Florida Ends Mask Mandate Case

Florida Ends Mask Mandate Case

Florida Ends Mask Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of CDC’s authority to mandate masks

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: (filed) July 12, 2021
  • Location: Tampa, Fla, USA
  • Court: US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Div
  • Case #: 8:21-cv-01693 \ 8:21-cv-1693
  • Plaintiff: HFDF, Ana Carolina Daza & Sarah Pope
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Hadaway
  • Defendant: Joe Biden, CDC, HHS
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Kathryn Kimball Mizelle
  • Status: Decided (April 18, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff


*updated April 27,2022

Background

The lawsuit – challenging the validity of Mask Mandates–  was brought by two Florida residents who argued that being required to wear masks on airplanes aggravated their anxiety—a condition that is not exempted from forced masking under the mandate. They are represented by the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF). [3]

HFDF is a not-for-profit public benefit Wyoming corporation with its headquarters in Sandpoint, Idaho. HFDF is a member organization that seeks to advocate for and educate the public on the topics of medical choice, bodily autonomy, and self-determination, and
that opposes laws and regulations that force individuals to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will. [5]

The CDC is not a nationwide police force, and is not empowered to make laws,” said Leslie Manookian, Founder and President of Health Freedom Defense Fund. “Nevertheless, with no legal authority to do so, these unelected, unaccountable technocrats have forced every citizen in America to wear a mask when they travel. We believe that Americans have the right to think for themselves and make their own health care choices without the meddling of government. Americans must not be dictated to in this manner by anyone, let alone unelected, unaccountable technocrats at CDC.” [4]

 
the order

The mask-wearing requirement had been initially imposed in early 2021, shortly after President Joe Biden took office in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. [1] – Executive Order Number 13998 issued by Defendant Biden on January 21, 2021 [5].

Shortly thereafter, the nationwide mask mandate was issued by the CDC  –  a department of HHS, on January 29, 2021, entitled, “Requirement for Persons to Wear Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs” (the “Mask Mandate”), 86 Fed. Reg. 8025, [5]

Just last week, the (CDC) agency extended the transportation mask mandate (which had been set to expire originally on April 18) through May 3 — allowing officials to take more time to study the BA.2 subvariant of COVID-19. [1]

 
The Problem with Mask Mandate

“The fact is that the police power — that is the power to regulate the health, safety and welfare of Americans — was specifically reserved to the States by our Constitution,” said George Wentz of the Davillier Law Group, legal counsel for the Plaintiffs. “With the mask mandate, not only does the CDC usurp the role of the States by attempting to exercise general police powers, but at the same time it steps into the shoes of Congress and makes a nationwide law. We are confident that the CDC is way out of bounds here, and the Court will strike down the mask mandate.” [4]

Masks have been approved for use by the general public under an emergency use authorization (EUA) and are considered investigational products under the law. Their efficacy has not been proven, and their short and long-term side effects have not been studied. Recent studies have shown that masks do more harm than good, and expose the wearer to levels of carbon dioxide well above levels permitted by OSHA in the workplace. [4]

Members of Health Freedom Defense Fund feel strongly that they should not, and cannot, be forced to wear masks and that no one should have the power to force another person to cover their airway. [4]

 
Airline CEO’s Call to End Masks

Last month (March 2022), governors from 21 states sued the Biden administration to end the federal public transportation mask mandate, arguing that the continued enforcement “harms the states” and interferes with some local laws. [1]

In an open letter released by the travel-industry lobbying group Airlines for America, the group is calling on the Biden administration to “sunset federal transportation travel restrictions.” The group argues that the restrictions no longer reflect the “realities of the current epidemiological environment.” [2]

The letter was signed by the leaders of 10 U.S. companies, including six of the largest airlines in the country: Alaska Airlines, American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest and United. [2]

It makes no sense that people are still required to wear masks on airplanes, yet are allowed to congregate in crowded restaurants, schools and at sporting events without masks, despite none of these venues having the protective air filtration system that aircraft do,” wrote the CEOs of all major airlines in a letter to the Biden administration. [3]

 
21 States Challenge the Mask Mandate

Governors from 21 states are suing to end the federal public transportation mask mandate, claiming the continued enforcement “harms the states” and interferes with some local laws. [7]

“President Biden’s shortsighted, heavy-handed and unlawful travel policies are frustrating travelers and causing chaos on public transportation,” Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, who is leading the states’ effort, said in a statement. “It’s long past time to alleviate some of the pressure on travelers and those working in the travel industry by immediately ending Biden’s unlawful public transportation mandates.” [7]

Joining the mostly Republican-led effort are three states with Democratic governors — Kansas, Kentucky and Louisiana. [7]

Last month (Feb 2022), leaders in Texas filed their own, similar complaint against the Biden administration. [7]

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) mandate was unlawfully issued. It was not authorized by Congress, and the CDC did not put the mandate up for notice and comment, which is ordinarily required for regulations like this. Yet a person’s failure to comply with the Administration’s mask mandate carries criminal penalties. [8]

Biden’s repeated disregard of the individual liberties of Texans is not only disrespectful to the U.S. Constitution, it is also troublesome that any president thinks they can act above the law while hardworking Americans standby,” said Attorney General Paxton. “President Biden cannot continue governing through executive edicts. Now is the time to strike down his administration’s air-travel mask mandate. I’m proud to stand alongside my friend Congresswoman Van Duyne and her counsel at TPPF to protect Texans’ liberty and the rule of law.” [8]

(Read a copy of the Texas complaint here)

Many states and cities have already lifted COVID-19 restrictions as they’ve seen a decline in cases and hospitalizations locally. [7]

The states’ lawsuit says the CDC should end its mandate in light of this trend. [7]

“More recently, even lockdown States like California have announced the end of their mask mandates. Still, the CDC unabashedly leaves its mandate intact,” their complaint says. [7]

 

Significance

This challenge could undo the power of the Federal government to enforce Mask Mandates

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

(from the original complaint) [5]

5. Plaintiffs challenge the Mask Mandate pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) on grounds that it:

a. is not in accordance with and exceeds the CDC’s statutory and regulatory authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) and 42 C.F.R. §§ 70.2,
71.31(b), and 71.32(b);

b. is a rule that was enacted without observance of notice and comment procedures required by the APA; and/or

c. is arbitrary and capricious, in that it exempts children under age 2 without regard to scientific evidence of the impact of prolonged mask use on persons of all ages.


6. Alternatively, if the Mask Mandate does not exceed Defendants’ statutory and regulatory authority, then 42 U.S.C. § 264 (a) constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.


7. As well, Plaintiffs challenge the Executive Order on grounds that it constitutes an improper exercise of legislative authority by the Executive Branch, and that it further improperly asserts a general police power that has traditionally been relegated to the States, in derogation of the Separation of Powers under the United States Constitution.

Case 8:21-cv-01693 Document 1 Filed 07/12/21 Page 3 of 28 PageID 3

 

Defendant’s Argument]

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

a Florida Federal Court has struck down the CDC’s cruise line order as unsupported by law, and five justices of the Supreme Court recently appear to have agreed that the CDC over reached with its nationwide eviction moratorium. [4]

 

Decision

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled that the federal mask mandate on planes, trains, buses and other modes of public transportation is “unlawful.” [1] and Vacates It [3]

“Within the past two years, the CDC has found within § 264(a) the power to shut down the cruise ship industry, stop landlords from evicting tenants who have not paid their rent, and require that persons using public conveyances wear masks. Courts have concluded that the first two of these measures exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority under §264. … [9]

No court has yet ruled on the legality of the third. At first blush, it appears more closely related to the powers granted in§ 264(a) than either the sail order or the eviction moratorium. But after rigorous statutory analysis, the Court concludes that§ 264(a) does not authorize the CDC to issue the Mask Mandate….” [9]

“Our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,” writes Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. [3]

Mizelle wrote in a summary that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had exceeded its authority and failed to follow proper rulemaking procedures. [1]

In a 59-page ruling, Mizelle argues that the mandate violates the Administrative Procedure Act, as the agency failed to prove its decision regarding implementing the mandate [1]

The ruling was detailed in analyzing the language of the CDC’s authority as written by Congress in 1944. In particular the meaning of words such as sanitation were scrutinized as to their original meaning– not the re-interpretation by the CDC today. [9]

“One definition it relies upon is even broader, defining “sanitation” as the “applying of measures for preserving and promoting public health.” If Congress intended this definition, the power bestowed on the CDC would be breathtaking. And it certainly would not be limited to modest measures of “sanitation” like masks. It would also justify requiring that businesses install air filtration systems to reduce the risks from airborne contagions or install plexiglass dividers between desks or office spaces. So too, a power to improve “sanitation” would easily extend to requiring vaccinations against CO VID-19, the seasonal flu, or other diseases. Or to mandatory social distancing, coughing-into-elbows, and daily multivitamins….” [9]

Further the infringement on the powers of the state was important. As were the guidance in the statute that Congress authorised the CDC to deal with foreign travel and not domestic\interstate travel. It was also found illegal that the public were not allowed a voice which is required by law.

Finally the judge found the claim by the CDC that masks were needed without providing any evidence to prove this, extremely troubling and highly insufficient to restrict the liberties of all people including the healthy [9]

“Although a closer question than the failure to properly invoke the good cause exception, the Mask Mandate fails this reasoned-explanation standard. Beyond the primary decision to impose a mask requirement, the Mask Mandate provides little or no explanation for the CDC’s choices. Specifically, the CDC omits explanation for rejecting alternatives and for its system of exceptions. And there are many, such that the overall efficiency of masking on airplanes or other conveyances could reasonably be questioned.” [9]

“…the Mask Mandate fails this reasoned-explanation standard. Beyond the primary decision to impose a mask requirement, the Mask Mandate provides little or no explanation for the CDC’s choices. Specifically, the CDC omits explanation for rejecting alternatives and for its system of exceptions. And there are many, such that the overall efficiency of masking on airplanes or other conveyances could reasonably be questioned.” [9]

“The Mandate does not address alternative (or supplementary) requirements to masking, such as testing, temperature checks, or occupancy limits in transit hubs and conveyances. It also does not explain why all masks – homemade and medical-grade – are sufficient. Nor does it require “social distancing [or] frequent handwashing,” despite finding these effective strategies for reducing CO VID-19 transmission…” [9]

“Even if these alternatives were not so obvious that the CDC had to explain its decision to reject them, the Mandate fails to explain other significant choices. For example, the Mandate relies on studies explaining that “universal masking” reduces transmission of COVID-19 at the community level. 86 Fed. Reg. at 8028.” [9]

“But the Mandate does not require universal masking. It exempts individuals who are “eating, drinking, or taking medication” and a person who is “experiencing difficulty breathing” or who is “feeling winded.” It also excludes individuals who cannot wear a mask due to an ADA-recognized disability and all children under two years old. The Mandate makes no effort to explain why its purposes-prevention of transmission and serious illness-allow for such exceptions. Nor why a two-year-old is less likely to transmit COVID-19 than a sixty-two­ year-old….” [9]

“In sum, irrespective of whether the CDC made a good or accurate decision, it needed to explain why it acted as it did. Since the CDC did not explain its decision to compromise the effectiveness of its Mandate by including exceptions or its decision to limit those exceptions, the Court cannot conclude that the CDC “articulated a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.”[9]

 

Aftermath

Government Reaction

“The agencies are reviewing the decision and assessing potential next steps. In the meantime, today’s court decision means CDC’s public transportation masking order is not in effect at this time,” according to a Biden administration official. [1]

“Therefore, TSA will not enforce its Security Directives and Emergency Amendment requiring mask use on public transportation and transportation hubs at this time.” [1]

 
Defendant’s Response

“The court agreed with our main arguments and rejected the CDC’s justifications for the mask order,” said Daviller Law Group attorney Brant C. Hadaway. “The judge found that the CDC exceeded its statutory authority, and that the CDC’s interpretation of its authority was not entitled to deference.” [6]

“An agency is also supposed to provide notice and comment and reasonably explain itself,” Hadaway said. “The CDC’s mask order fell short of both requirements.” [6]

“Without any public comment, or serious scientific justification, CDC bureaucrats imposed a sweeping Travel Mask Mandate applying to every American over the age of two,” said HFDF President Leslie Manookian. “There are laws that set boundaries for federal agencies to protect individual freedom and the Court clearly found that CDC exceeded those limits. Unelected officials cannot do whatever they like to our personal freedoms just because they claim good motives and a desirable goal.” [6]

 
Airlines Response

United Airlines has put out an official statement that clarified that it will no longer be enforcing masks on airline travel. [10]

Effective immediately, masks are no longer required at United on domestic flights, select international flights (dependent upon the arrival country’s mask requirements) or at U.S. airports,” UA said in a statement. [10]

Alaska Airlines has also reportedly lifted its mask mandate. [10]

The TSA announced it was no longer enforcing it. [10]

Admin Official: “Today’s court decision means CDC’s public transportation masking order is not in effect at this time. Therefore, TSA will not enforce its Security Directives and Emergency Amendment requiring mask use on public transportation and transportation hubs at this time” [11]

Both United and American Airlines tell @ABC  they will continue to require masks on board aircraft for customers and employees, “despite the decision by a federal judge on Monday that struck down the federal mask mandate” as they await on more guidance from the US government. [12]

 
more

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said,

“Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic the CDC has unlawfully exceeded its authority and discredited the agency by its contradictory and ever-changing statements. This court decision is yet another blow to the CDC and the Biden administration. Many people have been harassed, punished, and fined over the travel mask mandates stemming from the CDC’s unlawful policy. Any traveler who was punished over this mask mandate should have that punishment reversed. The CDC should be the watch dog to protect public health. However, like the FDA, it has become the lapdog for the pharmaceutical industries and specials interest groups. Liberty Counsel is continuing the fight to get all the shot mandates overturned.” [13]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media


VICTORY! Meet The Team Behind The CDC Mask Mandate Repeal

source: Odysee\theAmericanJournal


Court Defeats CDC Mask Mandates -Apr 22, 2022

source: odysee\shortXXvids


Masks Off! Should we Applaud?

source: Ron Paul Liberty Report


HFDF Lawyers Discuss Mask Suit & more on CA61

source: Odysee\Corona-Ausschuss


SouthWest Airways Passengers Cheer End of Mask Mandate

source: capitalismmagazine.com


Mask Science according to the Industrial Hygienists

source: tyscienceguy.com


Why Masks Don’t Work Pt. 1 -Apr 5 2022

source: odysee\shortXXvids


Why Masks Don’t Work Pt. 2 -Apr 5 2022

source: odysee\shortXXvids


US Army Doctor Vaccine Whistleblower -Apr 13, 2022

source: odysee\shortXXvids


Back to All Cases

 

Legal Opinion Green Mango

Legal Opinion Green Mango

Legal Opinion

Re: Experiences in a German Court

 

Back to All Cases

Report by lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich from the court hearing Green Mango v. Prof. Drosten

Translation of German article: https://2020news.de/alle-masken-fallen/

Dated Nov 9 2021


In today’s hearing before the Berlin Regional Court in the case of Green Mango (Karaoke-Bar) v. Drosten, it was to be expected that either the rule of law would show signs of life, in whole or in part, or that it would become apparent that it had been completely brought into line with the government (or with those who use this government to realise their goals). As we expected, the latter showed itself:

A group of about 30 to 40 people interested in the proceedings, i.e.: the public, wanted to attend the trial. However, only seven people were admitted as spectators. The courtroom was guarded by four security officers; apparently the court feared war-like conditions – without any reason, as evidenced by the fact that completely “normal” people wanted to watch.

After entering the courtroom, while I was still unpacking my files and robe, the presiding judge pointed out to me that I had to wear a mask (the two Drosten lawyers were each wearing FFP 2 masks). I explained to him that I had a mask exemption certificate. The presiding judge then told me that he did not recognise such a thing, that he had the right of domicile here and that I had to wear a mask. I then explained to him the legal situation, namely that this was a case of coercion to which I would not submit. I would not damage my own health on his instructions and, if he persisted, I could not represent my client as a lawyer. Since I thus had to leave the courtroom, the presiding judge – as spectators later told me – asked the opposing lawyer to apply for a default judgment against my client, which he of course gladly did, so that the presiding judge could pronounce the corresponding default judgment. This is what happens when the party, in this case represented by his lawyer, does not appear in court. We will now appeal against this, so that everything will start all over again.

Surprisingly, the presiding judge, as I was told afterwards by spectators who remained in the courtroom, took it on record that he could not check my certificate (which he had not even had shown to him). So the question is what his real problem is: Does he believe that he can deny my client the right to be heard by eliminating her lawyer, so that Drosten, with his, the presiding judge’s, help, could automatically achieve a victory (albeit only a stage victory)? Or does he really believe that he is authorised (moreover, obviously as a medical layman) to check my certificate in any way? Obviously, as this entry in the minutes shows, he was now very unsure whether what he had done before the beginning of the oral proceedings could be reconciled with the requirements of the rule of law.

If necessary, we will also file criminal charges for coercion and all other possible offences, including the suspicion of perverting the course of justice. In any case, we will have to file a motion for bias. Because even an objective observer of the events will at least have the strong suspicion that my client can no longer expect a fair trial before this court in this legal dispute against Drosten: My client is suing Drosten for damages and injunctive relief because Drosten has destroyed my client’s existence with many false claims about his PCR test, which he – Drosten – copied from Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis and misused, and the demand for lockdowns (as well as masks and social distancing, etc.) based on his results (with a high probability of almost 100% false positive “cases”).

The presiding judge bows to this dictate of the defendant without further ado and even in the oral proceedings – with the windows wide open – walks around with an FFP-2 mask, and (this combination might be decisive for the overall assessment) denies my client – moreover with contradictory justification – the right to be heard by preventing her lawyer from participating in this lawyer’s process (the client is not allowed to represent herself, but this is only possible through a lawyer), and suggests to Drosten’s lawyers, after I as the plaintiff’s lawyer had to leave the courtroom, to file a motion for a default judgment, which the latter then does (even though he may have already prepared this in an earlier pleading), so that the presiding judge, on the motion of Drosten’s lawyers proposed by himself, issues the default judgment to the detriment of the now defenceless – because deliberately made defenceless by the presiding judge – plaintiff.

 

Keywords

Germany, Wodarg, Drosten, PCR, Green Mango, Karaoke Bar, Attorney, opinion, judges, mask, procedure, Fuellmich, Berlin, Kary Mullis


Back to All Cases

 

Weimar School Mask Case

Weimar School Mask Case

Weimar School Mask Case

Re: Legality & Health of mandating the wearing of Masks by Children in Schools

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: 8 April 2021
  • Location: Weimar Germany
  • Court: Weimar District Family Court, Amtsgericht
  • Case #: Beschluss vom 08.04.2021, Az.: 9 F 148/21
  • Plaintiff: Mother
  • Defendant: School
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge: Christiaan Dettmar
  • Status: Completed
  • Verdict: For the Plaintiff


*updated: March 18, 2022

 

Background

The court case was a child protection case under to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the local Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, she claimed this constituted a violation of a range of rights of the children and their parents under the law, the German constitution (Grundgesetz or Basic Law) and international conventions. [1][2]

 

Significance

The case is significant not only for the judge’s ruling and subsequent police investigation but for the expert scientific witnesses.

“This is the first time that expert evidence has now been presented before a German court regarding the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the prescribed anti-Corona measures.The expert witnesses; hygienist Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer were heard.” [3]

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Expert Witnesses testified to the significant inaccuracies of the PCR test used to determine Covid “Cases” and to the physical as well as psychological damages of wearing masks

 

Defendant’s Argument

more information is required

 

Decision

The judge summarized his decision as follows:

The compulsion imposed on schoolchildren to wear masks and to keep their distance from one another and from third parties damages the children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psycho-social development, without any more than marginal benefit for the children themselves or third parties. Schools do not play a major role in the “pandemic” event. [4]

The PCR tests and rapid tests used are on their own in principle and not even initially suitable for determining an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. According to the statements in the expert report, this already results from the own calculations of the Robert Koch Institute. According to RKI calculations, such as expert Professor Dr Kuhbandner explains, in mass tests with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, the probability of actually being infected if a positive result is obtained is only 2% with an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). [4]

That would mean: For every two genuinely positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested with a PCR test. [4]

A (regular) compulsion to carry out mass tests without cause, on asymptomatic persons, i.e., healthy people for whom the medical indication is already lacking, cannot be imposed because it is disproportionate to the effect that can be achieved with it. At the same time, the regular compulsion to take a test puts the children under psychological pressure, because their ability to go to school is constantly put to the test. [4]

In conclusion, the judge noted:

Based on surveys in Austria, where masks are not worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week, according to the explanations of the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner: [4]

100,000 primary school students would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing a mask for a week in order to prevent just one infection per week. [4]

To describe this result as disproportionate would be a completely inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has gotten far removed from the facts, which has taken on seemingly historic proportions. [4]

 

Aftermath

  • The Weimar Administrative Court, classified the decision of the family judge as “obviously illegal”. They stated that “The family court has no authority to issue orders to authorities and their representatives” and that “The administrative courts are responsible for decisions on hygiene concepts state does not enforce court’s order” [5]

  • The public prosecutor’s office in Erfurt initiated an investigation against the lawyer, said the authority’s spokesman, Hannes Grünseisen. on the grounds “the judge has exceeded his jurisdiction”. [5]

  • Despite this new ruling, the Thuringian Ministry of Education said that the court ruling will have no impact on the Corona rules in Thuringian schools and the mask requirement will remain. It is also possible to appeal the decision to higher courts. [6]

  • 2020news.de reports that a court in Karlsruhe “upholds sensational Weimar verdict: no legal basis for the accusation that justice was perverted” [7]

 

Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media

Dr Malone on Mask Harms

source: Rumble

Governor signs bill banning mask mandates for schools in Virginia

source: Rumble

Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania School Mask Mandate

source: Patriotic Elephant

 

References

  1. German judge investigated by police after ruling compulsory mask-wearing in schools unconstitutional
  2. English translation of  2020news article
  3. German judge investigated by police after ruling compulsory mask-wearing in schools unconstitutional
  4. Weimar Court Prohibits Mask-Wearing, Distancing Measures and Rapid Testing At Schools
  5. Weimar: Controversial mask judgment – investigations against judges
  6. Weimar Court: No more masks, tests, and distancing for students
  7. Karlsruhe ruling upholds sensational Weimar verdict: no legal basis for the accusation that justice was perverted

Keywords

Karlsruhe Weimar Verdict, PCR, Kammerer, Face Masks, Asymptomatic, Aerosols, Social Distancing, Lockdown, Cycle Threshold, Risk vs Benefit, Constitution, Asymptomatic, RKI, Rapid Test


Back to All Cases