Numerous Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of MO v. Biden Case and Free Speech in America by Prominent Conservative Groups and at Least 8 States – Along with the Amicus Briefs Against Free Speech by Democrat States

Here are the powerful Amicus Briefs in support of the plaintiffs in the Missouri v. Biden case:

Amicus Brief filed by Jay Sekulow and the American Center for Law and Justice in support of the plaintiffs.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/here-they-are-numerous-amicus-briefs-filed-support/

FEMA ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL: "We are working with our state and local partners to ensure that our outreach and our messaging is also culturally responsive."

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1691156324405383169

Rupert Murdoch, 92, is dating retired scientist Elena Zhukova, 66 - the mother of Roman Abramovich's ex-wife - after meeting her through Wendi Deng

Murdoch is dating Elena Zhukova and the pair are cruising the Mediterranean

Tycoon Rupert Murdoch, aged 92, has started dating a beautiful retired scientist – after meeting her through his third wife Wendi Deng.

The two are cruising the Mediterranean in the legendary superyacht Christina O which he has rented and are today on the coast of Corfu.

Murdoch suffered disappointment and drama this spring when his engagement to former police chaplain and vineyard owner Ann Lesley Smith was called off just two weeks after it was announced.

He and Ms Smith were pictured boarding a private jet with his fiancée wearing an enormous $2 million diamond ring only a few days before the proposed summer wedding was called off.

Reports suggested that her 'outspoken evangelical views' could have been a factor. It had also been revealed that Ms Smith had been in a legal dispute with her late husband's children over his inheritance.

But, undeterred, the media mogul is now in the 'early stages' of a romance with Elena Zhukova, 66.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12404929/Rupert-Murdoch-92-dating-retired-scientist-Elena-Zhukova-66-mother-Roman-Abramovichs-ex-wife-meeting-Wendi-Deng.html

Kansas Newspaper Co-Owner Dies Following Unprecedented Raid by City’s Entire Police Force – Seized Computers and Equipments to Protect Prominent City Figure

A horrific attack on freedom of the press!

Joan Meyer, the 98-year-old co-owner of the Marion County Record -a weekly newspaper published in Marion, Kansas- tragically passed away after an unprecedented police raid on her home and the newspaper office on Friday.

The city of Marion’s five-officer police force, along with two sheriff’s deputies, conducted the raid on the Marion County Record’s office and the home of owner and publisher Eric Meyer. The shocking operation left Joan Meyer, Eric’s mother, and co-owner of the paper, dead, and has been characterized by Meyer as an assault on press freedom.

The raid came on the heels of a bitter feud between the Marion County Record and a local restaurant owner, Kari Newell. The newspaper had reportedly acquired sensitive documents potentially leading to the revocation of Newell’s liquor license. These documents included evidence of drunk driving convictions and operating a vehicle without a license.

While the paper decided not to report the story, it did notify the police about the documents, suspecting they were leaked by someone close to Newell’s ex-husband.

In response, Newell publicly accused the paper of illegally obtaining and disseminating the information. The newspaper published a story to clarify its position, but this was quickly followed by Friday’s raid.

The search warrant against the Record authorized the seizure of a wide array of items, including computer hardware and software, digital communications, cellular networks, servers, hard drives, utility records, and documents related to Newell. Specifically, the warrant focused on the ownership of computers that could be involved in the alleged “identity theft of Kari Newell.”

During the raid, police not only seized computers and internet routers from the Meyers’ home but also dug through Eric Meyer’s personal bank and investment statements. Joan Meyer, waiting for a Meals on Wheels delivery at the time, reportedly watched tearfully as the police conducted their search. The distressing event left her unable to eat or sleep, contributing to her death, according to the newspaper.

In addition to Joan Meyer’s death, one of the newspaper’s reporters was injured when an officer grabbed her cellphone out of her hand.

Despite the outcry and the tragic outcome, the Marion Kansas Police Department has defended its actions. They claim that federal protections did not extend to the journalists, as they were suspected of criminal activity.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/kansas-newspaper-co-owner-dies-following-unprecedented-raid/

OUTRAGEOUS: Judge in Historic Case Sides With CHILDREN Who Sued Montana Over “Climate Change” – Victorious Attorney Says More Rulings Like This Will Follow

Helena, Montana – In a sane country, such a lawsuit would have been laughed out of court on day one. But today’s America is a place where logic and reason no longer apply.

Reuters reported that a so-called judge ruled Monday that the state of Montana is violating the rights of children with policies that prevent the state form considering the impact of “climate change” when authorities review fossil fuel projects.

Specifically, “Judge” Kathy Seeley in Helena claimed in her ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to youths and is thus unconstitutional.

She added that the kid plaintiffs “have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system.”

This case is historic for one major reason: this was the first-of-its-kind trial in U.S. history where a court said legislatures must consider the impact of youth health in making energy and environmental decisions. There have been smilier rulings in Europe, though.

Here is the background on this absurd lawsuit:

Back in 2020, 16 children when they were ages 2 to 18 (now 5 to 22) sued Montana, alleging the state’s permitting of coal and natural gas production was worsening the climate crisis. As Reuters notes, a 1972 amendment to the Montana constitution requires the state to protect and improve the environment.

During the June trial, which lasted five days, the activists whined about suffering “injuries” they claimed came from Montana’s energy policies and also said their homes had been negatively impacted.

Julia Nelson, the chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust, which represented the activists, released a statement boasting that the decision was a turning point and more rulings like this will come in the future.

Today, for the first time in U.S. history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change, and disproportionately imperil young people.

“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos. More rulings like this will certainly come.

Emily Flower, spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, correctly slammed the ruling as absurd in an emailed statement and vowed to appeal.

This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/outrageous-judge-historic-case-sides-children-who-sued/

Hunter Biden's lawyers insist diversion agreement for felony gun charge is 'binding' despite plea deal collapse

Attorneys for Hunter Biden argued in a court filing on Sunday that a pretrial diversion agreement signed by federal prosecutors remains binding despite the first son's sweetheart plea deal falling apart.

In a court filing last Friday, now-special counsel David Weiss asked a federal judge to vacate charges filed against Biden in Delaware so that he could refile the charges in other jurisdictions. Weiss told the court that prosecutors and Biden's counsel were "at an impasse and are not in agreement on either a plea agreement or a diversion agreement."

But regarding the diversion agreement, that point is moot, Biden's lawyers argued.

Despite prosecutors' desire to start over, Biden's lawyers said their client "intends to abide by the terms of the Diversion Agreement that was executed at the July 26 hearing by the Defendant, his counsel, and the United States" because, in their view, "the parties have a valid and binding bilateral Diversion Agreement."

To support their argument, Biden's attorneys cited the words of federal prosecutors, who repeatedly stated at the July 26 hearing with U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika that the diversion agreement is "binding," "in effect," a "contract[] between the Government and a defendant," and separate from the plea agreement.

A copy of the diversion agreement was posted to the court docket with signatures from Biden, his attorney Chris Clark, and federal prosecutor Leo Wise. The line for the probation officer, however, was left blank.

Because diversion agreements — technically agreements not to prosecute — are struck between prosecutors and a defendant, judicial approval is typically not required, the Washington Post explained. But this deal was complicated by the fact that prosecutors included key terms of the plea agreement in the diversion agreement, one of the central issues that Noreika raised last month.

It's not yet clear whether prosecutors agree that the diversion agreement remains binding and in effect. They have until noon on Tuesday to file a response.

If the diversion agreement is, in fact, binding, that means Biden will escape prosecution for a felony gun charge that the Justice Department typically prosecutes aggressively.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/hunter-biden-attorneys-argue-diversion-agreement-binding

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.33.0.pdf