Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
When the “censorship industrial complex” myth was just getting started, in Fall 2022, I got a public records request from the AG’s office of Missouri looking for all my emails related to my team’s election rumor research. The Missouri AG at that time? Eric Schmitt. What a tool.
![UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JILL HINES ET AL — CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00571
VERSUS — JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
ALEX STAMOS ET AL — MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 191] filed by Defendants, Alex Stamos, Renée DiResta, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, the Leland Stanford Junior University, Kate Starbird, Graphika, Camille François, the Atlantic Council, and Graham Brookie (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Jill Hines ("Hines") and Jim Hoft ("Hoft") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an Opposition [Doc. No. 207]. Defendants then filed a Reply [Doc. No. 209].
For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:h3t5rqlvuaorq42yckpijirj/bafkreiggakmifunn64abigm63tqgz3acksb5neiyr736xtwd7dnfiodzra)
![Case 3:23-cv-00571-TAD-KDM
Document 219
5979
Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 23 PagelD #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JILL HINES ET AL
VERSUS
ALEX STAMOS ET AL
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00571
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D.
MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter and Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 191] filed by Defendants, Alex Stamos,
Renée DiResta, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, the
Leland Stanford Junior University, Kate Starbird, Graphika, Camille François, the
Atlantic Council, and Graham Brookie (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Jill Hines ("Hines") and Jim Hoft ("Hoft") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an Opposition
[Doc. No. 207]. Defendants then filed a Reply [Doc. No. 209].
For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is before the Court on limited remand to determine jurisdiction.
Hines v. Stamos, 111 F.4th 551 (5th Cir. 2024); see also [Doc. No. 112]. On May 2,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5bnbgj7gwebt6hhub4pa5c7n/bafkreih6kcz2ednyviypovpsbo3zbyl4xticv54avmgap4e2q6vpdgxyqm)
