board of Canvassers, Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers, and Ingham County Board of Canvassers.

Are the lawsuits working?

Lawsuits alleging unproven claims of voter fraud are losing the legal battle in court.

The most recent loss came on Friday, when Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied a request for an independent audit of Wayne County votes, according to the Detroit Free Press. The lawsuit had claimed local election officials managed a fraudulent election.

Also on Friday, Trump’s campaign dropped a legal challenge in Arizona and shut down its voter fraud hotline. The campaign also suffered a loss in federal court when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against the campaign’s efforts to block mail-in votes received after Election Day from being counted.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Jesus loves me mask Lawsuit Lawsuits Lydia booth Mississippi third-grader Simpson central elementary school

School reportedly forces 9-year-old to remove ‘Jesus loves me’ mask. Now her parents are suing.

The parents of a Mississippi third grader are suing a school district after they say an elementary school principal violated the child’s free speech and discriminated against her on the basis of religion.

What’s a brief history?

According to the
New York Post, the principal at Simpson Central School in Pinola directed the child, 9-year-old Lydia Booth, to remove her face mask, which said “Jesus Loves Me,” in October.

WLBT-TV reported that school officials advised the child that the mask went against district policy.

Immediately following the move, the school issued a statement on new mask policies, revealing that no masks displaying “political, religious, sexual, or any inappropriate symbols, gestures, or statements that may be offensive, disruptive, or deemed distractive to the school environment” would be permitted within the district.

The Booth family insists that the school not only singled out Lydia for her beliefs — which were evident based on her mask — but also changed the policy to prohibit such masks only after they objected to their child’s forced removal of the mask.

What’s happening now?

On Monday, the Alliance Defending Freedom
filed a federal lawsuit on Lydia and her family’s behalf, insisting that the district violated the child’s right to free speech.

Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Michael Ross said, “Public schools have a duty to respect the free expression of students that the First Amendment guarantees to them. Other students within the school district have freely worn masks with the logos of local sports teams or even the words ‘Black Lives Matter.’ This student deserves an equal opportunity to peacefully express her beliefs.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Tyson Langhofer told WBRC-TV that the move is unfair.

“When the school is discriminating against individuals who want to wear masks expressing religious beliefs but are allowing students and faculty to wear masks expressing messages with other beliefs and that’s not allowable in the First Amendment,” Langhofer said.

“[Lydia has] told her parents she wants to be a missionary and that’s why she wants to wear this mask. It made her really sad when she was forced to remove this mask, because the message means something to her and it’s her choice to wear it,” he added.

An attorney for the Simpson County school board told the station that the district has not yet been served in the suit, and provided no further comment.

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Election 2020 Election Results Intelwars Joe Biden Lawsuit Nevada voting irregularities

Latest Nevada results show Biden widening lead over Trump as president’s campaign claims illegal voting

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden expanded his lead in Nevada after several outstanding mail-in ballots were counted Thursday, as President Donald Trump’s campaign makes allegations of illegal voting in the state.

Biden and Trump have so far run neck and neck in the state, with Biden holding a slight lead over Trump before the latest results were announced. As of Wednesday, Biden led Trump by just .64%, a little more than 8,000 votes. At noon on Thursday, Biden’s lead grew to 12,042 votes, according to multiple reports.

Many of the ballots still to be counted are from Clark County, a Democratic stronghold.

Whichever candidate wins Nevada will gain six Electoral College votes of the needed 270 Electoral College votes to win the White House.

On Wednesday, Nevada elections officials announced that all in-person early votes, all in-person Election Day votes, and all mail-in ballots through Nov. 2 had been counted. Still to come are mail ballots received on Election Day and those received over the next week, officials said.

Voters casting mail-in absentee ballots needed to postmark their ballots by Tuesday, Nov. 3. State elections officials will receive postmarked ballots until Nov. 10. With the large volume of absentee ballots because of the coronavirus pandemic, the final vote count may remain unknown until next week.

During a Wednesday press briefing, Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon predicted Democrats would win the state.

The Trump campaign is filing a federal lawsuit in Las Vegas Thursday to stop the counting of “illegal votes” in Nevada, Fox News reported. The campaign claims to have evidence of deceased and nonresident voters casting ballots in the 2020 election.

Former Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, and Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald announced the lawsuit at a news conference.

“We are confident that when all legal votes are tallied — and only legal votes are tallied — President Trump will win the state of Nevada,” Grenell told Fox News.

An anonymous source that spoke to Fox News about the lawsuit claims the campaign has evidence that “tens of thousands” of people voted in Nevada illegally.

With the margin for victory so narrow in several states, the Trump campaign has vowed to demand a recount anywhere the campaign loses within a 1% margin or less. The campaign has already demanded a recount in Wisconsin, where Biden defeated Trump by a little over 20,000 votes.

Share