“…Make arguments like that in court. I dare you. Dumbass…”

Eric Schmitt (r) [2022 file photo].

Eric Schmitt (r) has a past.

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 1 (January 6, 2022)
[….]

[….]
Subject: STOP

Please stop this!!!! School boards are elected to make decisions locally! Let them do their jobs. Republicans are the party of local control. Please leave it to them.
[….]

[….]

Eric the Frivolous (January 29, 2022)

Stuck on mindless repeat (January 28, 2022)
[….]

Eric Schmitt @Eric_Schmitt
Lockdowns cause harm. Schools should remain open. Cloth masks are ineffective. Many hospitalizations/deaths are with and not from Covid. Vaccines aren’t preventing transmission. All labeled misinformation at one point —all true. #NoMaskMandates #NoLockdowns
7:57 AM · Jan 28, 2022

Make arguments like that in court. I dare you. Dumbass.
[….]

Sociopath.

And now, overreaching authoritarian and incompetent boob.

Via the Missouri Independent:

Judge rules Missouri AG had no authority to order end of school mask mandates
Former Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s public attacks on school districts led to ‘even greater confusion than the pandemic had already caused’
BY: JASON HANCOCK – MAY 27, 2023

Former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt lacked any legal authority to order school districts to end COVID-19 mitigation measures, a Jackson County judge ruled Friday.

In his 18-page decision, Judge Marco Roldan concluded that the attorney general’s office did not follow Missouri law when it demanded last year that Lee’s Summit R-7 School District rescind the measures put in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

Schmitt sued Lee’s Summit, along with 46 other school districts, then amplified his attacks on social media, “encouraging parents and students to defy the authority granted to the board of education by Missouri law,” Roldan wrote.

That led to “even greater confusion than the pandemic had already caused.”

“The attorney general lacked any legal authority to insert himself into the school district’s efforts to manage the COVID-19 pandemic,” Roldan wrote.
[….]

Via a link at the Missouri Independent:

[….]
Former Attorney General Eric Schmitt twice directed the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District to rescind its COVID-19 mitigation measures, even though its Board of Education had validly adopted those measures under Missouri statutes giving the Board of Education broad powers to control and govern the School District’s operations. The Attorney General did not identify statutes or constitutional provisions to support his order, resting his directive instead on a judgment in another case to which no school district was a party, and whose rationale did not apply to the School District. The Attorney General then amplified his orders on social media, encouraging parents and students to defy the authority granted to the Board of Education by Missouri law. Parents and students followed the Attorney General’s lead, leading to even greater confusion than the pandemic had already caused.

Aside from lacking any authority over locally elected boards of education, the Attorney General’s orders did not follow Missouri law and were therefore without legal force or effect. Neither Attorney General Schmitt nor his successor has disavowed the orders, and in fact, the Attorney General continues to insist that school districts lack the very authority granted them under Missouri law.
[….]

[….]
This case began with a petition filed by then-Attorney General Eric S. Schmitt on behalf of the State of Missouri. Several individual plaintiffs joined in the petition. Broadly speaking, the petition alleged that the Board of Education of the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District acted unlawfully by adopting a mask mandate in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The School District denied many of the material allegations of the petition and asserted a counterclaim against the Attorney General. Its counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General exceeded his lawful authority when he issued and publicized through social media letters to the School District and its Superintendent ordering them to rescind the School District’s mask mandate and abandon other COVID-19 mitigation measures.

The Attorney General and the individual plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their petition less than two months after filing it, leaving only the School District’s counterclaim for the Court to resolve. Both parties have moved for summary judgment since there are no genuine issues of material fact and the School District’s counterclaim raises only questions of law. The Court agrees there are no material issues of fact. After carefully considering the arguments raised by the parties, the Court GRANTS the School District’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment.
[….]

[….]
The Attorney General also posted Facebook messages asking parents to notify him about “school districts continuing to enforce mask mandates and quarantines, in violation of the recent Cole County ruling” and to notify him of “mask mandates that are null and void under the judgment.”
[….]

[….]
The Attorney General has argued that his letters were standard cease and desist letters that any prospective litigant is free to send as a precursor to litigation. The Court rejects this post-hoc rationalization because it ignores both the tenor and threat of future orders of the letters and the social media posts the Attorney General distributed to amplify them. It also elides the interpretation of the orders the public had of the Attorney General’s authority. The letters were not supported by statute or legal precedent and were subject to misinterpretation of the laws of the State of Missouri. The clear intent of the Attorney General’s letters, particularly in view of his later communications and social media posts, was to leave the School District and the public with the impression he had authority he did not have.
[….]

[….]
The Attorney General’s December 7 and 9 letters to the School District, stating that the School District was bound by the Robinson judgment was an incorrect statement of the law and was interpreted by lay persons as the law of the State of Missouri.

The Court therefore GRANTS the School District’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment. As a result, the Court enters judgment for the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District, and declares that the Attorney General’s December 7, 2021 to the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District and his December 9, 2021 letter to the School District’s Superintendent exceeded the Attorney General’s authority, and had no legal force or effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
[….]

Interestingly, Eric Schmitt (r) has yet to say anything about this on social media.

Losing. Again.

Previously:

A simple request (December 9, 2021)

We get a response (December 14, 2021)

We’re still waiting… (December 31, 2021)

There’s much more to follow (January 6, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 1 (January 6, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 2 (January 7, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 3 (January 8, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – clown (January 8, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 4 (January 8, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – Get In Good Trouble (January 9, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 5 (January 9, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – One Is The Loneliest Number (January 9, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – Photo Evidence (January 10, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 6 (January 10, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 7 (January 11, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – Generations (January 12, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – Pets (January 12, 2022)

illegalmandates@ago.mo.gov – RSMo § 610 – Missouri Sunshine Law – email submissions – part 8 (January 13, 2022)