6th October 2020
Notes in preparation for a paper and presentation to the Samuel Griffith society on Thursday
This is work in progress – to help me track relevant info.
I'm preparing a short paper (1000-2000 words) to present to the Samuel Griffith Society tomorrow. The member of the society are eminent lawyers and judges of Victoria.
What should I include in that paper? Please send in suggestions.
The paper will be published by the society. pic.twitter.com/dTBP0dt448
— Sanjeev Sabhlok, Pope @Church of Reason & Liberty (@sabhlok) October 5, 2020
The HC has apparently decided to take a relevant legal case against lockdowns and banning interstate travel on constitutional grounds in November [comment here]
TRANSCRIPT OF Robert Barnes’s talk:
What he required was a full trial and a complete record and where finally the evidence would be tested
What is the evidence in support of these lockdown provisions what is the counter evidence what does this evidence look like
Under cross-examination and what we found was there was almost no evidence at all
What the judge found was that the this was more like in his own words a theoretical white paper where you basically have the white lab coat crowd doing a live Milgram experiment on its population
As this judge noted a sort of a corporate woke virus that somehow knew the difference between church and Walmart or church in a casino yet these were the rules that were being laid down by our governors and mayors all across the country, rules that simply confounded not only common sense but constitutional sense, but when he looked at the evidence he said there was no evidence for the lockdowns
He pointed out that in our entire American history we had never ever locked down we had never suspended all constitutional rights and liberties for any period of time anywhere for all the local population for any reason
He pointed out that in fact the evidence that could be produced by the state was weak to non-existent while the counter evidence was often overwhelming, that there was serious doubts about whether any of these “mitigation measures” mitigated anything at all
It was on that basis that he rejected their decision he noted their logic was internally contradictory externally contradictory to existing evidence
It didn’t even make sense within its own rules and it was often nothing more than a theoretical white paper being imposed on the population of Pennsylvania to their great expense and detriment
He noted that in fact there was no evidence that public gatherings of the kind that they were trying to be suspended or prohibited or assembly that was being restricted and listed as unlawful had caused any form of super spreading event that led to any mass deaths of any kind
Indeed, the only kind that that had been was the nursing home policies the governors of Pennsylvania and Michigan and New York and new jersey had done where they forced people who are sick and elderly back into the nursing home to infect the rest
But it wasn’t lawful assembly that posed any degree of health threat by any of the documented or detailed evidence yet it had been suspended throughout Pennsylvania not for days not for weeks as originally promised but for months and months and months with no end
As he pointed out a quarantine is supposed to be sick specific the person who has you have clear and convincing evidence that a particular person presents an imminent risk to other people within the community fits the same constitutional due process standards we’ve had for involuntary institutionalization of the mentally ill the same standards apply to the medically ill
These lockdown orders were not consistent with any form of public quarantine and the state would admit during the proceedings that in fact it could not meet the definition statutorily or as constitutionally permitted of a quarantine
Instead, they came to a different defense
What was their defense – there’s no fundamental right to make a living period that was their argument and they expected a court to accept it adopt it and impose it on the rest of us that no American no Pennsylvanian in that case had any fundamental right to make a living to support their family to support themselves
Despite the fact that the right to make a living was fundamental and established as such from the very inception of our constitution and repeated as such going back to decisions from the 1800s somehow that was completely ignored and wished to be obliterated by the new democratic regime in the state of Pennsylvania
They admitted that their definition of “life-sustaining businesses” which were given an exception and an exemption from the gathering provisions and the assembly provisions had no definition at all there was no standard for it there was no policy behind it changed day to day week to week
It was like something the stasi or the polar borough would have come up with
Indeed as the court noted it failed to meet even the most basic constitutional standards of governmental action and it was for that reason that the court determined and rejected what the governor of Pennsylvania said.
He said there is indeed a right to make a living there is indeed a right to assemble and that these rights cannot be suspended in the name of an emergency they cannot be declared invalid unilaterally by the actions of the executive branch of any government
And he concluded in this way and it’s a conclusion we should all remember as we move forward in the cases that I and other lawyers will be bringing across the country in the name of this case
And this is here is his final quote “the liberties protected by the constitution are not fair-weather freedoms the constitution cannot accept a quote new normal where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures the constitution sets lines and these actions cross those lines let it be so across the country”