Former DOJ Attorney warns, “If you are suing these Government officials, where does the money come from? If, and when, you win? Is it taxpayer money?” as many Social Media users are finding themselves blocked by Official Government accounts.

On the afternoon of Saturday, March 23rd, 2024, best-selling author Buzz Patterson was shocked to see that Congressman Eric Swalwell’s official government X account had blocked him. Patterson is a decorated Veteran, respected member of both the aviation and political communities, as well as a former carrier of the “Nuke Football.” Almost immediately, he was in contact with a former DOJ attorney, (known on X by his handle, @CryptoLawyerz) who saw this as a legitimate first amendment violation, and took on the case. In a span of two hours, a firestorm erupted on X, as this story went viral. The seasoned attorney, Crypto, stated that this was, “The quickest legal issue, and resolution I’ve ever dealt with.” He also posed another question, if this had gone to litigation, are taxpayers funding the legal bills?

Post from Buzz Patterson that exposed Swalwell had blocked him, a violation of his First Amendment Rights

The timing of this couldn’t have been more perfect, with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Kevin Lindke last week, in the Lindke v. Freed case. City Manager of Port Huron, MI, James Freed, blocked Kevin Lindke for his critical posts of Freed’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. After looking over the specifics of the case, and alleged claims, Crypto decided that based off the merit, he was able, and willing to proceed. “It’s not a per-say Constitutional violation, but if there is a government employee, from an official account, using the account for official purposes, if they block you as an American Citizen: there’s a violation of 1st Amendment rights.” He goes on to explain that elected officials are responsible to the American citizens, and taxpayers. If these official government accounts are posting information about bills, or pertinent official communications, they don’t have the right to restrict who can see, or view the information.

@CryptoLawyerz had drafted official letters, to which he’d planned on sending our Monday, March 25th, 2024. However, after getting over a hundred thousand views, Crypto did not need to proceed further, as the issue had been remedied

Crypto also distinguishes the fact that not all acts of blocking, constitute a legitimate violation, “Just because someone blocked you, and just because it’s an official account, doesn’t mean per-say, it’s a first amendment violation. You know, you have to look into why it was blocked, and things of that nature. If you’re harassing someone or having hate speech, or you know if there’s a legitimate reason of why someone may block you, that takes it out of the carve-outs.” An example of a more complex case would be Comedian Alex Stein v. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez blocked Alex Stein after he had approached her outside the US Capitol, cat-calling her as his “”favorite big booty Latina” and exclaiming he loved her, posting the interaction online. Stein v Ocasio-Cortez is still in litigation. However, this poses an important question, who’s on the hook for the legal fees and potential pay-outs if the courts deem that Congressmen are in violation of the 1st amendment?

This is the presumed post Thomas Murphy had posted on X, which he believes initiated the block from Congressman Swalwell’s Official Government X account

In the wake of these revelations, Thomas Murphy (hoping to unseat incumbent Lindsey Graham in South Carolina in 2026) came forward that he had also been blocked by Swalwell’s Official X account. Crypto warns, “I think you’re going to be seeing an onslaught of litigation. And the next question becomes; if you are suing these government officials, where does the money come from? If, and when, you win? Is it taxpayer money? Does it come from their own pockets? You’re not going to be suing them in their official capacity, you’re going to be suing them in their individual capacity.”

Thomas Murphy displaying his victory garnered by @CryptoLawyerz

As stated earlier, this case ended almost as fast as it came about; under two hours. It’s believed that Swalwell’s team saw the commotion on X, because in under two hours, both Patterson and Murphy reported back to Crypto, they had been unblocked. However, based on the direct messages Crypto has since received (he stopped counting after 100) in the last 12 hours, from X users who’ve also been blocked by Official Government accounts; this might have uncovered a massive violation of citizen’s free speech. It doesn’t appear to be a one-sided issue, as elected officials, within the GOP, have been caught blocking as well. There was a hope that perhaps some of these posts would fall in front of the eyes of Elon Musk. Ultimately, Crypto’s goal was to defend his clients’ rights, but also to get it in front of Musk. With the potential rise in litigation on that could come from this, Crypto believes that a re-post, or statement by Elon would solidify this from happening again. It’s his belief that Musk doesn’t have to agree or disagree with the sentiment, but by simply raising the issue, forces a spotlight on the accounts in question. Much of this can be remedied by a simple unblock, versus expensive litigation, potentially at the cost of the American Tax-Payers.

@CryptoLawyerz is still receiving a mountain of direct messages as this article went to print

If you are interested in following this story in real time, check out their X accounts below:

@CryptoLawyerz; Former DOJ Attorney, and Practicing Attorney. He hosted a recorded X Space (37min), which you can find, and listen to the play by play of how this transpired.

Buzz Patterson: @BuzzPatterson & Thomas Murphy @tommymurphy8485