Justice for Sale

HALL v. TWITTER

JUSTICE FOR SALE:
How Corrupt Judges Are Undermining the Law!

America's justice system relies on the rule of law, but when judges disregard established laws and precedents, they undermine our very foundation. It's time for the Supreme Court to take a stand! We urge you to address this critical issue and hold rogue judges accountable for their actions. Our courts must be a beacon of fairness and integrity. Let’s protect our rights and ensure that justice is served consistently. Supreme Court, the time to act is now! Restore trust in our judicial system and uphold the law for all.

Magistrate Johnstone's illegal pro hac vice policy allowed Twitter's attorneys to practice before the court without meeting the eligibility requirements or being members of the bar. This policy was applied for over two years and covered 66 incidents before Hall's case was filed, and 25 times during Hall's case. Specifically, it allowed attorneys like Mrazik and Schwartz to submit substantial legal arguments and motions on behalf of Twitter without being admitted to the bar of the Court, which is a violation of Local Rule 83.1(a), and illegal in New Hampshire under N.H.R.S.A. 311:7.

This illegal policy establishes a pattern of bias of the court in favor of Twitter and created an immediate bias which violated Hall's rights by creating a biased and unconstitutional tribunal. It allowed unauthorized Twitter attorneys to practice law in the court while not members of the courts bar, which compromised the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. When Hall challenged this illegal policy, they were met by denialism, concealment and a deliberate disregard for "clear and controlling law." These judges obliterated, distorted, or fabricated the material facts in the record in an effort to conceal the illegal policies and to "justify" their fabricated judicial decisions. Even worse, it that the judges in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, went along with every violation of the law. This situation denied Hall his constitutional rights to due process and an unbiased tribunal under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the US Supreme Court

Hall's petition explicitly states why adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. Hall argues that:

Exhaustion of Legal Avenues: Hall has exhausted all other available legal avenues before resorting to this writ of mandamus. He mentions that the 1st Circuit Court denied a rehearing or hearing en banc, leaving him with no other adequate means of obtaining the requested relief.
Denial of Meaningful Appellate Review: Hall asserts that the 1st Circuit Court failed to articulate its reasoning for their decisions, which would enable a meaningful appellate review. He claims that the court used misinformation and a defendant-friendly notice standard, which failed to uphold the law.
Irreparable Harm: Hall argues that he will suffer irreparable harm and injury to his liberty and property that cannot be adequately remedied or compensated through a monetary award or other legal remedy if the requested mandamus relief is not granted.
Procedural and Substantive Errors: Hall contends that the lower courts failed to follow mandatory procedures and apply established legal standards, resulting in void judgments and an unconstitutional tribunal. He believes that these errors cannot be corrected through the normal appeal process.
Constitutional Issues: Hall raises significant constitutional issues, such as the alleged unconstitutionality of 47 U.S.C. § 230 and violations of his First Amendment rights. He argues that these issues require immediate resolution and cannot be adequately addressed by any other court.