Murthy v Missouri: Why The Supreme Courts Ruling Was Protecting Article 3 "Standing" & The Common Law System Itself, In No Way Was The Court Siding With Government For Censorship!

DID THE JUSTICES GIVE A TIP HOW TO RE-DO IT? Yes! The RECORD did not have the ways to overcome the blocks. The Plaintiffs didn't prove enough to win in Supreme Court.

Jun 29, 2024

Let’s do a little lesson in LAW today and a brief related explanation about what Interest of Justice is doing to help. This is a bit long, but there is a lot to explain on this subject and it’s all key to peoples understanding of law, the courts and this censorship case.

People are saying the Supreme Court “sided” with Biden and approved censorship last week, but please read this to consider if the decision is correct legally under common law rules! Ethically the decision is not sound, but legally speaking its solid as a rock.

Most importantly the explanation in detail is to help other cases avoid the pitfalls so they can win!

FIRST issue - Supreme Court was unable to decide IF the challenged censorship was a government action! We would NORMALLY get mad and say the censorship was government action… BUT there is a problem because Supreme Court tossed the case for lack of standing and therefore could not reach the merits of the key issue of if the censorship was government or State activity:
“Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action”. - Supreme Court

Second issue -
“Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.” - Supreme Court explains the main fundamental flaw, and they are correct in our opinion!

We kept wondering the same thing as Supreme Court noted, WHY weren’t the Social Media Platforms sued to not censor? (and why not sue the WHO because HELLO they are still asking countries and social media to censor any dissent with the private international organizations crappy science. No one wants to sue the WHO but us, really???)

Why sue the US government only? Epic failure!

Well dear readers, in Murthy v Missouri the U.S. shows how RIGID common law is again, and how it’s JUDGE made, so it’s tough to win. The rules are tough. The equity was on the Plaintiffs side according to the 5th Circuit lower court ruling (and it is true that the US constitution did merge equity and common law in Article 3) but they lost due to strict rules of standing held by the very, very strict common law rules of procedure.

There were a few reasons for the court saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. We will go over the issue of standing below in detail to see if the court was wrong or right.

When the Gore vs Bush case lost, it was because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because they didn’t prove THEIR votes in Florida with a “hanging chad” was denied due to the issue of a “hanging chad” that misconstrued their vote in the voting machine misreading their vote. There was no injured party plaintiff with standing, the plaintiffs just felt the need to make things fair, but lacked a personal nexus.

No plaintiff with actual standing means NO CASE, even if the right thing to do would be to nullify what seemed like George Bush Jr’s stolen election, taken from Gore. (not that Gore would have been any better, obviously, in hindsight). Same thing goes here.

In Costa Rica the government would have LOST this same case, “Article 3 standing” be damned. The misuse of power of the Administration to ask social media for censorship would NOT be tolerated, because we have a really cool thing here called Administrative Contentious law… It punishes abuse of power and protects rights. Its created under the Costa Rican constitution Article 49.

You can’t pay social media or coerce them to censor your Citizens, OK government?

COSTA RICA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 49. A contentious-administrative jurisdiction is hereby established as a function of the Judicial Branch for the purpose of guaranteeing the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions and any other entity of public law. The misuse of power shall constitute grounds for challenging administrative acts. The law shall protect, at very least, the personal rights and legitimate interests of those governed.

The Administrative law of Costa Rica is way better than USA and many other countries because the Constitution puts the personal rights and legitimate interests of those governed over Administrative abuses and misuses of power, and the Administrative Contentious law is special because it directly allows standing to be expanded to “groups with diffuse interests” so the narrow standing is greatly expanded and basically anyone has right to sue to declare and restrain government misuse of power. At the bottom we put the full Administrative Contentious law on standing to sue in Costa Rica for the die hards to read.

This is so important as you will see, because we can sue in the Administrative Contentious court and win on this censorship issue, and in fact, we are doing exactly that as part of our main case that is getting much, much nearer to filing.

There is also the very real issue of the censorship being considered “persecution of groups” punishable under Rome Statute 7 for being a crime against humanity. International Crimes against humanity are punishable in Costa Rica under Universal Jurisdiction and the system can prosecute ALL wrongdoers no matter where the crime occurred, or the wrongdoers nationality. Censorship to us here at Interest of Justice is the exact definition of an attack on civilians of persecution of groups of WHO SCIENCE DISSENTERS!!!!!! We are in process of BOTH ways of suing.

IOJ legal fund is here to help HUMANITY! We have a HUGE case against the censorship, non vaccines, Agenda 2030 and other attacks and lies by WHO & Governments. We have been working on getting the Nuremberg Case back into court and are close - please help us pay the Attorney who we are meeting next week. We are including censorship and ALL of it as a single case - The one case to rule them all. We CANNOT continue to actually accomplish our mission without support and we are once again in red alert! Thank you for your support in this critical time as we are so close to filing the worlds most important lawsuits and are IN PROCESS now against WHO!

Help Justice For Humanity Legal Fund

As you can see below, we should NOT rush building our case to prove all the covid misuses of power, because every detail matters to win... or to lose, as in the case of Murthy v Missouri, where the Supreme Court just refused to hear the case of the government censoring it’s own citizens bi-proxy through social media coercion.

They did NOT lose because of the facts. They lost because they failed to put key facts in their case in their own record that would have overcome the deficiencies in the record noted by Supreme Court. Its critical to realize that. We explain more below.

Also of note, the court claimed the behavior of the government asking social media to censor certain narratives could be in the past, based on the timeframe of known censorship 2021-2022 and to presume it will continue, well that’s just “hypothetical and conjectured”, so - you LOSE. NO standing for you… NO voice. No case. Done. Fin.

Below is a small part from the summary of the Murthy v Missouri ruling from the Judge, which had many reasons for the courts reasoning on the Plaintiffs lack of common law standing, but this is just one issue that we will discuss today:

“a “right to listen” theory of standing”

See Murthy v Missouri Ruling HERE

Over time we will go through ALL the reasons the court used to reject hearing the case, so we can all learn and GET AROUND THESE BLOCKS to stop government censorship attacks on free speech!

Not only could we sue in Costa Rica on our own censorship issues (which of course we are building our case dear readers, do not worry), the Justices in U.S. have clearly TOLD the plaintiffs how to refile, because the plaintiffs failed to attach certain required evidence and utterly failed to claim the correct things!!! Their original complaint was sadly just too narrow and had they simply included a few more key facts to overcome certain legal blocks, it is very clear the Supreme Court would have GRANTED it!

From Murthy v Missouri

A “right to listen” theory of standing

The plaintiffs next assert a “right to listen” theory of standing. The individual plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment protects their interest in reading and engaging with the content of other speakership..on social media. This theory is startlingly broad, as it would grant all social-media users the right to sue over someone else’s censorship— at least so long as they claim an interest in that person’s speech. While the Court has recognized a “First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,” the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762.

Lets dissect that part of the ruling above for CLUES:

JUDGES GIVE CLUE - Do you SEE it?:

Notice to readers:

The US Supreme Court standard has long been to: establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560.

To be clear the elements of standing you must prove by common law are:

distinct and palpable injury, meaning actual, concrete and particularized
can not be a hypothetical or conjectured injury
The claimed injury must be directly attributed to the challenged conduct
The court can redress the injury with what you ask for

Question to readers:

Did the individual plaintiffs meet the requirements for standing under US common law Article 3 jurisdiction in the Constitution? Supreme Court elaborates below:

First, The individual plaintiffs:

Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiffs emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and activists. But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560.

Second, The State plaintiffs:

The state plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media, but they have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow. And States do not have third-party “standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government” on behalf of their citizens who have faced social-media restrictions. Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 295.

Pp. 27–28. 83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded. BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote that the case is:

one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years." He stated that the respondents had brought enough evidence to suggest the government's actions were unconstitutional, but that "the Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think. That is regrettable.”

What if the 6 Justices of the court that rejected hearing the case are RIGHT under the doctrine of common law Article 3 standing and the precedents in the case law they quoted? Start over! Re-file! Let’s win this!

BUILD THE BEST RECORD TO WIN!

From Supreme Court: “Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. The one-step-removed, anticipatory nature of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries presents two particular challenges. First, it is a bedrock principle that a federal court cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41–42. Second, because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 496. Putting these requirements together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. Here, at the preliminary injunction stage, they must show that they are likely to succeed in carrying that burden.

On the record in this case, that is a tall order.” Pp. 8–10.

HOW TO FIX A CENSORSHIP CASE IN UNITED STATES:

The Justices ALWAYS give the plaintiffs a clue how to fix the case in their rulings by telling you the blocks they have - you just have to listen, fix your case & not insist on appealing or giving up losing battles because you think the rules should be interpreted differently, which waste more time and resources, and is a failing plan:

To beat government directed censorship in US:

Pure Gold legal advice below!

The INDIVIDUAL plaintiffs could re-file under “right to listen” theory of standing by proving specific instances of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm.
The STATE plaintiffs could re-file under “right to listen” theory of standing by proving and identifying any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.
Getting a LOT of discovery up front about your name in government records will help your own court RECORD to be impeccable when filed. This is required so when it gets up to Supreme Court and is lucky enough to be heard you can rest assured you did your best job and gave the court NO way to reject your case, and so you can properly and unassailably show the court why and how you legally deserve the relief they have the power to grant you in an Article 3 court of record.

To fix the censorship issue globally…

IOJ has some big plans to Stop Global Censorship and it will start with our main case in Costa Rica against the government and their cronies at World Health Organization and United Nations Trusted News Initiative.

We have Article 3 standing to sue, AND we also have standing to sue under the following laws of Costa Rica.

Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code Costa Rica ARTICLE 10. CHAPTER II LEGITIMACY

1) They shall have standing to sue:

(Just the key parts are pasted below)

a) Those who claim that legitimate interests or subjective rights are affected.
c) Those who invoke the defense of diffuse and collective interests. (This is why we can sue for YOU)
(2) Those who have a legitimate individual or collective interest or subjective right in respect thereof, without the need for an act of individual application, may directly challenge regulatory provisions.
(4) Any interested party whose legitimate interests or subjective rights have been affected may request the declaration, recognition or reestablishment of a legal situation, with or without pecuniary compensation.

With the help of our amazing readers support, Interest of Justice has been building the main case and has been paying monthly bills for the BEST Attorney team ever so we can cover a HUGE MAIN case that will cover many topics including the fake PCR emergency and will be suing all the way up to W.H.O. in order to globally prevent the toxic non vaccines, UN global censorship schemes and monopolization of science.

Our case is literally HUMANITIES case. Our case is YOUR case. It’s the ONLY Global case we know of that will cover all the main issues to fix things for the future. The wrongdoers acting as governments have destroyed ALL of us with the covid fraudulent emergency used to censor us and nudge us into biomedical and genetic manipulation and experimentation. We will beat them by taking our time and doing this critical case CORRECTLY. It’s close to filing and we are working on it DAILY!

Please support - By building the very best case we can, our team really believes we can Stop Global Censorship by suing the SOURCE of the attack on free internet, free speech and free opinion: The oppressors, censurers and colonizers are the United Nations Trusted News Initiative and “UN - WHO Information Management Program”.

The censorship is requested by WHO and paid for by your countries Treasury in order to protect your “health”. This must change.