Tag Archives: Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry

This Will Be Very Interesting

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted the following headline:

BREAKING: Dr. Fauci Will Be Deposed on November 23rd in Missouri-Louisiana Social Media Collusion Case with Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft as Plaintiff

Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit has been one of the reliable sources for information about the Covid pandemic and the effective treatments that the mainstream and social media tried to suppress. The effective treatments that were suppressed oddly enough were the ones where the drugs involved were relatively cheap and the profits of the pharmaceutical companies were not as much as with some of the newer drugs that were less effective.

The article reports:

The Gateway Pundit previously reported in May that Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, along with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, filed a lawsuit (Missouri v. Biden) against the Biden Administration, including Biden himself, Anthony Fauci, the Department of Homeland Security and nearly a dozen federal agencies and Secretaries.

The suit alleges a massive coordinated effort by the Deep State (permanent administrative state) to work with Big Tech to censor and manipulate Americans – from average citizens to news outlets – on issues including the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, 2020 Election Integrity, COVID-19 origin and extent skepticism, COVID-19 vaccine skepticism, among other issues.

…In June, The Gateway Pundit began assisting Missouri AG Schmitt’s team and providing critical evidence of Facebook and Twitter censorship of the Gateway Pundit on all of these issues.

The article details the development of the case:

As we reported, the turning point came in September when Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a Joe Rogan interview that Facebook algorithmically censored the Hunter Biden Laptop for 7 days following a request from the FBI to censor election “misinformation.”  

…Zuckerberg’s admission came after the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit forced Facebook to turn over documents – he was going to end up admitting it anyway.

It constituted a turning point in the battle for the preservation of the First Amendment and Free Speech in America.  His admission proved that the US Government and Big Tech coordinated to censor speech.

Previously, the government’s lawyers kept trying to portray all of this as a conspiracy theory.

NOPE. NOW, IT’S A CONSPIRACY FACT.

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office caught the Biden Administration red-handed. 

If the current Congress will not hold Dr. Fauci or the media accountable, then individual states need to take action.

 

A Louisiana Court Gets It Right

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Federalist reported that a Louisiana appellate court reinstated Attorney General Jeff Landry’s lawsuit challenging Mark Zuckerberg’s infiltration of the state election system with private “Zuck Bucks” that flooded the country during the 2020 election.

The article reports:

The lawsuit, State of Louisiana v. Center for Tech and Civic Life, originated in October 2020. That’s when Louisiana, through Landry, sought a court order declaring that “private contributions to local election officials and the election system in general are unlawful and contrary to Louisiana law.” Landry’s lawsuit followed attempts by the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life to dole out millions in targeted grants to election officials throughout the state.

By the time Landry sued, more than 20 officials throughout the state had applied for grants of nearly $8 million, but after the attorney general warned them the funds were illegal, most abandoned their efforts. Orleans and Calcasieu parishes, however, went on to accept more than $810,000 in funds for the 2020 election.

While Landry succeeded in limiting the impact of the Zuckbucks in Louisiana to two parishes, his efforts to prevent what he called “the corrosive influence of outside money on Louisiana election officials” initially failed when a state trial court dismissed his lawsuit against the Center for Tech and Civic Life and its partner organizations.

In tossing the case, the trial judge held there was no legal basis to prevent “registrars of voters, clerks of court, or other local election officials from seeking and obtaining grant dollars to assist with the funding the necessary staff and equipment for the upcoming November 3, 2020 election.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on Louisiana’s constitution, specifically article 6, § 23.

That provision authorizes “political subdivisions” to “acquire property for any public purpose,” by among other things, “donation.” The trial court then reasoned that because “registrar of voters and clerks of court are ‘political subdivisions,’” “they are allowed to accept private donations,” including to run elections. Accordingly, the trial court tossed the state’s lawsuit and allowed the private funds to flow into the parish coffers.

The article explains the problem with the Zuckbucks:

Details from other states confirm Landry’s concerns. In Wisconsin, a retired election clerk in a large Wisconsin county explained how, behind closed doors, “political activists working for a group funded by Mark Zuckerberg money seized control of the November elections in Green Bay and other cities, sidelining career experts and making last-minute changes that may have violated state law.”

Similarly, in other states, Zuckbucks created “a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias,” according to analyses conducted after the election. Post-election analyses of the data likewise reveal the $350 million in funding disproportionately favored Democrat-heavy areas — so much so that it could have changed the outcome of the election.

The article concludes:

Backlash against buying the election for Biden with Zuckbucks has prompted several states to pass laws expressly prohibiting the use of private funds for election purposes. As of March 2022, private funds are either restricted or banned in the running of elections in more than a dozen states. State legislatures in five additional states passed similar restrictions on outside funds, but those bills were vetoed by the governors — all of whom were Democrats.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards is one of the five Democrats to veto a legislative ban on the private funding of elections. But with last week’s appellate court decision reinstating Landry’s challenge to the use of private funds in elections, the state may nonetheless prevail in its attempt to keep outside money from interfering in future elections.

Before the case returns to the trial court, however, the Center for Tech and Civic Life may attempt to appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Federalist contacted an attorney for the group, asking if an appeal would be forthcoming, but our request for comment went unanswered.

When get-out-the-vote drives are centered in areas controlled by one party and paid for by private money, they can swing an election. There is a difference between active citizens conducting volunteer registration and get-out-the-vote efforts and private companies pouring millions of dollars into those efforts. If every America took the responsibility of voting seriously and showed up to vote, these drives would have no impact.

We Need More Of This

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch Times reported that Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has warned Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine (VCOM), located at the University of Louisiana-Monroe, that he will sue the college if it doesn’t change its vaccination policy.

The article reports:

“As I have previously stated, I intend to pursue legal action to protect the rights of Louisiana residents attending VCOM who have declared their objections to the coercive mandate to be vaccinated with an EU-approved [Emergency Use] vaccine,” he said.

Landry maintains that vaccine mandates violate state and federal law. He approached the college’s administration after several students said they were retaliated against for refusing to get vaccinated.

“These complaints have included recordings of conversations with VCOM staff engaging in harassing and coercive conduct targeting students who have exercised their right to opt-out of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The medical school disputes the attorney general’s characterization of events and says it has acted in accordance with the school’s health and legal obligations.

“The intention of VCOM’s coronavirus vaccine policy, is and always has been the safety of our students, the safety of our employees and workplace, as well as the safety of the patients being cared for by our students, faculty and staff,” VCOM said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, the policy was not accurately described in the letter, which was the first communication VCOM received from the Attorney General’s office,” the statement said. “From the beginning, VCOM has committed to remain compliant with the laws of Louisiana.”

The article concludes:

“The LSU Faculty Senate requests that PS–72 be revised to require COVID-19 vaccinations for all eligible students wishing to enroll in in-person classes or other events on campus or implement a similar requirement via another administrative policy or procedure,” the resolution reads.

Landry confronted LSU’s then-interim President Thomas Galligan and asserted state university employees and students are protected against mandated coronavirus vaccines because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not officially approved them.

The FDA is streamlining its vaccine approval process though it’s unlikely a finalized approval will come prior to LSU’s fall semester, which begins Aug. 9. ULM’s fall semester begins Aug. 16.

Landry gave VCOM until Friday, July 30, to respond to concerns outlined in his recent letter.

“It is my understanding that VCOM has advised it will determine whether the students’ objections meet VCOM’s standards sometime in the next two weeks. I would like to have an answer by close of business Friday or I will join in seeking legal protection for the students,” he said.

One important fact here is that the coronavirus vaccine does not have full approval by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration although it is approved for emergency use. What I expect to see now is a rush to approve the vaccine fully before the epidemic ends. It is puzzling to me why the government is so determined to give every American the vaccine when there is ample evidence that those who have recovered from Covid do not need it and the virus is not life-threatening to most Americans.