Was your Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook account suspended or throttled after discussing Hunter Biden’s laptop story before the last presidential election? Frustration can set in, especially if you feel your freedom of speech has been impeded by ruining your brand. But don’t fret – you have legal avenues to redress. Specifically, you can submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain your records and use social media and their revolving door (FBI) employees. Before we delve into the steps you need to take, remember two essential details: always include your banned username and a brief context as to why you think your account was suspended. 

Remember: Freedom of information is not just about seeking answers. It’s about asserting your rights as a citizen.

What is a State Actor Under the 14th Amendment?

In the context of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a “state actor” refers to an entity or individual closely associated with or connected to the government. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, includes the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of state action is crucial when considering constitutional rights, as these rights are generally intended to protect individuals from government actions rather than actions by private individuals or entities. The 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Constitution to individuals against actions by state governments, but it does not automatically apply to actions by private parties.

Examples of state actors under the 14th Amendment may include:

1. Government Agencies: Actions taken by various government agencies at the state and local levels.
2. Public Officials: Individuals holding public office or acting in an official capacity on behalf of the government.
3. Government Employees: Individuals employed by the government when acting within the scope of their official duties.
4. State-Funded Entities: Entities that receive significant government funding or are otherwise entwined with the state subject them to constitutional constraints.

Private individuals or entities, even if receiving some government funding or regulation, are generally not considered state actors for the 14th Amendment unless their actions are significantly intertwined with government actions.

The determination of state action is a complex legal issue, and cases involving the 14th Amendment often hinge on whether the entity or individual in question can be considered a state actor based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Courts may consider factors such as the level of government involvement, the nature of the action, and the relationship between the private entity and the government.

What is FOIA?

FOIA, or the Freedom of Information Act, is a federal law that grants the public the right to request access to records and information held by government agencies, promoting transparency and accountability.

Making a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request involves specific steps to ensure a smooth and effective process. Here are the general steps:

1. Identify the Correct Agency: Determine the federal agency that likely holds the information you seek. Each agency has its own FOIA office.
2. Check for Publicly Available Information: Before making a request, check if the information is publicly available. Some information may be accessible without a formal FOIA request.
3. Prepare a Written Request: Create a clear and concise written request that includes:
   • Your name and contact information.
   • A detailed description of the records you are seeking.
   • Specify the format you prefer for receiving the information (electronic or hard copy).
4. Address the Request to the Correct FOIA Officer: Ensure you address your Request to the correct FOIA officer at the identified agency—The contact information is on the agency’s website.
5. Include Necessary Details: If possible, provide as much detail as possible about the records you seek. This helps the agency locate the information more efficiently.
6. Specify Fee Preferences: Indicate if you are willing to pay fees associated with processing the Request. FOIA requests may have fees for search, duplication, and review, but specific categories of requesters may be eligible for fee waivers.
7. Mail or Submit the Request: Send your Request to the FOIA officer using the agency’s appropriate mailing address or online submission portal. Some agencies also accept requests via email.
8. Follow Agency-Specific Procedures: Different agencies may have specific procedures for handling FOIA requests. Familiarize yourself with any agency-specific requirements or guidelines.
9. Receive Acknowledgment and Tracking Number: Once the agency receives your Request, you should receive an acknowledgment and a tracking number. This number allows you to check the status of your Request.
10. Wait for a Response: The agency must respond to your Request within a specific timeframe. The response may include the requested records, a denial with reasons, or a request for clarification.
11. Appeal if Necessary: If your Request is denied or you are dissatisfied with the response, you can appeal the decision. Follow the agency’s appeals process outlined in the response.

Your essential checklist: 

1. Keep ready the username of your banned account
2. Specify the context of your banning – the discussion about Hunter Biden’s laptop story

With these details at hand, you are ready to proceed. In the following sections, we’ll walk you through making a robust FOIA request. We’ll make it simple and engaging so that asserting your rights becomes less of a chore and more of a meaningful engagement. Buckle up, and let’s get started!

Step 1: Gather All Necessary Information 

To start your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, you’ll need to compile all the necessary information. This includes your banned Facebook or Instagram username, the detailed reason Facebook or Instagram gave for suspending your account, and any other relevant details, such as the date the action was taken and the content that caused your suspension. 

Step 2: Writing Your FOIA Request 

Once you’ve collected the necessary information, it’s time to draft your FOIA request. Remember: clarity and precision are your allies here. Your Request should include all the identified details and clearly express exactly what records or information you seek. 

• Username: Start by mentioning your banned username. This would include usernames from Instagram and Facebook, if applicable.
• Reason for Suspension: Include the reason the social media platforms gave for your account suspension. For example, mention this specifically if you were banned after discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story.
• Additional Details: Include relevant details such as the date of the suspension, the posts that led to the action, and any other appropriate information. Photos/screencaps of the banned posts may also be included.

Step 3: Submitting Your FOIA Request 

The final step in this process is to submit your well-crafted FOIA request. You can do this by mailing it to the appropriate government agency. As FOIA applies to government agencies, it may not directly apply to Facebook or Instagram, but it can still be a valuable step in understanding why your account was suspended. 

Remember to keep a copy of your Request. Documentation is always a wise practice. Patience is vital as, depending on the agency, responses can take weeks or months. 

By making a FOIA request, you’re exercising a fundamental right to information and ensuring transparency from those who wield power. It is a crucial step to take if your voice was silenced seemingly without reason. Stay engaged, and keep pressuring for answers. After all, it is your right to know.

Step 4: Awaiting Response and Next Steps 

You’ve sent in your FOIA request; now what? The waiting period begins after your Request has been formulated correctly and forwarded to the appropriate person. 

This phase typically takes 20 to 30 business days, which can feel like an eternity when you’re waiting for critical information. Remember, patience is your ally during this period. 

What do you do if you haven’t received a response? 

If you don’t receive a response after the upper limit of the mentioned timeline, don’t worry. You can contact the agency for a status update on your Request. You can also appeal to the relevant office, citing undue delay. 

If your Request is denied, you have two lines of appeal. The first is with the agency that rejected your Request, while the second lies with the Federal Court. The decision to appeal will depend on the significance of the information you requested and your willingness to pursue the matter further. 

Censoring Freedom of Speech to Interfere With Elections?

Regarding freedom of speech and the right to express opinions, the Internet offers an unrivaled platform for everyone. At the forefront of this expression channel are social media platforms, yet there are instances where disagreements about content moderation arise. Specifically, you may have faced censorship or banning while discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story on these platforms, which can feel like an infringement on your rights. In such circumstances, you might contemplate bringing a lawsuit against the social media giants or the FBI. With the release of the Twitter files, we now know that many FBI employees acted as surrogates for social media companies and the Biden Admin. So, how does one commence such a complex legal action against such a powerful organization? 

As you delve into this journey, we will guide you step-by-step through the process, covering all aspects, such as the legalities, potential routes you can take, and things to keep in mind. Grab a notepad and coffee, and keep an open mind; we’re about to navigate some attractive legal waters! 

First, let’s discuss what censoring means in the context of social media. Censorship typically refers to public institutions like the government suppressing information they deem harmful, misleading, or inconvenient. However, private companies like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram aren’t classified as typical censorship organizations unless you support Donald Trump. This is because they have their own sets of guidelines and participate in self-regulation to maintain the balance and safety of their platforms. But there are exceptions here, and let’s explore that further. 

Understanding the law that governs social media censorship 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits government entities from infringing on freedom of speech. However, it does not restrict private entities like social media companies from removing or banning content that violates their community guidelines. This point is essential before you plan to use a social media platform. However, there’s a twist! 

The twist comes from an interpretation of the law—specific rulings state that private corporations and individuals can be considered state actors under particular circumstances. This means that when a private company, like a social media platform, acts almost akin to a government body, decisions like censoring may be viewed with a stricter lens. There’s a potential legal challenge, but only if you can establish this. 

See also this video, “Jim Jordan Ruthlessly Grills Witnesses About Hunter Biden Probe, Govt Censorship | 2023 Rewind.”

Building Your Case: The FBI and Social Media Platforms 

Before you sue social media platforms and the FBI, FTC, etc., for possible censorship, it is crucial to build a case that illustrates the government’s involvement as a state actor alongside social media companies in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Here are some steps you may consider: 

1. Collect Evidence: Document instances where your content related to the Hunter Biden laptop story was removed, banned, or suppressed. Screenshots, emails, and form letters from the social media platform or FBI are crucial pieces of evidence.
2. Establish Connection With State Actor: You have to prove that the social media platform was working in conjunction with a government body like the FBI (Peter Strzok, Lisa Paige, etc.).
3. Prove Censorship: Demonstrate that the social media platform and FBI actions suppressed your freedom of speech.

Remember, these steps are complex and require careful planning and execution. Legal advice and assistance from a lawyer with experience in freedom of speech and internet law can significantly bolster your case. 

The Lawsuit 

After gathering the necessary evidence and affirming the connections, you can file a lawsuit. Be prepared—this can be a long journey with its fair share of challenges. 

Stay strong, organize your evidence, and work closely with your legal counsel. Pursuing a lawsuit against the FBI and social media platforms is no small task, but with the right guidance and preparation, it’s certainly possible.

Serving the Lawsuit Papers 

So you’ve gathered your evidence, engaged with legal counsel, and prepared to take on the giants: the FBI and major social media platforms. The road ahead requires dedication, but your rights and freedoms are on the line. Let’s move on to the next step: serving your lawsuit papers. 

The initial part of any lawsuit includes serving the papers to the corresponding parties involved. This includes the social media platform that took the controversial action and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Substantial evidence and documentation are the key to success here. Include all the specifics, from dates and times of deleted posts to explicit mentions of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Your lawsuit should clearly show the censorship, the alleged bias, and the consequences you’ve faced. 

Pressuring through Public Opinion 

One unique aspect of this kind of lawsuit is the potential power of public pressure. Let’s not forget the fundamental role of social media—it’s a platform that allows your voice to be heard. As such, it’s a perfect stage to bring attention to your cause. But remember, it shouldn’t come across as deliberate manipulation. Be honest and transparent, and share your plight, which can potentially rally public support around you.

A well-constructed plea to the public can not only put pressure on the social media platform and force them to reconsider but also illustrate to the world the potential hazards of unchecked censorship. The pressure on these platforms can be enormous if the public sentiment swings in your favor. 

Pursuing Legal Avenues 

You must continue following the legal process once you’ve built public support and served your papers. Detailed jurisdictional rules must be followed in the letter, guided by your legal counsel. This includes filing the appropriate paperwork with the court, documenting all interactions and proceedings, and preparing for potential court hearings. 

It is crucial to carefully track the social media platforms and the FBI’s response. Monitor for any changes in their policy or public statement, and work with your lawyer to adjust your approach if necessary. Remember, these are large entities with significant legal teams, and they will likely fight hard. But don’t falter. Hold onto your evidence and stick to your guns.

Conclusion: Your rights, your voice 

By filing a FOIA request, you’re exercising your right to understand why your account was suspended, mainly if this happened after you discussed a political topic. This action is one example of how citizens can challenge decisions that affect their freedom of expression and access to information. 

Let this guide serve as a resource for your journey to free speech and open communication, ensuring your voice is heard, and your rights are respected.

Looking to sue the FBI and social media for censorship is indeed a daunting task, but with thorough preparation, robust documentation, and proper legal counsel, it can be achievable. Remain patient, be persistent, and, most importantly, stay true to the fight for your rights. We’re right here with you.

Sources:

• In 2020, Twitter and Facebook limited the distribution of a New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s purported laptop.
• Twitter cited its hacked materials policy to limit the article’s spread.
• Facebook stated that it reduced the article’s distribution on its platform pending a fact-checker review.
• Twitter later changed its hacked materials policy following backlash over handling the article.
• In 2020, 73% of U.S. adults believed social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.
• In 2020, 90% of Republicans believed that it’s likely social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.
• In 2021, a poll found that 59% of U.S. adults do not trust the tech industry to decide what content should be allowed on online platforms.

Many First Amendment auditors think they know the law, but they mostly don’t. Here, I will try and help the ones intelligent enough to listen. As we navigate social, political, and environmental obligations, protest is vital for voicing concerns and demanding changes. However, balancing citizens’ rights to free speech and assembly with public safety and law and order is crucial. This finely drawn balancing act often necessitates permits when staging large protests, and for good reasons. 

You may wonder why police officers at large protests will require a permit. Well, the reasons are multifaceted. Firstly, permits help local authorities manage traffic, prevent unexpected disruptions, and ensure the safety of all involved – protesters and non-protesters alike. Government agencies want to keep antagonistic groups separated as well. Also, in a dispute scenario where a permit has not been issued, fully understanding your rights can be pivotal. In such cases, challenging the decision through a lawsuit is viable, and hiring a proficient lawyer can redefine the outcome. 

“The right to protest is a fundamental human right endorsed by the Constitution’s First Amendment, but governments have the right to regulate protests. Permits are often required as part of such regulations. However, if you believe your rights are being infringed upon by the denial of a permit to protest, a suit filed by a competent lawyer can challenge this denial.”

This quote is snipped from our source at the American Civil Liberties Union’s guide on protester’s rights. The ACLU is widely respected for its extensive work defending and preserving individual rights and liberties. 

So, how can a lawyer come to your rescue? Here’s a list of things a lawyer can do: 

• Help you understand your rights and advise you on your legal standing.
• Assist with filing a lawsuit if your request for a permit has been unjustly denied.
• Represent you in court and challenge the denial of your protest permit.
• Provide guidance on how to keep your protest legal and peaceful, ensuring your message carries weight without causing unnecessary legal trouble.

Engaging in protests is a powerful way to advocate for your beliefs. Keeping the legalities in check will only strengthen your cause and ensure your voice is heard in the most impactful and respectful way.

Critical Considerations for Protest Descriptions Permits

Government authorities can restrict protests by requiring permits. These permits are typically needed for large public gatherings to coordinate safety measures and manage potential disruptions.

Government Officials and Protest Rights

You have a constitutionally protected right to protest peacefully, particularly in traditional public forums such as streets, parks, and sidewalks. But when a police officer stops you, especially on private property, local and federal governments will usually err in favor of public safety or peacekeeping. And no, private property owners don’t have to order you away; police can remove protestors when things get crazy.

Preventing Interference

If your protest has a permit issued by government officials, the police may need to ensure private actors are prevented from interfering with your speech, preserving effective communication.

Clear and Present Danger Dispersal Order?

A dispersal order is a detailed notice issued by public officials, often against antagonistic groups blocking public streets. The idea is for police officers to treat protesters fairly since the First Amendment is designed to prevent interference with free expression. Hence, this will usually be issued when the protestors are deemed hazardous. The police can issue a dispersal order if the gathering presents a clear danger of a riot, interference with traffic or a threat to the physical safety of those in the area. Yet, simultaneously, shutting down a protest through a dispersal order should be law enforcement’s last resort. But if there is already a public street closure from protest activities, it starts to infringe on the rights of other persons. Also, allowing it to spiral can wrap ordinary people up in the criminal activity of rioters, including carjacking, etc.

Legal Consequences

Civil disobedience, such as blocking an intersection or chaining oneself to a building, may lead to arrests. An arrest can have different implications depending on your circumstances. It can lead to an excessive force civil rights case or even a wrongful death. If you’re a non-citizen, it could even impact your immigration status.

Legal Recourse Against Government/Police Officers

The Supreme Court does not consider riots and unruly actions free speech. Sometimes, we have to let the courts decide after the fact. You can file a lawsuit if your rights as a protester are violated—like not being issued a permit without cause. The federal government will have laws that are different from those of the state, so look up local laws before setting up a protest. Having a lawyer for this process would be beneficial for navigating through the appropriate procedures and submitting a compelling legal request.

As we journey through this often complex landscape of thoughts and considerations, we’ll delve deep into the intricacies of a subject making waves across the nation: Critical Race Theory and students who become jurors. Many argue that critical race theory is important 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 poisoning juries to hold prejudices against white individuals? A core element is that earning things via merit is 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 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 show how implementing Critical Race Theory on a widespread scale could potentially instill bias injuries. Even if you attend a school of law, words like “white privilege” are accepted as accurate. 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, 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 DEMANDING that anti-white hate, couched as “Critical Race Theory,” be forced on public school children. Educators say their version is the natural, racist history of this country and downplay that they 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 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.” 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 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 defendants of January 6 would not have been 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 who 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.), predominantly 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. 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 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 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 argue that an overemphasis on CRT in jury settings could potentially infringe 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 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 remain 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 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 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, mainly when applied to the justice system, to guard against fostering any form of discrimination.

• NEA social justice trainer admits critical race theory in K-12 despite claims by union boss Becky Pringle

Did you know that many NIH scientists promoting mRNA receive a royalty kickback from the pharmaceutical industry? In law, we call this a conflict of interest. To this day, Doctor Anthony Fauci refuses to tell the American people how much he received in royalty payments to push two years of economic lockdowns on them. Although he claims to donate them to charity, almost every celebrity donates to their charities.

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/scicheck-some-posts-about-nih-royalties-omit-that-fauci-said-he-donates-his-payments/

So why all the hush-hush? Sadly, investigative journalism appears to be dead. Only so-called “conspiracy theorists” seem to be covering the truth about the multiple convicted criminal felon pharma company Pfizer and others. Did you also know that several directors of the CDC are aligned with Bill Gates and other population control advocates? Did you know that many CDC and FDA heads worked for or got cushy jobs with BIG PHARMA after leaving their government positions? Do you think this is a problem?

I am attorney Michael Ehline. I am not “anti-vax.” MRNA does not inoculate as the Polio Vaccine did. The government changed the legal definition of vaccine once this fact came to light, and the lapdog press said it’s expected to change the definition. My mother-in-law died of Thrombosis (a known side effect of the emergency use “vaccines”) after being injected with the Moderna “vaccine.”

For-profit media and Silicon Valley receive billions in advertising money from Pfizer and other billion-dollar medical corporations; the current US Administration (FDA, CDC pharma Axis) appears to be a revolving door for Big Pharma heads. Our personal injury attorneys have done extensive research to present both sides of the mRNA story.

A recent investigation into the mRNA vaccine quality issues revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contains Truncated mRNA, and their negligence could have far more significant repercussions than we are led to believe. Let’s explore the details of the investigation with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys.

What Is Truncated mRNA?

Between the genetic code in our DNA, which consists of nucleotides, and the protein it produces, which consists of amino acids, there is a bridge molecule referred to as the translator or the “messenger” ribonucleic acid (mRNA).

mRNA is a single-stranded RNA produced from the DNA template during transcription. A truncated mRNA occurs when there is a partial degradation of full-length mRNAs or when there is a premature termination of transcription, a process of copying a segment of DNA into RNA. However, many scientists also say this is dishonest. They claim this is “modified” RNA.

What Impact Does the Truncated mRNA in Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccines Have on Humans?

The Pfizer mRNA sequence is 4,284 nucleotides in length and consists of a 5′ CAP structure. To understand how the truncated mRNA can impact a human, we must first understand the basics of genetic code, such as a codon and open reading frame.

A codon is a sequence of three nucleotides that form a unit of genetic code in DNA or RNA. An open reading frame is a DNA sequence between the start and stop codons, with the stop codon at the end of a translatable region.

Just like brakes are essential to a vehicle to prevent accidents, the stop codon works similarly. When there are premature stop codons in an mRNA, the protein of interest is incomplete and, therefore, not produced, leading to a truncated mRNA. 

However, if the truncated mRNA does not have a stop codon, it can be lethal to humans as the DNA may start producing highly toxic proteins.

Investigations Reveal Truncated mRNA in Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) evaluates and supervises pharmaceutical products in Europe. In its report titled “EMA/CHMP/448917/2021,” the agency requested Pfizer address specific issues about its COVID-19 vaccine, including the impurities in the product described as “truncated and modified mRNA.”

According to the assessment report, Pfizer had a deadline of July 2021 to meet, address the concerns raised by EMA, and provide the agency with monthly data on the potential of autoimmune conditions arising from truncated spike protein.

It is important to note that the EMA did not simply raise the concern, but in the report, it marked the Truncated mRNA as a primary objection, a formal regulatory red flag. These biological agents deployed by the pharmaceutical company targeted the entire globe without explaining the truncated mRNA.

By June 2022, a leaked photo of a meeting between the Pfizer officials and the EMA discussing the primary concern surfaced on Trial Site News. According to the EMA, the truncated mRNA needed to be sufficiently characterized, described, and investigated to determine whether it was the same across all batches of the mRNA vaccines.

Pfizer Acknowledges Truncated mRNA and Responds to EMA in an Official Meeting.

As evident from the leaked presentation slide, during the meeting, Pfizer and its officials acknowledged truncated mRNA in their mRNA vaccines. The officials responded that most of the truncated mRNA in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines are 1,500 to 3,500 nucleotides long, consisting of a 5′ CAP structure without a Poly(A) tail and the stop codon.

Since DNA does not have a stop codon, there is no stop signal, meaning that the amino acid chain continues prolonging, which prolongs the mRNA spike protein. In the DNA sequence, if the spike protein takes over, it will lead to further spike proteins with multiple repeats since there is no stop codon. During this process, a different mRNA can take over; if that happens, the DNA sequence will create unknown proteins.

What’s fishy about all this is that when you download the EMA report titled “Type II group of the variations assessment report,” it is completely blacked out on page 17, table 2 Poly(A) content.

Researchers use the “western blot” method, an analytical technique for detecting specific proteins in a tissue homogenate or extract sample. This technique can help researchers analyze the size and count of the protein. 

The EMA requested that Pfizer-BioNTech submit experimental findings of their mRNA vaccines to show that they would not lead to fragmented protein. The EMA’s requirement is a basic requirement that pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers must address before humans can use the vaccines.

However, since this is the first time mRNA vaccines have been used across a large population, the quality issue is the first of its kind. There is uncertainty over any previous quality standard to help manage truncated mRNA.

To fulfill the bare minimum requirements of EMA, in December 2020, Pfizer provided them with digitized western blot figures that showed the levels of spike protein in their Covid-19 COVID-19 vaccines and suggested that no other proteins were produced. In a report published by the FDA, Pfizer stated that their COVID-19 vaccine protein is consistent with the expected size and comparable across all batches.

In 2021, Pfizer provided another digitized western blot figure showing that its COVID-19 vaccine did not produce proteins in vitro.

However, all the western plots provided are entirely digitized, raising further concerns about the results of their experimental findings.

Did Pfizer Provide Fake Western Blots?

Pfizer submitted many sets of western blots that could be fake. The proteins are different sizes and separate at various locations. Certain factors affect the appearance of western blots, including protein transfer speed, incubation duration, and antibody concentration. All of these suggest that Western blots cannot be perfect, and there will always be distortions.

Many of the Western blots provided by Pfizer seem too perfect. They appear spotlessly clean and perfectly rectangular. All the Western blots are noiseless and appear to be fake.

Why Did the EMA Approve the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccines Despite Dangerous Components?

According to the EMA, further categorization is needed, but the lack of experimental data on truncated mRNA should not lead to any conclusions. 

At the end of the report, the EMA states that there are no longer any issues with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, and by December 12, 2020, the EMA gave Pfizer marketing authorization.

Several questions arise from the EMA’s conclusion over Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines. How did Pfizer resolve the issues raised by the EMA? Did the pharmaceutical company provide them with fake Western blots and receive an approval nod? Did the counterfeit reports manage to get the support of the regulatory body? Does the EMA know the reports are fake, yet have they given the vaccine manufacturer the approval nod? How did this get under the FDA’s Radar, or do they not care?

Are All Covid-19 Approved Vaccines mRNA?

Although researchers have studied mRNA for decades, during the pandemic, it was the first time they used it to create a vaccine. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, while others use different technologies. Novavax created its vaccine using a process similar to developing a flu vaccine.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of the only mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, in the United States.

Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine Ingredients

The following is the breakdown of the ingredients used in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine:

• Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) instructs the body to create a form of protein from the COVID-19 virus. Although the Johnson vaccine is not mRNA, it also instructs the body to form protein from the COVID-19 virus by entering human cells using the DNA stored inside a modified vector virus.
• Lipids are a broad group of organic compounds that are fatty acids. The following are some of the lipids used to create Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines: 2[(polyethylene glycol (PEG))-2000]-N, N-di tetradecyl acetamide
• 1,2-stearoyl-sn-glycerol-3-phosphocholine
• Cholesterol (plant-derived)
• ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
• Salt: Sodium chloride, a form of salt, and other salts are essential to the human body as it helps maintain fluid levels. It also aids in the stability of the Covid-19 vaccine. The following are the different types of salt used in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines: Potassium chloride
• Monobasic potassium phosphate
• Sodium chloride
• Dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate
• Other ingredients, including sugar, help maintain the vaccine’s stability and keep the molecule in shape.

Other brand vaccines also use citric acid monohydrate (Johnson & Johnson), acetic acid (Moderna vaccines), and ethanol.

Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Triggers a Severe Allergic Reaction

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 cases of severe allergic reactions were recovered or discharged home. Many scientists believe that the compound polyethylene glycol in the messenger RNA is causing a rare form of allergic reaction in some people who have taken the Pfizer vaccine.

Although polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a component in some drugs, it was never used to create a vaccine. The compound has occasionally resulted in anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction of the immune system, the body’s natural defense system, overreacting to a trigger. Scientists believe that people with high levels of PEG have an increased risk of anaphylactic reaction to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

Could Pfizer End up in Trouble with Their Covid-19 Vaccines?

Vaccine manufacturers have immunity against legal actions for any injuries caused by their vaccine. It is important to note that pandemics like COVID-19 arrive unexpectedly, and vaccine manufacturers do not have much time to experiment and carry out human trials, so they receive immunity against legal action if their vaccines cause injuries.

However, immunity does not extend to vaccine manufacturers’ negligence. If Pfizer knows its COVID-19 vaccines are impure and intentionally provides fake reports to receive market authorization, it could be in hot water.

Further investigation can help reveal the depth of the situation and the damage the pharmaceutical company has done with their truncated mRNA COVID-19 vaccines on a global scale. The problem is that Pfizer seems to be controlling the messaging with billions of dollars in ad money. Why would a journalist who wants to keep their job report anything negative, even if it’s true?