The third California court in a week has ruled in favor of the people of California and the United States Constitution, against the government over state ordered Covid lockdowns. California courts are ruling that the government may have overstepped its authority when they followed Gavin Newsom’s shut down orders, according to Constitutional Attorney and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Meuser. The cases can move forward and begin discovery.
The Globe spoke with Meuser about these three groundbreaking judicial decisions. “Any one of these cases is interesting,” Meuser told the Globe. “But three in one week is huge!”
Meuser said the in the San Jose Calvary Chapel case, the 1st court ruled that courts can’t sanction a church for refusing to shut down since it was later determined that Newsom overstepped his constitutional authority in shutting down churches. Meuser said the Governor and state government never had the authority to shut down churches.
In the Orange County nail salon case, the 2nd court ruled that since Newsom picked which businesses were allowed to remain open in order to “flatten the curve,” the government may be liable for the damages those businesses suffered as a result of following the governor’s order. Meuser said the nail salon lawsuit used the “commandeering law” to address when the government seizes a business. If government made the decision to use your property and fight the emergency, the government has to pay fair market value for it. When Gov. Newsom decided which businesses would be locked down and which were not, that was commandeering the locked down businesses.
Nail salons sued the governor in May 2020, the Globe reported. The Center for American Liberty and Dhillon Law Group, representing the Professional Beauty Federation of California, salon owner Rosie Ibarra and other salon owners, filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, California Public Health Officer Sonia Angel, and 12 members of the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, for violating the civil rights, right to due process, and the constitutional right to earn a living.
In the Los Angeles Tinhorn Flats restaurant case, a 3rd court ruled that businesses are allowed to sue the government for targeting them because they were vocal in opposing Newsom’s shutdown orders.
Meuser said this was a restaurant targeted by government for daring to question the constitutionality of the lockdown orders, and defying them. The government cut off their power and built walls around the outside of the business, to keep them closed, and send a message to other businesses.
“Government must enforce the laws equally; they cannot target those who exercise their First Amendment rights,” Meuser said. The restaurant said they were targeted and no one else was, by the government, which violated their 1st Amendment right to assemble.
“The Los Angeles Superior Court is allowing the Tinhorn Flats COVID-19 case against the government to continue. The court refuses to dismiss Tinhorn Flat’s case that Burbank targeted it because it expressed its opposition to Newsom’s shutdown orders.”
“This is another step moving forward in a 1st Amendment cause of action,” Meuser said.
“On March 11, 2020, Governor Newsom’s office published the fact that it was California Department of Public Health’s policy of preventing gatherings of groups larger than 250 people “should be postponed.” This was not an executive order by the governor, instead it was a California Department of Public Health policy. This policy does not cite a single law that gives the California Department of Public Health authority to shut down events of 250 people or require social distancing of more than 6 feet. While these may be good guidelines to follow, they are simply policies, they are not the law.”
“To emphasize that this was just a policy and not a law, on March 12, 2020, Newsom issues his next executive order (N-25-20). This executive order states that ‘All residents are to heed any orders and guidance of state and local public health officials, including but not limited to the imposition of social distancing measures, to control the spread of COVID-19.’”
“Notice the language of this order. ‘All residents are to heed any orders and guidance …’. If you look up the word heed in the dictionary, you will discover that it means ‘to give consideration attention to.’ It does not say you must obey. Gavin Newsom in his executive order utilizing his powers granted him after declaring a state of emergency told the citizens of California that Californians should take the advice given by the California Department of Public Health into consideration when making decisions.”
In December 2020, the Globe reported:
“Gov. Newsom and California Department of Public Health Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly have failed to provide the ‘science’ and/or ‘data’ they are using as they claim activities like outdoor dining, bars, and hair and nail salons are responsible for spreading coronavirus.”
“’We want to nix mixing. Full stop.’ Newsom said at his press conference Thursday. The governor claims ‘Our ICUs are climbing quickly toward their capacity. Our death rate is rising…’ says the governor who only weeks ago attended a swanky dinner in Napa Valley with 22 other people. He obviously didn’t believe that ‘more lives would be lost’ by his attendance at the dinner.”
- Gov. Newsom Vetoes Bill to Charge Parents With ‘Child Abuse’ for not Affirming Trans Children - September 23, 2023
- Music Icon David Foster’s Daughters Declare ‘Hate’ for Gov. Gavin Newsom - September 22, 2023
- She Can Stay: GAO Says Julie Su Can Be ‘Acting’ Labor Secretary Indefinitely - September 21, 2023