Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
You can view the 35 minutes of oral arguments here. Everyone should watch and share this!
On Tuesday, September 13, 2023 oral arguments were made in Borrello vs Hochul in Rochester, New York. In a crowded court room five justices presided over oral arguments. I could not help but notice during the oral arguments, the presiding judge had a persistent cough for the first few minutes or so of the hearing. She could be a suspect for quarantine under governor Hochul’s quarantine procedure, everyone in the court room could be. Why not? The quarantine rule places no limits on what the State can do in the name of public health. I wonder if that thought went through the minds of the judges on the panel? I am not a lawyer and I look forward to interviewing Bobbie Anne Cox later this month to ask her specific questions. Here are my observations of the oral arguments.
Most New Yorkers are not aware of the quarantine procedure that Governor Kathy Hochul is fighting to implement. Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox, has already won a lower court ruling barring the the State of New York from imposing such a procedure on citizens. The quarantine procedure would allow the Department of Public Health to quarantine and isolate any New Yorker, a child, an elderly person, mother, father, anyone the State believes MAY have been exposed to a communicable disease could be isolated and quarantined as the State deems fit. This could be at a facility outside of the home or in an undisclosed location where said person would be subjected to all the public health measures the State deems necessary to combat the suspected pathogen. That includes prophylactic drugs, vaccines, and therapies, without informed consent.
The growing trend since COVID across the nation, but especially in blue states like New York, is to treat public health as an emergency power that can suspend basic human rights. It is quite shocking that governments feel they can control a virus or bacteria from spreading. Human beings are equipped with immune systems so that they can survive living in an atmosphere full of microscopic things that can sometimes make you sick. People have a strong desire to live and be healthy, each person , like each finger print has a unique way in which they pursue health and vitality. Each person has a different immune response to viruses and bacteria. There can be some commonality, so we can speculate what a virus will do to most people, but we are all different. Each human being is endowed with the inalienable God given right to decide how to protect themselves from pathogens in the environment. Informed consent cannot be suspended by a state government. If the state can do such a thing, than how are we different from the Weimar Republic that lead to the rise of Nazi fascism, and later concentration camps? Jewish people were forced into ghettos by the Nazi Party and were accused of carrying typhoid and sent to quarantine camps. In 2023 anyone can be sent to a quarantine camp if the governor wins her appeal. The state would have unprecedented power like the Nazis did in Germany.
The state argued that quarantine is not the same as a commitment, meaning a person quarantined is not committed and can leave at anytime. Yet there is clear language in the procedure that such person would need their own lawyer, and would still be quarantined without consent, and only released on a judge’s orders. How is this different than a commitment? If someone is committed in New York there is a hearing before such a commitment. There is also a length of time and a review of commitment. With Hochul’s quarantine procedure there is no hearing, a knock on the door by public health and local police is enough to remove you or your child, with or without you, with no due process, for an unspecified period of time to an undisclosed location. Actually a commitment would be better than the quarantine procedure. At least with a commitment you get a hearting before being taken away! The state also argued there is no standing for this case and that NYS is not violating anyone’s rights with mandatory quarantine without informed consent or due process, because this is public health.
People should note a dirty procedure the CDC recommends for viral pathogens. It’s called, “Shielding Approach” and was dreamed up for the COVID pandemic. When you visit the CDC website today it takes you to a new page and not the language of the Shielding Approach published in 2020. The language reads like a dream plan for a dictatorship. Take a look for yourself. Here are some screen shots, I recommend you follow the links. If the link is broken (been having trouble with broken links in Substack) just copy and paste link into a browser, anything but Google for a clear search! The CDC claims this is for countries that have tent communities. At the rate we are going with the tanking economy, and the migrant crisis, new tent cities are popping up EVERYWHERE across the country, especially in blue sanctuary cities like NYC. The CDC is an unelected body that has been captured by industry. Americans would do well to know and understand this disturbing fact so that we can take proper action to eliminate it. Kathy Hochul follows the CDC guidance, her quarantine procedure is similar to this dystopian plan.
Bobbie countered the State’s argument with the language written in the state’s quarantine procedures which clearly says that the Department of Public Health will have the power to quarantine anyone they want. Cox also argued the unconstitutionality of the quarantine procedure, which came from a bill proposed in the General Assembly A416 that was first raised in 2015, and raised each year thereafter, in the near decade since it was raised no one in the Assembly would touch it. After COVID, then Governor Cuomo tried to implement it as an Executive Order. When Cuomo left office in disgrace, Hochul added the quarantine procedure to New York State public health law. Senator Borrello of New York State had the standing to sue the state for bypassing the legislative branch of government. Standing means there is a person who is directly affected by a law, or procedure in this case, who is being hurt by such, and this person represents the possibility of many more.
When Bobbie closed her arguments. The presiding judges were met with a standing applause from the public in the courtroom in favor of Bobbie’s arguments. It was a powerful scene that I imagine left a huge impression on those justices. Now we wait for the verdict. The Constitution of the United States clearly defines that inalienable rights are not up for suspension no matter what. I am not as familiar with the New York State Constitution, but I imagine it also protects inalienable rights from public health dictates. Do not be fooled by the words “public health” we should always question any government that wants to force pharmaceutical products and mandatory quarantine on the population. Let us hope freedom and liberty win again, and Constitutional sanity prevails!
Links and References:
Uniting New York State
https://unitingnys.com/lawsuit/Shielding Approach
CDC’s Shielding Approach
https://stacks.cdc.gov › view › cdc › 91460 › cdc_91460_DS1.pdf
