Judge stands Up to Govt claiming personal thoughts are part of 'infrastructure; and ordering Social Media to Censor Posts,

by Allen Williams


The Lead Up to the Hearing: Missouri v. Biden ( https://www.uncoverdc.com/2023/05/24/the-lead-up-to-the-hearing-missouri-v-biden/)

So we finally discover that there is One judge with the stones to stand up for freedom. Now if only there were some election integrity judge with similar stones we could get our country back. So we now know government has been working to silence facts they don’t particularly like, big surprise.

The complaint alleged that the US Government was not only threatening and coercing social media companies to censor Americans on social media, but they were also working WITH social media companies to accomplish that goal. It alleged that topics surrounding COVID-19, the origins of COVID, the Great Barrington Declaration, election integrity concerns, the COVID shot, the Hunter Biden laptop story (and more) were under scrutiny by the White House and other government agencies – and that the government had very publicly threatened to take action against social media companies should they not act to censor viewpoints on those topics that were disfavored by the government.

Missouri and Louisiana have filed a joint lawsuit against govt censorship and are having more success than election integrity cases sine the case drew a judge with stones and he is making progress. What a refreshing change !

"Unlike what many have come to expect, the judge GRANTED the motion for expedited discovery and depositions. A struggle ensued between the Government and the Plaintiffs, with the government fighting against the judge in this case (Judge Terry Doughty) to stop discovery and certain plaintiffs from being deposed. They took those complaints to the 5th Circuit of Appeals and a court in Virginia – a court that *usually* is friendly to the government. .".

"At the appellate court level, the government argued that NO ONE should have to leave their government jobs to sit for lengthy depositions in this case, but certainly not the HEAD of CISA, for example…The appellate court wouldn’t play ball with the government and remanded the case back to Louisiana with some guidance on how the judge should proceed. If memory serves me right, this happened three times."

Perhaps Kari Lake’s legal team should get this judge to hear her election fraud case. Something may just get done.

One particularly interesting exchange came with the deposition of former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki… She made threats to social media companies from the podium. ..

The government said they had no responsive documents to explain her comments. So Missouri and Louisiana said, “Then we have to depose Jen Psaki. The court agreed and ruled that now private citizen Psaki needed to testify. The government and Psaki- represented by Rhee – went to a court in Virginia to try to get THAT judge to stop the deposition…The judge, in that case, laid into both the government and Psaki.  It was so stunning I literally read the transcript of the hearing as its own video.

This is real encouraging that people are beginning to realize and react to the law-fare taking over the country. However some very disturbing ideas have come out of this testimony.

This [case] went back to Louisiana after the Virginia judge said, “You won’t like how I rule on this, and your argument is terrible, so I’m sending it back to the judge who SHOULD be making this decision. The judge in Louisiana again decided Psaki should be deposed IF the government didn’t have any responsive docs from the press office.

"The most widespread and troubling discovery? CISA has designated YOUR THOUGHTS part of the government’s infrastructure. They call it “cognitive infrastructure.” They argue they can regulate what you think as they consider it under their purview.

Wow ! This really makes me rethink mental health requirements for elected officials. The case reads like a dystopian novel but my ‘hat is off’ to the judge who has exhibited some real ‘moxy’ in putting a stop to this draconian nonsense.

"They also argued that all of these agencies worked independently of one another; that there wasn’t any coordination between them. As we will see, that is patently false. They didn’t all simultaneously decide to act to get social platforms to ban what they didn’t want you to see. As the evidence proves, there was conspiracy behind the censorship. The White House campaign integrated with the Surgeon General, the CDC, and Census Bureau campaigns drew directly from White House pressure.  NIAID and NIH censorship efforts draw from the CDC. CISA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI, and other agencies worked together, and all participate in meetings together to facilitate pressure and censorship."

So there you have it an ‘official government conspiracy’ which should put to bed the media and CIA’s derogatory reference to dissidents as ‘conspiracy theorists’  How do you like them apples, eh?. Based on what I”ve read, the judge seems very likely to rule for plaintiffs. I encourage everyone to follow this trial at the reference given since there is far too much information to report on it here.

This case is worth following up !


HUGE WIN: Judge Grants Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt the Ability to Probe Facebook, Twitter for Their Collusion with the Biden Administration

By Jim Hoft


This is BIG.

A federal judge has permitted Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office to conduct an investigation into Big Tech collusion with the Biden Administration.

We previously wrote about the lawsuit filed in May by the states of Missouri and Louisiana against ALL of the MAJOR GOVERNMENT PLAYERS in Big Tech Censorship, including Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Anthony Fauci, the CDC, the NIH, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and many others.

The lawsuit alleges, and we all know this is true, that the Biden administration conspired with – and at times outright coerced – Facebook, Twitter, Google, and every other major tech monopoly, to enforce speech and thought conformity on the internet.

See a copy of the lawsuit here .

Read more

NIH Director Confirms Agency Hid COVID Genes on Orders from the Chinese

By Eric Lendrum


On Wednesday, Lawrence Tabak, the acting director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), confirmed during congressional testimony that officials at the NIH deliberately withheld crucial information about early genomic sequences of the COVID-19 virus on the orders of Chinese scientists.

As reported by the New York Post, Tabak told the House Appropriations subcommittee that the agency “eliminated from public view” all the data from the location of the virus’s origin, Wuhan, while adding that researchers can still access the information through a “tape drive.”

When asked by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) why the NIH would take orders from the Chinese, Tabek responded by admitting that “there’s no question that the communication that we had about the sequence archive — Sequence Read Archive — could have been improved. I freely admit that,”

“If I may, the archive never deleted the sequence, it just did not make it available for interrogation,” Tabek added.”

“So wait, you have the information still?” Beutler then asked.

“We have the information,” Tabek responded. “Anybody who submits to the Sequence Read Archive is allowed to ask for it to be removed. And that investigator did do that. But we never erase it.”

The congresswoman followed up with another question confirming that the information was never fully erased, but instead hidden from public view, which Tabek confirmed.

Vanity Fair initially reported that the information in question could have ultimately determined whether or not the virus was formed naturally, or if it originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV); this debate remains highly contentious in the United States and around the world, although other evidence seems to point to the WIV as the more likely origin of the virus that has since spread across the globe.



Substack Investigation: Fauci's Royalties And The $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN By NIH


67_NIH_royalties

Last year, the National Institutes of Health – Anthony Fauci’s employer – doled out $30 billion in government grants to roughly 56,000 recipients. That largess of taxpayer money buys a lot of favor and clout within the scientific, research, and healthcare industries.

However, in our breaking investigation, we found hundreds of millions of dollars in payments also flow the other way. These are royalty payments from third-party payers (think pharmaceutical companies) back to the NIH and individual NIH scientists.

We estimate that between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties to the agency and NIH scientists – who are credited as co-inventors.

Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure.

The production is the result of our federal lawsuit vs. NIH. The agency admits to holding 3,000 pages of line-by-line royalties since 2009. So far, they’ve produced only 1,200 pages. The next 1,800 pages of production will cover the period 2015-2020.

However, what NIH has produced to date gives us insight into the undisclosed royalty largess. For example, only 900 scientists were estimated to be receiving royalties, so now we know the universe is much larger. Since the NIH documents are heavily redacted, we can only see how many payments each scientist received, and, separately, the aggregate dollars per NIH agency. This is a gatekeeping at odds with the spirit and perhaps the letter of open-records laws.

We found agency leadership and top scientists at NIH receiving royalty payments. Well-known scientists receiving payments during the period included:

In the above examples, although we know the number of payments to each scientist, we still don’t know how much money was paid – because the dollar figure was deleted (redacted) from the disclosures.

It’s been a struggle to get any useful information out of the agency on its royalty payments. NIH is acting like royalty payments are a state secret. (They’re not, or shouldn’t be!)

Consider how NIH is using taxpayer money to try and keep taxpayers ignorant and in the dark: 

1.      NIH defied the federal Freedom of Information Act law and refused to even acknowledge our open records request for the royalty payments. We filed our FOIA last September.

2.      NIH used expensive taxpayer-funded litigation to slow-walk royalty disclosures (releasing the oldest royalties first). Although the agency admits to holding 3,000 pages, it will take ten months to produce them (300 pages per month). With Judicial Watch as our lawyers, we sued NIH in federal court last October.

3.      NIH is heavily redacting key information on the royalty payments. For example, the agency erased 1. the payment amount, and, 2. who paid it!  This makes the court-mandated production virtually worthless, despite our use of the latest forensic auditing tools

NIH is essentially telling you, the taxpayer, to pay up and shut up. They'll run things. They have forgotten that they work on behalf of the American people.

  • Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the highest-paid federal bureaucrat, received 23 royalty payments. (Fauci’s 2021 taxpayer-funded salary: $456,028).

  • Francis Collins, NIH director from 2009-2021, received 14 payments. (Collins’ 2021 taxpayer-funded salary: $203,500)

  • Clifford Lane, Fauci’s deputy at NIAID, received 8 payments. (Lane’s 2021 taxpayer-funded salary: $325,287)

In the above examples, although we know the number of payments to each scientist, we still don’t know how much money was paid – because the dollar figure was deleted (redacted) from the disclosures.

It’s been a struggle to get any useful information out of the agency on its royalty payments. NIH is acting like royalty payments are a state secret. (They’re not, or shouldn’t be!)

Consider how NIH is using taxpayer money to try and keep taxpayers ignorant and in the dark: 

1.      NIH defied the federal Freedom of Information Act law and refused to even acknowledge our open records request for the royalty payments. We filed our FOIA last September.

2.      NIH used expensive taxpayer-funded litigation to slow-walk royalty disclosures (releasing the oldest royalties first). Although the agency admits to holding 3,000 pages, it will take ten months to produce them (300 pages per month). With Judicial Watch as our lawyers, we sued NIH in federal court last October.

3.      NIH is heavily redacting key information on the royalty payments. For example, the agency erased 1. the payment amount, and, 2. who paid it!  This makes the court-mandated production virtually worthless, despite our use of the latest forensic auditing tools

NIH is essentially telling you, the taxpayer, to pay up and shut up. They'll run things. They have forgotten that they work on behalf of the American people.NIH_redactions_with_branding

The agency has become a lot more secretive since 2005.

In 2005, the Associated Press successfully used FOIA to crack open the NIH royalty database. They found 900 scientists collected $9 million in royalties. Furthermore, 51 scientists NIH royalty recipients were then working on experiments involving inventions for which they were already being paid. 

Among the 51 scientists doing experiments involving inventions for which they were being paid royalties was Anthony Fauci, then- and current director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci received $45,072.82 between 1997 and 2004 for a patent license on an experimental AIDS treatment.  NIH funded that treatment with $36 million. 

To this day, Fauci continues to receive NIH-approved perks without a lot of accountability. For example, in February 2021, Fauci received a $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation in Israel for “speaking truth to power” during the Trump administration.

Today, NIH is a revolving door of tens of billions of dollars in government grant-making coupled with hundreds of millions of dollars in private – non-transparent – royalty payments. 

There needs to be a lot more sunshine on this potentially unholy alliance. 

When a federal bureaucrat pops up on television giving us health instructions, who has paid them and for what research and technology? When a patient agrees to a clinical trial or experimental treatment, what financial interests are involved? 

Rather than relentless redactions and prolonged court battles, it’s past time for the government to disclose royalty payments as a matter of routine.  

NIH needs to come clean with the American people and open the books on the line-by-line royalty payments to the agency and its scientists.

Note: We reached out to NIH for comment and received no response.