Tag: emergency powers

Court Upholds Nearly $1 Million Fine Against Restaurant That Ignored Pandemic Indoor Dining Ban

A Washington state restaurant that ignored a 2020 state COVID-19 pandemic order must pay a fine of $936,000 – $18,000 per day, for each day it remained in operation while the state’s emergency order banning indoor dining was in place, an appeals court has ruled.

The ban, imposed in late 2020 by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), went into effect following a jump in cases and hospitalizations (unaudited!). In response, the owners of Stuffy’s II restaurant, Bud and Glenda Duling, ignored the order – resulting in the financial punishment. 

The fine was levied by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries – which the Dulings say they cannot pay. Meanwhile, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals did not have their back, refusing to weigh in after saying they don’t have the authority to deal with constitutional matters. A superior court judge upheld the decision.

Despite providing tax returns showing that it operated at a loss in 2020 and received a PPP loan, the court ruled that the Dulings have not provided evidence that their company cannot pay the fines.

“Duling has not demonstrated that it is unable to pay the fine or that the fine is excessive,” Judge Rebecca Glasgow wrote for the unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the State of Washington judges that considered the case. “There is nothing in the record about what savings or assets Duling had,” Glasow continued, adding “Duling had ample opportunities to provide additional documentation and deposition testimony to support its contention that it was unable to pay the fine, and it did not do so.”

Keep reading

California’s Fraudulent “Disaster Recovery” Is A Land Grab

Remember Gavin Newsom’s first visit to the sites of devastating fires last January in Los Angeles, when he vowed to streamline California’s paralytic regulations so people could quickly rebuild their homes?

In that interview, while undulating his shoulders in a weird shimmy that will undoubtedly come back to haunt him as he ramps up his presidential campaigning, Newsom also promised to “prevent opportunistic investors from exploiting vulnerable residents by offering below-market prices.”

It’s hard to say which promise has been more thoroughly violated. As celebrity author Adam Carolla posted on 7/14, there is virtually no work going on along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, where hundreds of homes burned down to the sand.

This is typical.

The Palisades Fire, with a burn area that included Malibu, destroyed over 6,000 homes. So far, 161 permits have been issued by the City of Los Angeles. The community of Altadena, which was consumed by the Eaton Fire, lost over 9,000 homes. So far, 84 rebuilding permits have been issued.

Instead of streamlining the process to get permits to rebuild, if anything, the city has made it harder. In a July 14 interview with the local ABC affiliate, one dispossessed homeowner claimed the city is adding new requirements and deadlines, saying, “They’re now requiring you to submit an itemized list with pricing, which is nearly impossible in a home that’s been owned for over 40, 50 years.”

But whether it’s California Governor Gavin Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the playbook is not designed to help people rebuild their homes and move back into the neighborhoods where their families have lived for generations. New regulations did not replace old regulations. They added as much as they removed, with the new ones being unfamiliar even to veteran builders. All of them, of course, came delivered with the rhetoric of streamlining, while in fact only adding complexity.

Newsom, a tool of corporatist special interests, and Bass, a socialist darling of public sector union bosses, were never playing a game intended to help anyone living in a “single-family detached home.” The new regulations, sold as a way to expedite permitting, were in fact a way to make rebuilding impossible for all but the wealthiest homeowners. And Newsom’s executive order that would “prevent opportunistic investors from exploiting vulnerable residents by offering below-market prices” was actually a move calculated to limit the options of homeowners while the special interests—including the government itself—lined up to purchase these properties.

This isn’t speculation. In late June, Los Angeles County’s “Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire-Safe Recovery” issued its “draft action plan” for “The Resilient and Sustainable Rebuilding of Los Angeles County.” This document is a textbook example of what corporate socialist elites have in store for those normal citizens who, to date, still maintain a modicum of financial independence.

Keep reading

What Is the PREP Act?

In conjunction with EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), the PREP Act is the legislation that enabled – and continues to perpetuate – the rollout and administration of mRNA “countermeasures” against Covid-19.

In this article I will discuss what the PREP Act says, how it was passed, what prominent politicians and legal experts said about it at the time, how it is related to Covid, and why I support efforts (1) calling for the HHS Secretary to immediately repeal the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid, and (2) calling on legislators to repeal the law entirely.

What the PREP Act Says

The PREP Act is a long and convoluted piece of legislation. You can read the entire thing here:

42 U.S. Code § 247d-6d – Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures

This is a summary of the main sections of the law:

(a) Liability Protections

  • Anyone defined as a “covered person” is immune from legal liability related to the use or administration of anything defined as a “covered countermeasure.”

A “covered person” includes (A) “the United States” or (B) any person or “entity” that manufactures, distributes, plans a program for, prescribes, administers, or dispenses a covered countermeasure, or an official, agent, or employee of any of the above.

A “covered countermeasure” includes any drug, biological product, or device that is authorized under Emergency Use Authorization or approved through any other legal pathway.

  • Scope of claims for loss:
    • The immunity applies to any claim related to death, actual or fear of physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition; and loss of or damage to property, including business interruption loss.
    • The immunity applies to any causal relation to any of the above types of loss related to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, or use of a covered countermeasure.
  • The immunity applies only if a countermeasure was applied or used during the effective period of the emergency declaration for that countermeasure, and was used for the disease, population, and geographic area specified in the declaration.
  • For manufacturers or distributors, the immunity applies to any population in any geographic area, without regard to the population or area specified in the emergency declaration for the countermeasure.

(b) Declaration by Secretary

  • The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion to determine that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk for a future such emergency and, based on that determination, to make a declaration recommending the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures, thereby activating the legal immunity described in section (a).
  • In the emergency declaration, which is made by publishing it in the Federal Register, the secretary shall identify – with respect to the use of countermeasures – the category of threat, the period during which the threat is in effect, the population for which it is in effect, and the geographic area for which it is in effect.
  • The period during which the emergency declaration is effective is flexible, depending on various determinations by the Secretary.
  • The Secretary can change any aspect of the declaration of emergency without retroactively affecting the immunity granted under the declaration.
  • The Secretary’s decision to issue an emergency declaration for immunity can be based on anything, including the “desirability of encouraging” the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or licensing of a covered countermeasures
  • No court – whether Federal or State – has subject matter jurisdiction to review any action by the Secretary related to the emergency declaration
  • No State may pass or enforce any law that is different from or in conflict with anything related to the declaration of emergency or to anything related to the qualified persons or covered countermeasures.

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

These two sections define the circumstances under which the PREP Act immunity does not apply. In general, the sole exception is defined as “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.”

The definition of “willful misconduct” is: “an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or factual justification; and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” This is specifically defined as “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.”

A plaintiff who tries to sue under this section has “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct.”

Keep reading

Nebraska Medical Marijuana Regulators Approve Emergency Rules Banning Flower Access For Patients

The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission on Thursday approved emergency regulations to begin accepting medical cannabis applications as soon as Gov. Jim Pillen (R) gives his final green light.

State law requires him to do so by Tuesday.

The emergency regulations, unveiled for the first time minutes before the 10 a.m. meeting, largely mirror a legislative proposal that lawmakers stalled on last month. The regulations would take effect for up to 90 days, pending Pillen’s approval. The two medical cannabis-related laws that voters approved mandate that applications must start being accepted no later than July 1.

Commissioner Lorelle Mueting of Gretna, an addiction prevention specialist through Heartland Family Service, affirmed that commissioners want public feedback on the emergency regulations through July 15, to inform future, formal regulations.

Public comments may be submitted to lcc.frontdesk@nebraska.gov, the repository for the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, which will forward the messages onto the state’s new Medical Cannabis Commission.

“The input that the public provides on these emergency regulations will help us immediately begin drafting the regular regulations,” Mueting said Thursday.

Keep reading

Florida Invokes Emergency Powers to Build ‘Alligator Alcatraz’

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis invoked emergency powers on June 24 to clear the way for Alligator Alcatraz, a new illegal immigration detention center deep in the Everglades.

The plans for another complex to hold illegal immigrants apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—and awaiting processing and deportation—were drafted and submitted by the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) to the Department of Homeland Security and received Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s approval on June 23.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we are working at turbo speed to deliver cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” Noem said on X.

“We will expand facilities and bed space in just days, thanks to our partnership with Florida.”

She said the facilities would be largely funded by FEMA’s Shelter and Services program, which she noted was used by former President Joe Biden’s administration to house illegal immigrants.

The site chosen was the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport.

Keep reading

Missouri governor activates National Guard, declares state of emergency

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) on Thursday declared a state of emergency and activated the state’s National Guard in anticipation of protests across the state — and in response to “civil unrest” across the country.

Missouri Executive Order 25-25 declares a State of Emergency and allows the Adjutant General to order service members to aid state officials.

The order comes after the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Missouri National Guard and Missouri Department of Public Safety established a Unified Command to monitor situations across the state and prepare local law enforcement.

Additionally, the order also declares that the Adjutant General may employ necessary equipment to support authorities and provide assistance.

While nationwide protests continue to flare up in response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, Kehoe said his order is purely precautionary.

“We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state,” the governor said.

“While other states may wait for chaos to ensue, the State of Missouri is taking a proactive approach in the event that assistance is needed to support local law enforcement in protecting our citizens and communities,” he added.

To read Kehoe’s full order, click here.

Keep reading

The False Claims of WHO’s Pandemic Agreement

One way to determine whether a suggestion is worth following is to look at the evidence presented to support it. If the evidence makes sense and smells real, then perhaps the program you are asked to sign up for is worthy of consideration. 

However, if the whole scheme is sold on fallacies that a child could poke a stick through, and its chief proponents cannot possibly believe their own rhetoric, then only a fool would go much further. This is obvious – you don’t buy a used car on a salesman’s insistence that there is no other way to get from your kitchen to your bathroom.

Delegates at the coming World Health Assembly in Geneva are faced with such a choice. In this case, the car salesman is the World Health Organization (WHO), an organization still commanding considerable global respect based on a legacy of sane and solid work some decades ago. 

It also benefits from a persistent misunderstanding that large international organizations would not intentionally lie (they increasingly do, as noted below). The delegates will be voting on the recently completed text of the Pandemic Agreement, part of a broad effort to extract large profits and salaries from an intrinsic human fear of rare causes of death. Fear and confusion distract human minds from rational behavior.

Keep reading

PREP Act Empowers Gov’t to ‘Administer’ Drugs, Biological Products, Devices to Citizens in Secret

Big Picture: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, codified at 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d, grants the government extraordinary authority to deploy countermeasures during public health emergencies. These powers allow for sweeping actions that include administering drugs, devices, or biological products to populations—without requiring public knowledge or consent. Signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 30, 2005, as part of the Department of Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863), the PREP Act was intended to prepare the nation for biological threats but has since raised questions about accountability and transparency.

Focus: The PREP Act’s language reveals how liability immunity, broad discretion for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and exemptions from disclosure requirements create an alarming framework for secretive government actions.

Keep reading

Israel Keeps Emergency Biometrics Measures in Place, More than a Year into Gaza War

Last year, on October 7th, a Hamas attack on Israel plunged the country into a war against Gaza that would bring chaos to the region. But aside from death and destruction, the war has also brought unprecedented access to biometric data to the Israeli government, sparking fears over privacy violations for Israelis.

Just one month after the attacks, the Knesset approved full access to the National Biometric Database for Israeli security forces using expedited legislation. The new access was not to be monitored by other government agencies. Since then, the Ministry of National Security has been regularly extending the temporary order despite the country’s regulators, legal experts and rights organizations arguing against its necessity.

“This legislation was enacted under difficult conditions, time pressure, and uncertainty,” the country’s Biometric Commissioner Naama Ben Zvi told Israeli media outlet Calcalist.

The database holds fingerprint and facial data of approximately 7 million Israelis. In the beginning, authorities argued that the biometric data was critical for identifying the deceased, kidnapped and missing during Hamas’s attack. Alongside the data access, the government also started mandating that citizens applying for an ID card or passport also submit fingerprint and facial biometrics.

According to data from the Biometric Commissioner, however, the fingerprint data was not indispensable. The biometric database helped identify 106 people out of 1,205 casualties, around 11 percent. The individuals were also identified using methods such as DNA, dental records and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) biometric databases which hold records from military conscripts.

“From a national perspective, fingerprints are not a significant game changer,” says Ben Zvi, who also heads the Identity and Biometric Applications Unit at the Israeli National Cyber Directorate. Citizens should be given a choice when submitting biometric data, she adds.

“Taking fingerprints from the entire population infringes on privacy.”

The Biometrics Commissioner is not the only one criticizing the government over privacy.

Keep reading

FAA Restricting Flight Areas …Will Shoot Them Down If Necessary

The federal government is drawing a line in the sand — or, more accurately, the air — when it comes to the mysterious drones zooming around New Jersey … restricting the areas where they can fly and promising deadly force to those presenting a threat.

The Federal Aviation Administration announced the news this week … putting the ban into effect beginning Wednesday and running through at least January 17, 2025.

According to the new rules, drones are restricted from flying within a nautical mile of specified airspace outlined in the department’s official Notice to Airmen.

These include areas around Jersey City, Elizabeth, Camden, North and South Brunswick and many more highly populated areas of NJ.

We reached out to the FAA … and they say they published “22 Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) prohibiting drone flights over critical New Jersey infrastructure” at the behest of their federal security partners.

According to the FAA, those who violate this airspace could have their drones intercepted and operators themselves could be detained and interviewed.

Keep reading