OPINION AND EDITORIAL
So-called right-wing attorney, Larry Klayman, esq., has filed another alleged “publicity stunt lawsuit”. This time in the International Criminal Court, the Hague, Netherlands. Some Internet observers believe Klayman may be seeking off-source litigation forums as his license to practice law in the District of Columbia is presently in peril due to an ethics investigation.
International Criminal Court Notifies Klayman It Is Processing Complaint Against China for Crimes Against Humanity Over COVID-19
Freedom Watch’s Class Actions in U.S. And Israel Go Forward
(Washington, D.C., April 6, 2020). Larry Klayman, a former federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice and the founder, chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch, Inc., today received notification that the public interest group’s criminal complaint filed in the Hague, Netherlands, against the People’s Republic of China and its president and other communist officials is being processed by the judicial body.
A copy of the complaint along with the notice by the International Criminal Court are embedded below.
Klayman had this to this to say upon getting this good news from The Hague:
“I am confident that the International Criminal Court will proceed with a criminal investigation and indict the Chinese leadership. Their crimes against humanity over the COVID-19 pandemic are severe and mounting each minute. The world demands justice for the death and destruction they have caused and continue to cause.
“The Chinese people are a good people, but the communist government is evil. They will have to answer not just to the Court, but also God.”
Freedom Watch based in Washington DC has approached the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the prosecutor’s office to open an inquiry against China over COVID-19 pursuant to Article 15. Freedom Watch is a public interest non-profit foundation whose mission is to investigate and prosecute government corruption abuse. The foundation wants an inquiry of the origins, creation, stockpiling, and negligent handling of a variation of a type of coronavirus known as COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, by the defendants -the People’s Republic of China, and the other defendants, including but not limited to President Xi Jinping and his Politburo.
200330-Complaint Before the International Criminal Court
LAURA LOOMER TECH GIANT LAWSUIT
So-called social media gadfly Laura Loomer (one arrested at the California Governor’s mansion) may have another bite at the apple in her $1.5 Billion lawsuit against Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Laura Loomer teamed up with Jason Goodman side-kick Larry Klayman, esq. to sue the social media giants for “discrimination”. Klayman and Loomer contend that First Amendment protection should be afforded subscribers to such social media services.
Above: Allegedly Laura Loomer (l) and Lauren Southern (r)
Above: Alleged photo of Laura Loomer, apparent one-time Jason Goodman side-kick
Loomer and Klayman have relied on a North Carolina lawsuit that sought to reinstate social media privileges to registered sex offenders/ The U.S. Supreme Court decided that restricting sex offenders in Internet usage was a violation of AMENDMENT I to the U.S. Constitution.
Above: Laura Loomer speaks with Larry Klayman, esq. on the conspiracy show “CrowdSource The Truth” (editor-in-chief “Hollywood film maker” Jason Goodman).
Begin video below at time-mark 2:00
Allegedly the U.S. Court of Appeals has agreed with Klayman and Loomer and rescinded the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings. No verification and validation of this claim has been located as of the time of this writing.
It appears that Laura Loomer may have written a new article that only indicates that the Appeals Court has agreed to hear oral arguments — and nothing more.
The $1.5 billion lawsuit, brought by Republican congressional primary candidate Laura Loomer (R) and conservative organization Freedom Watch, accuses the tech companies of being quasi-state actors, and thus in violation of the First Amendment when they suppress protected speech.
Some Internet observers believe the use of these so-called misleading headlines is designed to create the impression that “something” is happening, when hardly anything is happening (postponement of oral arguments to 60-90 days in the future). These observers believe that this is just another so-called “publicity stunt” developed by the Klayman / Loomer “public relations team”.
Above: Laura Loomer confronted by Napa County Sheriff’s deputies on the estate of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (January 2019).
LOOMER APPEARS TO RUSH TO CORRECT THE RECORD
Lawsuit Update: DC Court Of Appeals Agrees To Hear Loomer’s Big Tech Anti-Trust CasePOSTED ON APRIL 6, 2020
Laura Loomer and non-profit organization Freedom Watch brought their case before the District of Columbia (DC) Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to resurrect their anti-conservative bias lawsuit which accuses Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter of “intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content.”
The lawsuit states that these mega tech platforms violated the First Amendment, the Sherman Act (an anti-competitive monopoly law), and DC’s public accommodation law (which prohibits acts performed wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason).
It further argues that Loomer suffered “severe financial injury” as a result of being banned from these platforms and that these tech companies are limiting how many people are shown content from Freedom Watch.
Initially, the suit was dismissed with a DC federal judge finding that it did not present justifiable and legal claims about the social media companies’ alleged political and ideological bias.
However, a DC Circuit Court of Appeals has now agreed to hear the merits of this anti-conservative bias lawsuit.
Two months before she was banned on Twitter, Laura Loomer spoke up during a 2018 congressional hearing and urged President Trump to help conservatives who were being censored on social media (YouTube – C-SPAN)
On Thursday, the court heard final arguments from Loomer and Freedom Watch and was urged to resurrect the suit.
During their final arguments, Loomer and Freedom Watch cited Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) where the US Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina statute prohibiting sex offenders from accessing social media websites and ruled that the law was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment:
THE GOOGLE, FACEBOOK APPELLATE COURT CASE
Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Twitter have been on the receiving end of criticism when it comes to Freedom of Speech. Conservative commentators have consistently lashed at the companies for allegedly censoring their speech.
Now, after an arduous process, Laura Loomer, a journalist and Florida Republican Congressional Candidate, has been granted the go-ahead to sue the companies for what she believes are violations of her First Amendment rights.
EDITORIAL NOTE: positive verification that the U.S. Court of Appeals has returned this litigation to the U.S. District Court has not been located.
Social Media Giants Must Face Free Speech Suit, DC Circ. Told
Law360 (April 3, 2020, 4:27 PM EDT) — The D.C. Circuit must give new life to a $1.5 billion suit accusing Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple of illegally suppressing conservative voices in light of high court precedent that recognizes social media access as a First Amendment issue, the court was told this week.The conservative group Freedom Watch and activist Laura Loomer made their final arguments to the D.C. Circuit Thursday, urging the panel to resurrect their antitrust and First Amendment claims accusing the social media and tech companies of hatching an agreement to stifle conservative views.
To bolster its argument that social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter can be considered quasi-state actors capable of infringing First Amendment freedoms, the appellants pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, which struck down as unconstitutional a law that blocked sex offenders from accessing social media.
“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” the pair said in their final brief.
EDITORIAL NOTE: No further entries appear on the court docket.
Packingham v. North Carolina
KLAYMAN AND LOOMER SIDEKICK JASON GOODMAN
To be continued…
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use.