New Ohio lawsuit re. COVID hoax
COMPLAINT, Michael Renze et al v. Michael DeWine et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-1948, Judge James G. Carr, filed Sep. 01, 2020 (N.D. Ohio, 2020).
Introduction and Prayer for Relief
Over 110 years ago, at a time when medicine was not yet sufficiently advanced to have developed penicillin and the germ theory of medicine was still new, the Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling related to a citizen’s rights in healthcare that has remained largely unaddressed to this day. Over the century plus of time that has since passed the court has decided many critical cases revolving around individual rights that have never been squared with Jacobson.Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
A century ago many of our most sacred and fundamental rights were still being sorted out. Suffrage had not yet occurred, civil rights barely existed, critical cases on fundamental rights such as interstate travel and bodily privacy had not come into play and the administrative state that we live in today simply did not exist.
Today, under the guidance of an unelected administrative structure, many of the rights our Supreme Court has determined are fundamental under our Constitution are being denied. These fundamental rights are being denied, not out of prudence, they are being denied due to unfounded fear and intentional manipulation. So successful is this manipulation that even our esteemed Chief Justice, the Honorable Justice Roberts, was misled in a recent decision.
But all is not lost. In its wisdom, the Jacobsoncourt made clear that it never intended its decision to bar further review. To the contrary, the Court in Jacobsonspecifically stated:“Before closing this opinion, we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe –perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely –that the police power of a State, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.” (Id, 197 US 38)
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.
We humbly ask the Court in this case to:
- Reaffirm its position as a coequal branch of the government.
2. Reaffirm the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that rights, especially fundamental rights, may not be abridged unless necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest, and that even then, those restrictions must be narrowly tailored to meet acompelling governmental interest.
3. Ensure there is an opportunity for redress under any emergency declaration
4. Recognize that the political process and operative orders are invalid if based on false or misleading information (cite rule making case in admin law) and recognize the criticality that all future emergency orders be based and maintained on clear, honest facts -particularly when such orders are infringing on Constitutional rights.
Underlying all of this, and the foundation of this case is this question: if an emergency can be declared without the appropriate level of review based on the rights being limited, and under the guise of that emergency all rights are only subject to a rational basis review, how then do any previous judicial opinions or Constitutional principles have any meaning whatsoever?
Further, if under the same circumstances different levels of scrutiny are applied to the various rights being limited under an emergency declaration than would otherwise be applicable, what is the value of having various levels of review?