Plaintiffs oppose RFK Jr.'s attempt to consolidate cases, concerns lie in potential "political wrangling" of claims
Here are some key details from the proceedings.
Plaintiffs, including Dr. Bhattacharya, Dr. Kulldorff, Dr. Kheriaty, and Jill Hines in the Missouri v Biden case, have filed arguments against a motion from Robert F Kennedy Jr. to consolidate his class action lawsuit against the Biden Administration with the case brought by The AG of Missouri. In their response to his motion, they argued it would be burdensome on the current preceeding based on the current status of the case. They argued that due to the appeal and the difference in scope between the two cases, it would be "enormously disruptive." Here is the section found on pages 7 and 8 of their filing:
“As a result, consolidating the two cases would be prejudicial to the Opposing Plaintiffs. Injecting a new set of plaintiffs into the proceedings at this critical juncture, when an injunction has been entered and appealed and the Plaintiffs seek a final ruling on the merits as soon as it may realistically be achieved, would be enormously disruptive—especially when the new plaintiffs have unique standing issues, purport to represent their own class—and seek to address the challenged censorship solely as listeners, not as speakers. Plaintiffs would be forced to adjust their litigation strategy to accommodate a new set of plaintiffs with pending class allegations.”
Later in the filing, the plaintiffs argued that the case they brought against the defendants was intent on vindicating the rights of Americans not to have their own government throw them off of social media for the content of their speech. Additionally, they view the outcome of consolidation to be a conjoining of the RFK Jr. Presidential campaign and the grievances voiced with the Plaintiff's case in the minds of the public.
Concerns this would "taint" the case and shift the case in the public's mind from the focus of law in favor of a "blend of both" political interests and the interests of those challenging the presidential candidate. They clearly state multiple times they believe this would be prejudicial towards them.
In a rather frank declaration concerning the potential consolidation, the Plaintiffs expressed:
"The Court should examine the reality of the situation and realize how untenable and prejudicial such a consolidation would be to Plaintiffs who have already taken great risks in their own scientific, academic, and local communities to bring this suit. Nobody signed up to be the sideshow of a Presidential campaign, and it would be unfair to make them such against their will simply because a member of one of the most powerful political families in the country asked for it."
What seems to be the most compelling point being made to the courts is that the motion to grant this "threatens to end this state of affairs," based on the conflicting positions from various Plaintiffs. The interest of the American people being the focus of Missouri v Biden, in the Plaintiff's opinion, supersedes any potential campaign endeavors sought by the RKF Jr. or his affiliate organizations.
CONCLUSION
“For the foregoing reasons the motion to consolidate should be denied.”
Dated: July 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John J. Vecchione * Zhonette M. Brown* New Civil Liberties Alliance 1225 19th Street N.W., Suite 450 Washington, DC 20036 Direct: (202) 918-6905 E-mail: john.vecchione@ncla.legal Counsel for Plaintiffs Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines
Please like, comment, subscribe, and share this with others! Also, we’ve decided to consolidate the coverage of the lawsuit into its own section, accessible at the HOME page of our publication.