Primary-source archive · Corrections tracked
This page is the canonical index to the documentary record in Finn v. Global Engagement Center: court filings, court orders, government documents, platform records, plaintiff declarations, and the reports that named us. Every item is publicly cited with a source, a date, and a link to at least one archive that lives outside any single platform.
Documents are grouped by who produced them, not by argument. A court order sits with other court orders. A White House email sits with other government documents. A platform enforcement record sits with other platform records. This makes the chain of responsibility easier to trace and harder to blur.
Every material error is corrected, dated, and preserved in the corrections log. We do not silently edit. If you find a mistake, write to corrections@restorethe1st.com — include the item, the correction, and your source.
Each item links to at least one durable archive: Internet Archive (permanent, non-Google), plus a working Drive copy where useful. Court filings also link to the official PACER docket entry.
What we filed: complaints, amended complaints, motions, oppositions, and briefs.
All 210 court filings are available below in the Full Docket section — organized by category, with direct links to each PDF. Jump to Full Docket ↓
§ · The Full Docket
The complete court record for Finn v. Global Engagement Center (M.D. Fla., Case No. 3:25-cv-00543): 210 documents from the May 15, 2025 complaint through the July 28, 2026 dismissal with prejudice. Hosted directly from counsel (ChildersLaw). Every link opens the original PDF from the court record.
Start here. These are the substantive pleadings, the dispositive motions, and the orders that closed the case.
The evolving pleading, from Complaint through Third Amended Complaint.
Defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' opposition briefs.
Defendants' attempts to move the case out of the Middle District of Florida.
Judicial rulings — grants, denials, and the dismissal orders.
Service on each of the twelve defendants.
Case management, extensions, stays, and mediator appointments.
Counsel appearances, disclosure statements, pro hac vice admissions.
Additional documents in the record.
What the court issued — every order, in date order.
Sua sponte dismissal on the court's own review as an impermissible "shotgun pleading." The court stated that the pleading's structure prevented it from reaching "even the threshold jurisdictional issue" of standing. All pending motions terminated.
Order, Finn v. GEC, U.S.D.C., M.D. Fla., July 28, 2026 (Berger, J.).
Additional interim orders (schedule orders, orders on motions, order on request for leave to amend) will be added as archived.
Internal government communications, referrals, and records that touch this case — federal correspondence, agency records, and public findings.
Internal executive-branch communication referencing the twelve named individuals, platform demotion efforts, and reach-mitigation. Cited in the operative pleading.
Directs that federal departments, agencies, officers, employees, and agents may not act or use federal resources in a manner inconsistent with Americans' constitutionally protected speech; tasks the Attorney General with investigating federal activities “over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order” and recommending remedial action.
Exec. Order No. 14149, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, 90 Fed. Reg. 8243 (Jan. 28, 2025) (signed Jan. 20, 2025).
Opens formal congressional censorship investigation of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Demands every CCDH communication with the executive branch and social media companies dating to January 2015 concerning content moderation — and specifically including CCDH’s role in “the attribution of content to the source or participant in a foreign malign or state-sponsored influence operation.”
Follow-up letter continuing the House Judiciary Committee’s CCDH investigation. Congressional record on CCDH’s U.S. government interactions remains open.
Additional documents (referral tickets, escalation logs, meeting notes, and trusted-flagger submissions) will be added as obtained and archived. Congress's oversight submissions and inspector-general responses will also live here.
Enforcement actions, domain penalties, demonetizations, and platform-internal documents referencing named targets.
Internal platform record identifying GreenMedInfo.com as a Disinformation Dozen associated domain and applying a distribution reduction. Cited in the operative pleading and referenced in the plaintiffs' statement.
Individual enforcement notices, appeal records, and payment-platform closures for each named plaintiff will be added as archived. Each item will include the policy basis cited, the date, and the appeal outcome where available.
Sworn statements by each plaintiff — the personal record of what happened, to whom, and when.
Declarations from Erin Elizabeth Finn, Sayer Ji, Rizza Islam, Dr. Christiane Northrup, Dr. Ben Tapper, and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny will be published here in redacted form as each plaintiff clears them for release.
The public reports and briefings that placed each plaintiff on named-target lists.
Report naming twelve individuals — including each plaintiff — and urging platforms to deplatform them, their organizations, and their backup accounts. Claim: the twelve produced ~65% of anti-vaccine content across Facebook and Twitter; ~73% on Facebook specifically. Contrast: Facebook VP Monika Bickert later stated publicly that the platform’s own data placed the group at approximately 0.05% of vaccine-content views.
Television report that a Salt Lake City attorney, Brian Rothschild, was “gearing up to file mass action lawsuits across the country” against the twelve people named in the CCDH report, on behalf of spouses, children and parents of unvaccinated COVID-19 victims, with filings planned “in several states by the end of October.” Quoted: “Those are the people who should be held accountable for this.” Significance: the list was used as the basis for a public threat of wrongful-death liability against named speakers. Status: a search of federal dockets on September 29, 2026 located no such suit against any plaintiff; state dockets cannot be searched comprehensively.
Establishes that the organization that produced the “Disinformation Dozen” is a UK non-profit — not a U.S. organization — headquartered at 82 St John Street, London EC1M 4JN, company number 11633127, incorporated October 19, 2018.
Follow-on CCDH reports, related briefings, and government citations of these figures will be linked here as archived.
The list
A 40-page report by a British non-profit, cited by the White House and U.S. senators while pressuring platforms to act. Six of the twelve named became plaintiffs in Finn. The other six did not. Millions who were never named were caught in the same enforcement wave.
The Report
The report’s Appendix (pp. 12–39) lists twelve individuals by name and urges platforms to act on all twelve, their organizations, and their backup accounts. In its own order:
Six of the twelve named are plaintiffs in Finn v. Global Engagement Center et al. The other six are not parties to this litigation and are named here only to accurately identify the report’s contents.
The foreign intermediary
Every American should understand who wrote the report that the White House and U.S. senators cited to pressure platforms against us.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate — the organization that published the “Disinformation Dozen” and expressly urged platforms to deplatform us — is a British non-profit. CCDH Ltd. is registered in England at 82 St John Street, London EC1M 4JN, company number 11633127, incorporated October 19, 2018. CCDH confirmed its own UK identity and structure in federal court filings: “Defendant CCDH UK is a non-profit organization formed under English law and headquartered in London.” It also operates a smaller U.S. 501(c)(3) affiliate (“CCDH US”), but the parent operation is British.
A foreign non-profit — unaccountable to American voters, outside U.S. transparency law, and outside U.S. campaign-finance and lobbying disclosure — produced a private list of American citizens. That list then circulated to the White House and to United States Senators, was cited by them publicly, and was followed by platform-enforcement action against the named Americans. That pipeline — foreign entity → U.S. government → U.S. platforms → named Americans — is precisely the kind of arrangement that transparency, oversight, and due process exist to test.
Congress has already recognized the seriousness of these questions. On August 3, 2023, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan opened a formal censorship investigation into CCDH, demanding every CCDH communication with the executive branch and social media companies dating to January 2015 concerning “the moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, demonetization, or reduced circulation of content” — and specifically including CCDH’s role in “the attribution of content to the source or participant in a foreign malign or state-sponsored influence operation.” The subpoena follow-up went out on November 7, 2024. That congressional record remains open.
We do not allege that CCDH is a state actor or a foreign intelligence operation. We allege something narrower and more provable: that a private foreign organization produced a named-target list of Americans, and that U.S. officials and U.S. platforms treated that list as actionable — without transparent evidence, notice to the named Americans, due process, or meaningful appeal.
First Amendment protections do not evaporate because the accuser is offshore. If anything, they demand more scrutiny, not less: a British non-profit is not accountable to the American electorate, not subject to FOIA, not required to disclose its funders under U.S. campaign-finance law, and not answerable to any U.S. inspector general. Every American, of every viewpoint, has a stake in whether foreign-origin lists can be laundered through U.S. government channels into domestic economic and digital punishment.
The others named
The “Disinformation Dozen” report identified twelve slots on a single foreign-produced list. Six of the Americans on that list are the plaintiffs in Finn v. Global Engagement Center. The rest — doctors, publishers, filmmakers, authors, community leaders — were named alongside us and lived through the same platform actions, the same public attacks, and the same absence of due process. One of them now leads the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Official U.S. government portrait, 2025. Public domain.
Slot #2 on the list · Sworn in Feb. 13, 2025
26th U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Environmental attorney, author, and founder of Children’s Health Defense. Named by CCDH as the second individual on the “Disinformation Dozen” list in March 2021. Removed from Instagram that same year. Ran for U.S. President as a Democrat, then as an independent, then endorsed the winning ticket. Confirmed by the Senate on February 13, 2025 by a vote of 52–48 and sworn in by Justice Neil Gorsuch that afternoon in the Oval Office.
Why this fact matters to the case: Kennedy’s Senate confirmation vote occurred less than three weeks after President Trump signed Executive Order 14149 (“Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”) — an order whose findings acknowledge that the federal government “infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens.” One of the men whose speech that acknowledgement describes now heads the Cabinet department most directly named in the underlying CCDH deplatforming campaign. His appointment does not moot the plaintiffs’ claims; if anything, it underscores that the harms the executive order describes were inflicted on real, identifiable Americans — including one now serving in the United States Cabinet.
None of the individuals below is a party to Finn v. Global Engagement Center. Each was, however, publicly named on the same foreign-produced list that named the plaintiffs, and each was subject to the platform actions that followed. Their inclusion here is a matter of accurate historical record — not legal representation.
Identified by CCDH as the leading “superspreader” of the twelve. Publisher of one of the largest independent natural-health platforms in the U.S. Removed from major social platforms following the report.
Mercola.com →Documentary filmmakers behind The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines docuseries. Occupied a single “slot” on the CCDH list as a married pair. Both experienced platform actions and public deplatforming following the March 2021 report.
The Truth About Cancer →Osteopathic physician and author known for advocacy on chelation therapy and integrative medicine. Removed from major platforms after the report. Died in May 2023 at age 57 — named on the list, but no longer able to be heard on it.
Biography →Board-certified psychiatrist, NYU-trained, author of A Mind of Your Own. Founder of the Vital Life membership community. Publicly identified on the CCDH list and subject to platform actions across her professional accounts.
kellybroganmd.com →Founder of the Urban Global Health Alliance and host of a long-running health and civil-liberties podcast. Publicly named on the list and subject to platform enforcement following the report.
Urban Global Health Alliance →Every prior lawsuit
Finn v. Global Engagement Center was not the first attempt to hold the federal government accountable for pressuring platforms to censor Americans. It was the one that was supposed to survive the doctrine that killed the others — by naming plaintiffs who had been publicly identified in a deplatforming campaign, by documenting specific injuries, and by pleading a chain that Murthy v. Missouri’s standing test demanded. Then a procedural ruling terminated it before any of that evidence could be tested.
U.S.D.C., W.D. La. (Judge Doughty) → Fifth Circuit → U.S. Supreme Court
The flagship jawboning case. Missouri and Louisiana, joined by five individual plaintiffs, sued Biden-era federal officials, alleging the government coerced platforms to suppress speech on COVID-19, elections, and other topics.
Why it didn’t protect Americans: Murthy did not decide whether the government’s pressure was unconstitutional. It decided that private citizens — even those who could point to platform actions against their accounts — could not, as a rule, prove the internal chain of causation without discovery. That is the doctrine every subsequent case has run into. It is the doctrine Finn was crafted to survive.
U.S.D.C., W.D. La. → Fifth Circuit (later merged into Missouri proceedings on remand)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children’s Health Defense, and journalist Connie Sampognaro sued Biden-era officials on the same jawboning theory. After Murthy came down, the case was remanded to consider standing under the new framework.
U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal. → Ninth Circuit
CHD sued Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, and third-party “fact-checker” Science Feedback alleging platform action against CHD’s accounts amounted to state action under the First Amendment.
U.S.D.C., S.D. Ohio → Sixth Circuit
Scientists Mark Changizi, Michael Senger, and Daniel Kotzin sued HHS over the Surgeon General’s misinformation initiative and the Twitter/Meta actions they alleged flowed from it.
Filed in W.D. La. and E.D. Tex., March–April 2026
After Executive Order 14149, the Trump-era Department of Justice settled three of the remaining jawboning suits.
Why the consent decrees don’t protect anyone but the plaintiffs: A consent decree binds the parties to the case. The plaintiffs get forward-looking relief. Everyone else — including the Americans who were actually named on the “Disinformation Dozen” list, penalized during that era, and shut out of court by Murthy’s standing rule — gets no records disclosed, no accounting, no admission of wrongdoing, and no restoration of what was taken. Three federal agencies are on a 10-year leash. The rest are not. And the injuries that predate the settlement are, as a matter of law and practice, unremedied.
U.S.D.C., M.D. Fla.
Six plaintiffs — each publicly named in the “Disinformation Dozen” report and each documenting specific account, domain, business, and payment-platform injuries — filed suit against the Global Engagement Center and related actors. The complaint was designed for the post-Murthy standing world: it identified named plaintiffs, named defendants, named reports, named platform actions, and requested targeted discovery to produce the internal chain.
The reason this case matters historically: Every prior case failed on standing. Finn was the case that pled standing under the exact rubric Murthy demanded — and was terminated on a pleading-form issue before that showing could be tested. Between Murthy’s doctrine and Finn’s procedural end, the door for named targets is now effectively closed. Congress is the only branch left with the power to open it.
The dispute is now public