Laura Loomer Laughed Out Of Court Again, This Time For Suing The Muslims
Laura Loomer is a professional bigot who thinks she is much more important than she is.
Her main claims to fame are handcuffing herself to Twitter's door and saying really terrible things about Muslims and immigrants. Oh, and she recently had an unsuccessful run for Congress.
Laura, the ultimate Florida Woman, likes to brag about being the "most banned woman" on the internet. And, indeed, she has been banned from platforms as diverse as GoFundMe, Uber and Lyft, Medium, Venmo, PayPal, Facebook, Instagram, and Medium for her horrific bigotry.
But, of course, sociopathic narcissists like Loomer can never accept that the consequences of their actions are their own doing. And in her sad, twisted little brain, not only was her ban from Twitter NOT FAIR — it was actually the work of Muslims, conspiring with Twitter to deplatform her. So she sued Twitter, the non-profit Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and CAIR's Florida affiliate.
Yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Illoominate Media v. CAIR Florida, ruling against Loomer on every argument she made on appeal. (And yes, just typing "iloominate" made me throw up a little in my mouth.)
I think the 11th Circuit judges had almost as much trouble taking Loomer seriously as the rest of us do. Here's how they describe her case:
Twitter banned Laura Loomer, a self-described political activist and journalist, from using its platform in 2018. It claimed that one of her tweets violated its Terms of Service; Loomer tells a different story. She thinks that CAIR Foundation, a self-described Muslim civil rights group, conspired with Twitter and CAIR-Florida, one of CAIR Foundation's independent chapters, to ban her account. According to Loomer, the trio targeted her because they disagree with her political views.
The judges' clear disdain for Loomer's bullshit only grows from there, with little jabs like "that too is wrong" and "Plaintiffs also seem to think" spread throughout the 12-page opinion. At one point, the opinion says, "The plaintiffs think the district court applied the wrong standard, but that's just not so."
Loomer had initially named Twitter as a defendant in this case before, apparently, just giving up. Her attorneys seem almost as good at lawyering as Rudy Guliani and Sidney Powell.
Loomer and her company, Illoominate Media, sued CAIR Foundation, CAIR-Florida, John Does 1-5, and Twitter in Florida state court for violations of state law—though they never served Twitter or the John Does and eventually dismissed Twitter from the case.
(Represented by superlawyer Larry Klayman, Laura has also tried to sue Twitter and other tech companies for eleventy billion dollars, but literally three billion dollars. The fantastic duo was, shockingly, unsuccessful.)
This case is fucking ridiculous no matter what angle you look at it from. Which isn't shocking, considering the plaintiff was so fucking crazy that she was actually banned from CPAC. I think my favorite part, though, is that this entire conspiracy theory was based on a fucking prank. Nathan Bernard and Chris Gillen spend their time pranking right-wingers, and they posed as Twitter employees and told her CAIR was behind her ban. The pair submitted affidavits for CAIR detailing what went down.
The defendants, for their part, provided several sworn statements to buttress their claims that CAIR-Florida was fraudulently joined. In one, Nathan Bernard explained that this story originated as a prank. According to Bernard, he and Chris Gillen decided to convince Loomer that CAIR Foundation was the reason Twitter banned her account. Bernard stated that CAIR-Florida was not involved in their scheme and that they never mentioned CAIR-Florida to Loomer during the entirety of the prank. Other affidavits state that, prior to this lawsuit, no one at CAIR-Florida had spoken with CAIR Foundation about Laura Loomer or Illoominate Media and no one from CAIR-Florida had contacted Twitter about banning her account.
But gods forbid Loomer ever admit she was wrong or back down from anything.
The court also held that Loomer had fraudulently named CAIR-Florida as a defendant in an attempt to keep the case out of federal court, saying
To sum up, Plaintiffs offered nothing beyond vague speculation that CAIR-Florida was involved in the plan to ban Loomer from Twitter and did not rebut CAIR Foundation's contentions of fraudulent joinder. Because there is no possibility that the plaintiffs could prove a cause of action against CAIR-Florida, its joinder was fraudulent.
"The plaintiffs think the district court applied the wrong standard, but that's just not so [...] And contrary to what the plaintiffs might think, none of the allegations from their amended complaint support an inference that CAIR-Florida acted in concert with CAIR Foundation and Twitter to ban Loomer's account."
But for now, we can do a little happy dance that this particular case was sent to the trash, where it belongs.
Here's the opinion:
Follow Jamie on Twitter. What's the worst that could happen?
We like money. Will you please give us some?