Two important court cases

Anyone who follows alternative media or information sources like Jon Rappoport will know about this, but it bears repeating anyway. There have been two important events, a lawsuit in Ohio and and a district court ruling in Pennsylvania.

First, Ohio: Attorney Thomas Renz filed suit in Toledo against Governor Mike DeWine, and the opening words are as follow:

“In recent months, entire states have been imprisoned without due process and with the clear threat to impose such lockdowns again, interstate travel has been severely restricted, privacy rights have been devastated, numerous business takings without compensation, and many regulations being implemented without statutory process requirements under the guise of a health emergency that is roughly as dangerous as a seasonal influenza outbreak. The plaintiffs in this case have all been injured in various capacities by these unconstitutional actions, and without action by the Court, will be left without redress. More terrifying, without action by the Court, the Court will be setting future precedent that will allow states to withhold fundamental Constitutional rights, in violation of US Supreme Court precedent, circumventing the various levels of scrutiny applied to such rights, and justify such actions under public health emergency orders without subjecting those orders to any real review—just trust the bureaucrats because they are the experts.”

He is demanding that there be real science behind declared states of emergency, and not just someone’s word.

[Here is the full body of the Ohio complaint, 56 pages. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial, an important aspect given how corrupt elements of our judiciary are. Trial by a jury of our peers is one of our foremost and sacrosanct rights.

In Pennsylvania, a District Court judge ruled as follows:

AND NOW, This 14 day of September 2020, It Is Hereby Ordered that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs… For the reasons outlined in the Opinion filed by the Court the same day. The Court holds and declares: (1) that the congregate gathering limits imposed by Defendants’ mitigation orders violate the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment; (2) that the stay-at-home and business closure components of Defendants’ orders violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment; and (3) that the business closure components of Defendants’ orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.

In essence, this says that a declared emergency cannot set aside the Constitution. This is important, as the people behind medical fascism have no respect for the document, but must pretend so in public. That offers leverage.

The importance of these cases cannot be overstated, and further, it should be a signal to initiate proceedings in all other states. It is going to take lawyers with moral courage, and it is understood that the power we are up against far exceeds that of judges (and especially of governors, who are only following orders from above). Nonetheless, this case and this ruling are the best news I have had since March 11 of this year.

I don’t follow mainstream news. Is any of this covered?

11 thoughts on “Two important court cases

  1. as you say, mark” the powers we are up against far exceeds that of judges” and so i fail to see why this is such good news; I know that i soulnd so negative and these ruling really so SEEM incredible, but when we play by their rules, we can never win ,and LAW are rules that they have set up ; things will be overturned; nothing is going to change by these rulings although they say exactly what we know is the truth; sorry to rain on your parade; you might even consider that these ruling have been put out so that people like us can feel “Ahh, we are finally getting somewhere; now there is hope.”
    THEIR LAWS THEIR RULES AND THEIR OUTCOMES. Do not be suckered; in the end, they will get what they want.


      1. But I believe that concerning THIS ISSUE there is no hope. Im sorry. Can I here perhaps finish my little essay on how MM misdirects…because LAW is the third way that MMs papers inadvertently misdirect his followers. I have said the the first way is to cut them off from the past and enclose them in their ignorance by outing everything and the second way is making them computer potatoes, doing basically nothing and feeling the controllers are too strong to resist.
        Now you may say that i have this same attitude of hopelessness with my comments above but i do not since i have a life and do not focus on these things except for the 30 minutes a day i jump on the computer to unwind.
        But this third way MM misdirects is the most important. FOR TO BELIEVE IN THE NECCESSITY OF LAW IS TO BELIEVE IN THE NECCESSITY OF THE CONTROLLERS. For who, if not the controllers, will make the laws?
        Yes, a stateless society, completely based on voluntary association is what we call “anarchy” but lets not use that filthy word because we know how the controllers have made that word a filthy thing. To use the word “legal” and “illegal” as MM always does, and actually as people on POM does, is already to validate the controllers power over you; and they do not care if you resist the law and feel it unjust and try to change it; all they care about is that you BELIEVE IT NECCESSARY; once you believe it necessary, you are beaten.Beaten because they make all the rules and you WILL OBEY. To say “just law” is already a contradiction in terms ; what can be just if it is backed up by the threat of physical violence?
        Anyway, i stop here; i know all the responses already against what i am saying; 99.9% of the people simply cannot think clearly and calmly about a stateless society based on voluntary association. There are many many aspects to this question, and you might find, in the end that it is the lesser evil…the lesser evil because i am aware that it would not be utopia.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I actually like the idea of a stateless society. As you said, it would not be utopia, but it also is not as unfeasible as we would be lead to believe.


  2. Is it covered? No.

    Sure, it might have made the page A12 is some newspaper, but basically, no.

    I really hate the media. My wife was watching Dr. Phil yesterday, and he had a discussion about face masks that tried to “Jenny McCarthy” Kelly Anne Wolfe–that is, giving the correct argument to the wrong advocate. Dr. Phil then quoted the “experts” on facemasks and said that the anti-mask stuff was untrue. It was all a b.s. show, involving I believe actors on both sides. Who watches shows like Dr. Phil?

    Such is the sad state about how people in these United States become informed.


    1. Yes, the media is utterly corrupt. As with doctors and nurses deeply brainwashed about germ theory as part if their training to be allowed to enter the profession, journalists go through a similar grinding down of their critical thinking abilities … “objectivity” is the germ theory of reporters. They are taught that they must never sway or advocate, only report. Any reporter who reports as an advocate for an issue has “left the reservation,” and an editor will quickly bring him back. The good ones leave, the bad ones stay, and if really mindless and useless, will be seen as the best of the lot and will be used to question candidates at fake debates. I’ve known many of these smug bastards personally, and find them intolerable.


      1. Just saw this today that it was picked up on InfoWars:
        Memo to lawyers: What are you waiting for? File big cases now.
        Jon Rappoport | – SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
        I’ve been covering the decision in the Pennsylvania COVID case and the court filing in Ohio. They give us the templates for potential victories in other states and countries.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. James Corbett is a pretty big deal, too. From today’s video, about 13 minutes in:

            Judge Rules COVID Lockdown Unconstitutional – #NewWorldNextWeek
            45,081 views•Sep 17, 2020
            502K subscribers


  3. The “trust in science” battle lines are slightly flipped w/r/t the covid vaccine. 85% of liberals are “worried” a vaccine will be rushed due to pressure from Trump. His Operation Boogie-Woogie does not fill them with inspiring montage images of scientists bent over beakers as American flags waft behind them in lap dissolve.

    Conservatives, allegedly, are much more sanguine about a Trump vaccine.

    Anyway, where is this flipped narrative headed? I wonder if those trends will intensify, yielding a politically polarized vac rollout. That way, experts can bemoan that a polarized public sabotaged an otherwise effective solution. They can “regretfully” maintain current covid policies as all this plays out, a slow burn of masks and all the rest in public life.

    Then again, with the court cases and constitutional challenges having some success (albeit, it may be part of a controlled narrative), will that wind its way to the Supreme Court? Maybe the policies will suffer some defeats in the courts and be rolled back to a degree, but still be “messaged” to the public and urged as something to maintain even absent mandates?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s