A federal court dismissed Hines v. Stamos in full — America First Legal's "censorship" suit against the Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project. No standing, no jurisdiction, no evidence.
It is amazing to me when Miller-type people encounter the reality that the kind of baseless, frothing hyperbole that works within their media hemisphere doesn’t have magic, incantatory powers within a court of law. “Oh yeah this is my homegirl Renee; she ran <checks notes> probably the largest mass-surveillance and mass-censorship program in American history.”
Zac, This is the very reason why college level or even think tank level investigations and summary of data can be used against the people that put that data together simply because someone has a theory about how that data was being misused.
My feeling here is this person got lucky because if the judge had decided that there was enough evidence to make a connection between the gathering of data and how it was used was a collaborative effort between the two parties.They would have had standing in the court.
Because the judge has the latitude to make that determination is where the slippery slope of the law comes in.
If the prosecution's presentation was a little different or the judge politically sided with the prosecution more than the defense.If this could have been heard in court and had a completely different outcome.
They say that justice is blind, however justice can also be prejudiced.
Excellent work you peeps, and well done. In the UK, these types of lawsuits are now being called ‘Slapp’ suits - strategic lawsuits against public participation. Legislation is being passed to protect journalists, activists, whistleblowers and regular people from harm, and level the legal landscape. Using this tool to tackle abusive lawfare tactics and dismiss cases before the costs start to rack up should be a game changer - watch this space!
At some point, media and courts need to stand up BEFORE people’s lives are ruined…professionally, financially, and personally.
And shame on the organization who fired you.
At some point, MAGA will turn on each other. For sure, the Millers, Vought, Musks of this regime will walk away with wins and that’s all this is about. If they get 1/3 of the destruction of democracy accomplished in the next 2 1/2 years it’s a win.
It is also important for Americans to know that these courts are being held up for a known nothing burger of a law suit. Brought by characters who KNOW they are acting in bad faith with zero evidence.. How many times has this administration’s or arms of it been chastised by judges for bringing cases with zero evidence. And this isn’t just civil. Criminal cases have been brought with no evidence that have taken people freedom away temporarily.
A terrifying sentence by Mike Johnson was that the CA primary was “rigged”. Because Spencer Pratt, an MTV “villain” had so many followers on social media while he campaigned for Mayor. In LA….a bluer than blue city. This idea that people sitting on their couch or in a bar scrolling and clicking a heart icon translates to serious voters willingly to actually show up at polls is how far gone this party is. He was asked is he had any proof that the primary was rigged, he said, - paraphrasing “ no, and …um…that’s the proof right? They’re so good at hiding their conduct that we can’t prove it”.
This has been the genius of MAGA. Throwing out a negative that cannot be proven. Or simply changing the subject which was the “genius” of Charlie Kirk’s debating. What he did was NEVER a debate … not even with 18 year olds. As soon as he was proven wrong or his argument was. Jnsensical, he just threw out something like “So you believe Christians shouldn’t vote”? Even if the topic was taxes. So, flummoxed, the kid would say, “no of course I don’t believe that. “ and then he’d say, “so you agree with me.” And THAT was what MAGA saw as winning a debate on taxes…pivoting to a ridiculous question they’d have to agree with him on.
But these are courts of law…and there must be recourse out in lace at some point that makes people like you and James Comey able to recoup losses for legal fees.
I'm not trying to go down a rabbit hole of democrat versus republican or republican versus democrat.What I want to speak to is the comment about the courts themselves.
The judge is a human being.
As such, they have flesh and blood feelings, emotions and reactions to evidence and things that are brought before them in the court.
And while that may make me very suspicious of any judge that lets criminals off easy... I always have to prejudice what that answer could be based on what that judge's life experience has been.
If that judge believes in progressive causes, generally speaking, they're going to be lighter hearted when it comes to defining the law to the jury. And also what they would consider proper conviction as well as sentencing.
It's not impossible, but highly unusual ... yet Judges every once in a while will overturn a verdict by a jury. Which we've had happen a few times recently in cases involving some of the criminal behavior that's gone on, with the fraud cases up in Minnesota.
And we've just seen how a governor Tim Waltz pardoned a serial rapist of children, because the governor felt he was protecting the illegal immigrant from being deported as a criminal.
I think that everyone's opinion would be to say that's a weird way to prosecute the law.
I also understand that same emotions affects the jury's and the prosecutors.
A good prosecutor or defense attorney can sway the emotions of the jury based on the way evidence is presented or argued against in the courtroom.
And because of that, every court of law is always a crapshoot.
As a result, it's not always a question of law, but a question of emotional responses.
Prosecutors basically want to win every case. Because that puts money in their pocket. The more wins they have, the more political power they have. And the more chances for promotion and raises they get.
If a judge looks at the evidence and says to the court, there's not enough here to give this court jurisdiction over the case....
That could be a judge.That's just too lazy to hear the case.
And it also could be a judge looking for a way out when they feel emotionally connected 21 side or the other.In the case.
How are we or anybody supposed to know?Ahead of time.What are how a judge is thinking.
In the old days of the mafia, judges wouldn't hear cases simply because the mafia had threatened their families.
We never knew about it, but it happened.
So much politics is involved in everything that happens. Having anything to do with the government right now.
The real question is not so much, is it?The swamp versus trump or trump versus the swamp, or the democrats versus the republicans et cetera.
It really is a question of where our moral compass is at today, which is helping us define the difference between good and evil.
An old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."
Congratulations Renee! What a long hard fight. The court process is long and expensive, but often the truth does out. But the harm that is done - using the very processes you analyze, explain and warn against, grinds on. Weaponized gullibility.
In this case they made sure to choose a judge who would be receptive to them. I also am a defendant in pending litigation in TX that is even stupider — same thing, they forum shop.
Thanks Renee, I really appreciate the detailed review here. it’s important to lay it all out to help folks understand the scale of effort involved in the outrageous attack on the good work you and your colleagues were doing. Huge win!
Thank you Renee, Alex, and Kate for standing up and fighting back. Shame on Stanford for folding. We benefit from what must have been a very difficult three years. Onward!
I'm not trying to go down a rabbit hole of democrat versus republican or republican versus democrat.What I want to speak to is the comment about the courts themselves.
The judge is a human being.
As such, they have flesh and blood feelings, emotions and reactions to evidence and things that are brought before them in the court.
And while that may make me very suspicious of any judge that lets criminals off easy... I always have to prejudice what that answer could be based on what that judge's life experience has been.
If that judge believes in progressive causes, generally speaking, they're going to be lighter hearted when it comes to defining the law to the jury. And also what they would consider proper conviction … as well as sentencing.
It's not impossible, but highly unusual ... yet Judges every once in a while will overturn a verdict by a jury. Which we've had happen a few times recently in cases involving some of the criminal behavior that's gone on, with the fraud cases up in Minnesota.
And we've just seen how a governor, Tim Waltz pardoned a serial rapist of children, because the governor felt he was protecting the illegal immigrant from being deported as a criminal.
I think that everyone's opinion would be to say that's a weird way to prosecute the law.
I also understand that the same emotions affect the jury and the prosecutors.
A good prosecutor or defense attorney can sway the emotions of the jury based on the way evidence is presented or argued against in the courtroom.
And because of that, every court of law is always a crapshoot.
As a result, it's not always a question of law, but a question of emotional responses.
Prosecutors basically want to win every case. Because that puts money in their pocket. The more wins they have, the more political power they have. And the more chances for promotion and raises they get.
If a judge looks at the evidence and says to the court, there's not enough here to give this court jurisdiction over the case....
That could be a judge that's just too lazy to hear the case.
And it also could be a judge looking for a way out when they feel emotionally connected to one side or the other.In the case.
How are we, or anybody, supposed to know ahead of time what or how a judge is thinking.
In the old days of the Mafia, judges wouldn't hear cases simply because the Mafia had threatened their families.
We never knew about it, but it happened.
So much of today's politics is involved in everything that happens, having anything to do with the government right now.
The real question is not so much, is it the Swamp versus Trump or Trump versus the Swamp, or the Democrats versus the Republicans… et cetera.
It really is a question of where our moral compass is at today, which is helping us define the difference between good and evil.
An old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."
Wow, congratulations on getting a decision. That is more luck than jurisprudence.
Based on what you wrote here, the judge looked at the case and made a decision that the case should not have been brought in that judge's court.
Whether or not there's enough evidence doesn't matter.If the court feels that they don't have jurisdiction.
And it's unlikely, but still possible that a judge who's interested in the case could take it on as an active case, even if officially, they don't have jurisdiction.
That call is left up to the judge. And only the judge can accept the case or not.
The prosecutor can't make it happen without the judge taking the case.
The defense attorney can argue for it, but the jury will never see it once the judge simply said, “this doesn't belong in my court.”
It would not be a bad guess to say that the judge's politics didn't agree with the politics of the prosecution in your case.
From a strictly legal perspective, the court is bound by the rules of the court, which are written and have been voted in place. Maybe decades ago. As well as statutes written into state and federal law that are also written up and voted on. These were created by either the State government house and senate or the Federal House and Senate.
The difference between Federal statutes and State statutes can have a lot to do with what each judge determines is their “jurisdiction.”
In order to file appropriately in a federal court, one has to have standing with the charges or with the lawsuit that's being brought, which has to meet a statutory defined minimum on the Federal side of the law.
The same is true with state courts.
And what is also true, is that sometimes there's overlap between state and federal statutes. If that was the case, you could have been sued in both courts simultaneously or one after the other.
That's frequently why people, such as OJ Simpson, could not be found guilty for murder in one court, the Federal Court, but was found guilty for depriving someone of their civil rights in a state court.
Not guilty and guilty at the same time.
Congratulations on your case dismissal.
Wow, congratulations on getting a decision. That is more luck than jurisprudence.
What a great way to celebrate the 4th! 🇺🇸 so pleased for all of you.
It is amazing to me when Miller-type people encounter the reality that the kind of baseless, frothing hyperbole that works within their media hemisphere doesn’t have magic, incantatory powers within a court of law. “Oh yeah this is my homegirl Renee; she ran <checks notes> probably the largest mass-surveillance and mass-censorship program in American history.”
Zac, This is the very reason why college level or even think tank level investigations and summary of data can be used against the people that put that data together simply because someone has a theory about how that data was being misused.
My feeling here is this person got lucky because if the judge had decided that there was enough evidence to make a connection between the gathering of data and how it was used was a collaborative effort between the two parties.They would have had standing in the court.
Because the judge has the latitude to make that determination is where the slippery slope of the law comes in.
If the prosecution's presentation was a little different or the judge politically sided with the prosecution more than the defense.If this could have been heard in court and had a completely different outcome.
They say that justice is blind, however justice can also be prejudiced.
It's a human thing.
Yeah I think that is well-diagnosed
I’m sorry you have had to go through all of this but glad you won and can finally talk about it!
Excellent work you peeps, and well done. In the UK, these types of lawsuits are now being called ‘Slapp’ suits - strategic lawsuits against public participation. Legislation is being passed to protect journalists, activists, whistleblowers and regular people from harm, and level the legal landscape. Using this tool to tackle abusive lawfare tactics and dismiss cases before the costs start to rack up should be a game changer - watch this space!
At some point, media and courts need to stand up BEFORE people’s lives are ruined…professionally, financially, and personally.
And shame on the organization who fired you.
At some point, MAGA will turn on each other. For sure, the Millers, Vought, Musks of this regime will walk away with wins and that’s all this is about. If they get 1/3 of the destruction of democracy accomplished in the next 2 1/2 years it’s a win.
It is also important for Americans to know that these courts are being held up for a known nothing burger of a law suit. Brought by characters who KNOW they are acting in bad faith with zero evidence.. How many times has this administration’s or arms of it been chastised by judges for bringing cases with zero evidence. And this isn’t just civil. Criminal cases have been brought with no evidence that have taken people freedom away temporarily.
A terrifying sentence by Mike Johnson was that the CA primary was “rigged”. Because Spencer Pratt, an MTV “villain” had so many followers on social media while he campaigned for Mayor. In LA….a bluer than blue city. This idea that people sitting on their couch or in a bar scrolling and clicking a heart icon translates to serious voters willingly to actually show up at polls is how far gone this party is. He was asked is he had any proof that the primary was rigged, he said, - paraphrasing “ no, and …um…that’s the proof right? They’re so good at hiding their conduct that we can’t prove it”.
This has been the genius of MAGA. Throwing out a negative that cannot be proven. Or simply changing the subject which was the “genius” of Charlie Kirk’s debating. What he did was NEVER a debate … not even with 18 year olds. As soon as he was proven wrong or his argument was. Jnsensical, he just threw out something like “So you believe Christians shouldn’t vote”? Even if the topic was taxes. So, flummoxed, the kid would say, “no of course I don’t believe that. “ and then he’d say, “so you agree with me.” And THAT was what MAGA saw as winning a debate on taxes…pivoting to a ridiculous question they’d have to agree with him on.
But these are courts of law…and there must be recourse out in lace at some point that makes people like you and James Comey able to recoup losses for legal fees.
I'm not trying to go down a rabbit hole of democrat versus republican or republican versus democrat.What I want to speak to is the comment about the courts themselves.
The judge is a human being.
As such, they have flesh and blood feelings, emotions and reactions to evidence and things that are brought before them in the court.
And while that may make me very suspicious of any judge that lets criminals off easy... I always have to prejudice what that answer could be based on what that judge's life experience has been.
If that judge believes in progressive causes, generally speaking, they're going to be lighter hearted when it comes to defining the law to the jury. And also what they would consider proper conviction as well as sentencing.
It's not impossible, but highly unusual ... yet Judges every once in a while will overturn a verdict by a jury. Which we've had happen a few times recently in cases involving some of the criminal behavior that's gone on, with the fraud cases up in Minnesota.
And we've just seen how a governor Tim Waltz pardoned a serial rapist of children, because the governor felt he was protecting the illegal immigrant from being deported as a criminal.
I think that everyone's opinion would be to say that's a weird way to prosecute the law.
I also understand that same emotions affects the jury's and the prosecutors.
A good prosecutor or defense attorney can sway the emotions of the jury based on the way evidence is presented or argued against in the courtroom.
And because of that, every court of law is always a crapshoot.
As a result, it's not always a question of law, but a question of emotional responses.
Prosecutors basically want to win every case. Because that puts money in their pocket. The more wins they have, the more political power they have. And the more chances for promotion and raises they get.
If a judge looks at the evidence and says to the court, there's not enough here to give this court jurisdiction over the case....
That could be a judge.That's just too lazy to hear the case.
And it also could be a judge looking for a way out when they feel emotionally connected 21 side or the other.In the case.
How are we or anybody supposed to know?Ahead of time.What are how a judge is thinking.
In the old days of the mafia, judges wouldn't hear cases simply because the mafia had threatened their families.
We never knew about it, but it happened.
So much politics is involved in everything that happens. Having anything to do with the government right now.
The real question is not so much, is it?The swamp versus trump or trump versus the swamp, or the democrats versus the republicans et cetera.
It really is a question of where our moral compass is at today, which is helping us define the difference between good and evil.
An old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."
That time is right now at hand.
Congratulations Renee! What a long hard fight. The court process is long and expensive, but often the truth does out. But the harm that is done - using the very processes you analyze, explain and warn against, grinds on. Weaponized gullibility.
Courts need to impose sanctions on the lawyers bringing bogus cases.
In this case they made sure to choose a judge who would be receptive to them. I also am a defendant in pending litigation in TX that is even stupider — same thing, they forum shop.
ALF is a terrorist group by funding disinformation and attacks on the truth. Thank you for the courage and perseverance thru this hellscape.
These people never stop with the lies..
Happy 4th !!!
Love your work !!!
Never stop with the truth !!!
Why aren't the people who bring damaging lawsuits that are found to be frivolous forced to reimburse the defendants? That would reduce this abuse!
Thank you so much for your work. America needs you more than ever.
Thanks Renee, I really appreciate the detailed review here. it’s important to lay it all out to help folks understand the scale of effort involved in the outrageous attack on the good work you and your colleagues were doing. Huge win!
Thank you Renee, Alex, and Kate for standing up and fighting back. Shame on Stanford for folding. We benefit from what must have been a very difficult three years. Onward!
Amazing 👏
I'm not trying to go down a rabbit hole of democrat versus republican or republican versus democrat.What I want to speak to is the comment about the courts themselves.
The judge is a human being.
As such, they have flesh and blood feelings, emotions and reactions to evidence and things that are brought before them in the court.
And while that may make me very suspicious of any judge that lets criminals off easy... I always have to prejudice what that answer could be based on what that judge's life experience has been.
If that judge believes in progressive causes, generally speaking, they're going to be lighter hearted when it comes to defining the law to the jury. And also what they would consider proper conviction … as well as sentencing.
It's not impossible, but highly unusual ... yet Judges every once in a while will overturn a verdict by a jury. Which we've had happen a few times recently in cases involving some of the criminal behavior that's gone on, with the fraud cases up in Minnesota.
And we've just seen how a governor, Tim Waltz pardoned a serial rapist of children, because the governor felt he was protecting the illegal immigrant from being deported as a criminal.
I think that everyone's opinion would be to say that's a weird way to prosecute the law.
I also understand that the same emotions affect the jury and the prosecutors.
A good prosecutor or defense attorney can sway the emotions of the jury based on the way evidence is presented or argued against in the courtroom.
And because of that, every court of law is always a crapshoot.
As a result, it's not always a question of law, but a question of emotional responses.
Prosecutors basically want to win every case. Because that puts money in their pocket. The more wins they have, the more political power they have. And the more chances for promotion and raises they get.
If a judge looks at the evidence and says to the court, there's not enough here to give this court jurisdiction over the case....
That could be a judge that's just too lazy to hear the case.
And it also could be a judge looking for a way out when they feel emotionally connected to one side or the other.In the case.
How are we, or anybody, supposed to know ahead of time what or how a judge is thinking.
In the old days of the Mafia, judges wouldn't hear cases simply because the Mafia had threatened their families.
We never knew about it, but it happened.
So much of today's politics is involved in everything that happens, having anything to do with the government right now.
The real question is not so much, is it the Swamp versus Trump or Trump versus the Swamp, or the Democrats versus the Republicans… et cetera.
It really is a question of where our moral compass is at today, which is helping us define the difference between good and evil.
An old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."
That time is right now at hand.
Wow, congratulations on getting a decision. That is more luck than jurisprudence.
Based on what you wrote here, the judge looked at the case and made a decision that the case should not have been brought in that judge's court.
Whether or not there's enough evidence doesn't matter.If the court feels that they don't have jurisdiction.
And it's unlikely, but still possible that a judge who's interested in the case could take it on as an active case, even if officially, they don't have jurisdiction.
That call is left up to the judge. And only the judge can accept the case or not.
The prosecutor can't make it happen without the judge taking the case.
The defense attorney can argue for it, but the jury will never see it once the judge simply said, “this doesn't belong in my court.”
It would not be a bad guess to say that the judge's politics didn't agree with the politics of the prosecution in your case.
From a strictly legal perspective, the court is bound by the rules of the court, which are written and have been voted in place. Maybe decades ago. As well as statutes written into state and federal law that are also written up and voted on. These were created by either the State government house and senate or the Federal House and Senate.
The difference between Federal statutes and State statutes can have a lot to do with what each judge determines is their “jurisdiction.”
In order to file appropriately in a federal court, one has to have standing with the charges or with the lawsuit that's being brought, which has to meet a statutory defined minimum on the Federal side of the law.
The same is true with state courts.
And what is also true, is that sometimes there's overlap between state and federal statutes. If that was the case, you could have been sued in both courts simultaneously or one after the other.
That's frequently why people, such as OJ Simpson, could not be found guilty for murder in one court, the Federal Court, but was found guilty for depriving someone of their civil rights in a state court.
Not guilty and guilty at the same time.
Congratulations on your case dismissal.
Wow, congratulations on getting a decision. That is more luck than jurisprudence.