Skip to main content

Author: MichaelEhline

Hidden History of U.S. School System – What to Expect from New World Order

Our education system has experienced quite some changes over its history. We don’t think too much about schooling systems when we’re children, so many of these “adjustments” over the past few decades probably flew over our heads.

At their core, schools are supposed to be environments to stimulate learning and socializing. However, haven’t you stopped to think about how many schools forget that we’re all unique and have different learning needs?

We’ve had years of standardized tests and countless hours of learning things that we probably won’t use when we’re older. Many people argue that the current education system promotes mindless conformity by using outdated methods to assess your intelligence.

When you think about it, it doesn’t make too much sense. Why is the education system like that? What influenced institutions to offer these resources to people? That’s what we’ll try to uncover here.

I’ll dive deep into the hidden history of our school system and how it has influenced teachers, students, and people in general.

How Has the U.S. Education System Changed Over Its History?

Not everyone is a fan of history, but understanding where we come from will help us see why society is the way it is today.

You’ll get a better idea of the true purpose of schooling in our nation, and why it may be scary to keep going with this classroom system in the future.

Early 90s

Our school system started back in the 1900s. Several oligarchs, including Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie, were looking for ways to increase and preserve their wealth.

One of the ideas involved tax-exempt, non-profit organizations. These organizations were marketed as something “good” for people, which allowed them to easily sell them to the general public.

Back in 1900, we only had 21 of these organizations. By the end of 1990, however, there were more than 50,000.

J.D. Rockefeller established the General Education Board (GEB) in 1905. Its goal was to “keep the working class from having control over public teaching.” Rockefeller started to get support from Guggenheim, Carnegie, Morgan, Mellon, and Vanderbilt shortly after the board started.

The General Education Board’s first mission statement mentioned the following:

In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

Eight years later, the Congress concluded the following about the GEB:

“The domination of men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social services of the nation. The giant foundation exercises enormous power through direct use of its funds, free of any statutory entanglements so they can be directed precisely to the levers of a situation; this power, however, is substantially increased by building collateral alliances that insulate it from criticism and scrutiny.”

What happened later? Between the 1920s and 1950s, the “founding fathers” of the General Education Board started the American Historical Association (AHA). Their purpose now was to create U.S. history professors.

Later, the founding group endowed “Columbia Teachers College,” and here’s when things get interesting: This institution produced one-fifth of American public school teachers, one-third of presidents for teacher-training groups, and even one-quarter of superintendents.

The institution had full control over textbooks and literature in public schools. In other words, what was taught had a specific narrative in place.

Rockefeller was able to get control over many policies in the educational system, which also allowed him to control the flow of taxpayer funds through property ownership. He used his influence and power to open more educational institutions.

You can consider this the origin phase of our education system. Most of the efforts were put into opening institutions and gaining control over the historical narrative that was shared with students.

Unfortunately, things only get worse from here.

Mid 90s

In 1952, Edward E. Cox led the “Cox Committee Investigation” program, which aimed to learn more about tax-exempt foundations and how they’re using their resources. Cox also wanted to determine whether these organizations were using resources for subversive activities or other factors that were not in the nation’s best interest.

Then, in 1954, the House authorized Norman Dodd’s “Reece Committee,” which aimed to investigate why these organizations were founded and how they influenced public life. According to his research, funds from major foundations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace were used to deteriorate teaching techniques to enable oligarchical collectivism.

Later in the 1960s, the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination aimed to “end discrimination,” although some people could also see that as an effort by the United Nations to have control and influence over schools in the U.S.

During these years, the Feminist movement started to get more powerful too. This allowed more women to work in the industry. Since the educational system had already gained power over the past 60 years, there was a higher demand for early education and daycare workers.

As you can see, the system had already become suspicious for a portion of the population back then. Even though there was already some awareness about how schools were influencing kids, adults, and culture in general, the last few decades in the 90s had more plans.

Here’s a rundown:

  • 1967-1974: The government (specifically the Department of Education) started testing the Prussian education model for the nation’s system. This system focused on behavior modification, which aimed to maintain control and teach specific ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ behavior.
  • 1972-1980: Several professors from funded institutions started to write books that may have pushed biased opinions. To summarize, these promoted the idea that parents and their children had to learn a global perspective to “avoid rejection of values being taught in school.” Most people could find these writings/ideas in different media channels, including professional educator journals in the nation.

Late 90s

The 1990s saw new laws that promoted standardized teaching. They encouraged to train children for particular career paths within the global workforce. In other words, we started getting educated to follow the same idea instead of being encouraged to make our own decisions based on current knowledge.

In this era, the Clinton Administration passed these three main laws:

  • Elementary and Secondary Education Act
  • Goals 2000 Act
  • School-to-Word Act

The 90s also started benefiting from computers, which people used to collect information about students and other relevant areas within the industry.


By the time the 2000s arrived, the traditional educational system was a “success.” There weren’t too many changes during this era, but there are a couple of things worth mentioning:

  • The Common Core State Standards Initiative began in 2010. Its goal was to establish the skills that students should have in different subjects at every grade, particularly English and Math. More than 40 states adopted the “Common Core” standards to increase consistency within the system.
  • We got the Zero-to-Three program. Essentially, it works to ensure that “all babies and toddlers have a strong start in life.” While this non-profit organization says its goal is to provide parents, policymakers, and professionals with the tools to educate children as early as possible, some people argue that this could be just another way to force the current education system on toddlers as early as possible.

How Will Schools Perform in the Future?

Is the current educational system meant to prepare people to work, or is it shaped to allow students to explore their creativity?

When you think about it, most schools promote three main factors:

  • Punctuality
  • Obedience
  • Repetitiveness

These could be great values to learn and apply later in life, but what about everything else? You could argue that these three factors are just requirements to produce factory workers and that’s why schools don’t focus on other important areas of life.

We live in an era where the internet and social media are more accessible than ever. Both have transformed the way how we learn, so there’s no doubt that many schools are getting worried about their influence on people.

It may be tricky to tell what will happen with schools specifically. Considering how technology has advanced to this point, we could expect institutions to use augmented reality and AI to make the learning experience more immersive for students.

While that sounds exciting for some and scary for others, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. We’ve reached a point where it’s hard to control what people consume on the internet, which has its pros and cons. While we can only hope that schools change and promote a healthier and more effective environment where students can think for themselves, you can guarantee the internet will have a heavy influence on that.

How Can We Solve the Problems with Our Educational System?

Changing the entire education system may seem impossible, so what can we do?

Spreading this information may be a great step to take. Bringing awareness to these problems may one day yield positive results.

I also recommend expanding your learning horizons as much as possible. With responsible and safe use of the internet, you can learn many new things without worrying about narratives or manipulation most of the time.

We Have to Take Action

You may have seen how it’s much easier now to voice your opinion.

As you learned from this page, most education systems have remained the same over the past few decades despite all the technological advancements.

However, we’re not in the industrial age anymore; we’re now living in an era led by the internet and AI, making these older educational systems outdated and irrelevant. This is why homeschooling has become more popular.

Even if we’re not able to change the entire system anytime soon, you can take action by exploring alternative education options for your children (and yourself). It’s never too late to learn something new.

Becoming a Top Attorney with no Law Degree or Undergrad Michael Ehline’s Journey

All lawyers go to college and attend law school. Believe it or not, that was not and still is not so. Even some founding members of our Supreme Court and founders didn’t go to law school. (John Marshall could be considered a hybrid.) Even founder Patrick Henry, Esq., was self-taught. I am Michael Ehline, a personal injury lawyer in Texas and Los Angeles, California. I am the author of the original, “Becoming a Lawyer Without Law School,” in 2005.

I am one of a few people in American history to have been on a program that allows specific individuals to become lawyers with no undergrad or law school. I took on jobs as a law clerk and did pretty much anything I could to get into the Law Study Program, and I have been practicing law since 2005.

I enjoy American Common Law and its relationship to the Knights Templar. I have written extensively on this topic and have the leading expert credentials.

So, for those of you who attended law school, you may think it’s unfair to study law outside of an expensive school. But in reality, it is that traditional method and a very exhausting process, and you still have to have a good moral character and pass the bar. Perhaps you’ve been pondering How one becomes a lawyer without attending law school or earning an undergraduate degree. Though it may seem paradoxical, there is a way to achieve this.

The technique— known as ‘reading the law’— is old-fashioned but still functional in a few states in the USA, much to the chagrin of cash-hungry law schools. For now, I will turn this article over to Robert Hammond to break down the methodology and history, reading law basics, and the Baby Bar Exam (Contracts, torts, criminal law – a little crim pro and remedies, too.)

“Reading the law” is an extraordinary pathway towards legal practice that bypasses traditional education avenues such as law school or gaining an undergraduate degree. Still very much available in a few states, it presents an unconventional, yet effective ladder into the world of legal practice to study law as a “law reader.” Remember, you still have to pass the general bar exam, and there really isn’t any reciprocity with other states till you hve been in practice for at least 5 years.

This article will take law enthusiast Michael Ehline’s journey toward becoming a successful California injury attorney as a case in point. Law reader Michael Ehline followed this unique process, proving its viability in the modern legal world. 

  • Michael Ehline: A living testament to the efficacy of “reading the law.”
  • The way forward: The guide for prospective lawyers considering this alternative pathway

Are you excited to find out more about this seldom-trodden path? Let’s dive in!

An Unconventional Route: Opportunities Without a Degree 

Yes, you read that right! Becoming a lawyer without going through the traditional law school or undergrad route is a reality that requires immense dedication, time, and focus. The State Bar of California offers an unusual law office study program. This program enables aspiring individuals to become practicing lawyers simply by mastering the raw materials under the supervision of a practicing attorney and successfully passing the California bar exam. 

It is not identical to some of the old ways; for example, the Inns method often meant an oral examination by a judge or panel of judges, as there were no written bar exams or law schools, which came along much later. Abraham Lincoln became a practicing attorney with no law school, for example.

Legal Apprentice Michael Ehline: Pathbreaker in Legal Education 

I am interested in seeing how this method works in practice. Michael Ehline, a highly successful California injury attorney, is a case in point. This unique journey offers a holistic understanding of the law field for Ehline, who became a lawyer without a formal law school degree or an undergraduate degree. 

Michael says the Marine Corps mentality made it mandatory to ge through it. He says “You get to live the law, it’s like you’re not studying, you’re actually doing it.”

In most places in the US, obtaining a Juris Doctorate (JD) or a legal degree from a state-accredited law school or ABA is now a must before practicing law. The United Kingdom, including the commonwealth, is following a similar path. Although I studied law under the CA State Bar Law Office Study Program guidelines, a few states have their own legal apprenticeship programs. Several people believe there are benefits to attending a typical, expensive law school if they can withstand legal education…

The Journey to Becoming a Lawyer: Ehline’s Approach 

Michael did not embark upon this journey lightly, and he never envisioned he would create the multi-million dollar Ehline Law Firm. His rigorous preparation involved daily, multi-hour study sessions, intense review of court documents, case studies, and in-depth discussions with his mentor. His journey, like the many legal apprentices before him, exemplifies the dedication and commitment required to become a top injury lawyer using this route. 

Ehline’s relentless passion and hands-on, immersive legal education gave him a comprehensive understanding of the law. This made him more than qualified for his law license and work as a practicing lawyer. 

  • Step 1: Obtain a job or internship with a practicing attorney
  • Step 2: Pass the First-Year Law Students’ Examination, or “Baby Bar”
  • Complete four years of law office study
  • Step 3: Prepare for and pass the California Bar Examination.

While not the typical trajectory, this process demonstrates how to become a lawyer without the traditional degree pathway. It’s a challenge, but for those willing to dedicate the time and effort, like Ehline, it can be a gratifying endeavor.

Let’s dig deep into the detailed steps Ehline undertook towards his remarkable journey. It’s important to note here that these steps may not perfectly apply or guarantee the same results for everyone. Instead, mold this as a roadmap to fit your unique circumstances. 

Bypassing Law School: Key Steps Taken by Ehline 

The first step in Ehline’s unusual journey was to clerk for a judge. This allowed him to gain practical legal experience and begin understanding the intricacies of the law firsthand. Remember, while the conventional route to becoming a lawyer typically involves law school, such alternatives exist. 

Following a stint as a judge’s clerk, Ehline proceeded to the State Bar of California, where he was allowed to study the law through an accredited law office study program. This helped him build a deeper understanding of the law, honing his knowledge without sitting in a traditional classroom. 

Last but not least, he had to pass the California Bar Examination. This is a crucial step, as this test determines whether you can practice law in the state. Despite his unorthodox path, Ehline passed the bar, proving that hard work and determination can pay off regardless of your path. 

Throughout this unusual route, Ehline had mentors who guided him, and he put in countless hours of study and work. Remember, there’s no shortcut to becoming a lawyer, even when bypassing the traditional route. 

You, Too, Can Practice Law With No Undergrad or Law School

In conclusion, becoming a lawyer without a law school or degree is not familiar. It’s far from easy, but as Ehline has shown, it’s not impossible. The key is dedication, patience, perseverance, practical experience, and the willingness to learn in unconventional ways. 

Hopefully, Ehline’s journey has inspired you. Whether your path follows the beaten track or branches off into unknown territory, if you’re committed and diligent, you, too, can achieve your goal of becoming a legal professional.

Impact of Critical Race Theory on Jury Perceptions – Threat to Civil Rights

As we journey through this often complex landscape of thoughts and considerations, we’re going to delve deep into the intricacies of a subject that is making waves across the nation – Critical Race Theory and students who become jurors. Many argue it’s an important tool for social justice and exposing racial inequality.

Others contend that it’s a source of tension and even, potentially, a civil rights violation. But is it really poisoning juries to hold prejudices against white individuals? A core element is that earning things via merit is really white patriarchy.

To Critical Race Theorists, people don’t earn things; they are simply victims or oppressors in permanent racial hierarchies (with black people at the bottom in permanent slavery.) Since Asians are successful, they are generally treated as “oppressors,” too, depending on your “teacher.” This is basically their law; to them, it’s no theory. (CRT racial inequality teachers can make over $100k per year peddling CRT in most parts of the country.)

We will break down how implementing Critical Race Theory on a widespread scale could potentially instill biases in juries. Even if you attend a school of law, words like “white privilege”: are accepted as true, and if you fight back, you will be canceled and possibly face an interrogation by administrators to make sure you condemn white people enough. At least, that is what we hear privately from many students trying to get ahead.

The Slippery Slope of Blaming Gene Pools for Racial Inequality

We’re going to take you through the potential dangers, the areas of concern, and why some folks are pointing fingers at CRT for allegedly promoting racism against white individuals. It’s a delicate and sensitive subject, but we must have these discussions with respect and understanding at their center. 

  1. Understanding the basics of CRT
  2. Exploring the implications of CRT on Jury’s perception
  3. Why some believe CRT promotes racism against whites

With an open mind and a steadfast resolve, let’s dedicate ourselves to seeking the truth, informed clarity, and a deeper understanding of this contentious topic. Shall we delve in?

At first, the media said it was a conspiracy theory that CRT was indoctrinating kids, even though many of us knew that was a lie. Then, the NEA head finally came out and admitted it is, in FACT, DEMANDING that anti-white hate, couched as “Critical Race Theory,” be forced on public school children. Educators say their version is the real, racist history of this country and downplay that they literally call white children “privileged” and “oppressors.”

They say the law and everything about America is designed to keep black people down. To them, black people can do no wrong, and if they are accused of being bad students or breaking a law, you are a racist for saying it. Their interests seem to be in promoting racial division to make sure no black person will ever vote Republican, say many school teachers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by the NEA or local teacher’s unions.

According to many parents, including black parents, teachers are telling black kids they are “oppressed” and basically have zero chance at success without forced “equity” by the democrat party’s instrumentalities, aka public schools and universities, as well as administrative agencies (SEIU, etc.) 

They want all students thoroughly indoctrinated in anti-white hate, especially in the wake of January 6, which CNN and other government-influenced media have told them was a white racist attempt to take over the country.

“As we head into college application and selection season, we need to get parents, in particular, to focus on CRT that will be forced on their kids.” (Source, NY Post.)

Watch RACIST Lecture on Critical Race Theory to White Crowd

Democrat Party View

According to leftists and many national teacher’s unions, Critical Race Theory (CRT), at its core, is an academic movement that seeks to examine social, cultural, and legal issues as they relate to race and racism. To them, it’s a subject that divides opinion only if you are suffering from “white rage,” “white fragility,” or are a “Karen,” etc.

They use insults and peer pressure to force their “religion” since they think it intrigues young minds and provokes intense debate. There is nothing wrong with telling white kids their entire gene pool is racist and oppressive. There is nothing wrong with telling black kids they are permanent victims of the “white man,” either.

Average White Person’s General View?

To many of the so-called irredeemable “oppressors” (white people), CRT is nothing more than Cultural Marxism. They say it is a hidden new law designed to treat whites the same way the Germans treated Jews in Nazi Germany. In defense, Democrat-run Google and its Wikipedia claim that using the terms “Cultural Marxism” is anti-Semitic. So, if you mention it, you, too, are an anti-Jewish “racist.” Basically, whatever you call it, most white people who know what it is call it state-mandated hate.

Still, there are many so-called “self-hating white people,” particularly in university teaching positions, who think we need to exterminate the white race or breed white people out of existence. They understand that family members of democrats have created entire public school curriculums and stand to make millions from peddling their hateful propaganda on school children, and they are pissed. They say it clearly violates civil rights law, and with newly graduated judges, they have zero faith they will uphold the law, especially if they are in Washington, DC.

It’s no secret among lawyers that DC juries have no love for white republican males. If that weren’t the case, the January 6 defendants would not be trying to get a change of venue from the very beginning. The law of the land is that DC will give whites no chance; at least, that is the idea.

They know that CRT, in its practice and function, EXACTLY judges people by skin color and not the content of their character. But to them, it’s not enough for Americans to be equal in opportunity; they think the white man must “give up the benefits” of being white. And many academics and judges they vote into office get to decide the penalty of being white, at whim, that’s their star chamber law.

Many whites argue that with Stasi-style K-12 and Marxist university professor reinforcement, many young adults and future judges now have received this indoctrination against whites (intersectionalism, or another catchy name, etc.), especially white males, as the ENEMY. Today, we’ll focus firmly on the implications of this theory when it comes to our justice system, specifically an African American jury’s role after thorough CRT indoctrination. 

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere… Whatever affects one directly, impacts all indirectly.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

You may be wondering what Critical Race Theory (CRT) is at its core. Broadly speaking, it’s an academic concept that emerged in the United States in the 1980s and is rooted in critical theory. A single individual did not create it but developed it through the contributions of various far-left “scholars,” including Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, and others who lean far-far left.

Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the key figures in the development of CRT, is often associated with its creation. It essentially suggests that racism is a systemic issue insidiously integrated into our society’s structures and institutions rather than simply individual prejudice or bias.

In other words, even if blacks run everything, the system still favors whites unless minorities take action to be anti-white, according to the many whites terrified to speak lest they lose their job, especially government employees. They pointed to the media-created George Floyd fiasco and declared this is “systemic racism.” And because they said it, it was automatically true until Musk destroyed their “consensus.”

Riots ensued, and the push for CRT indoctrination pushed full steam ahead for our new “woke” military and federal workers. Mandatory “racial sensitivity” training, aka how to humiliate white people and shame them for merely existing – classes began, and of course, military recruiting basically ceased. (After all, you won’t get promoted based on merit, especially whites, so what’s the point?) So we know these new woke, anecdotally, government-mandated, “anti-white” policies are hurting US national security. 

But how does this relate to juries, you might ask? When CRT is applied to a jury setting, it can affect the perceived objectivity and impartiality with which the jury approaches a case. This is particularly true when that case involves races, ethnicities, or aspects of culture. 

Implications for White Individuals Before a Hostile, CRT Indoctrinated Jury?

While CRT aims to investigate and challenge societal systems, critics argue that it indiscriminately paints a negative image of white individuals -irredeemably racist, aka YOUR ENEMY. They contend it could fuel tension and hatred towards white people and bypass the fundamental principle that every person should be judged based on their individual actions, not on the color of their skin or presumed group privileges. 

They suggest that if carried to extremes, CRT can lead juries to approach a white defendant or witness with a set of preconceived notions based on their perceived role in systemic racism rather than the facts of the case. This is a dangerously slippery slope, some argue, wherein it becomes harder to ensure a truly fair trial. After all, if the defendant is white, they are already guilty as your “oppressor.” Sounds very Nazi German-like.

The Civil Rights Concern 

Critics continue to argue that an overemphasis on CRT in jury settings could potentially infringe upon civil rights. They contend this could constitute discrimination against white individuals who are entitled to equal protection and due process under the law. 

In conclusion, the argument put forth is that CRT not only challenges the perceived ethnicity-neutral framework of justice in the courtroom but may potentially undermine equal rights under the law. 

It’s worth noting that these are largely theoretical arguments, and there is longstanding debate in academic and legal circles about the extent of CRT’s impact. It’s worth considering all perspectives in order to form a balanced view.

While it’s important to recognize and challenge systemic racism where it exists, critics worry that unchecked use of CRT could risk turning this essential task into a reason to alienate and discriminate against white individuals.

One such concern stems from the courtrooms where Critical Race Theory (CRT) can subtly reshape justice dynamics. As the jury is a fundamental brick in building justice, CRT’s potential influence on jurors warrants careful consideration. 

In a vacuum where CRT is applied without imbalance, the purpose is to dismantle structural racism. However, in the context of the jury system, critics claim there can be potential pitfalls if inadequately managed. 

Influence of CRT on the Jury System 

The essence of a jury trial is that a group of ordinary people from various backgrounds will apply their collective reasoning to reach a fair verdict. If CRT influences this process, the fear is that it could engender biases against white defendants. 

Consider a hypothetical situation where a white individual is on trial. If jurors, informed to view society and its structures through the lens of CRT, are predisposed to see white individuals as beneficiaries of systemic racism, it could cloud their judgment. It could lead to the presumption of guilt, not based on the evidence before them, but possibly on their racial perceptions. It could be construed, critics caution, as a form of reverse discrimination. 

Concerns of Racial Prejudice  

Think of it this way: if the application of CRT convinced a single juror that their duty was to address systemic racism — rather than remaining impartial — this could potentially sway the outcome of a trial. Critics argue this is problematic as it inserts prejudice and bias into a process that strives for impartiality and fairness. 

The ultimate danger, these critics suggest, is that any unchecked and misapplied sociological theory, including CRT, could risk morphing into the very problem it seeks to solve: systemic discrimination. In this case, it’s against white people, infringing their civil rights to a fair trial—it’s literally a civil rights violation. 

In conclusion, while CRT has its place in tackling so-called “systemic racism” ( many say, a term made up by racist academics), the risks inherent in its misuse need to be identified and addressed, especially when applied to the justice system, to guard against fostering any form of discrimination.

Unmasking Meta’s Misleading Fact Checks: Section 230 Publisher Liability and Online Freedom

As soon as I posted copy about Meta’s liability under Section 230, strange things started happening with my Instagram account. All will be revealed below. Meta thinks it can avoid civil liability, even if what it says about your content is false and even if what they say is designed to directly compete with your content financially.

So far, it has seemingly steamrolled many judges, with help from plaintiffs’ lawyers who CLEARLY don’t understand internet platforms, including social media platforms and their original functions. Originally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect companies like Meta if they were to restrict access to “harmful content,” aka pornographic content, death threats with intent to kill, etc.

But these internet services, with help from instrumentality influence in the FBI and other agencies, now rate, review, and restrict third-party content and even augment. They do so by using an ABSURD and poor interpretation of Section 230 to escape and evade legal liability for fraud, defamation, and other civil and quasi-criminal acts.

Tech companies seem to rely on revolving door US government connections and law clerks to steer judges, many of whom admittedly are not internet law experts. As discussed here, it’s like the wild wild west for billionaire monopolists, who appear to have defacto control of both political parties and many US regulatory agencies. Most of the cases brought have been dismissed on technicalities, making most consumer protection lawyers shy away, always seeking the lower-hanging fruits.

No one wants to face a federal judge when the other side has billions in defense funds and the ability to destroy the same judge online with an army of bots and fact-checkers. Because of this, some states, including a new Florida and Texas law, are trying to force the original intent of Section 230 at a state level. In other words, if Meta thinks it can choose to create, alter, or mislabel content as opposed to providing users a way to remove or block “smut” (like X does), these state courts won’t give them the same warm reception that Facebook has allegedly been getting in the Northern District of California.

Such content created by others is protected as free speech from the government (can’t sue the platform for defamation for what another person said or did online.) But the now drunk with power and arrogant Meta thinks it can censor anything it wants and not be held accountable. A law that was passed in 1996 to protect users from smut is now used as a bludgeon to batter users with false, misleading, and often anti-competitive content.

Now, a person like former President Trump, your family members, or a parent complaining about school board censorship can be readily destroyed by Meta’s equivalent of the “thought police.” We know this was never the intent of Section 230, not by a longshot. Just because a few lower courts and the Ninth Circuit got it wrong doesn’t mean it’s right. However, no executive order can fix this one, and Meta and its co-conspirator instrumentalities in its revolving door govt employment scheme should be held liable.

Lawyers of the world must unite before data privacy and everything else about honest people are canceled in favor of websites and services that are nothing less or more than state actors and instrumentalities working against We the People.

Have you ever seen a post flagged on Meta’s platforms with a warning about ‘false news’ or ‘misinformation’?

Of course, you have. And it might have read something like this:

“This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)”

When you see this travesty, what’s your first thought? Do you accept the fact check at face value or start questioning the validity of the labeling process? If you’re in the latter category, you aren’t alone, especially with YouTube algorithms. Like many others, you might have picked up the scent of something that might not be as it seems, something more like an Orwellian twist where slavery is freedom.

In this article, we will help you uncover the layers of deception beneath Meta’s

“fact-checking” and how this relates to the legal shield of the Content Decency Act, referred to as Section 230.

Let’s Take a Look at a Deceptive Fact Check and Punitive Action Taken By Internet Platforms Insta-Facebook-Meta

Within several hours of posting my three-part Sue Meta Under Section 230 series on Instagram under the user @themichaelehline, I was notified that my account had now been throttled for 90 days. The catch is, like other complaints I am hearing, Meta is targeting older posts, but achieving the same result, which is to ban my account while appearing perfectly fair.

Other users who followed me or shared the content also received a warning that, in effect, they would be punished as well. Several users immediately unfollowed me, and an attorney friend of mine for almost 15 years accused me of “disinfo” since there was a “fact check.” Meta’s action here has severely damaged my reputation.

Note That I am PUNISHED for an Old Post, Not the Post Hostile to Meta?

So I wanted to expose just how ridiculous the fact checks are, to begin with, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Facebook and most social sites besides X are pushing a self-serving agenda, making them just as liable as any other publisher or purveyor of false, misleading or defamatory information published by one person about another.

In my experience, within hours of me posting videos about Section 230 and the unfair way social media companies have escaped its proper enforcement, an ancient post of mine was flagged as “false.” Of course, my account was throttled.

One of the videos I posted on Instagram started my fall from grace.

Section 230 videos leading to suspension

SECTION 230 Part 3 video with Fyk.

As you can see, rather than outright remove my videos, all of a sudden, Meta moved to find my account “in violation” of its bullshit policies that can be interpreted ANY WAY Meta wants while receiving US government protections under Section 230. Watch Part 3 to get an idea of why.

Example for The Fake and Misleading FACT CHECK:

Our Post, a Parody, Says, “Awake Yet?”

Global warming agenda

It pokes fun at many posts over the years and anecdotal doomsayers but NEVER mentions the word “scientists,” etc. It’s having some fun about taxes going up and predictions about doomsday being exaggerated.

Of course, since Meta has taken it upon itself to decide what the truth is and isn’t, as well as what reality is or isn’t, they went ahead and “hired” their surrogate, or “instrumentality,” in this case, the Democrat fringe group, ClimateFedback.Org.

Here is the title of their “Independent Fact Check.”

“Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s.” 

As you can see, nothing in the image says anything about scientists. It’s clear that Meta and the current US administration want to create a false impression of scientific consensus, as they did during the pandemic by silencing at least one Nobel Laureate who disagreed with mRNA tech to treat viruses as “fringe.” So much so that they literally assumed facts not in evidence to create a strike against my user account. Their appeals process is equally absurd.

This is improper. As soon as Meta throws itself into the business of thought policing, its goals, intent, and everything else are called into question. It can not claim it is not a publisher under Section 230(c)(1), let alone pretend its motives as a “Good Samaritan” are free from judicial or citizen oversight.

Let’s get into this a little more. First off, the fact check labels are designed to and, in fact, DO disparage and blacklist users who share it perfectly fits the descriptions of unfair business practices, as well as false and deceptive business practices, NOT just defamation, as will be discussed. 

META: More Than Just A Platform – Communications Decency Act? 

Let’s begin by understanding the essence of the issue. Section 230, or 47 U.S.C. § 230, is a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It’s purpose? To protect online platforms from liability for content posted by their users (Originally kiddie porn and adult porn from being seen by kids.) It was assumed social media was acting as a Good Samaritan to protect the public from “smut.” But if it did take action, ANY action other than providing users a block button, for example, Meta’s Good Faith, was always at issue. Getting this so far?

Michael Ehline's Fake Check

Online Sex Trafficking Act, Etc.

Both lawmakers and presidents started growing weary of Section 230 and internet platforms, especially the one with hard-core political activist Yoel Roth in charge of “trust” and child sexual abuse material. In 2018, two significant pieces of legislation were passed – the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act  (SESTA).

Effect of Child Sexual Abuse Material Laws?

These laws altered aspects of Section 230, implying that platforms can now be held responsible for advertisements about prostitution posted by third parties. The primary objective of these changes was to grant authorities an easier pathway to prosecute and control these activities.

But as Meta and social media strengthened their revolving door partnership with the FBI and other US cabinet-level agencies, it appears that smut is now anything one political party or platform doesn’t like when it does not serve their financial or political interests.

Simply put, as a matter of law, Section 230 treats Meta not as a publisher or speaker but merely as a platform hosting user-generated content. This means they’re ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE shielded from legal ramifications arising from their users’ actions. 

This seems reasonable until you peel back the layers and see Meta’s own actions in play in harming users they disagree with politically or compete with financially. You see, they’ve taken action whenever Meta uses their perceived protections under Section 230 to label, classify, or unfairly compete with a content creator. They transform themselves from being a passive, interactive computer service/provider content provider (a passive platform) to an information content provider (an active player). Meta is now promoting one user or their content over another, for better or worse. 

“Actions from Meta can result in a triable issue of material fact where motives, including bias, monetary, or political motives, can be questioned.”

So, it seems we have much more than just a platform to scrutinize. It may be time to reexamine Meta’s role and the use (or misuse) of Section 230. 

Now that we’ve peeled back some initial layers of this issue let’s dig deeper into what exactly transpires when you see a post flagged by Meta.

You might notice a notification stating: “This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”

The first reaction might be to trust the fact check implicitly, right? But is everything as it seems? 

Consider this: sometimes, a post is labeled as false or misleading and has no semblance to the original fact check conducted. Bizarre. But it’s more than just odd – it feels a bit like manipulation. The fact checker presumes certain facts, not even discussed in the original meme or post, labels it as false, and then curbs the account of the person who posted it.

Does this strike a chord with historical instances of censorship, such as those exhibited by the Nazis, KGB, or Stasi? 

Yet, Meta attempts to deflect any backlash or legal repercussions, using Section 230 as a shield. They argue that fact-checkers are independent entities despite being employed by Meta. They claim this allows them to introduce a layer of objectivity to the fact-checking process. But can this claim hold water when such fact checkers have the power (given them by the all-powerful Zuck) to suppress content and restrict accounts? 

In light of such behavior, the line between being a neutral content platform and a content provider isn’t just blurred – it becomes almost invisible. How so? Well, Meta doesn’t just provide the platform for users’ content. It also assumes the role of a user on its platform and employs “independent” fact checkers, many far-left organizations aligned heavily with Zuck’s political viewpoints. 

Meta is now able to influence viewer sentiment and control what information goes public – a power far beyond that of a mere content platform. Public schools, especially in California, may soon use these biased absurdities as official facts and reasons to trust or distrust someone. (See Newsom’s Section 587.)

Case in point: Jason Fyk’s Section 230 videos. While sharing his views on content manipulation by Meta, Fyk uncovered an apparent complex web of deceptive practices by the social media behemoth. From ‘shadow-banning’ to misinterpretation of facts, Fyk’s videos expose Meta’s actions that definitely raise eyebrows for anyone advocating for transparency and freedom of speech.  In his case, his hundred-million-dollar PLUS company was competing with Meta for paid ad space that he was generating organically.

Meta took down his millions of followers, destroying his online presence. Ultimately, after Fyk transferred the rights to his content to a paying competitor, Meta re-hosted the content, even though it allegedly violated the Meta Terms of Service.

Many of Meta’s advertisement-supported business models rely on user engagement. Hence, meta-algorithms often promote false, divisive, and harmful content to its users. In this case, their entire fact-checker process is clearly deceptive and designed to place many publishers and USERS in a false light.

Meta Is Backdooring

I agree that 230(c)(1) was used as a backdoor for 230(c)(2) cases like Jason Fyk’s. Fyk was just proven correct by Judge Alsup’s recent opinion below, but he still got blown out, and Meta is still free to destroy lives. (in my opinion).

What is False Light Defamation?

False light defamation occurs when someone is portrayed misleadingly or falsely that could be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, even if the information itself is factually accurate. These fact-check labels do just that. Even if the labels were accurate, Meta has become a publisher, and the propriety-GOOD FAITH-of its actions in removing “otherwise objectionable content” must now be decided by a trier of fact under Section 230(c)(2)(A). In other words, META does not get to decide allegations of bad faith, “action voluntarily taken in good faith,” the JURY does!

So, what does this all mean?

It’s time to question:

Is Section 230, a law put forth to protect freedom of speech on online platforms, being weaponized to serve as a tool for misinformation and bias? Your thoughts matter in this debate. Is it high time we called for more accountability from such platforms?

One thing’s for certain: This exploration has only just begun. With a court unimpressed by tautologies and shiny objects, Meta will soon be out of the unfair competition business and back into its role as a social media content provider platform. Their job is not to label and restrict communications using the subterfuge of independent fact-checkers, either.

X/Elon Musk Got it right with Community Notes

X uses “Community Notes” to afford protection under Section 230. Community Notes are harmonious with Section 230(c)(2)(B), which states:

“(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Most people feel that as long as social media sites take censorship actions that favor President Biden and his son and also take actions against his political opponents, only a US court can right these wrongs. Meta is unilaterally TAKING PUBLISHER actions itself and apparently dismissing lawsuits at whim. The revolving door employment scheme it has fostered with DOD, FBI, and even CIA demonstrates a pattern and probable goal of undue influence over policymaking that must be investigated.

Meta is supposed “…to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

In other words, Meta is not supposed to be defaming its political and financial competitors as fake, false, or misleading and then get protected for lying and unfair business practices. It is supposed to allow USERS and information content providers to MUTE or offer a block button (technical means) or a chalkboard to share notes! All it will take is one good judge to put an end to these tautological shenanigans with technology website companies like Meta. Either way, Fyk lost his case, and it could just be his lawyers made the wrong arguments, as did the lawyers in the Stossel case, by stipulating to Meta’s definitions as the rule of the case. Either way, I have no skin in the game, and I DO NOT handle these cases, nor have I ever discussed the case with Fyk’s legal team.

Are you ready to file a lawsuit? Make sure you are ready!

“Thomas Jefferson complained about the verbosity of statutes, their endless tautologies, and “their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaid.” Source LibQuotes

Are you ready for a favorable ruling? Please like, subscribe to, and follow us on the social media platforms that have not banned us yet. We look forward to your communications and discussing any new rules, appeals, or lawsuits on the horizon.

Can You Sue Social Media for Misleading “Fact Check Labels”? Dissecting Net Neutrality, and Section 230

Yes, you can, under several valid legal theories. But you must be very careful, or the court can turn your case into a word salad. “Try sharing a [critical] article about big pharma, let alone any article not by a scientist or doctor receiving a clawback or royalty, and see what happens.” This is the main concern of many doctors and nurses we have heard about regarding keeping an online presence and not losing followers.

No one wants their hard-earned social media throttled, especially by someone receiving millions in ad spending and government subsidies with no way to fight back. After all, cases like Issac’s or John Stossel’s (discussed below) failed to proceed, so there is no way to win, right? This is the argument you see everywhere from the pro-censorship crowd regarding suing and winning against social media for defamation.

Here’s another one. “You can sue all you want, but finding a judge to make the proper call is becoming increasingly more difficult as politicians appoint judges that support their viewpoint discrimination,” according to a retired special needs teacher and Orange County School Board member (and Marine vet) Robert Hammond. So what about suing social media conglomerates and their allies for altering your copy with misleading “fact check” labels? It’s a question many of us have pondered as we increasingly encounter these labels across various platforms. But we saw many influencers and even a former president get their accounts messed with over this, often at the behest of FBI officials or officials from another administrative agency inside DC. (Hunter Biden Laptop, etc.)

In my opinion, a goal of Section 230 (discussed below), as well as Net Neutrality, was to make sure the original poster could freely share their ideas and, in exchange, prevent the content host from being sued if the poster defamed someone. In other words, the hosting platform, or in this case, the social media company (was protected), would not get sued if they didn’t censor or “alter” the content.

But here, on more than one occasion, social media companies have labeled true information false, defaming the ACTUAL content posters/creators themselves through inference and innuendo and then hiding behind the section designed to make it fair for all parties despite their patently unfair inducements.

You are a Hateful Bigot Says Social Media Companies?

Imagine having your content falsely labeled “hate speech.” Internet companies are getting away with it, and many courts are letting them present patently false misinformation about your content, which is why I wrote this. Then there is that pesky issue now decided by at least one court that our own government has urged content and entire accounts to be censored.

“This is the worst First Amendment violation in our nation’s history. We look forward to dismantling Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise at the nation’s highest court,” Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement.

Source: Politico

Obviously, we know former president Donald Trump agrees, but I digress. When read along with Net Neutrality, it is clear that many fact checks are designed to harm the reputation of the original publisher, lifting the protections of Section 230 et. seq. According to the tangible evidence released in the Twitter files, more often than not, true stories about Democrat politicians and their ideas are attacked most vigorously, raising concerns to many civil rights lawyers such as myself. Despite good faith efforts to appeal a social media account suspension, Most politically suppressed posters complain the process is unfair. As will also be discussed, many fact-check labels make up ideas not expressed in the actual checked piece and label them false as well.

Are Fact Checkers Really Independent?

Absolutely NOT if they are being paid, especially by someone who shares their same viewpoints – BIAS.


“We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.

“Doing this takes time and many, many words.”

We know that Zuck, for example, pays a so-called “independent fact checker” to label your facts, and by extension, you, as well as your research, as “false” or “fake.” We know from the Twitter Files that career and appointed bureaucrats in US agencies put pressure, either directly or indirectly, to take down accounts expressing viewpoints about the Hunter Biden laptop, even though the govt knew all along it was not connected to a “Russia Hoax.”

Most So-Called Fact Checkers Lean Left, Yes

Factcheck.Org leans left as another example. Although most non-partisans agree Snopes is off the scale, far left, it only received a rating of leans left. Here is a tool to help you see opinions on where other for-profit media sites lean, including left or right.

This video sums up how many conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else who does not support the so-called globalist view feel about social media companies and their campus crusader-style fact-checks.

We know that many FBI agents get jobs with big tech, particularly at social media companies. Once this connection and its implications on elections, etc, we started seeing legacy media take down stories about it. The Commerce Department has gotten nowhere, and it appears our Administrative agencies have become centers of revolving-door employment, giving social media companies enormous influence over the Justice Department and other agencies. Conservatives complain that social media companies are so powerful they were able to alter the results of the last presidential election by defaming the true Hunter Biden Laptop story. (Discussed more below).

Can Adding Speech Be Considered Altering Speech?

Absolutely. Adding speech, especially in a way to disparage or falsely characterize something you wrote, is NOT NEUTRAL and definitely not in GOOD FAITH (See Sec. 230 ) when the intent is to create the impression the author is a liar or hateful.

  • Augmentation: Depending on the nature and purpose of the speech, adding speech to an original article can be a form of augmentation or enhancement rather than alteration, especially if the added content complements or expands upon the original text
  • Alteration: If the added speech – or, in this case, a misleading fact check label – significantly changes or misrepresents the meaning or intent of the original article, it may be considered a form of alteration.

As always, as a lawyer, you must consider the context and purpose of the speech addition. If the speech aligns with the overall message and intent of the original article, it may be seen as a permissible modification or enhancement. On the other hand, if the added speech distorts the original message or introduces new ideas that conflict with the author’s original intent, it could be viewed as an alteration.

Here is an Example of an Attorney / Section 230 Expert Who Says Social Media Companies Don’t Alter Speech

Within seconds of me posting this on Twitter, a gentleman described as:

“Once in conservative media before it went insane. Also once a foreign service officer and an attorney. My passion is S. 230”

Tweeted me. Here is our colloquy.

Please follow this guy; his passion is S. 230. I generally think everyone should express how they feel free of censorship. Keep in mind, if you engage him, he has a tendency to take your conversations out of context, and cite unpublished cases as “mandatory authority.” (An unpublished case is NOT binding authority – Published in legal jargon means it is “citeable.” So even if it’s “published” online, that does not mean the same thing as “published” for use in a court case.)

Mr. Goober also has zero ability to brief or distinguish facts from cases he cites. He also refuses to consider alternative facts or theories argued in this document other than his dogmatic, you are a “Goober,” and you don’t “know the law.” Be advised.

But What About Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc.

In Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc., 557 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2021), Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a claim for defamation per se on a “Motion seeking to dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice because the Explanations do not meet any of the elements required of a defamation per se claim.” Plaintiff lost because he failed to adequately plead defamation per se, entitling the defendant to attorneys fees: In other words, had Plaintiff adequately pled statutory negligence, SLAPP would not have acted as a mechanism to award attorney’s fees.

“… the instant suit arose from Defendant’s protected First Amendment activity—i.e., preventing the dissemination of the NY Post Article on its platform for violation of its content moderation policies.” (See also, Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Inc., 519 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1128 (S.D. Fla. 2021).)

Yes. I am an expert on SLAPP/ANTI SLAPP; see also STUART v. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT here. (Attorney(s) appearing for the Case-Parker & Covert, Henry R. Kraft and Michael T. Travis for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Michael P. Ehline and Michael P. Ehline for Plaintiff and Respondent.)

What About John Stossel’s Lawsuit?

In a nutshell, the court, without objections I could find, used the words “fact” and “opinion” as if they were interchangeable words, a gift to defense counsel, according to many legal theorists. (Need a copy of the final complaint and any depositions from experts as to this issue)

Here is what the court said about it in BLACK and WHITE.

“Meta argues that the complaint incorporates this webpage by reference. Dkt. No. 27 at 3 n.2. Mr. Stossel does not object to the Court’s consideration of the contents of this webpage for purposes of deciding defendants’ motions. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 49 at 5-6 (quoting statements from webpage).”

Stossel literally allowed the court to click through the site and use Meta’s buried definitions of fact and opinion, as opposed to expert testimony as to the viewing public’s accepted view of a fact versus an opinion. The court even pointed out that someone seeing a big label that says “FACT” could click to another page. Imagine if someone sold you a cure for cancer, but when you clicked the word cancer, it defined cancer as hanging toe nail. That is what occurred here for lack of a better description.

In any event, Stossel also failed to allege anything the fact checker said was false, and even if he had, the court simply was able to rely on Meta’s definitions, etc. in “deciding defendants’ motions.” Here, “U.S. District Judge Virginia DeMarchi also found that Facebook couldn’t have defamed Stossel because its fact-check program “reflects a subjective judgment about the accuracy and reliability of assertions” made in the content that’s been checked.

Simply because the process by which content is assessed and a label applied is called a ‘fact-check’ does not mean that the assessment itself is an actionable statement of objective fact,” reads the order.” (Source.)

Obviously, an expert witness or the court taking judicial notice could have proven that most people will see a fact check label as an objective fact because that is how the word is used in the commonly accepted English-speaking world. These labels are designed to discredit certain authors, whether facts are objectively true or NOT. (It’s clearly an unfair business practice under California Business and Professions Code Sec 17200, et esq.)

Stossel sued over defamatory fact-check labels, which is similar to my argument. However, in addition to other potential errors, I found that Stossel’s lawyers did not plead inducement, inference, or innuendo because people who see these labels do NOT CONSIDER them to be opinions. I think the court was flawed in ignoring the normally used definition of fact versus opinion and simply letting loose that one can be the other. I think nuances like this make the difference.

While courts generally take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known, including common, everyday terms, it’s important to note that the specifics can vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the case. Judicial notice is a legal doctrine that allows a court to accept certain facts as true without requiring formal presentation of evidence. These facts are typically well-known, indisputable, or easily verifiable.

Common, everyday terms that fall within the realm of general knowledge may be subject to judicial notice.

However, there are factors and limitations to consider:

  1. Common Knowledge: Courts should sua sponte, take judicial notice of facts that are so widely known or indisputable that they do not require formal proof. Everyday terms that fall into this category may be eligible for judicial notice.
  2. Relevance: The court must determine whether the common, everyday terms are relevant to the issues at hand in the case. If the terms are not directly related to the legal matters being considered, judicial notice may not be appropriate.
  3. Dispute: If there is a genuine dispute about the meaning or understanding of common terms, the court may choose to hear evidence or argument rather than taking judicial notice. Here, Stossel’s counsel agreed the Meta website would decide the motions – there was no dispute.
  4. Notice and Opportunity: In some jurisdictions, parties may have the opportunity to object or present evidence opposing the court’s decision to take judicial notice. This ensures fairness and due process.

In any event, if the allegations about Stossel were true, then they are true facts. The issue on appeal would seem to be the court’s findings of fact since no objection was apparently raised to these issues I have brought forth to my knowledge. (Still, they DO NOT say “opinion,” check. The checks are also backed by force, and account bannings occur even if the facts are true, making them seem like they are the true and ONLY facts.) In my opinion, this was a flawed ruling, and I think it was wrongly decided.

What About Wilson v. Twitter, Inc.?

Wilson-2 argued that in Wilson-1, plaintiff Wilson apparently complained he was being discriminated against for being heterosexual, but he did not know how to draft a complaint, so we’ll never know. The Court found that the pro se Plaintiff did “not have adequate available funds to pay the filing fee upfront. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 1). (Source.) Here, the unrepresented, destitute plaintiff gave absolutely “no factual allegations to support a civil rights violation by Twitter.” (Source.)

In other words, he did not know how to draft a complaint to defeat a demurrer, motion to strike, or summary judgment motion. “Wilson asserts that his complaint is brought pursuant to Title II of the CRA, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.” (Supra, Wilson, 4.) But since “Title II does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” he failed to state his claim. Wilson also argued his “Christian affiliation” was being discriminated against under the same section. “Wilson has yet to submit facts corroborating that belief, notwithstanding the written decision in Wilson I, which explained that supporting factual allegations were required to state a plausible claim against Twitter.” Besides, in pro per, litigant Wilson failed to provide “evidence apparent from the record that Twitter applied this policy to Wilson’s tweets in a discriminatory manner.”

Part Two, Section 230

Here, Wilson attempted to “hold Twitter liable as a publisher for its refusal to allow Wilson access to Twitter’s platform.” What he failed to do was to point out that the word “fact” means things. In this case, when Twitter or another platform declares the publisher to be spreading false information, and that declaration is NOT IN GOOD FAITH under the plain language of Section 230, the case can move forward. You must plead sufficient facts or lose the right to move forward.

Section 230(c) provides, in relevant part:

“Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of –
(A) any action voluntarily TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or [EMPHASIS]

“In summary, as Wilson’s complaint is devoid of a factual basis demonstrating that Twitter violated Title II of the CRA, the undersigned FINDS that Wilson fails to state a plausible claim for which relief may be granted.” “For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge DISMISS the complaint, with prejudice, (ECF No. 2); and REMOVE this matter from the docket of the Court.”

He didn’t know what he was doing, Wilson lost. HE NEVER PLED THE ACTIONS TAKEN WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH either. It’s that simple.

What About Loomer v. Zuckerberg?

The plaintiff, a female, sued Facebook and Twitter over several bans. She also argued, “Procter & Gamble (which advertises on those platforms) and unnamed government officials constitute a racketeering enterprise.” “by engaging in interference with commerce by threats or violence, interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, wire fraud, providing material support to terrorists, and advocating overthrow of the government.” She filed an RICO action. Getting this so far?

How Did Zuck Get the Case Tossed?

“The Twitter and Facebook defendants contend that the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and all defendants contend that the plaintiff cannot plausibly plead RICO claims. In addition to opposing the motions to dismiss, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint to add new allegations, which are mostly about internal Twitter documents that allegedly show coordination between Twitter and the federal government.”

Here, the court granted Zuck and the other defendant’s motions to dismiss “with prejudice” because res judicata barred the claims against Twitter and Facebook, and in addition, § 230 also bars those claims as an alternative ground for dismissal, and the RICO claims were also futile. As I have argued, the court properly found that “Under the Communications Decency Act, website operators generally are immune from liability for third-party content posted on their websites and for removing such content, but website operators are not immune when they create or develop the information, in whole or in part. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) & (f)(3).”

However, as noted herein, when social media companies intentionally and in bad faith mislabel a person, even an expert, regular folks believe the fact checker, and they fear suspension if they disseminate true but now maliciously mislabeled copy. (“website operators are not immune when they create or develop the information, in whole or in part…”) The Act itself covers bad faith alterations as excepted from Section 230 protections. In any event, the plaintiff failed to plead that Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg acted based on their own personal conduct outside of the protected corporations they manage, or run. Since she argued apparently that this was their official capacity and, with no arguments, proferred that the content had been altered with unclean hands, they were “immune under § 230 to the same extent as Twitter and Facebook.” (Source.)

What About Brianne Dressen, et al. v. Rob Flaherty, et al.?

Major advertisers, aka partially tax-funded/subsidized, immune from being sued pharma companies, were alleged to have worked hand in hand to censor accounts in conspiracy with social media giants.

“The Plaintiffs have all been heavily censored on social media for sharing their personal experiences, exchanging advice, medical research, and support with others who were medically harmed after taking the vaccine.”

Their social media accounts are at constant risk of being frozen or disabled just for engaging with other users in private support groups open only to vaccine-injured individuals and sharing perspectives the government deems misinformation. (Source, NCLA.)

Here is a copy of the original complaint. The government is now trying to delay the matter since they LOST their “demand for preliminary injunction in NCLA’s Missouri v. Biden case against social media censorship.” I will keep an eye out for any outcomes. Media Inquiries: Judy Pino, 202-869-5218


In Freedom Watch, the plaintiff failed to allege colorable legal claims in its complaint. Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, 368 F.Supp.3d 30, 36–37 (D.D.C. 2019). On appeal, the three-judge panel reached the same conclusion. However, nothing I am arguing is saying we are suing for the First Amendment. Defamation is NOT FREE SPEECH. It is defamation once proven. And if a court finds the defamatory content is not defamatory, it can be subject to SLAPP/Anti-SLAPP provisions, etc. In Freedom Watch, it appears no FOIA requests were made to uncover a conspiracy, nor was sufficient evidence of state action or involvement to defeat a dismissal of the pleadings.

Words Mean Things – A Fact is Not an Opinion

A fact is NOT an opinion in America and the accepted English language. So, judicial notice must first be addressed. Words mean things.

The key difference between a fact and an opinion lies in their nature and verifiability:

  1. Fact:
    • Definition: A fact is a statement that can be proven or verified to be true or false. It is an objective and concrete piece of information.
    • Characteristics:
      • Factual statements are based on evidence, observation, or reality.
      • They are objective and not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations.
      • Facts are universally accepted and can be independently confirmed by others.
      • Example: “Water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level” is a factual statement that can be tested and verified.
  2. Opinion:
    • Definition: An opinion is a personal belief, judgment, or interpretation that may vary from person to person. It reflects an individual’s perspective or feelings about a particular subject.
    • Characteristics:
      • Opinions are subjective and are influenced by personal experiences, values, or emotions.
      • They are not necessarily verifiable or provable since they represent personal viewpoints.
      • Different individuals may hold different opinions on the same matter.
      • Example: “Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor” is an opinion because it reflects a personal preference and is not universally true.

Facts are objective and verifiable statements based on evidence. Opinions are subjective expressions of personal beliefs or preferences that may not be universally applicable or provable.

With some basic legal research, you will see that nothing in Isaac changes anything I just discussed as a claim.

Industry Jokes

The industry jokes are that:

  • Former US Navy SEALS do podcasts and write their biographies
  • Discredited and retired FBI agents get jobs with big tech, social media companies or for-profit legacy media.

For instance, MSNBC deleted this gem from public view:

“Hundreds Of Former Feds Have Flocked To Jobs In Big Tech

Diana Glebova

Google, Twitter, Meta, and TikTok’s executive ranks have included over 200 former employees of surveillance government agencies, creating an employment pipeline between the government and Big Tech companies, a Daily Caller investigation found.

The technology companies recruited 248 employees from the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and DHS, a LinkedIn search revealed. The hiring occurred mostly between 2017-2022, with several filling top director positions after having decade-long careers in surveillance agencies.

Google hired 130 former DOJ, DHS, CIA, and FBI employees, the Daily Caller’s key term cursory search on LinkedIn found. Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, employed 47 people for those three entities who were previously at the DOJ, FBI or DHS. TikTok, the Chinese-based app embattled with national security concerns, employed 25 former DOJ, FBI, DHS or CIA employees. Twitter had 46 executives who had previously spent time working for the three-letter agencies.

Reed Rubinstein, former deputy associate attorney general under President Trump, told the Daily Caller that Americans should be “concerned” about “terrifying” integration of Big Tech companies and federal agencies. 

“The revolving door has been a feature of D.C. for as long as I can remember. Any business that is heavily regulated is going to be concerned about managing the regulators, and one way to do that is by purchasing them,” Rubinstein said.

“As we saw with [Jim] Baker, they are still wearing — sometimes — two hats. They still talk informally to folks who are in the [intelligence community], and so it’s not necessarily a clean break. In fact, what they pay for, is those relationships,” Rubinstein added.

“The integration of Big Tech and the national security state … really it’s dystopian, it’s terrifying. They have enough data to show that that power, which is immense, will be abused. And right now, there is no effective check on it,” he said.

These are just some of the excerpts from this article. I encourage you, real journalists and researchers, to use the wayback machine here and make a copy of the entire article. I only used quotes and did not add the entire piece. Keep in mind that large, for-profit media and social media companies are experts at removing things, even from web archives, so read it here as a cached version on Yahoo! while you can.


The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop

How the FBI & intelligence community discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both after and *before* The New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020

In Twitter Files #6, we saw the FBI relentlessly seek to exercise influence over Twitter, including over its content, its users, and its data.

In Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published.

The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him

On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden’s laptop.…Read the entire article, The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop, here.

We now also know a unit inside Twitter was apparently made up of retired FBI agents. Many pundits argue it was designed to run interference, likely due to their connections and influence inside.

We also know that the former head of Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” division, Yoel Roth, was accused of allowing child porn on his site.

Roth also wrote a thesis in college about allowing little boys access to an adult gay online dating site. To be sure, there were a lot of things we’d have never known, but Elon Musk produced the emails and other hard, physical proof. Since then, Biden Admin agencies, legacy, and for-profit media have gone all out to take down Musk, say many.

Now imagine this: was Yoel Roth involved in censoring stories that could have led to pedophile rings in government, starting with, say Epstein Island? This is what many parents are concerned about. As more and more Twitter Files are released, only time will tell. One thing is sure: Musk probably has more dirt on the Bidens and former Twitter employees than J. Edgar Hoover had on JFK. Remember him? He started the FBI and apparently blackmailed your elected leaders to stay in power for fifty years. Has anything changed?

Musk/Twitter Takeover – Newsom Moves to Force Censor Accounts?

X filed a complaint against AB 587 saying that it’s “difficult to reliably define” what constitutes “hate speech, misinformation, and political interference.” It also alleged – like something out of a George Orwell novel, that AB 587 would force social media platforms to “eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content.” And this is real stuff people. Cultural Marxist ideology is now part of official California policy. Final text of AB 587 here and here is a little more about it.

Here is a small excerpt of the vague and ambiguous absurdities of this knee-jerk, un-American law.

“A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories:

(A) Hate speech or racism.

(B) Extremism or radicalization.

(C) Disinformation or misinformation.

(D) Harassment.

(E) Foreign political interference.”


AB 587 requires social media companies to post their terms of service online, as well as submit a twice-yearly report to the state attorney general. The report must include details about whether the platform defines and moderates several categories of content, including “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” harassment, and “foreign political interference.”

It must also offer details about automated content moderation, how many times people viewed content that was flagged for removal, [Obvious invasion of privacy and govt overreach] and how the flagged content was handled.” (Source.)

One thing is clear: legacy media and social media all seem to be pushing the same political viewpoints when it comes to minor children and radical transgender ideology as well. So it is clear that Newsom intends to shut down anything leftist politicians think meets these definitions, say many Christians and others.

Often, these fact-checkers hired by social media companies lean towards partisan views, primarily favorable Democrats (Politifact, Snopes, Newsweek, you name it), and are financially backed by billionaire democrats like Mark Zuckerberg. Properly, the convolution of truth stretches beyond these partisan affiliations. Although social media and other fact-check sites will say your content is false when it isn’t, they worm their way out by saying it’s “opinion,” therefore shielding themselves from civil liability in U.S. Courts.

Understanding Net Neutrality and Section 230 

Net NeutralityNet neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should treat all data on the Internet the same way, without discriminating or charging differently based on user, content, website, platform, or application. Although many argue and many courts have held that social media is not an ISP, others argue that net neutrality principles should extend to how platforms handle content and user access.Net neutrality ensures that users have equal access to all content and that ISPs do not have the power to control or manipulate the speed or accessibility of certain websites or services. It promotes an equal playing field for online businesses and innovation. In this case, the fact that social media sites are creating an impression you are a liar, for example, would be more significant in my opinion as to whether one could plead extrinsic facts via inducement or innuendo.
Section 230Section 230 refers to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the United States. Section 230(c)(1) provides, with some exceptions, that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”Section 230 has been crucial in fostering the growth of online platforms and encouraging them to neutrally moderate content to maintain a safe and constructive environment. It shields online platforms from being held liable for the content created and posted by their users. It allows them to neutrally moderate content in an unbiased manner without facing legal consequences for every piece of user-generated content.

“This sentence is sometimes referred to as the “26 words that created the internet,” because it freed websites that host third-party content from the impossible task of accurately screening everything posted by their users. For example, if your neighbor posts a tweet falsely alleging that you are embezzling money from your employer, you can sue your neighbor for defamation. But a suit against Twitter will go nowhere. As the text of Section 230 makes clear, it is your neighbor and not Twitter that bears the liability for the defamatory tweet.”

Fact Check Label Designed to Destroy-Discredit Reputation of Content Creators / Sharers?

I believe many billionaire defendants win due to systemic failures by courts, as well as plaintiffs to understand the law here. No “Inducement and Innuendo” has been argued in ANY OF THE DEPUBS I have seen so far. No cases have expressed the bad faith nature and clear intent to make the viewers think this often political content has leprosy. A Fact is NOT an OPINION. If so, it should be called an “opinion fact,” and no other actions against the account should be taken since it is being censored for being false, which is ….wait for it, FALSE.

So far, the plaintiffs have had the wrong courts, and they have failed to argue some key things discussed in the article. Most of the defensed cases seem to have been handled by amateurs or others with less crafty lawyers than big tech. We also must understand the role money plays here and where people, including elected officials with connections from the government, go for cushy jobs when they retire or quit early.

Clearly, many of these “fact checks” [often political] are obviously created to discredit the original poster, effectively labeling them crackpots with HUGE labels, hiding content, and then threatening those who share it or outright banning accounts. Many of the bannings and censoring are a direct result of pressure by the Obama and now Biden Administrations. (Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media) If you have evidence that Trump FBI asked social media platforms to censor political opponents or commentators, don’t hesitate to get in touch with me right away.

Defamatory Language and False Fact Check Labels:

Defamatory language involves making false statements that harm the reputation of an individual or entity. In the context of fact-check labels (from social media companies), if a fact-check label includes false information that harms someone’s reputation, it could potentially be considered defamatory. However, the legal interpretation may depend on various factors, including the level of malice, the truthfulness of the fact check, and the public figure status of the person involved.

Inducement and Innuendo:

  • Inducement: Is the act of persuading or influencing someone to do something. In defamation, inducement may involve convincing others that false information is true, harming someone’s reputation.
  • Innuendo: In defamation, innuendo refers to a hidden or implied meaning in a statement. In defamation cases, there could be an implied meaning that, while not explicitly stated, could damage the subject’s reputation.

Methods of Defamation:

Defamation can occur through various means, including:

  • Slander: Spoken false statements.
  • Libel: Written or published false statements.
  • False Imputation: Making false accusations or attributing false characteristics to someone.
  • Innuendo: Using subtle implications to convey damaging meanings.
  • Inducement: Persuading others to believe and spread false information.

Social media sites like Instagram warn you that your account will be removed unless you voluntarily remove the copy. Ultimately, they will throttle you so no one sees your copy or delete your account. (George Orwell warned us)

This scheme has worked well to discredit differing viewpoint news organizations like the New York Post, Epoch Times, and others who go against the official govt/social media partnership narratives.

If Zuck Says it’s an “Opinion,” Why the “Fact Check” Label?

“I believe fact-check labels are more of personal opinions rather than solid facts”— Mark Zuckerberg, during a congressional hearing.


Zuck Transcript Excerpts

“…describe what you fact check on oh sure

4:26 actually thank you for the opportunity

4:28 to clarify Facebook itself actually does

4:30 not check it does not fact check what we

4:32 do is we have feedback that people [leftists we pay called fact checkers] in

4:34 our community don’t want to see viral

4:36 hoaxes or or kind of like that maybe

4:39 clear you do no fact-checking

4:41 on any ads is that correct chairwoman

4:44 what we do is we work with a set of

4:47 independent fact checkers [false, they are paid by for Zuck] who somebody

4:50 fact checks on ads you have you contract

4:54 with someone to do that is that right

4:57 chairwoman yes and tell me who is it

5:01 that they fact checked on a chairwoman

5:05 what we do is when content is getting a

5:08 lot of distribution and is flagged by

5:10 members of our community [liberals] or by our

5:12 Technical Systems [liberal written algo] it can go into a queue

5:16 to be reviewed by a set of independent

5:17 fact checkers

5:19 they can’t fact check everything but the

5:20 things that they get to and if they part

5:23 something is false then we all right my

5:24 time has expired..”

That leads us to untangle a crucial distinction: the difference between fact and opinion. A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and evidence. However, an opinion is an individual’s personal belief, which may be grounded in facts, but not always. Naturally, the line blurs between reality and perception when opinions are paraded as facts. 

Presenting opinions in the guise of facts leads us into the territory of inference and innuendo defamation colloquy. It’s an arena where insinuations replace facts. Corporations, usually at the behest of politicians and government agents, don’t call the label and following threats “opinion check.” In that case, they know the less educated or more viewpoint-indoctrinated among us will assume it means the information is patently false. For this reason and others, Elon Musk created “Community Notes.

Musk encourages independent research instead of the uni-party narrative approach on Meta and other corporate sponsor-influenced social media platforms, including Instagram. Newsom and Marxist politicians in California do not like the idea of the government not being able to silence their political opponents, and that is UNDISPUTABLE, say many pro-speech organizations. Conservatives and parents complain the goal of the supermajority state of California is to control what their political opponents say online, under the guise of safety, etc. If it’s about pharma, parental rights, child mutilation, or far-left gender identity indoctrination K-12 in our public schools, that is considered “hate speech” to them.

The intersection of personal opinions, put forth as facts, and these notions of net neutrality and section 230 complexities pose a significant challenge in the digital information age we live in.


First, you’ll need an understanding of the context. The fact-checking community is predominantly composed of individuals who lean towards the Democratic party and are often funded by Democrat billionaires. This might give an impression of a potential bias in interpreting and presenting data in these “fact check” labels. 

  • Fact: A fact is something that is objectively true and can be proven with evidence. It isn’t subject to debate and remains true regardless of personal beliefs or feelings.
  • Opinion: An opinion, on the other hand, is a subjective belief formed by an individual. It can be influenced by personal experiences, feelings, and interpretations, which differ from person to person.

Another tactic often used in “fact check” labels is the application of inference and innuendo defamation colloquy. This refers to the insinuation or implication of something negative or misleading cloaked within seemingly innocuous language. It’s like stating a veiled opinion or claim as a “fact check,” which is dishonest and could be misleading. 

The concept of Net Neutrality emphasizes equal access and fair treatment of all data on the internet, preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating or prioritizing certain data types. This same principle should ideally extend to social media platforms and their approach to fact-checking, where all information should be evaluated with unbiased fairness. 

However, the existence and operation of social media platforms are primarily facilitated by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This clause provides immunity to online platforms regarding the content posted by their users. Ironically, while it allows these platforms to moderate content to maintain user-friendly environments, the extent of this moderation and instances of potential bias remain matters of ongoing debate.


So, can you see, the question of whether you can sue social media for, inter alia, altering your copy with misleading “fact check” labels is complex and depends on various factors? It can include your location, the specifics of the alteration, and whether you can prove it caused you harm. Legal counsel should be pursued if such measures are considered. However, the broader conversation on fact-checking, impartiality, and the responsibilities of online platforms continues to evolve as we plunge deeper into the digital age.

Do you agree that using labels saying “misinformation” and then threats to the original poster and content curators over the content crosses the line into treating an opinion as fact? Do you think we need a new law or just better courts? Can an executive order decide this, or is that even fair? Bust out your tools and let me know so we can do a podcast.