Kentucky Judge and Florida Appeals Court Rule Mask Mandate Unconstitutional

[meatbag]

Florida Appeals Court Rules Mask Mandate Is Unconstitutional​

Florida Appeals Court Rules Mask Mandate Is Unconstitutional - Global Research
--
Although Florida has been largely free of state-based COVID restrictions and never had a mask mandate, several counties, such as Alachua, zealously instituted unconstitutional regulations until fairly recently. In a landmark ruling on Friday, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had erred in tossing out the lawsuit against Alachua County’s mask mandate because it should be held as presumptively unconstitutional.

“Based on what the supreme court has told us about the scope of article I, section 23, Green (and anyone else in Alachua County) reasonably could expect autonomy over his body, including his face, which means that he was correct to claim an entitlement to be let alone and free from intrusion by Alachua County’s commission chairman,” Judge Adam Scott Tanenbaum, an appointee of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), wrote. “The mask mandate, then, implicated the right of privacy. According to Gainesville Woman Care, the mask mandate was presumptively unconstitutional as a result.”

This language is very significant because it’s the first time a judge is using the principle of bodily autonomy to affirm a constitutional right not to have one’s breathing restricted. The lawsuit was originally brought last May by Justin Green, a Gainesville business owner, but he was denied an injunction against the mandate by Eighth Judicial Circuit Judge Donna Keim.

There are several very striking elements about this ruling, which will reverberate throughout the country even as the mask mandates officially expire. Defendants had argued that the mandate is now moot given the orders of the governor requiring all counties to end their mandates. However, the judge noted in a footnote, “Because of the nature of the various emergency orders that we have seen and the county’s continued commitment to public mask wearing, we are not convinced that this is the last that we will see of this issue.”

In other words, you can’t have a gross violation of the most fundamental rights hanging over our heads at any time and somehow suggest that we have no recourse to eliminate it. “We conclude, then, that this case fits within the exception to the mootness doctrine, which is for controversies that are capable of repetition, yet evading review,” presciently observed Judge Tanenbaum.

The judge also recognized that the pretext for these “fiats” and “diktats” is rooted in abuse of emergency powers, which can be repeated at any moment:

It would behoove the trial court also to consider that while article I, section 23 “was not intended to provide an absolute guarantee against all governmental intrusion into the private life of an individual,” Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re Applicant, 443 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1983), “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020). And there is this warning from William Pitt the Younger, roughly paraphrasing a similar sentiment in John Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.”

Drawing on precedent from the state’s supreme court, the judge ruled that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right.
--

Horowitz: KY judge rules Gov. Beshear’s COVID, mask orders unconstitutional in breakthrough lawsuit​

Horowitz: KY judge rules Gov. Beshear’s COVID, mask orders unconstitutional in breakthrough lawsuit

On Tuesday, Boone County, Kentucky, Circuit Judge Richard A. Brueggemann issued a permanent injunction against all of Gov. Andy Beshear's COVID restrictions, including the mask mandate. Unlike the few judicial victories for civil liberties over the past year, this one was broad and sweeping, as it declared these mandates unconstitutional. In granting declaratory relief to a store owner who didn't want to enforce masks on customers, Judge Brueggemann ruled that "all emergency orders imposed by said Defendants, or that are being continued by said Defendants, are unconstitutional, void and without any legal effect."

The defendants presented evidence from senior certified industrial hygienist Stephen Petty, one of the top experts in the country on exposure to hazardous materials, who served as an expert witness in approximately 400 cases relating to toxic or infectious exposure. Petty first made his national foray into the COVID mask debate on my podcast three months ago.

"He testified that both the six-foot-distancing rule, and mask mandates, are wholly ineffective at reducing the spread of this virus," wrote Judge Brueggemann in summing up Petty's testimony. "Masks are worthless, he explained, because they are not capable of filtering anything as small as Covid-19 aerosols. In addition, masks are not respirators and lack the limited protections that respirators can provide."

"The Court finds the opinions expressed by Mr. Petty firmly established in logic," concluded the judge. "The inescapable conclusion from his testimony is that ordering masks to stop Covid-19 is like putting up chain-link fencing to keep out mosquitos. The six-foot-distancing requirements fare no better."

Moreover, the judge ruled that all of the data from neighboring states with fewer restrictions demonstrate that none of these restrictions have made a difference in the natural progression of the virus, and therefore, "the data comparison demonstrate there to be no emergency justification for continuing Governor Beshear's orders."
--
Publication of pandemic-profiteer, bureaucrat, and charlatan Anthony Fauci's email's revealed that he also stated that masks are ineffective;

3 Ways Fauci Emails Expose Trail of Manipulation and Deception​

3 Ways Fauci Emails Expose Trail of Manipulation and Deception • Children's Health Defense

“Masks are really for infected people to protect them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”
--
Research dating back well before the "Pandemic" started also indicated that the state-enforced masks do nothing to protect from viral spread;

"A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers" -Cloth masks increase risk of infection; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long

"The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence" ; The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence

"Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures ; Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

"Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial" ; Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed

"According to the Danish newspaper @berlingske tre scientific journals have refused to publish the results of the first major scientific investigation the effect of use of masks during the Covid-19 pandemic. Apparently because the results might not show what is politically correct. The journals are: The Lancet, JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine."
-
View: https://twitter.com/MaMoMVPY/status/1319002978146263040


From Boston Medical Journal; "The curious case of the Danish mask study" - The curious case of the Danish mask study

Face masks (at best) ineffective against SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 and flu - Face masks (at best) ineffective against SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 and flu – To Extract Knowledge from Matter