[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
And again, Mr. Green, this is by no means a criticism of you.

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
You stepped up the plate.

[00:00:05] Speaker 03:
You're going to argue the case.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
But we're here today because Mr. Pierce asked us to move this case based on a cruise and some other things.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
And I went through and looked to see if we have any explanation as to why he's not here today, other than it was a busy schedule, effectively.

[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
We all had busy schedules.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
We moved this because of Mr. Pierce's schedule.

[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
And for him not to be here today, Candley is very disappointed.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
Nothing on you, but a lot of things had to move because of this.

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
So I would just ask that Mr. Pierce file something with the court by the end of tomorrow.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
explaining why he's not here today.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
I think I don't want to issue OSC.

[00:00:52] Speaker 03:
If he files something, we'll kind of take it from there.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
So make sure he gets that message, OK?

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
And with that, now we'll start the clock.

[00:01:00] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I just wanted to thank the opposing counsel for obviously changing the schedule twice.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
I know Mr. Pierce had two other conflicts, so I do appreciate that.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
Very well.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
So with that, we can start the clock.

[00:01:11] Speaker 03:
You may enter your appearance.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
Andrew Green from John Pierce Law.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
counsel for the plaintiff's appellants in this matter, Laura Loomer, and Laura Loomer for Congress.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, this case involves three issues.

[00:01:24] Speaker 04:
First, whether the doctrine of res judicata bars the present claims against Twitter and Facebook.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
Second, if res judicata is not applicable, whether section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars the claims against Twitter and Facebook.

[00:01:37] Speaker 04:
And third, whether plaintiff's RICO claims have been well pleaded.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
We contend that justice requires Ms.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
Loomer be given the opportunity to litigate against the named defendants.

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
This case highlights, in our opinion, the unchecked power of massive corporations who control popular media platforms and weaponize their influence to silence individual users.

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
Restor Udicata bars parties from relitigating claims that they raised or could have raised in a prior lawsuit between the same parties.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
That was discussed by the Supreme Court in Hellerstedt in 2016.

[00:02:07] Speaker 04:
The court in Hellerstedt emphasized that successive litigation is prohibited of the very same claim.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
That court cited to the secondary statement of judgments to emphasize that new material facts propose a new case and an otherwise similar previous case are distinguishable and do not present the same claim.

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
On page 11 of our reply brief, we state the ultimate conclusion.

[00:02:28] Speaker 04:
The claims from this matter and Ms.

[00:02:30] Speaker 04:
Loomer's previous matters are very much different.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
While Ms.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
Loomer's previous suits focused on her individual self and her individual account and the banning of those accounts and a free speech violation, excuse me, this case deals with her becoming a political candidate and her involvement in federal election activity, which came after those previous suits.

[00:02:48] Speaker 05:
Well, did they come after those judgments became final?

[00:02:55] Speaker 05:
You're saying this matter... Conduct.

[00:02:57] Speaker 05:
This suit is based.

[00:02:59] Speaker 05:
Is it based on conduct that occurred after those suits became final?

[00:03:03] Speaker 05:
Because you were saying after they were filed, but I'm not sure that additional conduct during the pendency of the suit counts.

[00:03:10] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:03:11] Speaker 05:
To get you out of the rule.

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
And I believe two of the four previous matters were voluntarily dismissed.

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
Final judgments were issued.

[00:03:18] Speaker 04:
Conduct has been occurring after the final judgments in those four previous matters.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
The material facts which form the basis for the current matter all occurred between 20

[00:03:27] Speaker 04:
Those same facts give rise to the RICO claim, which are now being pled.

[00:03:32] Speaker 05:
So what's the enterprise under RICO for purposes of Boyle?

[00:03:38] Speaker 05:
What is the enterprise?

[00:03:39] Speaker 05:
This looks like you're trying to claim that the pattern of activity is the enterprise.

[00:03:46] Speaker 05:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:49] Speaker 05:
Well, if that's correct, you would lose.

[00:03:51] Speaker 05:
So you need to have some enterprise, some structure that is distinct from, under Boyle, from the pattern of activity.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
I understand.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
So on page 30 of our opening brief, we discussed that the enterprise must have a common purpose, a structural organization, and longevity necessary to accomplish the purpose.

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
We pled that... What's the structure?

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
The structure itself... We have three independent companies.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
Conducting their business, and you think, you allege it's a discriminatory manner, but what's the enterprise?

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
So the enterprise... What's the structure?

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
The structure itself is the collaboration between all the parties, each of them furthering their own economic interests.

[00:04:30] Speaker 04:
You know, there are allegations that there were discussions about policy interests and protocols and compliance guidelines that were issued after collaboration of those three parties.

[00:04:44] Speaker 04:
I get going back to the rest of your cut basically you're arguing that doing business constitutes a Rico enterprise so not doing business itself your honor what we're saying is the enterprise existed it affected interstate commerce and they all collaborated with one another and engaged in this pattern of racketeering activity

[00:05:10] Speaker 04:
You know, on our second minute complaint at paragraph 46, we discuss how Meta Platforms does substantial business with Procter & Gamble and the federal government.

[00:05:19] Speaker 04:
They all shared a common goal.

[00:05:20] Speaker 04:
We discussed that at paragraph 399.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
This common goal was all of them making money.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
We discussed the policy matters that were discussed and collaborated on by all three parties.

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
This is discussed on paragraph 272 of our second minute complaint.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
And we further allege wire fraud, extortion, interference with commerce by threats or violence,

[00:05:38] Speaker 04:
and other racketeering activity on paragraph 427 of our second minute complaint.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
We further alleged that following these public proclamations that policy matters are discussed with advertisers, Facebook, Twitter, and Procter & Gamble acted in concert to censor conservative voices and interfere with the American elections.

[00:06:07] Speaker 05:
More along the same line section 230s applicability Sorry owners, you want to address section 230s.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir Yes, your honor We begin section 230 discussion on page 26 of our opening brief and we state that the communications decency act is

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
does not extend immunity to website operators when they create or develop the information.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
This court created the three-pronged test for this immunity in Barnesburg.

[00:06:38] Speaker 05:
But I thought the claim is they're excluding information.

[00:06:41] Speaker 05:
They're not letting it be posted.

[00:06:43] Speaker 05:
They're taking it out.

[00:06:44] Speaker 05:
How is that?

[00:06:45] Speaker 05:
their first party speech in a way that would take them out of 230.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
So what we did was, in our reply brief, we contrasted the matter to other matters that our opposing counsel has cited.

[00:07:00] Speaker 04:
We distinguished the federal agency of News LLC versus Facebook.

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
This was also the district court's main supporting citation.

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
Then coming to that blanket conclusion that all Facebook and Twitter were doing in the matter was excluding third party content, as you just stated, and therefore they're immune.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
On both page 27 of our opening brief and page 17 of our reply brief, we discussed that this case is contrasting different because in the former matter, Facebook was immune just from removing the news agency, but that agency was violating Facebook's terms of service with substantial evidence that that agency itself was tied to a Russian-based internet research agency whose goal was to interfere with the U.S.

[00:07:42] Speaker 04:
presidential election.

[00:07:44] Speaker 04:
The present matter is

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
absolutely distinct and different.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
Elections are adversarial processes.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
Loomer's campaign never posed a threat to American democracy.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
A true democracy guarantees that right... Basically, you're arguing with content decisions, correct?

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Say it one more time, Your Honor.

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
You're basically arguing with their content decisions, either to include or exclude content, correct?

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
So why doesn't the decency act cover that immunity?

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
I mean, that's what it's aimed at.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
So again, I think a similar case was Dangard, which we discussed on page 27-18 in our reply brief, where in Dangard,

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
The social media platform was demoting and removing information by third parties.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
However, immunity did not apply because it was done in an anti-competitive manner.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
So businesses became victims of the anti-competitive filtering, and thus the Section 230 did not apply.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
The connection to this matter is clear in our eyes.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
The defense in this matter suppressed Ms.

[00:08:45] Speaker 04:
Loomer's content, damaging her in an election as a political candidate.

[00:08:49] Speaker 04:
similar to the victims in Dangard, a political candidate was harmed by the suppression and manipulation of speech by the defendants.

[00:09:00] Speaker 04:
Facebook and Twitter's filtration system were both designed to facilitate anti-competitive and unlawful conduct, promoting conspiracy to suppress conservative voices.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
Backtracking a little bit to the restaurant caught argument as we covered Rico and section 230 We believe the court should follow along the lines of Hellerstedt which we discussed in our opening brief on page 21 in Hellerstedt the Supreme Court held that claim preclusion did not bar the plaintiffs from raising a post enforcement challenge to a Texas law and

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
The court went on to state that when important human issues are at stake, even a slight change of circumstances may afford a sufficient basis for concluding a second action may be brought without violating the doctrine of claim preclusion.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
In support, the court posed a hypothetical situation, which I think fits nicely to this matter.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
The court gave a situation where prisoners were incarcerated and they filed suit against the facility where they were incarcerated after being forced to drink contaminated water.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
If their suit had been dismissed,

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
because the court does not believe that the harm would be severe enough to be unconstitutional, it wouldn't make sense to prevent them from bringing in the suit at a later time if time and experience showed that the prisoners were actually dying from the contaminated water itself.

[00:10:16] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:10:16] Speaker 04:
Loomer's claims involve important human values such as the right to participate in the political system without discrimination based on political ideology.

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
Do you want to save any time for rebuttal?

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal.

[00:10:31] Speaker 03:
All right, so we'll round up till we give them a minute.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
Sorry, I was actually looking at the clock.

[00:10:35] Speaker 04:
I didn't check there ahead of time.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
She said it for seven or 10.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
That was my apologies.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
No, I think she said it for 10.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
OK, thank you.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
You'll have a minute.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
All right, so counsel, go ahead and approach.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
You guys have split it up seven and three.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
So when I preside, you have a hard seven, meaning that don't worry, you're going to get three.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
I'm going to cut you off at seven.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
If you use less than seven, then you get more than three.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
Sometimes we have a situation where we split, and the first person goes like 15, and then the other person starts panicking.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
Don't worry.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
Hard seven.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
You may proceed.

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
Understood.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Sonal Mehta here for Metta and Mr. Zuckerberg.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, this is Ms.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
Loomer's fourth suit challenging a decision by Facebook then, now Metta, to permanently disable her account for violations of the community standards, which she agreed to abide by as a condition for having her account.

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
The district court correctly determined that her claims against Metta, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Dorsey, and X were dismissed under race judicata and correctly dismissed the claims with respect to Procter and Gamble on a failure to plead a RICO enterprise.

[00:11:47] Speaker 05:
I want to go quickly through.

[00:11:48] Speaker 05:
Is he right that some of the conduct alleged occurred after the judgments in the other cases became final?

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
It is certainly true that there are allegations in the complaint that go to the point after Loomer 1 was dismissed with prejudice.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
But those allegations have no bearing on the actual complaint here, the actual claim here, which is the disablement of her account, which happened long before the dismissal

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
of Loomer 1.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
And in fact, at page 13 of the reply brief, they specifically acknowledge that it is, quote, true.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
that multiple suits, that Ms.

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
Loomer's multiple suits arise under the same transactional nucleus of operative facts.

[00:12:33] Speaker 05:
So, and this is a transactional nucleus of operative facts apply, I mean that's the federal restatement standard.

[00:12:41] Speaker 05:
Does that apply to the Florida suit which was a state law case?

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
I think it does, but I almost think it doesn't matter because even if we're looking at it just in terms of identity of the claims, what they are acknowledging is that the claim that they are pursuing here

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
is based on the disablement of the account.

[00:13:05] Speaker 05:
You have continuing conduct.

[00:13:07] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:13:07] Speaker 05:
So you have a neighbor who, you know, has loud noise all the time, and you sue, and then you give up, and you let the suit be dismissed, you know, with prejudice.

[00:13:18] Speaker 05:
But then you decide, you know, this really is driving me crazy.

[00:13:20] Speaker 05:
I'm going to sue them again.

[00:13:21] Speaker 05:
Is that race due to Conna?

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
Well, yes.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
And actually, I want to also go back one.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
You were talking about the Florida State Court case, but Loomer 1 was, of course, a federal case.

[00:13:29] Speaker 05:
That one's a federal, so that's governed by it.

[00:13:32] Speaker 05:
But the normal rule under Semtech is that in an adversity case, you apply the preclusion law of the forum, which here would be California, which doesn't follow the restatement.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
But, Your Honor, I think on your question about the hypothetical, the noisy neighbor, that case, I think the case that's dead on point on this is Monterey Plaza.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
There is not here some new harm or some new primary right at issue.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
And I think it's really important to look at what the post 2020 allegations are about.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
Her account was permanently disabled in 2019 during the first Trump administration for violation of community standards.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
Her allegations about 2020 to 2022 are about supposed pressure or coercion, coordination with the Biden administration about misinformation,

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
and COVID vaccine misinformation or COVID vaccine related content, there's no connection between the allegations that she pled with respect to 2020 to 2022 and the decision that was made in 2019 to disable her account permanently.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
In fact, the Biden administration wasn't even in place when that decision was made.

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
And that's why I think their concession that this is all about the same thing,

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
is critical and it's dispositive.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
And under this court's ruling in Monterey Plaza, there's no allegation, just like in that case, there's no allegation here of new harm or new primary rights.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
It's the same harms from the same primary rights.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
And in that case, the hotel was saying, well, now we're having more problems, more of the same problems.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
That's furtherance of the RICO enterprise.

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
And the court said, no, that's barred by race judicata because of the prior state court lawsuit.

[00:15:21] Speaker 05:
Was it that they haven't alleged a causation, you know, because the prior one is a permanent ban and therefore there's no causation between any subsequent, is that ultimately the defect that traps us in race to Dakota?

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
No, what I would say, Your Honor, is it's actually the same claim that they're asserting now because it's a RICO claim, so there has to be a pattern in practice.

[00:15:40] Speaker 05:
But if someone's kicked off a platform and then they sit with that for a while and then later they come back and say, I'd like to get on, and you say no, you know, maybe that's new conduct with new circumstances and you get a fresh lawsuit.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, in this case, she was permanently disabled from the platform, and then sued three different times after that, and then dismissed.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
And the final one was dismissed with prejudice.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
And now is coming back and saying, well, now I'd like a fourth attempt.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
So it's not like she was permanently disabled and then waited a little bit of time and then realized that she wanted to file a claim.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
She filed multiple lawsuits.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
Some were abandoned.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
Some were dismissed.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
And she ultimately decided she'd like to try again, fourth round.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
That's what race judicata does.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
And pleading facts or allegations about subsequent conduct that actually don't bear at all on the claim doesn't get you out of race judicata.

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
You can't just throw new facts in and say, I'd like to avoid the race judicata effect of all of the prior litigation efforts that I've made.

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
You have to be able to plead some new claim, some new harm, some new primary right under Monterey Plaza, and that's what's missing here.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
I know I only have a minute and 30 seconds left, so I want to briefly address, Your Honor, the questions that were asked about the Ricoh Enterprise.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
I think Judge Thomas, your question hit the nail on the head.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
They are alleging a Ricoh Enterprise based only on a routine business relationship between a platform and an advertiser.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
That cannot be a Ricoh Enterprise.

[00:17:08] Speaker 01:
They have to allege something more than that, and they haven't done that here.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
That was the basis for the district court's judgment with respect to Proctor and Gamble.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
That would also be an alternative grounds to affirm with respect to the meta and ex-defendants.

[00:17:22] Speaker 01:
Without an allegation of that, there's simply no way the RICO claim can go forward.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
And then finally, with respect to Section 230, very briefly, I think my colleague, my friend said, they're really challenging a content decision.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
That is what the district court found when it found that 230 would bar the claims.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
And that is why under 230C1, this claim can't go forward completely independent of the race judicata.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
grounds, which themselves would be enough to affirm dismissal of the complaint.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
She left you some change.

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
Jonathan Patchen on behalf of Twitter, now XCorp, and Jack Dorsey.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
I basically I appreciate the the extra time I wanted to make sure to address any questions that the panel has with respect to Twitter specifically But I also wanted to make three very brief points The first of which is with respect to raise judicata to answer judge Collins's question the allegations that are made in this complaint or in the underlying complaint that was dismissed is that miss Loomer had a

[00:18:38] Speaker 02:
began her first run for Congress in 2019.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
Tellingly, the D.C.

[00:18:43] Speaker 02:
Circuit did not affirm, and thus a final judgment for res judicata purposes, or claim preclusion purposes, until 2020.

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
So the actual, even if there was a willingness to expand the notion of the claim from Miss Loomer was banned, whether from Twitter,

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
to this is an effect or some conspiracy to influence elections more broadly.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
That was still within the scope of what she could have pled and was within the scope, thus, of the final judgment in the first Freedom Watch, the Loomer 1 case.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
So to answer that question, it is absolutely within the scope

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
of the transactional nucleus of facts with respect to Twitter, because there is only one action that is challenged by Twitter and Mr. Dorsey in this complaint, and that was the 2018 ban of Ms.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
Loomer.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
And we know that that's the exact same claim she wants to bring here as she did in Freedom Watch, that first case in the DC District Court, then Circuit Court.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
Just compare the complaints.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
In the complaint that she filed in 2018, she alleged that, among other things, my client engaged in a conspiracy to intentionally and willfully suppress political conservative content.

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
That is identical to the RICO enterprise conspiracy that she pleads in this complaint, which she says is, quote, a wide ranging illegal and fraudulent conspiracy among big tech and other elements within corporate America,

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
to silence conservative voices and thus interfere with American elections.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
Is she currently banned from X or is she on X?

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
No, she is back in 2022.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
For obvious reasons of different decision makers and decision making, she was allowed back on the platform.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
And that goes to the other question that you had, Judge Collins, which is when would you have a basis for a new claim?

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
And in this scenario, right, if

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
ex decided now to ban her again, for whatever reason, that new ban certainly could trigger the basis for a new lawsuit.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
But that contrasts that to a new lawsuit based on 2018 facts and 2018 ban.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
That's what is within the scope of S.Judicata.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
The only other two points that I would make is that with respect to the three facts that are identified in the pleadings,

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
As to the jawboning, the Hunter Biden laptop, and the banning of Alex Berenson, none of those have any tangential relationship to the relationship and claims that Ms.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
Loomer brings here.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
That there are new facts about what Twitter might have done does not create a new claim.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
And we know that, and this is my final point, is if you read the reply brief, there is basically no answer to any of Twitter's arguments in its brief in the reply brief.

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
It focuses entirely on meta and says nothing about Twitter's claims.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
Unless the panel has other questions, thank you.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
All right, Mr. Green, you got a minute.

[00:21:59] Speaker 05:
So, Your Honors,

[00:22:00] Speaker 05:
What's your response to the argument that this was a 2018 permanent ban and therefore all this additional conduct post-judgment just has no causal relationship to the infliction of any injury that's separate and therefore it's all one bucket for race-judicata purposes?

[00:22:19] Speaker 04:
So, you know, I think that it needs to be very clear that the previous suits were about Ms.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
Loomer as an individual and her individual account being banned.

[00:22:27] Speaker 04:
What this matter is about is her political accounts and that congressional platform that she was trying to establish that was banned.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
That's the suppression of political voices and the interference with election activity that we're alleging here.

[00:22:41] Speaker 04:
The prior matters were all about her individual account, not her political account.

[00:22:45] Speaker 04:
So she had a platform that was created for her political campaign that was being banned here.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
That's the suppression of voices, not the original matter, which was just her as an individual.

[00:22:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:22:56] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
All right, this matter is submitted.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
Thank you both for your briefing and argument.

[00:23:03] Speaker 03:
And we are adjourned.

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
for this session.