Category: Harsh Truths

Did Facebook, Paypal, Twitter, Youtube, Google, and Gofundme discriminate against you??

It is reported that Paypal, Twitter, Youtube/Google, and other high-tech companies head-quartered in California appear to be engaging in wide-spread view-point discrimination against politically unpopular Right-wing users in the name of combating what they selectively call “hate”. Meanwhile these companies take no action against the Left-wing users who spew hate against decency and morality.

After being blocked or demoted on one of these sites due to anonymous accusations of violating nebulous “terms of service” conditions, one must make a Kafkaesque “appeal” to the company’s “Team” for re-instatement, often unsuccessfully.

Finding a new website with comparable services is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This is because these platforms dump their services “free” into the market drawing the entire public in as their exclusive customers thus making it impossible for competing firms to capture any market share.

These monopolies amplify anti-right-wing discrimination by also forcing the firms doing business with them to adopt the same type of boycott. Politically-correct witch-hunts end up ostracising people from important internet-based websites that everybody else in society, including politicians & government agencies, rely upon. Further, these hypocritical companies claim to be immune from any liability stemming from the conduct of their users, yet they selectively do control and regulate users who espouse right-wing viewpoints.

Although true freedom includes the freedom to discriminate, that is not today’s law. Left-wingers have erected a lopsided “non-discrimination” regime that only operates to punish the sensible conduct of private families and businesses: Left-wing degeneracy is left untouched.

The only true freedom and right is to obey the God-given mandate to do what is objectively right. Liberal companies who unfairly discriminate against decent right-wing Christian people in the name of ‘anti-hate’ policies have perverted notions of their freedom. We need not quietly acquiesce while they ostracise us.

These companies created open-forums to the general public of persons of every persuasion, and they dumped their “free” services into the market to capture internet monopolies, and they have come to provide what are essentially “necessary goods” in today’s computer-age. Given such a situation, these liberal do-gooder companies, despite being “private,” should nevertheless be restricted from their right to discriminate against the users of their services on the basis of conservative viewpoints, including the advocacy for discrimination.

Facebook, Paypal, Twitter, Youtube, and Gofundme have corporate headquarters in California and would be subject to jurisdiction here for a class-action lawsuit against them.

NOTICE: Please feel free to contact me if you were/are a user of Facebook, Paypal, Twitter, Youtube/Google, Gofundme (or other high-profile internet company based in California) and you would like to discuss participating in a possible class-action lawsuit against these companies because they unfairly terminated or demoted you based on their accusations of “hate” due to your right-wing values.

Inquiries will be kept in confidence. I can be reached at matthewgregorymclaughlin ^at^


” Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence.” Psalms 94:16-17

Judge Ongkeko dismisses McLaughlin’s complaint

Update: I’ve now filed my notice of appeal.

Update 2: Appeal info here.


Completely unsurprising: Kamala Harris’ anti-SLAPP motion was granted. Court’s 13 page ruling here: ruling-ongkeko (pdf).

tl/dr version:

The Filipino* asserts that AG Harris’ “alleged false claims” regarding the Sodomite Suppression Mandate “are protected acts for SLAPP purposes.” Filipino then evaluates whether I can prevail on my complaint, and says I can’t possibly prevail because the 3rd District judge’s comment that accompanied the summary denial to hear my writ petition became “res judicata” – meaning it has been decided on the merits that I am “bound by” the declaratory default judgment that only pertained to my first initiative. The Filipino seemed to think that my own anticipation and protest, in my petition for review, that that goofy judge’s comment would later be misconstrued as res judicata against me, amounted to some sort of concession by me that his statement was indeed valid res judicata. The Filipino also suggested that I should have told the AG that I was withdrawning my first ballot initiative before the default judgment against it was issued, but since I didn’t do that, I now “must live with the consequences of his [my] decision.”

The Filipino’s ruling is all wrong. Kamala Harris’ alleged free speech right to make “false statements” isn’t even an issue – rather her action of intentionally refusing to perform a mandatory duty of her office. Her “false statements” didn’t hurt me – her refusal to give me a title and summary hurt me and took away my petitioning rights – that’s why I’m suing her. There is nothing in her refusing to do her job that entailed her exercising free speech. If my petitioning rights only contingently exist subject to Harris’ free choice, then she could decide not to do her duty, silence me, and I’d never have any recourse to do anything about it! Worse still, I’m stopped by a punitive anti-SLAPP motion.

The Filipino also failed to comprehend that res judicata only applies to decisions of actually litigated matters heard by a court, it does not apply to summary denials of writ petitions when the court refuses to even consider the matter. This is explained in the Supreme Court’s 1992 Kowis v Howard case that the Filipino completely ignored – even though I mentioned it twice. Filipino also highlighted the (irritating) fact that the Supreme Court’s clerk erroneously entitled my writ petition when it was filed as if it belonged to the Sacramento Superior Court action to infer therefrom some sort of high court sanction for him assuming that the second initiative was definitely included in the default judgment made against the first one.  Also, the Filipino’s unsolicited advice about how I could have made the default judgment moot is irrelevant and insulting. My Constitutional right to petition in the first instance I by silence allowed her to seek to transgress, but I never would have willingly withdrawn it. The default judgment Harris obtained was itself illegal – the mere absence of a defendant isn’t grounds for a court to grant an improper declaratory relief request that is not according to the law. Nevertheless, the wording of the default judgment is conclusive enough – it says it only applies to the Sodomite Suppression Act – not to any later initiatives of mine.

The Filipino includes a sneaky paragraph near the end entitled “Other grounds preventing McLaughlin from prevailing” where the Filipino suggests that he has a lot more ammunition in waiting to use for granting the anti-SLAPP motion, but he claims he didn’t consider these yet because the res judicata issue settled it. This is the Filipino’s crafty way of inviting the appeals court – if they reverse him on the res judicata issue – to send back to him the matter for further deliberations on those points, and then obviously the sneaky Filipino would make the same ruling again using one of those remaining grounds.

Another ridiculous ruling to add to all the others.

*Ongkeko should be called the “Filipino” because that’s exactly how he wants to be known. He is another one of California’s sea of subpar affirmative-action type judges who are into the unseemly promotion of their exclusive racial-identity clique. If White Anglo-Germanic Protestant judges attempted to do the same thing there’d be an endless hue and cry in the news media.

flip-judges(photo from


I’ll file an appeal soon.


“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverbs 14:34

“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 3:8