 Hello, I'm Chris Erickson. In July, I made a little video on CCTV.org in Burlington, Vermont to explain that I sent a letter to the court in Miami, the federal court, because I wanted to join the lawsuit of Trump versus Facebook, but I wanted to be in a separate class. It's a class action lawsuit. And the reason I wanted to be in a separate class is I'm not a Republican. And I was on the ballot in Vermont as a progressive candidate, but I was kicked off of Facebook in October 2020 prior to the November 3rd, 2020 election. So I felt that my circumstances were different than the other plaintiffs and I wanted a separate class. So what happened after I sent a letter to the court? Well, the clerk of the court docketed my letter. The judge marked it stricken from the record. I sent another letter. The court clerk docketed it. The judge marked it stricken from the record. I docketed another letter and the court clerk docketed it, but she removed three pages and the judge marked it stricken from the record. Meanwhile, President Trump filed an amended complaint and also the judge certified his question to the U.S. Attorney General's Office Civil Division. And they have to get the U.S. solicitor involved, so it's going to take a while to get a response. Before the judge certified the question to the U.S. Attorney General's Civil Division, I also sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Civil Division. And I will read you some of that. Okay, I'm trying to read on the other side of my computer screen. To Joshua Kolsky, trial attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, federal programs. I say this is in reference to President Donald Trump versus Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg and that I have my own constitutional question. Is Title 47 USC Section 230 unconstitutional because Title 47 USC Code Section 230 is being used to violate federal election laws, specifically Title 18 USC Section 600 and Title 52 USC Section 30121A1A. Dear Mr. Kolsky, in the document of 8, 19, 2021, wherein the U.S. government responds to plaintiffs, that's Donald Trump, constitutional issue, I would like to point out an error of omission. This is from the government to the court. The United States is unaware of any motion or other filing in this action that contains the arguments citing pertinent authorities on which plaintiff's constitutional challenge is based. Such a filing would assist the United States in deciding whether intervention is warranted in this matter. Well, Mr. Kolsky, I sent the court in this matter several letters. And in one of them, it said open internet letter on my blog to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Gardland sent August 6, 2021. And it was certified and the court docketed it about August 16, 2021. And then the judge marked it stricken. I also sent some copies to all or some of the attorneys for former President Donald Trump by email, I discussed my opinions with Attorney John P. Cole on the telephone that's one of former President Donald Trump's attorneys. And he stated that this was a civil case and that essentially I was making a criminal complaint is Title 47 USC Section 230 unconstitutional because Title 47 USC Code Section 230 is being used to violate federal election laws Title 18 USC Section 600 and Title 52 USC Section 30121A1A. Now then I point out the docket where over and over again, I file a complaint, the judge marks it stricken, I send another letter, it's on the court record, it is filed, it's marked as filed, the judge marks it stricken, I send another letter, it is filed, the judge marks it as stricken. So also I wanted to say to Mr. Kolsky as of August 21, 2021, the Post Office has not delivered a letter I sent to the court with a lot of additional facts and information on August 2nd. That's over three weeks. The Postal Service repeatedly claims it is not lost, they just move it from one facility to another and do not deliver it. Well, I got a couple voicemail messages from the Postal Service and I called one of President Donald Trump's attorneys and I left him a voicemail message and I played the recording of the Postal Service saying, oh, it's not lost, they just moved it to another facility. Okay, now I'm going to try to show you what I received in the mail, the order denying motion to join is plaintive. I received a whole bunch of mail from the court, they like to send things, these are all mail from the court, they like to send bunches of stuff, they're all kinds of things, whatever. So then I wanted to go over something that the judge marked stricken after it was sent, which I didn't think was fair, but that's just my opinion. Okay, and I want to point out that some of what I'm going to read to you, the court clerk struck, she struck three pages of one of the letters, I mean she just deleted it, but it's on my blog and on every page that I send the court, I give my blog address politics2022.org because I'm going to run again in 2022. Okay, so one of the things I'm explaining to the court is I tried to find another candidate like me who had won a primary election in 2020 and then was kicked out of Facebook prior to the November 3rd election in 2020, which is totally unfair in my opinion. So I found this candidate Laura Loomer was on the Republican ballot for US Congress in a district of Florida and she was kicked out of Facebook and she won the Republican primary for US Congress in her area of Florida and after winning the primary she was still kicked off of Facebook prior to the 2020 November 3rd election, which I don't think was fair and I don't think she thinks it was fair. So I believe Laura Loomer and I with similar circumstances, I was on the statewide election ballot as a progressive candidate and I was kicked out of Facebook in October 2020 before the November 3rd 2020 election, Laura Loomer was on the Republican ballot in Florida for US Congress. She was kicked out of Facebook before the November 3rd 2020 election. So I believe Laura Loomer and I are victims of crime. Under title 18, United States Code section 600. Where's the court clerk do? She removes that part of my letter, removes all whole bunch, three pages. Okay, now what is left in on the court record? Now, I don't know what's at pacer.com, but what happens is court listener.com moves the court records from the government to their website. They are a non-profit and court listener.com is a non-profit. So as soon as the things come on the government website, they scoop them up and they put them on their website. So it's still there. You can still read it minus the three pages the clerk wiped out. Okay, so what you can see is title 18, United States Code section 600, whoever directly or indirectly promises any benefit provided for a made possible in whole or in part by any act of Congress to any person, keep in mind Facebook.com is a corporate person as consideration for any political activity in opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any primary or general election to any political office shall be fined under this title. So then I go on to explain that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have millions of followers worldwide. They make billions of dollars. And I don't see any indication that all this money they're making worldwide is separated and segregated into different funds. So it also appears that Laura Lumer and I are victims of crime under federal election law title 52 United States Code section 30121 a prohibition it shall be unlawful for one a foreign national directly or indirectly to make a contribution or other thing of value in connection with a federal state or local election. Now most people don't know that there's a federal election law title 52 United States Code section 30121 that prohibits foreign nationals from making any contribution directly or indirectly in connection with a federal state or local election. Allowing some political candidates to be promoted by Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg while Mark Zuckerberg brags about his having his worldwide court of people who are foreign nationals who are doing this dirty work of getting rid of candidates and banning them from Facebook. It sounds to me like that he's using foreign money to pay foreign people to kick candidates off of Facebook. And I think that's a violation of federal law. That's my opinion. And let's see what else. Oh the court struck all that. Well basically so when I'm saying is because federal election law addresses the wrongful use of foreign funds in state federal and local elections there could be people all over the United States of America who were kicked off of Facebook prior to the November 3rd 2020 election even though they were on the ballot. After all I was targeted. I was targeted and permanently banned from Facebook in October 2020 prior to the November 3rd 2020 election even though I was on the official election ballot even though I had won a primary election in Vermont. Same for Laura Loomer as a Republican candidate winning a Republican primary in Florida and she's kicked off of Facebook and not let back on prior to the November 3rd 2020 election. Now because the federal law Title 52 United States Code Section 30121 prohibits foreign nationals directly or indirectly making any contribution or other thing of value. It's another type of contribution. It's another thing of value for Mark Zuckerberg's foreign court in his cyber government to kick candidates out. That's of value to the opposing party in other words to the Democrats because I didn't run as a Democrat. I ran as a progressive Laura Loomer ran as a Republican. So it was a thing of value. It was a contribution or thing of value to the Democrats by foreigners and Mark Zuckerberg's foreign court where he uses foreign money to pay his employees to kick us off. I think that was wrong. I think that was a crime. That's my opinion. So because the judge in Trump versus Facebook marked all of my documents that I filed. She struck them from the ballot. She marked them stricken. So what did I do? I wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice and said that I think that my constitutional question should be considered and that's about where we're at right now. Now the U.S. Department of Justice has to get the U.S. solicitor involved and they have to decide whether or not they are going to respond to Donald Trump's constitutional question, which is his constitutional question is United title 47 United States code section 230, which is allows for censoring. Is that unconstitutional when I'm addressing is title 47 section 230, but you scroll down the law and you scroll down to where it says section 230 gives you no right to violate any criminal law. So because I think I'm the victim of crime, I think they had no right to censor me. Again, section what United title 47 United States code section 230 gives entities the right to censor. But if you scroll down the law and read the whole thing, it says you still don't have any right to violate any federal criminal law. And I feel that Laura Loomer and I were victims of crime by Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. I think they violated two federal criminal laws title 18 United States code section 600 and title 52 United States code section 30121. That's my opinion. Now I do not know if the United States Department of Justice Civil Division is going to take any concern with my letters that I've sent them. I don't know if the US Solicitor General will be given the letters I sent them asking my constitutional question. But that's where we're at right now. And I'll keep you updated. Thank you very much for listening. And thanks a lot. My name's Chris Erickson politics 2022.org and I'll run again.