Written by Stand Up Canada
From conspiracy to legal. There are twelve important international lawsuits and counting, against COVID-19 you should know about, (since mainstream media outlets are not telling you this) which we have summarized below.
July 6, 2020: Ontario, Canada
Filed by Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati on behalf of 9 Plaintiffs vs over 20 Defendants (Canadian and provincial government, CBC, etc). Snapshot of their Statement of Claim; COVID measures constitute a constitutional violation of dispensing with Parliament, under the Pretense of Royal Prerogative; declaration of emergency in Ontario under EMCPA did not and does not meet the statutory requisite criteria under section 7.0.1(3) and in contravention of section 7.0.2(1) and (3); COVID measures violates sections 2, 7, 8, 9 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
September 24, 2020: Pennsylvania, USA
Federal court in Pennsylvania struck down as unconstitutional. Key aspects of the Pennsylvania Governor’s COVID-19 Emergency Order: limitations on the size of indoor gatherings and the closure of all businesses that are not life sustaining. The court held that the temporary closure of certain “non-life-sustaining” businesses violated plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was too broad and harsh to pass constitutional muster, and violated the right to choose one’s profession. Furthermore, the court held that the closure of certain “non-life-sustaining” businesses also violated plaintiffs’ equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, finding no rational basis for the regulations because some businesses were treated differently than other, similar businesses. The court illustrated its reasoning with an example that imposing constraints on a “mom-and-pop” hardware store while allowing Walmart to sell the same products would not keep a consumer at home; it would simply send her to Walmart, doing nothing to protect her or others from COVID. As a result, the court found that the restrictions’ means did not rationally relate to their ends.
October 2, 2020: Michigan, USA
Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband, U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider, and U.S. Attorney Andrew Birge issued the following statements: “The United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to every state in our free country. The Constitution does not permit any public official unlawfully to restrict our liberty. All public officials must respect the right of the people to govern themselves at all times, especially during a crisis. (…) While the Governor has had the public’s health interests at heart, this decision underscores the importance of a legislature to the legitimacy of restrictions on liberty. I urge the Governor and Michigan legislators to work together going forward in responding to this pandemic so that we stay safe and free.”
October 27, 2020: Poland (Europe)
Provincial Administrative Court ruled that establishment of certain restrictions, orders and prohibitions in connection with an epidemic do not meet the constitutional condition for its issuance. The judge stated: “The Council of Ministers, on the basis of the wording of the statutory authorization as formulated in this way, could freely shape the sphere of fundamental rights or freedoms of an individual in the ordinance, without substantive guidelines contained in the act, specifying individual restrictions, orders and prohibitions. As a consequence, the independent law-making activity undertaken in this respect led to the regulation of statutory matters and the violation of a number of fundamental freedoms and rights of an individual, including the freedom of economic activity under Section 22 of the Constitution”. Further, the procedure of introducing the restrictions, orders and bans “led to the violation of basic constitutional standards and rights in the field of freedom of economic activity”.
November 11, 2020: Portugal (Europe)
Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled that the PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”. Most importantly, the judges decided that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection. The judges referred to the following publication: Surkova, E., Nikolayevskyy, V., & Drobniewski, F. (2020). False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(12), 1167–1168. doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30453-7
November 25, 2020: New York, USA
The Supreme Court granted requests from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues to block enforcement of a New York executive order restricting attendance at houses of worship. Both the diocese and the synagogues claimed that the executive order violated the right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment, particularly when secular businesses in the area are allowed to remain open. The court explained that Cuomo’s order does not appear to be neutral, but instead “single[s] out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment”. For example, although a synagogue or a church in a red zone is limited to 10 people at a service, there are no limits on how many people a nearby “essential” business – which can include acupuncture or a camp ground – can admit. Because the Cuomo order is not neutral, the court continued, it is subject to the most stringent constitutional test, known as strict scrutiny. It fails that test, the court concluded, because the order is too broad. There is no evidence that these synagogues and churches have contributed to outbreaks, and other, less restrictive rules could have been employed instead – such as basing the maximum attendance on the size of the facility. And if the restrictions are enforced, the court added, they will result in permanent harm to people who cannot attend and for whom a livestream of services is not an adequate substitute.
December 4, 2020: Alberta, Canada
Rath & Company and Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, filed against the Canadian Medical Officer for Health, claiming the emergency orders are ultra vires the province pursuant to the Alberta Bill of Rights and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
December 8, 2020: Los Angeles, USA
A Los Angeles judge issued an injunction overturning L.A. County’s ban on outdoor dining at restaurants. Judge Chalfant had little sympathy for the county’s arguments and sided with the California Restaurant Association. The judge said the county’s arguments about being unable to confirm a link between outdoor dining and coronavirus might have flown early in the pandemic but not anymore: “I am shocked that in nine months, [government officials] have not looked seriously at outdoor dining, I am not laying this at the county’s feet but that is a failure of government”. Further stated, “I think one of the problems with the pandemic is that government agencies, including the media, are driving the fear. And the evidence shows that healthy Americans need not fear… The average healthy American is not seriously at risk here of dying.”
December 22, 2020: Bosnia and Herzegovina (Europe)
Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared unconstitutional, two measures imposed in the efforts to suppress the COVID-19 epidemic, namely the mandatory use of face masks in the Canton of Sarajevo and the general restriction of movement in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court found that the contested measures violated the right to private life and the freedom of movement under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the European Convention on Human Rights, and Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. However, it stopped short of quashing the contested measures and it only ordered the Parliament and the Government of the Federation “to take activities and bring their conduct in compliance” with human rights standards and to report to the Court about the compliance with this order.
December 23, 2020: Austria (Europe)
Constitutional Court overturned the virus mask mandate in schools and ruled that compulsory mask-wearing and splitting classes into two halves to be taught in alternate shifts, were illegal. Two children and their parents had brought the case before the court, saying the measures violated the principles of equality before the law, the right to a private life and the right to education.
December 23, 2020: NY, USA
New York State Supreme Court judge granted a preliminary injunction and allowed Athletes Unleashed gym open at 100% capacity, despite orders from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo limiting gyms in “orange zones” to 25% capacity. The Supreme Court judge said that while not meant to diminish the COVID-19 pandemic, his ruling rather respected a “right to normalcy”. The lawsuit also claims that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has overstepped the authority granted to him during the pandemic. The December 23rd ruling did not address these claims. The judge will hear further arguments in February on Cuomo’s legal authority to issue “any directive that lasts longer than 30 days” without approval of state legislators.
January 2, 2021: Ecuador (South America)
Constitutional Court ruled that Decree 1217 for a State of Emergency declared by President Lenín Moreno on December 21, 2020 is unconstitutional. The Court found that the president based the state of emergency on a possible future risk and not a current one, without sufficient, clear and specific information. Since states of exception operate in the face of current and certain circumstances, the actual occurrence of the events was not justified. The President responded that his government will abide by the ruling of the Court because it is “respectful of the rule of law”. He further stated that in large cities, the Intensive Care Units (ICU) are “on the brink” and that there may be an upturn in infections in January, for which they have a “contingency plan.”
“Due to the foregoing, the Court decided:
1. To declare Decree No. 1217 unconstitutional.
2. Remind the President of the Republic and the competent authorities that the measures referred to in Decree No. 1217, aimed at avoiding crowds and mass meetings as well as preventing the possible risks of the new variant of COVID-19 identified in the United Kingdom, they can be adopted based on the attributions of the ordinary constitutional regime, even by the COE, as in fact has happened, without it being necessary to resort to the extraordinary powers authorized in a state of emergency.
3. Faced with the possible risks of the new variant of COVID-19, the Court reiterated its call to the national government to reinforce, in a coordinated manner, the prevention mechanisms available under the ordinary regime.”