by Tracy Beanz at Uncover DC
The Missouri v. Biden case will go down in history as one of the most important civil liberties cases ever tried in a United States court. A ruling was issued yesterday, and while it would be considered a “minor” ruling in any other circumstance, the judge just smacked the government down once again; and this isn’t a minor case or a minor ruling.
Then, once discovery started coming in, the Plaintiff’s attorneys couldn’t believe what they were reading and petitioned the court for expedited depositions. His order declared that several claims the Plaintiffs had made about social media censorship had already been PROVEN. Unheard of, but true. The claims were proven via discovery, and discovery has demonstrated an active and wide-ranging effort to censor and target Americans based on their thoughts and speech. This article details everything in the judge’s order, and it’s something.
The UncoverDC article was written before “The Intercept” wrote their (now viral) story. The Intercept column was based on the discovery in THIS CASE. So, once the judge ordered expedited discovery, the government shenanigans began.
The government (Defendants in this case) started filing motions to stop people from being deposed and, in other cases, to delay it due to circumstances they outlined that are inane and ridiculous. Then, they filed a mandamus in the appellate court to stop the depositions altogether. The Plaintiffs (MO and LA) consented to a short delay in deposition, bringing them to early December.
That wasn’t good enough for the government, of course, so the Defendants filed a motion to stay the depositions and outline all of their nonsense reasons why they would be irreparably harmed by having to expedite their depositions. They also claimed that the appellate court may rule that the parties won’t have to sit for deposition at all and that some of the material is privileged—all of which the judge had already addressed.
Judges don’t like that. Today, the judge ruled on their request.
He ruled that their request for a stay was DENIED, which means that no matter what happens in the appellate court, they must sit for these depositions because, as the judge so eloquently writes, the harm they are causing to Americans far supersedes any of their nonsense excuses.
This is the most important case in decades for the protection of free speech…
Continue Reading