State to judge: Serial loser senate candidate's legal arguments are ridculous and he should feel ridiculous

We here at the UHub Legal Desk know that many of you are sick to death of reading our endless accounts of said candidate's repeated attempts to have a judge order Secretary of State Bill Galvin tossed into a volcano, almost as much as you're tired of reading about somebody suing over the lack of butter in some company's sticks of butter, but bear with us for just a couple moments longer.

Last week, in writing about how the candidate had been banned forever and ever amen by Twitter, we noted how he had filed Yet Another Very Legal Motion demanding a judge in Boston federal court hold off on ordering Galvin pushed into a volcano only long enough to immediately force Galvin to give Twitter a virtual wedgie until Twitter restores the Real Indian's Twitter account, and then personally declared the Father of Email the winner of the September Republican primary, rather than the alleged loser who was declared the winner.

Today, Galvin, by way of two assistant state attorneys general, filed his reply, which, in non-legal terms, is similar to the one given by that American general at the Battle of the Bulge: Nuts.

Of course, lawyers are rarely that economic with their words, so assistant AGs Adam Hornstine and Anne Sterman devoted 23 pages, including a one-page table of contents, to explaining just how wrong even a man with multiple degrees from MIT, albeit none of them in law, given that MIT doesn't have a law school, can be.

Plaintiff alleges, with no basis in fact, that Twitter deplatformed him because the Secretary's office supposedly asked Twitter to apply an algorithm to detect any instance in which he uttered a certain word. This is not true. Plaintiff's "theory" is not only ridiculous but also ignores the fact that "Twitter suspends accounts that violate the Twitter Rules," rules that are publicly available and which Plaintiff agreed to follow when he signed up for a Twitter account. A cursory review of Plaintiff's provocative Tweets over the past few months provides ample reason as to why Twitter may have decided to remove the Plaintiff's account: he cheered as insurrectionists violently stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, called COVID-19 death rates a hoax and spread unfounded conspiracies about forced vaccinations, and argued that elections in Massachusetts and elsewhere were rigged by way of doctored voting machines. These actions all violated Twitter's Terms of Use. Indeed, over the past few months, Twitter suspended Plaintiff temporarily at least three times, deleted Plaintiff's Tweets, and labeled a number of his Tweets as containing misinformation – all sanctions contemplated by Twitter's Terms of Use agreement and done of Twitter's own volition.

But Plaintiff does not accept personal blame for his antics that caused Twitter to remove him from its service for violating the Terms of Use agreement. Instead, he conjures a fact-free conspiracy theory that employees of the Secretary of the Commonwealth somehow forced Twitter to put one employee's name on an automated blacklist such that if Plaintiff ever spoke this name, a trapdoor would open and Plaintiff would be deplatformed. He offers no evidence in support of this conjecture but instead launches into an intensely personal attack against one of the Defendants. Plaintiff's theory is contradicted by all admissible evidence in the record. Since the last hearing in this case, the Secretary's office has not reported any of Plaintiff's myriad misconduct to Twitter or asked anyone else to report his Tweets. Nor has the Secretary's office ever asked Twitter to fashion a blacklist of forbidden words. Simply put, Plaintiff pushed the bounds of Twitter's Terms of Use, and Twitter, acting of its own volition, deplatformed him.

And that doesn't even include the discussions of how the judge can't force Twitter to do anything since it's not a party to the suit, how the First Amendment rights of both the Secretary of State (yes, Bill Galvin has First Amendment rights) and Twitter come into play and why the Eleventh Amendment might wish to have a word with the plaintiff, who ditched his lawyer a few months ago and his been rapid-filing his own motions ever since.

The next step is up to US District Court Judge Mark Wolf, who has to either schedule a hearing on the candidate's latest legal request, never mind his two pending lawsuits, or just say: Enough already.