Tuesday, November 17, 2020

A Letter to County Supervisors to Open up the county

 

From the Desk of :

Douglas V. Gibbs

Constitutional Instructor

constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com

November 17, 2020

 

Board of Supervisors

County of Orange

333 W. Santa Ana Blvd.

Santa Ana, CA 92701

 

Dear honorable members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors:

The Orange County Board of Supervisors website under “meetings and agendas” begins with the following paragraph:

California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, for the preservation of public health and safety throughout the entire State of California and to heed the State public health directives from the Department of Public Health. The Governor’s Executive Order is found at the following URL: https://covid19.ca.gov/img/N-33-20.pdf. Pursuant to the Executive Order, to protect public health, the State Public Health Officer and Director of the California Department of Public Health have ordered all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, as outlined at https://www.cisa.gov/identifying-critical-infrastructure-during-covid-19.

We have been instructed to “heed” Governor Newsom’s executive order and the State public health directives from the Department of Public Health.

In Newsom’s order it specifically states, “All residents are to heed any orders and guidance.”1

The definition of the word “heed” is “to give consideration to.”  The language used does not state we “must obey.”  Governor Newsom’s order is for us to take his advice, and that of the California Department of Public Health, into consideration when making decisions.

That goes for you, the members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, as well.  You have not been ordered by the governor to perform his wishes.  As county officials, you are free to make a decision one way, or another, regarding Orange County’s next step in dealing with the alleged pandemic crisis.

I get it.  You have a very difficult decision before you.  It is a decision that is being wrestled with not only here in our great country, but around the entire world.  My concern is that you may be approaching this very serious situation without taking into consideration the whole story.  I was talking to a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Jeff Hewitt, the lone member of that board pushing for opening up the county, and he told me a shocking revelation that is probably true here in Orange County, as well.  He said that the Riverside County board was keeping the county closed because if they completely opened it up Sacramento had threatened that they would keep one hundred and forty four million dollars that would normally go to the county in the next fiscal year.  Businesses in the county, meanwhile, are losing hundreds of millions of dollars per week.  Do you hear that?  The politicians have been sacrificing business revenue and jobs in the county to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per week in order to preserve a promise of one hundred and forty four million dollars from Sacramento.  Is that the case here?  If so, and I am guessing it is, then what you are telling us is that you aren’t working for the good people who voted you in, you are working for the con-artists who control Sacramento.  You have sacrificed your voters for a promise of a pittance.

In the eyes of many of your voters, you have betrayed your constituents in the name of a dollar amount far less than what they are losing for a lie and a scam.

On top of all of that, keeping the county shut down is a violation of the law, and violations of both the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution.  And you are doing so through the fear of losing less money than the businesses in your county have been losing, and the fear of executive orders that don’t even hold the power of the law.

America was built on the principles of liberty, and natural law.  Natural law is based on our God-given rights, and the last time I checked, none of the clauses in the Bill of Rights includes an asterisk that says, “unless there’s a virus.”  Yet, without even the batting of an eyelid, people like you have taken away everyone’s basic rights in the name of safety from a virus that has, for most people, a better than 99% recovery rate.2 

While the governor has made mandates through executive order, and health services departments have made demands often accompanied by threats that include fines, or the loss of being able to do business, the reality is that in government none of those policies may have the full force of the law unless the laws were passed by the legislature, and they haven’t been.  While the California Health & Safety Code3 sections 101029, 101030, 101040, and 101080 gives counties in health emergencies certain powers, and 101030 gives a county health officer the authority to order quarantines, there are no authorities listed that includes quarantining healthy people.  According to lawyer Mark Meuser, who also ran for State Secretary of State two years ago, “they may issue quarantine policy regarding individuals on a case by case basis, but they do not have the authority to order a county wide shelter in place law since the law only allows ‘adequate isolation of each case.’”4

In the California Health and Safety code section 120225 it uses language that indicates quarantine laws were designed to quarantine an individual or specific location, not an entire community or organization.

I have been told the governor has the power to make law during this crisis because the legislature gave those powers to him.  However, it says in Article IV., Section 1 of the California State Constitution that “The legislative power of this State is vested in the California legislature.”  The word vested means that the power is granted to the legislature and that the power is irrevocable.  In other words, the legislature cannot legally give that power away; or as the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, 1828 states, “becoming permanent, as a right or title”.5

In Article I, Section 7, subsection (a) of the California State Constitution6 it says that “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  The 14th Amendment’s “due process clause” says the same.  The last time I checked, a virus is not due process.

The U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 107 also indicates that “No State shall…pass any…law impairing the obligation of contracts.”  That includes service contracts, employment contracts, independent contractor contracts, and so forth.  While some courts have argued the general welfare, health, or common good may allow for necessary violations, the clause itself, nor the notes from the time period that the Constitution was written, reveal any exemptions from the clause.  So, I must ask, “How many contracts are being impaired due to the State’s and county’s actions in relation to their policies concerning the COVID-19 issue?”  If any of those actions or policies impair the obligation of any contracts, the State, and the county, are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The COVID-19 policies have also shut down churches around the country, and some of the courts have erroneously ruled that prohibiting the free exercise of religion was fine during the pandemic; which is in direct violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution.  In September of 2014 the University of San Francisco Law Review published an article titled “California Constitutional Law: The Religion Clauses” by David A. Carrillo and Shane G. Smith.8  On pages 691 and 692 of that publication the authors wrote the following:

“Neither [federal or State government] can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will…No person can be punished for…church attendance or non-attendance.”

Yet, churches have been closed, or limited in the number of attendees they may receive, in clear violation of both the U.S. and California State Constitutions.

And for what? 

A September report by the CDC9 found that more than 70 percent of COVID-positive patients contracted the virus in spite of faithful mask wearing while in public.  14 percent of patients who said they “often” wore masks were also infected.  Only 4 percent of the COVID-positive patients said they “never” wore masks in the 14 days before the onset of the illness.  In fact, an October journal report references a 2015 study10 on cloth mask efficiency (when compared to medical masks) that found rates of infection were actually “consistently higher”.  Cloth masks are problematic because they retain moister and have poor filtration.  The CDC, in that study, states that their “finding suggests that risk for infection was higher for those wearing cloth masks.”  In Sweden no masks are being worn and they have a much lower infection rate than their European neighbors.11

As for the deadliness of COVID-19?  The CDC has also admitted the recovery rate is well over 99 percent.12  Only 6 percent of reported COVID-19 deaths came directly from the virus (less than 10,000 countrywide) while a whopping 94 percent of the deaths attributed to the coronavirus were from people who were also those who had two to three serious underlying conditions.13

In an article in the California Globe titled “Influenza Pandemic Peer Reviewed Study: ‘There is no basis for Quarantine’”14, a 2006 study on Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” was quoted as indicating “there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals.”  The study also concluded that “the ordinary surgical mask does little to prevent inhalation of droplets bearing influenza virus.”

In short, the information being used to defend COVID policies of mandating mask wearing, and shutting down our economy and society with lockdown orders is erroneous, and the policies themselves are illegal and unconstitutional.  Science says we have done more damage than good when it comes to dealing with this virus, and politically the same can be said for what we have done to the economic health of our businesses, and those individuals who have not been allowed to participate in a normal social environment.  I urge you, for it is your duty to defend We the People, the law, and the constitutions of both the United States and the State of California, to break the cycle we have been experiencing, and open up the County of Orange.  To do otherwise would be a disservice to your constituents, and would be a direct violation of the law.

Resources:

1.       “Heed.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heed. Accessed 17 Nov. 2020.

2.       https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/coronavirus-serology-testing-la-county

https://www.thecollegefix.com/stanford-epidemiologist-warns-that-coronavirus-crackdown-is-based-on-bad-data/

https://realconservativesunite.com/2020/03/25/we-re-going-to-be-fine-nobel-winning-biophysicist-predicts-quicker-covid-19-recovery/

3.       https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=HSC&tocTitle=+Health+and+Safety+Code+-+HSC

4.       https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/does-gov-newsom-have-the-power-to-shut-down-private-businesses-because-of-coronavirus/

5.       http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/vesting

6.       http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

7.       https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

8.       https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/usfblogs.usfca.edu/dist/7/272/files/2014/09/45-3-A3.pdf

9.       https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf ... see table on page 1261

10.   https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full

11.   https://www.dailywire.com/news/swedens-top-epidemiologist-says-we-see-no-point-in-wearing-masks-as-covid-19-cases-drop

12.   https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/

13.   https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/94-of-americans-who-died-from-covid-19-had-contributing-conditions/

14.   https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/influenza-pandemic-peer-reviewed-study-there-is-no-basis-for-quarantine/

No comments:

Post a Comment