Connect with us


CASE LAW: Big Tech Companies Are Government Contractors, So Suppressing Free Speech Is Illegal



“Big Tech” is no longer private and the major Silicon Valley companies are actually an extension of the Intelligence Community (IC). Existing legislation and case law shows that Big Tech companies are technically government entities by way of subcontracting. Judge Collyer’s recent memo confirms this. In her Memorandum of Opinion (MOO) dated April 2017 she made it clear that Crowdstrike was not considered a government entity, nor did they fulfill IC scope because no Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was in place between the company and the government intelligence agencies.

Thus, any entity with a valid MOU in place with the FBI or any division of the CIA, in the eyes of the law, is considered an Intelligence Community Element.

Why is this important?

Trending: #StopTheTires – American Truckers Halt Shipments Citing Voter Fraud, Elite Disrespect, Joe Biden

According to Executive Order 12333, as amended in its entirety by former President Bush in 2008 right before he left office and the executive order’s Section 2.3 that Obama amended right before he left office, it is clear that the Intelligence Community is now composed of ELEMENTS not employees and these elements INCLUDE private companies. Thus, in the eyes of the law private companies are actually government entities because they are treated as such. Thus, they are MANDATED to provide scheduled reports as part of their contractual obligations such as providing data, collected, RAW intercepted communications upstream.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

These Memorandums of Opinion are considered law in novel situations such as in the case of Crowdstrike in the case of Carter Page.  Our piece EXCLUSIVE: Judge Who Signed FISA Warrant Strongly Criticized Lynch and Clapper, indicated in the MOO (Memorandum of Opinion HERE IS THE DOCUMENT) that Crowdstrike having no contract, no training or guidelines set by the FBI meant that the company was NOT considered a member of the IC (Intelligence Community) thus their audit of the “DNC Hack” cannot be accepted as determination at face value that protocols according to the law were not followed.

This is where we now have the law dictating what constitutes an Intelligence Community Element.

Here are the guidelines:

They have to have a contract :  All social media companies have Memorandums of Understanding with the FBI, DOJ and other IC agencies. Most recently, Amazon reported such with facial recognition.

They have to have initial and ongoing training:  All social media companies have such training. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Google most recently had a training seminar by the NSA advising them on how to collect, disseminate and store data collected on their websites. This is a key element in the George Papadopoulos case where the warrant indicated Facebook’s compliance in providing texts as noted in their agreement. This further reinforces that the law acknowledges Facebook as a PARTNER and part of the Intelligence Community.

There have to be set guidelines for scope of work: This is something most MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) and MOA (Memorandums of Agreement) have whole sections dedicated to. That alone would suffice, but per project, request and demand new scopes are outlined as in the case with Apple and their technology when requesting further access outside of their scope of MOA that has been in place for a decade.

Thus, with the above, I believe a solid argument indicating that “Big Tech” in the eyes of the law is considered an IC element. It would be exciting and valuable to see this argued in a court of law to further clarify the vague definitions in Section 702 and EO 12333. In my opinion, this argument is necessary.

Considering that “Big Tech” companies are IC elements the laws cited below and how they apply have heavier penalties if done by government employees and or contractors. And case law holds that “Big Tech” companies are considered contractors.

Look at the laws government contractors cannot violate:

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; “

Considering the recent attacks from Big Tech companies working in concert to eliminate voices like Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Liz Crokin and many more (just in the last few days) we can easily surmise that this indeed fulfills the requirement of two or more persons because the term “person” as defined in Title 1 is :

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Evidently, they are indeed oppressing the Right to Free Speech and their claim that they are a private company and set rules for “safety” would fail in the eyes of the law because they are technically Intelligence Community Elements and I am willing to bet they are getting some form of Title Funding, from property, operations, tax credit but also due to their government agreements. This would mean they are in violation of stipulation of any person or organization receiving funds.

Exclusive: Twitter Employee Admits to Using Internal Channels to Censor ‘Hate Speech’

Bottom line is even if they only get ONE DOLLAR (even as tax relief through any Title program) their “Rules of Safety” must align with federal laws. If we analyze who and what is being suppressed online it will indicate that safety is definitely not their goal nor their intent. In essence, their Conspiracy Against Rights feeds into the next Criminal count I believe would have some foundation to fly which is that of Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States. How are Twitter, Facebook, YouTube/Google et al conspiring to defraud the USA?

18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

This is a law that is usually applied to those that operate in the public interest, either as elected officials and or government employees. Aforementioned, the MOO (Memorandum of Opinion) by Judge Collyer has indeed laid a foundation by which in a court it can be determined that Big Tech is deemed to be operating and acting in capacity of public interest.  In turn, having already determined that all these “Big Tech” companies have former Barack Hussein Obama National Security Advisors in positions that dictate public policy this law indeed may be upheld.

Caroline Atkinson was a former National Security Advisor to Barack Hussein Obama and now she is the Director of Global Public Policy for Google Inc. We also know that “Big Tech” CEOs have funded the Democratic Party heavily. It can be safely inferred that their actions of selectively suppressing FREE SPEECH is for personal gain which is an element necessary to be satisfied by this law. How can we prove that? Suppressing  conservative voices is not fiscally sound, thus the decisions they take are for purposes that are not substantiated with business acumen but rather personal gain. In essence, they are defrauding the people of the United States by depriving them of the right to honest services.

What’s the honest service?  Communications. These companies are governed by the FCC thus they are deemed a communications service which in turn reinforces my notion that they are in some shape or form receiving federal funding by way of grant and or tax relief which would mean that their actions indicate discrimination and that is punishable by law.  In turn, they can be found to be operating as a public entity as they do satisfy the guidlines set forth by Judge Collyer and may be deemed part of the Intelligence Community.

Imagine if a public school banned all children from wearing pro-life shirts but allowed those that are pro-Abortion? That would be considered punishable by way of removing federal funding.  The same can be applied to Big Tech.  Remember, the Christian baker received some form of federal funding by tax relief and or grant money and that is why he was put through the court system. In the end religious freedom conquered, but what will be the excuse of BIG TECH? #HesNotMyPresident?

Everyone is angry. Everyone is outraged. Accounts are being unverified and abusive accounts are being verified ….

Conservative voices are being silenced, demonetized, denied access to platforms and suppressed in visibility….which all leads to one thing:

With elections coming up, this would be considered election meddling right? Literally silencing political free speech of citizens?! Meddling isn’t really a crime thus no one can find remedy with claiming election meddling. But conspiring against rights and defrauding the United States are crimes. It’s about time we stop complaining and holding meetings with them and start filing lawsuits. After all there are some states that have state laws against political discrimination.

Political discrimination is exactly what Big Tech is doing.


Twitter Suspends Election Whistleblower After Giving Riveting Testimony in Arizona about Mathematical Fraud

This isn’t the first time.



Throughout the day in Arizona, many credible whistleblowers have stepped forward to give testimony about the multitude of irregularities that occurred during the election.

One expert witness, Bobby Fiton, attested to mathematical fraud during the election that casts serious doubt on the vote totals as they are currently reported. He made a particularly powerful statement with regards to Gov. Doug Ducey, who certified the dubious vote while whistleblowers were going on the record.

“If I was an executive at a publicly-traded company, I would never sign that because I risk jailtime and having all my money taken from me in lawsuits,” he said.

“I would have never, ever certified. I would have rather resigned than certify those results… I believe they’re fraudulent based on the data,” Fiton continued.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“And my sister asked me a simple question this morning, she goes: ‘How sure are you?’ And my sister’s a pretty stubborn person like me, and I said: ‘I’d be willing to put my life on it.’ I’m that sure about the analysis assuming that the data that I got from the state and everything else was accurate,” he added.

A clip of Fiton’s testimony can be seen here:

Immediately after he issued his testimony, Fiton was banned on Twitter to prevent his analysis from being widely understood by the masses:

Twitter had previously done this to the personal account of state senator Doug Mastriano to stop his anti-fraud efforts from gaining momentum immediately after similar hearings were held in Pennsylvania last week.

“We move heaven and earth with American dollars to secure elections in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. We can’t do it in our own state?” Mastriano said at the hearing. “There’s people in Pennsylvania not interested in safe, secure elections.”

Big League Politics has reported on Twitter’s assault on conservatives, which includes a recent hire of an extreme far-left activist as head of conversational safety:

The media company Protocol, a sister site of Politico, recently published an article about Twitter’s new “head of product for conversational safety,” Christine Su. It claims that Su, a “young, queer Asian-American businesswoman,” is revolutionizing what “user safety” on social media means.

Twitter hired Su around six months ago to be in charge of “what might be the most difficult task on Twitter,” despite having no apparent experience in politics, programming, and media relations. But Twitter seems to like her for her “creative” and “somewhat radical new ideas” about user safety.

“As a queer woman of color who is an Asian American in tech in rural America, that experience is a very intersectional one. I’ve had plenty of experiences moving through spaces where I wanted more safety,” Su said.

Protocol writes that Su’s vision incorporates “transformative and procedural justice.” Transformative justice ostensibly refers to a non-retributive form of repairing harm done to someone and preventing it from happening again; procedural justice to enacting a set of rules that “make harm rarer in the first place.”

This all sounds nice and dandy—but beware. So-called transformative and procedural justice will not benefit you, but will crush you. Anything that’s perceived as “harmful” against “women and people from marginalized groups” can and will be used to censor you. Christine Su may reassuringly claim that “the point is not to make the entire world a safe space,” but she’s open about the fact that she will help give the Coalition of the Fringes more control over what people are allowed to do and say on Twitter.

Big Tech has emerged as an existential threat to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If they succeed in validating Biden’s electoral fraud, it will mean an end to America and a death sentence for Western Civilization.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!