Smart Talks: Judicial Activism

Greeting of the Day!

Giving glory and honor to God, as we say in Black church, this is the formal brief in the matter on appeal against Meta Platforms, Inc., in a ripe for dismissal case brought by an unrepresented litigant, that began on March 24, 2023, and required motions for leave to extend time to reply by a top intellectual property law attorney at a prestigious international law firm who specializes in bet-the-company litigation for high profile clients as a rising star partner, and the vast resources at DoJ, obviously like the 40 personnel in the office of the Alexandria prosecutor placed with an onerous burden imposed by vexatious and frivolous litigation.

The good news is that, on appeal, we shall not be challenging the victory of esteemed legal counsel at Meta Platforms, Inc., because it would really be wasteful litigation were people to attempt to sue a social media platform for refusing to respond to a FOIA request about whether standard epidemiological metrics on COVID-19 were classified information, as if they might have a need to know, higher than the ultimate original classification authority.

A job well done, and I only wish I had put that claim against Meta Platforms in my complaint to share more in the celebration. When is Orrick gonna put out a press release for this incredible achievement? We "self-described litigation hobbyists" need sometimes to live vicariously through the successes of others. And be sure to pass my congratulations to the entire team. Empirical proof that two heads are better than one.

But now in the third attempt to just get the White House to respond to a FOIA, we are up on appeal, and even though even the Mississippi Burning Law, according to the DoJ practice manual, requires "color of law", or state action, like any violation of those rights included in the Bill of Rights, my alum, even after my sharply worded letter, followed by my lawsuit--ahem- -he went ahead and pushed on to prosecute some prolife activists for the felony that enabled him to convene a grand jury to get a press release about an indictment, the folks at Justice say that mention of the First Amendment in the FACE Act does not require color of law, and while you may have a right to free exercise, the Government does not back it with any enforcement, kind of like the comment the folks from Beijing attached to the accession documents for the Biological Weapons Convention when they finally agreed to join the civilized nations of the world in 1984.

And, perhaps our folks at Catholic Votes can share with the class exactly how many informed Christians brought a case because somebody blocked their access to a place of worship since the FACE Act was signed by Bill Clinton? Did I hear "ZERO"? And, God's work on earth must truly be our own.

Let us just pray the advanced aliens are not also in Heaven with the one true God, or watch out Satan, because there is gonna be another insurrection.

TTFN.

--

Major Mike Webb