COVID-19 Goes To Family Court

COVID-19 Goes To Family Court

By Bill Sardi

June 27, 2020

I got hauled into family court Wednesday (June 24) over a report I wrote that was posted at LewRockwell.com back in February of 2020.
I was the only case before the judge that day.  This was an emergency hearing of a life-and-death matter.  I had to cancel all other appointments and drive to Los Angeles for an emergency matter of unknown content.  The hearing lasted two-and-a-half hours.

Everyone was required to wear a mask during the proceeding.   Social distancing was strict.  Chairs were marked where you could sit.  You could sense the case was developing into high drama on the level of the Dragnet – -renamed “Badge 714” TV series of the 1950s which became famous for this quip from “Lieutenant Joe Friday of the LAPD: “Just the facts ma’am.  All we want are the facts, ma’am.”  Of course, the facts would never see the light of day in this court.
2016 1 oz American Sil... Check Amazon for Pricing. It was just another sequel to a long 6-year child custody battle that has been filled with bogus requests for restraining orders (3 hearings at a cost of $6000 in legal fees), false contempt of court charges that were dismissed in a 10—minute hearing (at a cost of $12,000 in legal fees), and calls to the police over imagined threats posed to my son by me, his father (no arrests).
The article in question was entitled: WHY I WANT TO BE INFECTED WITH THE COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS AND YOU SHOULD TOO
The judge was given a copy of this report and my lame attorney failed to read it and forward it to me so I could defend myself in family court.   I was ambushed in family court in an ex parte (rush emergency) motion.  I was only able to read the allegations after the hearing was over.
The allegation was that I had intentionally exposed my 16-year old son during his visitations to my home every other weekend to the dreaded COVID-19 coronavirus.
And that exposure, upon his return to his mother’s house, indirectly exposed his grandmother to transmission of the virus, and she is over 80 years of age, considered a high-risk group for the COVID-19, and had not left her house during the past few months of the lockdown and had chosen to live in imagined fear.
So, the court concluded, among other evidence presented, that my son should be taken away from any visitation with his son for 45 days.  I can have no contact with my son whatsoever, not even inform him why dad isn’t going to show up on Friday to pick him up.  A psychologist will break the news to my son in a brainwashing exercise about how evil dads can be.  Dad is now a COVID-19 criminal spreader of disease.  And of course, the psychologist needs the money and revels in her imagined importance to save my son from his evil father and COVID-19.
The judge and my son’s attorney wondered if my son would rebel during this 45-day period of exclusion of his father, so the need for a psychologist to calm his fears and concerns.  Of course! Northlight 14” L... Buy New $19.79 (as of 04:44 EDT - Details)
If the family court really believed this then I would be tagged as a disease spreader and place on electronic-only visitation with my son.  (Hey, I had better not give them any ideas.).  My son’s counselor is likely going to alienate my son from his father by scaring him I may give him a life-threatening disease.
Now all this is unConstitutional.  And my lame attorney failed to ask for a STAY until proper adjudication could be performed. (I’m looking for a new attorney if you know one. But which attorney would take me as a client when I pose such a risk?  I’m a legal outcast.)
No, the presumed risk was too much to risk proper legal due process.  This represents a form of legal kidnapping.
Now neither my son or his grandmother have been tested for COVID-19.  Testing should have been demanded to see if they had already been exposed to the virus and developed antibodies.
The irony of this sad account is that I am 75-years of age – – considered high-risk for COVID-19.  I am in an exclusional group according to the court.  I should have been hauled into court electronically (Skype, Zoom).  I should have never been physically hauled into court and exposed to others in a public charade of justice.  It was OK for dad to be potentially exposed by force, but not for my son, who is in a low-risk group, to get exposed and develop natural antibodies in an imagined risk of some kind.
Of course, without a vaccine, the only way to assuredly protect against the virus is natural exposure and development of antibodies (and zinc-dependent T-cells as we only recently have learned).  And did my son’s grandmother come down with COVID-19?  No, but that didn’t matter.  And if she had, odds are she would have only experienced mild if any symptoms. 1988 S US Mint Olpympi... Check Amazon for Pricing.
This is the rub – that a so-called killed virus (viruses aren’t alive, they infect a living cell and take over its machinery to replicate wildly) housed inside a syringe and delivered by needle along with antibody-provoking heavy metals is the only way to protect against infectious disease, but community exposure to a virus and development of natural antibodies is not acceptable, maybe not even legal.  Every time you read or hear of laboratory blood-test-confirmed COVID-19 coronavirus cases of infection, you are reading or hearing of someone whose immune system kicked in and overwhelmed the virus.  That is the Janus face of infection.
We must stay inside, away from contact with others, and remain vulnerable to this virus until we can obtain the legal way to develop antibodies.  Which is the obvious social scheme in practice, which is to ensure there are enough people who can benefit from an upcoming vaccine.
That vaccine is obviously not available at the present time.  But I foresee a future legal quagmire.  In order to attend court, you will have to show you have been vaccinated, once it becomes available.  COVID-19 is now the get-out-of-jail card.
According to a recent Stanford/UCLA study, a person in the U.S. has a 1-in-4000 chance of being infected by COVID-19 coronavirus without taking any precautions (face masks, social distancing) and a 1-in-19 million chance of dying from COVID-19.  These were the numbers the court didn’t have in its hands to assess the risk.
Now there were some court clerks and others in the court who were obviously born overseas.  And they comprise a population that is highly likely to harbor latent (dormant) tuberculosis in their lungs (there are 14 million of these people in the US) that could erupt into active lung disease.  No problem, these people can come and go in the courtroom.  But the 75-year old father of a 16-year old child poses a risk as a virus spreader, even though his own age group is high risk. Outdoor Patriotic Ligh... Buy New $29.99 (as of 04:44 EDT - Details)
My son’s mother has been reportedly taking photos of me in my car when I drop my son off at his mother’s house, to determine if I was wearing a mask during the drop off.   And this is the hysteria that now is utilized as a legal weapon against a father in family court.  COVID-19 is a weapon beyond reason.  And if the judge reads this report, there will be more sanctions.  The judge’s ruling is the science of the day.  Imagined risk dressed up in legalese and delivered in a black robe in a backdrop of a courtroom.  I’m surprised I got out of court without handcuffs.  And more legal costs if I want to protest, in a prolonged case in family court that has cost $1.7 million and counting.
By the way, masks are not required by law in the State of California.  They are only a guideline published by public health authorities.  But intentionally misdirected news reports say otherwise.  Health educator Peggy Hall sets the record straight.