Missouri Lawsuit Filed to Prevent Taxpayer Financing of Professional Sports Teams

Today Bevis Schock and I filed a lawsuit against the State of Missouri, the Missouri Governor and Attorney General regarding Senate Bill 3, which provides that Missouri will provide illegal subsidies to the KC Chiefs and KC Royals. Our Plaintiffs are State Senator Michael Moon, State Representative Bryant Wolfin and citizen activist Ron Calzone of Maries County. Plaintiffs assert that Missouri taxpayers should not be forced to fund professional sports teams. Here is today's press release, which further describes the claims .The Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare SB 3 unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. Bevis and I have been co-counseling on a variety of cases over the past few years. It is an honor to work with him.

"JULY 31, 2025

PRESS RELEASE -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CHALLENGE TO CHIEFS AND ROYALS STADIUM SUBSIDIES

Three Plaintiffs have just filed 25AC-CC05910 - Moon v. State, a lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 3, the Bill passed in the June Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly which gives around $1.2 billion in subsidies for the Chiefs and Royals. See attached proof of filing and copy of the Petition.

The Plaintiffs are State Senator Michael Moon, Senate Dist 29, (Southwest Missouri) (GOP), State Representative Bryant Wolfin, House Dist. 145 (Ste. Genevieve) (GOP), and citizen activist Ron Calzone, Maries County (Central Missouri). The Defendants are the State of Missouri, Governor Michael Kehoe and Attorney General Andrew Bailey. Counsel for the Plaintiffs are W. Bevis Schock and Erich Vieth, both of St. Louis. This suit is supported financially by the Article 3 Institute, a 501(c)(4), a charitable organization.

As Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed the Bill, among other provisions, (1) provides taxpayer subsidies to the owners of sports teams for building and improving stadiums and even privately owned headquarters, (2) allows holders of elective office to use campaign funds to pay attorneys to defend legal challenges brought against them related to the Bill, (which would otherwise be a forbidden use of campaign funds for a personal purpose), and (3) provides property tax relief, via tax credits, to homeowner disaster victims, and (4) allows some but not all counties to vote on the adoption of the tax credits for property tax relief for all homeowners.

The suit asks the court to declare SB 3 unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. The Bill’s quick trip through the legislature was unconstitutional because it violated the Missouri constitution’s rules requiring bills to have a clear title, a single subject, and a single purpose all the way through the legislative process. The Bill is also unconstitutional because it grants taxpayer money to private for-profit entities (Chiefs and Royal). Such grants are not “primarily public.” The Bill also violates the Missouri Constitution in that it is a “special law.”

The stadium subsidies are a bribe paid to sports team owners to meet their extortion demand to stop them from leaving Missouri for Kansas. The way the numbers work, it appears the legislature and the governor are sticking taxpayers with most of the salary of Chiefs Quarterback Patrick Mahomes. See para. 15. (Plaintiffs agree that he is one GREAT football player!).

An entrepreneur in the entertainment industry should pay for his own hall.

The trial court loser will have a direct appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. "

Continue ReadingMissouri Lawsuit Filed to Prevent Taxpayer Financing of Professional Sports Teams

Must Watch Documentary on COVID Vaccine Adverse Reactions and their Cover-Up: “Follow the Silenced.”

I just finished watching the new documentary, "Follow the Silenced," an allusion to thousands of Americans who were vaccine-injured. I'm irate at the fraud committed by public health officials, legacy media and pharma. Anyone who thinks that our COVID response was anything less than detestable should watch this video. You might have it in your mind that these entities were trying to act in good faith in a difficult set of circumstances.

Bullshit. Why were the % of adverse reactions rigged downward by claiming that a person is not considered vaccinated until WEEKS after the first shot, even though many of the severe injuries were manifest immediately? Watching this documentary, you'll learn that doctors were discouraged from reporting side effects to VAERS. You'll learn that people who suffered severe injuries were ignored. They were told by doctors and public health that they were merely anxious and that they had no injuries even though they were bed-ridden. You'll see the actual numbers that constituted a safety signal while, at the same time, public health official and politicians were telling us to keep pumping these dangerous products into our arms. Like I did. Three times. Without informed consent. Here is the documentary's indictment: in summary form, along with some screenshots from the documentary:

Suppression of Vaccine Injury Stories: Public health authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and the government systematically silenced and censored individuals who experienced severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Victims, such as Brianne Dressen and Ernest Ramirez Sr., were ignored when attempting to share their experiences, pointing to a broader effort to conceal the scope of vaccine injuries.

Illegal Censorship Campaign: The federal government, in collaboration with Stanford University and social media companies, engaged in an illegal censorship campaign that violated the First Amendment rights of vaccine injury victims. This effort allegedly aimed to suppress narratives that questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. For instance, FB shut down numerous groups of organically organized vaccine-injured people.

Abandonment by the Medical Establishment: The medical establishment abandoned vaccine-injured individuals, leaving them without proper care or acknowledgment. Victims were dismissed or neglected by healthcare systems after experiencing life-altering adverse effects.

Cover-Up of Adverse Effects Data: Consider the Defense Medical Database (DMED), where an alleged 1100% increase in neurological diseases among service members was observed in the year following the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines. The Department of Defense shut down access to this data to obscure these findings, a deliberate cover-up. Pfizer's own data (that it attempted to hide) showed 26,000 cases of nervous system disorders in its clinical trials. 24 Hours after Senator Ron Johnson told the Biden WH to preserve DIMED data (that indicated that the vaccines were dangerous) the system went down and then reappeared with doctored data.

Media Complicity in Misinformation: The news media betrayed public trust by aligning with pharmaceutical and government narratives, failing to investigate or report on vaccine injury cases, and contributing to the marginalization of affected individuals. These accusations frame a narrative of systemic misconduct, lack of transparency, and disregard for those harmed by vaccines.

You are invited to view "Follow the Silenced," without charge, here:

Continue ReadingMust Watch Documentary on COVID Vaccine Adverse Reactions and their Cover-Up: “Follow the Silenced.”

Global Free Speech Threat

Michael Shellenberger explains that real progress is being made domestically to protect free speech, but the EU is actively working to impose its authoritarian speech controls over US social media:

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech.

His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil.

And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021.

But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms.

The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech.

The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act.

At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy.

Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms.

“The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.”

And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.”

All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania.

“What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.”

Why is this happening? What can be done about it?

Continue ReadingGlobal Free Speech Threat

Mike Benz Explains “Whole of Society” Censorship

Excellent presentation by Mike Benz. Topic is "Whole of Society" Censorship.

To Supplement, I asked Grok to summarize "Whole of Society" Censorship. Here is Grok's answer:

The "whole of society" censorship approach refers to a coordinated effort involving government, private sector, academia, media, and civil society to control information and suppress certain narratives. It’s characterized by:

* Collaboration Across Sectors: Governments partner with tech companies, universities, NGOs, and media to monitor and restrict content deemed harmful or misleading, often bypassing legal constraints through informal agreements.

* Preemptive Narrative Control: Instead of just reacting to content, this approach shapes narratives proactively, promoting approved messages while marginalizing dissent through algorithms, fact-checking networks, and deplatforming.

* Broad Scope: It targets not only explicit misinformation but also "malinformation" (true information presented in ways that challenge official narratives), affecting political discourse, science, and public health.

* Examples: Documents like the Twitter Files revealed U.S. government agencies working with social media platforms to flag or remove content. The 2021 Stanford Virality Project, involving academics and tech firms, monitored vaccine-related content to counter skepticism. * Mechanisms: Include content moderation, shadowbanning, account suspensions, and funding "trusted" sources to dominate information ecosystems.

Critics argue it stifles free speech and centralizes narrative control, while proponents claim it’s necessary to combat disinformation at scale. The term gained traction in discussions about COVID-19 policy enforcement and election-related content moderation.

Continue ReadingMike Benz Explains “Whole of Society” Censorship

Free Speech Hypocrisy

Nico Perrino (of FIRE) sternly points out the rampant hypocrisy.

Do we actually believe in free speech?

Do we actually believe controversial speakers have a right to speak in America — free from government censorship?

For the past decade, I stood alongside conservatives who loudly — and justifiably — protested when speakers like Ben Shapiro and Charles Murray were prevented from speaking on college campuses, often under the guise of vague appeals to "safety."

Will those same voices rise up now that the boot is on the other foot?

Do we actually believe in free speech as a principle, or merely as an expedient argument when our side is censored?

Do we actually oppose cancel culture?

Do we actually oppose the heckler's veto?

Do we actually oppose vague security rationales for censorship?

I will work with anyone to defend free speech in any scenario, even if doing so means those same people — whether they are the canceled conservatives of the past or the canceled left-wingers of the present — will sometimes abandon free speech when it's their side doing the censoring.

Believing in free speech is as simple as the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Nat Henthoff's book title comes to mind: "Free Speech for me, but not for thee."

Continue ReadingFree Speech Hypocrisy