While expressing concern about the rank discrimination against conservatives on social media platforms such as Google/You Tube, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Instagram, newly appointed Trump judge – the Honorable Trevor McFadden – strained to dismiss, albeit without prejudice, the class-action suit which I had filed for my public-interest group Freedom Watch and Laura Loomer. Ms. Loomer, a conservative Jewish activist, had been banned from social media and PayPal over her strong views about Muslim congresswoman’s Ihan Omar’s links to, and association with, Islamic groups like the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the anti-woman and homosexual dogma Islam, and Omar’s hatred of Jews and Israel, as well as her overt anti-Semitism.

During a prior time when our Justice Department was not as politicized as it is today, CAIR – not at all coincidentally – was named as an unindicted conspirator in the criminal terrorism trial of the Holy Land Foundation years ago in federal court in Dallas, Texas.

As for Freedom Watch, we have been discriminated against on all of the social media platforms, most particularly Google/YouTube, where our subscriber base had either declined or (for many months in 2018) remained static. In my opinion, this is because Freedom Watch not only has a “Leftist Media Strike Force” which has taken legal action against “Fake News” publications such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and its CEO Jeff Zucker as well as prime time host Chris Cuomo, the Huffington Post, Rolling Stone, but last but hardly least leftist Hollywood entities like Showtime and Blumhouse Television. And with each passing day, more vile leftist media and Hollywood publications have also been added to the list of growing offenders of the legitimate use of the First Amendment.

And, lest you think that I am a partisan against just the leftist media, listen to the interview linked here and embedded below of my brave client, Ms. Laurie Luhn, who was criminally sexually abused and assaulted by the founder of Fox News and its former CEO Roger Ailes, only to have a fellow woman (who also, not coincidentally, now is the CEO of Fox News) cover it up.

So you see, discrimination in the media works both ways. It must be put to an end, and our lawsuit seeks to do just that, by also creating a legal precedent that these actions violate the antitrust laws as constituting a restraint of trade and other illegalities. (See the complaint at Freedom Watch.) I used this legal vehicle because the communications laws written by our compromised Congress were designed to protect these media giants, obviously as a result of big money lobbying and influence peddling.

Here are just a few excerpts of what Judge McFadden wrote in rushing to get our class-action out of his courtroom. “Judge for yourself” (pun intended) what his motivations were and let it serve as a wake-up call that President Trump is getting and taking very bad advice these days from his establishment Republican friends, particularly with a cause near and dear to my heart: the appointment of non-partisan and non-politicized jurists who simply enforce the rule of law and adhere to the Constitution.

In this regard, now Justice Brett Kavanaugh is no exception. While unfairly smeared over alleged sexual abuse allegations, he has little to no respect, as I have written before, for the Fourth Amendment, which prevents unconstitutional mass surveillance on We the People without probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Digest this in Judge McFadden’s “off the wall” politicized ruling: “The platforms also seek dismissal for a ‘failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6). A valid complaint must contain plausible allegations that, if true, ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ …. Rather, ‘(a) claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” (Freedom Watch, Inc. et. al v. Google, Inc. et. al, Case No. 1:18-cv-02030 (TNM) (D.D.C. 2018), Memorandum Opinion at pages 3-4.)

Then read our complaint posted at Freedom Watch and tell me if Freedom Watch, Ms. Loomer and I were not specific enough and that our claims were implausible. Indeed, Judge McFadden (playing to the crowd while then also dutifully dismissing our complaint as a reward to the swamp which got him his judgeship) concedes at Page 1 of his decision: “This case is brought by conservative activists who alleged that America’s major technology firms have conspired to suppress political views. The Plaintiffs raise non-trivial concerns. But because they have failed [sic!] to tie these concerns to colorable legal claims, the Court must dismiss their Amended Complaint.” (Id. at page 1.)

Its seems, as is the accepted norm in Washington, D.C. (much less its federal bench), Judge McFadden is talking out of both sides of his mouth to try to dampen down his legally frivolous ruling and assuage all. But this is not justice; it’s pure politics.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I will be filing the amended complaint or putting this case in front of a hoped-for more courageous jurist so justice can be done. This outrage is also a lesson to President Trump not to listen to the Republican establishment lobbyists at the American Conservative Union (aka CPAC) and the Federalist Society, and really study and then appoint judges who are non-political and who are true to the vision of our Founding Fathers.

In this regard, just days before signing the Declaration of Independence, one of our greatest of Founding Fathers, John Adams, advocated to the convened Continental Congress in Philadelphia that we were to become a “nation of laws and not men.”

Go to Freedom Watch and join our Judicial Selection Strike Force to get non-political and “intellectually pure” judges on our federal bench.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.