Yesterday afternoon I filed a federal lawsuit against the West Virginia Governor and against Putnam County, and their health department inspector, on behalf of the Bridge Cafe & Bistro, located in Hurricane, West Virginia. We are seeking money damages and attorney’s fees for First Amendment retaliation, after Putnam County threatened my clients with closure in response to their Facebook post expressing their opinions and policies pertaining to the Governor’s mask mandate. We are also suing the Governor and asking the Court to declare the mask mandate, as well as the “Stay at Home Order” unconstitutional and unenforceable.
We believe it’s unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as the mask debate has become just that – political speech. We also believe they are in violation of the 14th Amendment due process clause because they’re an arbitrary deprivation of my clients’ property interests wholly without due process of law. Moreover, they’re also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because they treated restaurants in Putnam County, where only two deaths have occurred in over 6 months of the virus, just the same as they treated restaurants where the virus had a greater impact.
Additionally, we believe yesterday’s ruling from Judge Stickman in the Western District of Pennsylvania makes a good case that a Governor unilaterally choosing who is “essential” and who is “non-essential” in smoky rooms, rather than through an open, defined and rational process, is itself a constitutional violation. The Governor cannot enact legislation, period. Not in a time of war; not in a “State of Emergency” which has lasted over 6 months. The sole process for enactment of new laws in West Virginia is via the state legislature, according to the state Constitution. To the extent that counties attempt to enforce unconstitutional and unenforceable executive orders as if they were laws, we believe they can be sued for money damages under Section 1983.
View the full text of the lawsuit here: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/09/15/filed-bridge-cafe-bistros-federal-lawsuit-against-the-w-va-governor-and-putnam-county/
Oh it is you lol. I’ll be sure to share this on Reddit. Hands below how many of you are are still breathing in the comments? When is a law a law and when is it just common courtesy for your fellow man? Can I sue as a compromised person that someone around me didn’t wear a mask? What day you the civil rights lawyer? Oh you’d take my case if I had the money? lol
NOT MY POST TYVM KIRK 💯💯🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️🇺🇸
Let's read the "ORDER" NOT A MANDATE, shall we.
First its not a mandate, second it's NOT a Pandemic because it doesn't rise to the level of a Pandemic which REQUIRES "a significant portion of the population to be effected by it". We have a 99.95% survival rate.
Furthermore the only Right that can be suspended during any state of emergency and ONLY for those involved in Rebellion or insurrection is the Right to Habeas Corpus.
Then we need to ask the hard question…who the heck is "Central District Health"? Oooh this is where it gets really good.
Its a "business/corporation" like McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Great Clips, The Stereo Shopp, etc.
5 people sitting on the "Board" created and voted for this. Really? Who the heck are you people? These people are NOT Elected Officials from ANY Lawfully created Emolument from the Constitution itself.
Remember, "code" is NOT Law, nor is it Public law.
Then let's look at "what" it allegedly applies to. "Bars & Nightclubs". That's a what, not a who. This is an usurpation of power, subversion of Law and sedition which leads to treason. Just stating facts of law.
In their own words from page 2.
"A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PERSON CANNOT TOLERATE WEARING A FACE MASK"!!!
So we don't even need the ADA cards. We don't need to prove jack shift.
The claim and exercise of Right CANNOT be converted into a crime. See Miller v U.S.
ANY THING (this Order is a Thing) that comes in conflict with the Constitutions is void for ANY effect, from its inception, not the day we go to court and brand it unconstitutional. On its face it is wholly void. See Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137 (I know that one by heart, the rest here is all my memory)
And fraud vitiates EVERYTHING, FROM ITS INCEPTION and there are no statutes of limitations on fraud. See U.S. v Throckmorton.
I just updated with better pics. I am not sure why they were so blurry to begin with.
Here is the link to download the original pdf file from their website.
https://www.cdhd.idaho.gov/pdfs/cd/Coronavirus/Order/CDH%20Quarantine%20and%20Restriction%20Order%2007-14-20%20Final.pdf
E-CLAUSE LAW
Ordinances, mandates, recommendations, and suggestions are NOT LAW. Presidents, governors and mayors do not make the law; LEGISLATORS DO. Try as you might to enforce mask-wearing, but it is NOT LAW, bottom line.
The People In a Nation with a Constitution are the de jure Government… "We, The People of this land Declare This Constitution The Supreme Law of The Land…"
Any "government" that has usurped the Constitution and created a corporate government, are a de facto government and are effectively Exploiting The People for profit of the corporation
LAW OF THE LAND 💯💯🙏🏻❤️🙌🏻
If you are not already aware Dr. Pam Popper's group is suing DeWine in OH. https://makeamericansfreeagain.com/
These governors not only get to exercise king-like power but get to grab big $$$ from Federal aid for doing so.
I am currently fighting similar action in Kansas.
Preparing to file a brief — draft below . . .
GOVERNOR LAURA KELLY, in her official capacity, et al.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
AND ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS
INTRODUCTION
By this motion, Plaintiff seeks a declaration of his rights concerning the Kansas Emergency Management Act (KEMA) with particular regard authorizing the Governor of the State to issue executive orders with the force and effect of law.
At the heart of the declaration sought is to determine if inhabitants of the State of Kansas have the right to disregard mask wearing requirements set forth by Executive Order 20-52 which was issued pursuant to KEMA.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff contends that the structure of the Kansas Emergency Management Act is plainly unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of power of one branch to another.
See Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council, 460 P.3d 832, 841 (Kan. 2020) (Stegall, J., concurring) (alluding to the “vexing separation of powers problems created when one branch of government delegates its power to another branch as the Legislature has done (in part)” in the Kansas Emergency Management Act, and opining that:
“[a]bsent a liberal interpretation of the Legislature’s ability to continually oversee the Governor’s exercise of delegated Legislative authority, the structure of [the Kansas Emergency Management Act] itself risks violating the constitutional demand of separate powers”.
In reality, logistics plainly prevent the Legislature’s ability to “continually” oversee the Governor’s exercise of delegated Legislative authority and; when it comes to review for separation of powers violations, liberal interpretation is cautioned against as that risks failing to uphold the judiciary’s obligation and; it "is the obligation of the Judiciary not only to confine itself to its proper role, but to ensure that the other branches do so as well." City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290, 327 (2013) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
Not only does KEMA violate the separation of powers of this State’s constitution but it obliterates the republican form of government guaranteed by the Federal constitution.
It is no answer to a republican form of government that a State Finance Committee (made up of a few members of the legislature) must authorize any extension for the governors delegated legislative powers, nor even if that State Finance Committee alone were tasked to originally decide when such a state of emergency existed (triggering delegation of legislative power to the governor); for the full body of representatives cannot constitutionally authorize a smaller set of representatives to make law in their stead under a republican form of government. The people of a certain district did not elect a representative so that that representative could empower some other district's representative to represent the people of their district in the final decisions of the process of making law – i.e., such a delegation of “representative” power from one representative to another breaks the chain of representation required for a republican form of government. A representative in a republican form of government is designated by vote of the people while KEMA transforms the act of a "vote of the people" into an act of designating a committee. This court should protect the citizens’ liberty interest in enjoying a republican form of government which was guaranteed by the federal Constitution. And, make no mistake, a Committee (i.e., less than the full legislature) being able to trigger a delegation of Legislative power (power designated by the Constitution to the full legislature) is an act of making law. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf. It is a well settled principle of law that the government cannot do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly else any and all restraints would be virtually meaningless. That said, the direct transfer of legislative power embodied in K.S.A. 48-924 and 925(b) which bypasses all law making processes is a wolf that comes as a wolf.
The issue of separation of powers was address in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988)(JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting):
‘It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have "a government of laws, and not of men." Many Americans are familiar with that phrase; not many know its derivation. It comes from Part the First, Article XXX, of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which reads in full as follows:
"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men."
The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that "[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty." The Federalist No. 47, p. 301 (C. Rossiter ed.1961) (hereinafter Federalist). Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless, as are the bills of rights of many nations of the world that have adopted, or even improved upon, the mere words of ours.’
And,
“The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” Id. at 727. (emphasis added)
Likewise, the preamble of the Constitution of the State of Kansas provides the sole purpose for its enactment as:
“We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this constitution of the state of Kansas,” (emphasis added).
Clearly, the purpose(s) of any Act enacted pursuant to the Kansas Constitution (such as KEMA) must have as an antecedent purpose (at least an implied purpose), that of ensuring rights. Yet, KEMA, by providing such open ended Legislative authority to a separate branch, de facto fails to align with the purpose of the Constitution of the State of Kansas through degradation of the separation of powers implemented by the Constitution to insure the full enjoyment of our rights.
From 38 Am. Jur. 2d Governor § 4:
“A constitutional grant of the supreme executive power to a governor implies such power as will secure an efficient execution of the laws…to be accomplished, however, in the manner, by the methods, and within the limitations prescribed by the constitution and statutes of the state….[H]e may not exercise any legislative function except that granted to him expressly by the terms of the constitution” (emphasis added)
From State ex rel. Stephan v. Finney, 251 Kan. 559, 578, 836 P.2d 1169 (1992)
"`[T]he executive power is more limited than legislative powers, extending merely to the details of carrying into effect laws enacted by the legislature . . ., the legislature having the power, except where limited by the constitution itself, to stipulate what actions executive officers shall or shall not perform.'"
(to be continued in another comment)
"Are there any emotional elements affecting today's political culture? Yes. One. Fear." – Ayn Rand, April 18, 1965
If you do some digging, you'll find there's been long-standing problems with the Putnam County Health Department.
Thank you for fighting this unconstitutional mandate!!!
Thank you sir. I wish more business owners would do this. I am still amazed at how many have just rolled over and destroyed their businesses. No court order, no laws, just ok let my family starve. If your dont fight you deserve what you get. Bankruptcy!
Thank you Mr. Bryan and Bridge Cafe for fighting for us.
PS I live in Putnam County
Read Rockefellers 2010 Plan called lock step
I have said all along that this was illegal that they cannot make you wear anything
Thank you for doing this
27:42 I really thought you where about to say “people are waking up to these supposed leaders and, finding out they are not leaders at all.
You'll have to turn up the volume when I play the news segment. I thought it would automatically use the audio, but it didn't… oh well