[Music] and welcome to Facts or Frauds. Make sure you hit that thumbs up button, you're subscribed, ring the bell for all notifications so you can be in the live chat on the next video premiere we have, and leave a comment in the comment section and tell me what you think. Today we're joined by Arty from Arty's Corporate Fiction going over that lawsuit Rise of the Moors filed against Massachusetts State Police and all those media outlets, you know, claiming defamation. You wonder what ever happened to that? Well, here's the federal court's decision. The plaintist filed a prosay complaint against defendants as well as 10 motions for leave to proceed in former propas and a motion to strike evidence and dismiss. When considering motions for IFP, the court is required to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915. Having done so, the court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted and thus dismisses the complaint and denies their motions. This suit arises from a highway stop and subsequent arrest of 11 self-described Moorish American nationals by Massachusetts state police. Plaintiffs include most of the individuals arrested. Jamal Latimer, Quinn Cumberlander, Aaron Johnson, Steven Perez, Lamar Dao, Wilfredo Hernandez, Connold Pierre, Robert Rodriguez, and an unnamed John Doe, as well as the organization Rise of the Moors. They sued defendants Medford, Massachusetts State Police, Massachusetts State Troopers Ryan Casey, Mike Sullivan, Orlando, Sergeants Matthew McDivet and Burnham, Malden District Court Judge Emily Karstetter, AT&T, Comcast, NBC Universal, Viacom, News Corporation, and CBS News Media, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in defamation, discrimination based on national origin, and deprivation of rights under the color of law. Their complaint presents 10 notices of removal addressed to the Malden District Court arguing for the removal of each of the arrested plaintiffs pending criminal matters to federal court. They also submitted an affidavit expressing their interpretation of the highway encounter as well as a probable cause narrative. criminal complaints and arrest reports prepared by the Massachusetts State Police. The plaintiffs have filed 10 motions for IFP or application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidavit. When reviewing such applications, the court must screen the complaint under 28 USC, which states in relevant part, notwithstanding any filing fee or any portion thereof that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that this action or appeal fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Under this standard, the court must dismiss plaintiff's complaint at its core. The complaint challenges their arrest and subsequent criminal proceedings in Massachusetts. However, this court must abstain from hearing such challenges based on doctrines established in younger v. Harris. Now, this is where you're going to come in, Arty, cuz tell us all about the younger v. Harris and how it applies to this case. Hey, thanks for having me on. So, what we have here is that Jamal and company filed suit in federal court for defamation against various Massachusetts agencies and actors, but more importantly challenged their arrests and criminal proceedings against them. The court relies on Younger versus Harris, a Supreme Court case which essentially outlined the general principle that the federal courts will not interfere with state court proceedings, particularly criminal proceedings, since that is exactly what the rise of the Moors lawsuit wants to do. This was an easy decision for the court. Thanks, Arty. And the decision goes on, thus federal courts are inappropriate forum for criminal defendants to mount their challenges to ongoing state prosecutions. Instead, the accused should first set up and rely upon his defense in the state court unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford adequate protection. Here, the court must abstain from reviewing plaintiff's claims which may be brought in the context of their state criminal proceedings. Considering younger alongside the absence of any clear defamation allegations, the court finds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, their complaint is dismissed and their motions for IFP and motion to strike evidence and dismiss are denied as moot. My thanks to Arty from Arty's Corporate Fiction. Make sure you go over to his channel and subscribe if you're not already. Thanks for joining us on Facts or Fraud. Make sure you hit that thumbs up, you're subscribed, ring the bell for all notifications so you can be in the live chat the next time we premiere a video. As for me, Wan is and I'll see you next time.