Image 01 Image 03

Soros-Funded Group Sues DeSantis On Behalf of Martha’s Vineyard Migrants

Soros-Funded Group Sues DeSantis On Behalf of Martha’s Vineyard Migrants

Who is using who?

Alianza Americas, an organization backed by George Soros, and illegal immigrants identified as “Doe” flown to Martha’s Vineyard filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Florida Department of Transportation, and Transportation Secretary Jared W. Perdue along with “DOES #1-5.”

Yes, Soros.

The suit claims their “inhumane and morally repugnant conduct (i) violated protections afforded to the Plaintiffs by the United States Constitution, (ii) violated federal statutes including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), and (iii) was tortious, entitling Plaintiffs and other class members to monetary, injunctive, and other relief as set forth herein.”

The three illegal immigrants are only identified as Yanet Doe, Pablo Doe, and Jesus Doe. All three are from Venezuela.

The lawsuit lists five unnamed defendants. It accuses the “Does” of targeting the illegal immigrants and enticing “them onto the flights to Martha’s Vineyard.”

The plaintiffs poured enough sugary syrup into the class action lawsuit to pull at the heartstrings. It sounds like Alianza Americas is using the plaintiffs for its own agenda.

The lawsuit starts off using every negative adjective to describe the horrid situation in Venezuela (we all know it’s beyond awful there) and everything the illegal immigrants had to endure in the country and on their journey:

Plaintiffs have led lives inflicted by violence, instability, insecurity, and abuse of trust by corrupt government officials that most Americans could hardly conceive of. They fled to the United States in a desperate attempt to protect themselves and their families from gang, police, and state-sponsored violence and the oppression of political dissent. To put it simply, Plaintiffs, and the class of similarly situated individuals they seek to represent, are vulnerable in a way and to an extent that almost defies verbal description. They are as deserving of dignity and empathy as anyone among us.

It accuses the defendants of “identifying and targeting class members by trolling streets outside of a migrant shelter in Texas and other similar locales, pretending to be good Samaritans offering humanitarian assistance.”

Supposedly the defendants took advantage of the plaintiffs “by exploiting their most basic needs”:

Under the auspices of acting out of the goodness of their hearts, the Doe Defendants made false promises and false representations that if the individual Plaintiffs and other class members were willing to board airplanes to other states, they would receive employment, housing, educational opportunities, and other like assistance at their arrival.

The behavior of the defendants, according to Alianza Americas, inflicted “cruelty” on the plaintiffs “akin to what they fled in their home country.” They “manipulated them, stripped them of their dignity, deprived them of their liberty, bodily autonomy, due process, and equal protection under law, and impermissibly interfered with the Federal Government’s exclusive control over immigration in furtherance of an unlawful goal and a personal political agenda.”

Holy Hyperbole. Yes, being transported to the liberal heaven known as Martha’s Vineyard is precisely like what the socialist regime in Venezuela inflicts on its citizens every day.

Who to believe? I’ve seen reports of other illegal immigrants saying they knew exactly what was happening and willingly traveled to Martha’s Vineyard. Some who went to Chicago, NYC, and DC said the same thing.

An overall horrible situation made worse with lies from the Biden administration about being able to walk freely across the border without questions. Then we have this Soros-backed organization trying to drown out every reasonable voice with its hyperbole.

Also, if you made yourself a sanctuary state or city, maybe you should be ready for an influx of illegal immigrants. Just saying.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Where are the damages?

Hope these lawyers are sanction for bringing a frivolous lawsuit, seeking attorneys fees for themselves. Brining repudiation of the profession.

Lol Biden flys the illegals all over America, destroying small towns

Lawyer up Biden

    RITaxpayer in reply to gonzotx. | September 21, 2022 at 1:10 am

    NY has been shipping their homeless to other states to take care of for years.

    I hope this BS lawsuit goes nowhere but, money talks.

    Dimsdale in reply to gonzotx. | September 21, 2022 at 7:01 am

    It is the Harry Reid “nuclear option” all over again.

    We can just start a new class action suit, using the same words (truthfully in this case), substituting “American citizens” for “migrants.” Local news is breathlessly reporting how moving the illegals is an “illegal” action, completely ignoring that invading the country is illegal. They will use the Venezuelans as model refugees, completely neglecting why they have to leave Venezuela (socialism/communism).

    How industrial strength stupid does one have to be not to see that it is Biden that is using the illegals as political pawns and doing precisely the same thing?

    Democrat socialist stupid.

How come any conservative lawsuit gets tossed even if it’s a good chance during to “no standing”?

Too bad for them they got signed consent forms for each and every one of the riders.

    Milhouse in reply to Ironclaw. | September 21, 2022 at 1:17 am

    If the consent was obtained by fraud, as they allege, then it’s not worth anything.

    The big question is what harm did these people incur? How are they worse off now than they were in El Paso or wherever they were before?

      Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | September 21, 2022 at 7:34 am

      We already know the answer to that as the forms state clearly the destination they are going to and they also gave an information packet with all of the contacts for agencies that they might find useful once there.,

        Milhouse in reply to Ironclaw. | September 21, 2022 at 9:20 am

        That’s irrelevant if they were promised that jobs, housing, etc. would all be arranged for them, as they are alleging.

        But again, even if their story is true, how were they harmed? How are they worse off than if they’d never gone? That’s the key question. If someone did them a favor by deception, there’s nothing to sue for.

          Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | September 21, 2022 at 10:05 am

          How would they go about proving any of that. They won’t have gotten it in writing, so unless they have a recording it’s nothing but hear-say.

It’s not Florida’s fault that Massachusetts had the refugees moved to a military base instead of providing the services expected from a sanctuary city.

If you made yourself a sanctuary state or city – then turned away illegal aliens who sought refuge – maybe you should be sued for your “inhumane and morally repugnant conduct (i) that violated protections afforded to the Plaintiffs by the United States Constitution, (ii) violated federal statutes including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), and (iii) was tortious, entitling Plaintiffs and other class members to monetary, injunctive, and other relief as set forth herein.”

Punch back twice as hard.

    jhkrischel in reply to LB1901. | September 20, 2022 at 10:24 pm

    Yup – sounds like sanctuary cities are liable for false promises.

      henrybowman in reply to jhkrischel. | September 21, 2022 at 12:47 am

      As Joe will surely argue, a sanctuary city isn’t so much an organization as it is an idea.
      It’s like a 911 dispatcher telling you that she isn’t getting you actual help, just making sure your request is logged into the system.

      Milhouse in reply to jhkrischel. | September 21, 2022 at 1:18 am

      What promises? All sanctuary cities ever promised was that they wouldn’t report illegal immigrants to the feds.

        That isn’t actually true, Milhouse. Many of them also made promises of aid, legally.

          caseoftheblues in reply to 4rdm2. | September 21, 2022 at 6:12 am

          Agree in looking at public statements issued by officials they definitely make statements about supporting and providing for them in addition to inviting them to come to avail themselves of services. Plus many of the sanctuary cities and counties has passed budgets with money in it for illegals that are present or will come ….so Milhouse is quite wrong.

        Heck, Massachusetts is one of those states that gives illegal aliens drivers licenses.

Looks like the enemy is feeling the heat. I have a feeling this will only invite more patriots to join the fray. Open up another front. Trump and DeSantis and ….? The clock is ticking.

As Randy Newman said of the benefit of America to immigrants from backward nations, ain’t no mamba snake.

Perhaps Florida should sue Martha’s Vineyard for being a sanctuary place and turning away a small group of “migrants?” (Migrants, my azz ) One of the ditsy women claimed that MV “didn’t have the RESOURCES to take in those people!”

HAhaaaahahahahaha! That bunch of millionaires & billionaires could easily dig into their pockets and put up tents until they built homes for all of them! Every mansion on MV has plenty of guest rooms too.

What a bunch of Hypocritical pea-brained MAROONS!

““[i]t is axiomatic that ‘in any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements of a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.’

Artiga Carrero v. Farrelly (D. Md. 2017) 270 F.Supp.3d 851, 862

    Juris Doctor in reply to Juris Doctor. | September 20, 2022 at 8:27 pm

    The Complaint fails under the second prong.

      Juris Doctor in reply to Juris Doctor. | September 20, 2022 at 8:31 pm

      The gimmick is in pargraphs 29 & 30. George Soros et al contend that Team DeSantis was required to pre-arrange guaranteed housing, employment, and educational opportunites that would be available for Plaintiffs upon arrival.

    It should be axiomatic that any litigation that lists a “Jesus Doe” as a plaintiff should be summarily dismissed and the counsel should be disbarred.

      Milhouse in reply to Concise. | September 21, 2022 at 1:20 am

      Huh? Why on earth?

        Because I don’t think they can be said to be under grave threat of bodily harm, and the fact they could, in theory at least, be deported (suffer the consequences of their own lawbreaking)is not sufficient reason for an anonymous lawsuit?

          Milhouse in reply to 4rdm2. | September 21, 2022 at 9:22 am

          That’s not what Concise said. He said any litigation by a “Jesus Doe” is illegitimate. That makes no sense at all. How is “Jesus Doe” different from “John Doe”?

          Concise in reply to 4rdm2. | September 21, 2022 at 8:57 pm

          I guess wit really is wasted on fools Milhouse. Thanks for proving a cliche.

I’ve never understood the argument that illegal aliens have protection under the US Constitution. The preamble states “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Where my professional background was in aerospace for a DoD contractor, familiar with government procurement contracts, specs and standards, I have tended to look at the preamble much like the PURPOSE and SCOPE found in virtually every government procurement document. The preamble states the constitution is OF the people of the US (i.e., citizens), and it’s purpose is to secure to themselves and their children, the rights delineated by the constitution.

Illegal aliens are not OF the US, nor are they citizens or the children (progeny) of citizens. Why then is the constitution applicable to them wherein lawyers sue those to whom it does apply for damages? It makes no sense to me. Note I’ve had liberals argue that the preamble is just an introductory statement and not law/binding, even though it is written at the top of the same parchment as the constitution itself.

Their only right ought to be the assurance of arrest and deportation.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to MrE. | September 20, 2022 at 9:12 pm

    I agree. The USC makes no distinction between citizens and denizens of the US, and for the most part it didn’t matter when America was an endless frontier and crossing the Atlantic took months. But, yes, it should be amended, and the illegals should be deported.

      healthguyfsu in reply to thalesofmiletus. | September 21, 2022 at 12:00 am


      What a ridiculous statement. The biil of rights does not apply to non citizens. They don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. They do not have the right to vote.

        henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | September 21, 2022 at 12:32 am

        Careful. The Bill of Rights protects HUMAN rights, not artificial (civil) rights. The Declaration of Independence declares inalienable rights that ALL MEN possess. The constitution does protect artificial/civil rights, such as the franchise (which exists only because of the particular form of government we chose to adopt), but all this occurs well after the BOR (the first ten amendments).

        To the extent that we deny non-citizens the right to keep and bear arms, which is a HUMAN right, we are human rights violators.

        Now, I’ll entertain a hypothesis that denying people ILLEGALLY here the right to keep and bear arms is likely acceptable, as they are active principals of a crime in progress… but not legal non-citizen residents.

          Ironclaw in reply to henrybowman. | September 21, 2022 at 7:38 am

          Ok, where does it list the right to come here illegally and steal from the citizenry?

          healthguyfsu in reply to henrybowman. | September 21, 2022 at 12:46 pm

          So, are these inalienable rights also extended to criminals and terrorists within our borders?

          Where does that logic train end? “We the people of the United States” are quite clearly the citizens of the US.

          If I take a vacation to Europe, I don’t magically become “of the EU” any more than if I am smuggled in to their borders.

          Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | September 21, 2022 at 2:55 pm

          Yes, that’s what “unalienable” means. They’re inherent in the human condition and apply everywhere in the world, whether governments recognize them or not.

          Criminals and terrorists have the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nobody has a right not to be deprived of these things with due process.

          And yes, if you are in Europe you enjoy all the same civil liberties as European citizens do (to the extent that they do). You can’t be arrested without probable cause, or locked up without due process, except where a citizen would be subjected to the same abuse. That’s how it is. And that is how it has always been here in the USA, and was certainly the founders’ intent.

        The biil of rights does not apply to non citizens. They don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. They do not have the right to vote.

        That is bullshit. There is not one word in the Bill of Rights limiting its application to citizens, and it has been unanimously understood since it was enacted that it applies equally to all persons under US jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship. You cannot seriously claim that aliens have no freedom of speech, no right to the free exercise of religion, no right to due process, to be free from unreasonable searches and from excessive fines, and may be arbitrarily imprisoned, executed, have their property stolen, etc. That would make you an unspeakable monster.

        If you believe the right to keep and bear arms, like the freedom of speech, is a fundamental right with which all humans are endowed by their Creator, then it follows that aliens have it just as much as citizens do. And the Bill of Rights says Congress may not infringe it.

        The “right” to vote is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In fact there is no constitutional right to vote. Even citizens have the right to vote only by the grace of their respective states and of federal law, not by the constitution. So the fact that aliens have no right to vote is irrelevant. States are free to give them that right, if they like, and in the early history of the republic some states did.

    gonzotx in reply to MrE. | September 20, 2022 at 9:19 pm

    Exactly, they are Illegal aliens

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | September 21, 2022 at 1:38 am

    I’ve never understood the argument that illegal aliens have protection under the US Constitution.

    Then you’ve never read the constitution. It says explicitly that it protects all persons who are within its jurisdiction.

    Note I’ve had liberals argue that the preamble is just an introductory statement and not law/binding

    They were right and you were wrong.

    even though it is written at the top of the same parchment as the constitution itself.

    So what? How is that relevant? The preamble to the second amendment is written in the same damn sentence and yet pretty much everyone on the right is agreed that it does not control the operative clause.

      Of course I have, Milhouse. That was unnecessarily insulting.

      Here’s how I look at it – again with my aerospace contractor / DoD background in procurement contracts and specs. The preamble is to my way of looking at it, a “purpose and scope” – i.e., sets forth specific applicability and thereby limitations. Where everything in the constitution is indentured beneath the preamble, everything therein is applicable only to the extent of the preamble.

      Running physical and functional configuration audits with the USAF/NASA/AFPRO we were often treated to intense arguments over whether customer demands were within scope of the existing contract. Often my employer relied on the “gold plating” argument – wherein for example, the contacts of certain electrical connectors were to be gold plated for conductivity, but the customer argued that the passage “the product shall be gold plated”, applied to the entire ICBM.

      Simply, in DoD procurement terms, you can’t pluck a single requirement out of it’s place in the indenture, beneath an agreed upon purpose and scope, and apply it to the entire end-item product.

      The constitution is established by citizens, for citizens, and their posterity. It doesn’t apply to illegal aliens in any way. Elsewise, the preamble is a misleading falsehood enshrined at the top of the constitution. I suppose you could take the “at a minimum” approach to the preamble, and then argue which of the ensuing requirements apply additionally to non-citizens, aliens, criminals … but that seems laborious to me and absent those specifics within individual provisions and rights, ought to default to the purpose and scope of the preamble.

        Milhouse in reply to MrE. | September 21, 2022 at 8:35 pm

        No, that’s not how it works. And you keep ignoring the fact that the constitution explicitly says its protections extend to all persons. The only reason they don’t extend to aliens who aren’t even in the USA is that US law doesn’t touch them. The constitution is a US law, and obviously it can only protect those who have some connection to the USA, either by being citizens, or legal aliens, or physically present. If they’re none of these three they still have all their rights, but the constitution can’t help them. But only one of those three things is needed.

    Dimsdale in reply to MrE. | September 21, 2022 at 7:10 am

    C’mon man! It’s right after the right to abortion!!!

1. Cross-Complaint against Marthas Vineyard’s govt for refusing the aide inherently promised by being a sanctuary community:

2. Discovery will be so much fun. How much of the trek to the US was by buses provided by whoever? [Support for the stories that the illegals are transported except for the photo opp on the last mile or so?] How much aid was given to these class members when they crossed into the US? How were they selected to travel to MV? Did any of the illegal invaders authorize the law firms to file the lawsuit?

This suit is absolute BS. But wouldn’t it be nice if our side had this kind of fervor, focused properly?

I admire the left for its tenacity. I really do. They are horrible human beings, but they do not give up ever.

    henrybowman in reply to Colonel Travis. | September 21, 2022 at 12:21 am

    Wouldn’t it be nice if our side had this kind of MONEY, focused properly?
    Why does socialism invariably have deeper pockets than capitalism?

      Because whatever a socialist wants, he steals, or has the government steal it for him. A capitalist works for what he has.

        henrybowman in reply to Ironclaw. | September 21, 2022 at 12:35 am

        So far, the deep-pockets socialists I can name off the top of my head, like Soros, Gates, Buffett, Steyer, Zuckerberg, and so on, made their money the old fashioned way, and are now trying to destroy the ladder they climbed.

Over a plane ride and a 44 hour hour stay in MV before the Gov used the NG to relocate these folks to a military facility? Seems thin in contrast to the remainder of the trip from Venezuela.

Exploring the entire journey should be interesting. Were criminal organizations involved? Were any of these orgs on watchlists? Were any NGO involved? Govt officials in other Nations? Who financed the travel?

Was the prior travel then an international conspiracy among foreign govts, criminal cartels and NGOs to facilitate the human trafficking of these folks into the US with willing assistance of Financial Services for profit and a wink and nod by the US Govt? Lets explore that and see what we find.

    Ironclaw in reply to CommoChief. | September 21, 2022 at 12:33 am

    Nah, it because these things keep hijacking the news cycle and they can’t ignore them. Plus it makes them look bad just out from an election.

    Dimsdale in reply to CommoChief. | September 21, 2022 at 8:34 am

    Indeed. How these people, with nothing on the backs and bags of takeout on their arms traveled “by foot” all the way to our porous border is worthy of examination.

    Why is it that not a single alleged news agency has seen fit to take a look at this?

    That is a pretty rhetorical question. I wonder if Project Veritas could dig up something?

      Gosport in reply to Dimsdale. | September 21, 2022 at 12:04 pm

      There are an awful lot of very fat bodies in the videos shot of illegal immigrants on the US border.

      It is extremely unlikely that they walked the length of Mexico living off the land or the ‘kindness of others’.

They have opened the door to Biden’s conduct. FINALLY! Hope this breaks the camel’s back, once and for all, of Democratic malfesance.

“It accuses the “Does” of targeting the illegal immigrants and enticing “them onto the flights to Martha’s Vineyard.”

Pretty sure you have this backwards. The Does are the Plaintiffs (victims). They are accusing the other people of targeting them and enticing them. Which, you may recall, not a single one of then actually did, before the Democrat ambulance chasers waved moneybags in front of their eyes.

So, to recap, DeSantis and team gave the illegals a (brief) sojourn on beautiful MV, which they really enjoyed; MV gave them the bums’ rush while running a GoFundMe to cover their losses, the entire proceeds of which remained on MV; and now Allianza sues “on behalf” of pseudonymous people (say their names, pigs) in order to punish DeSantis and enrich their lawyers.

Notice who isn’t getting jack-shit out of any of the Democrats’ putraged “social activisms?” That’s right — the Venezuelans.

Meanwhile, yet another suspicious explosion/fire at a US refinery. How can any intelligent person not suspect that our energy and food production infrastructure is being systematically destroyed? This is a war. Why are we not defending ourselves?


He is still bashing Thiel and Scott to pour their own millions in Trump-endorsed candidates’ campaigns but he is reportedly planning to hit the hustings fundraising for Trump-endorsed Blake Masters. So at best, he is hedging his rhetoric to claim partial credit for the “shifting” outlook for Republican candidates. His grip is slipping.

More bogus lawsuits typical of the Democrat regime’s assault on normalcy. As usual they sacrifice the normal to the abnormal.

Quite simply, bottom-feeding political lawyers are more than happy to file unsubstantiated claims they know will never hold water in court, and in fact will be dismissed long before they even get a court date. They waved the promise of big settlement bucks in front of the poor suckers, will pretend to prosecute the case for them as long as they can get deceptive headlines, and will promptly dump them the minute they are no longer of use to the Dems. Same song they’ve sung before, fifty-seventh verse.

So post going socialist, Venezuela is a s***-hole people want to get out of?

I was told otherwise.

    SeiteiSouther in reply to BierceAmbrose. | September 21, 2022 at 3:25 pm

    I thought it was a socialist utopia, with rainbows, unicorns, blackjack and hookers. I guess they forgot the utopia-rainbows-unicorns-blackjack-hookers part.