Mootness - Another Dismissal Doctrine to Fix (with Comments on LAUSD)Amicus Curiae Brief in Bush v Fantasia that was not submitted in time to be docketed
Hi All, Below is a brief I wrote for Michael Bush v Linda Fantasia. Time ran out before I could find an attorney to submit it for me. A SCOTUS certified attorney must submit briefs. Citizens are relegated to a class below attorneys where the Court is concerned. The case was not taken up by the Supreme Court. Please accept this brief on mootness, another dismissal doctrine, in context of the failings of courts in the United States.
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………….… INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE …………………………… SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ………………………………… ARGUMENT……………………………………………………
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………… TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASESCase No. 24-173 Johnson et al v Kotek et al …………….. Case No. 24-306 Bush et al v Fantasia et al ……………. Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho 104 F.4th 715 (9th Cir. 2024) …………………….. Beaudoin v. Baker 530 F. Supp. 3d 169 (D. Mass. 2021) ………………….. Beaudoin v. Baker 1:22-cv-11356 (D. Mass. 2022) ……………………….. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONArticle III, § 2 ………………………………………………… First Amendment ……………………………………………… FEDERAL STATUTE18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law …….. STATE STATUTE1950 Mass. Acts ch. 639 ………………………………………. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDUREFed. R. Civ. P. 12 ……………………………………………… INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAEAmicus curiae John Paul Beaudoin, Sr. is an individual who suffered several violations of the most foundational right of civil society, which is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances and to access the courts for cases and controversies, both of which are defined and protected by the laws and Constitutions of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Amicus Beaudoin is an electrical engineer and MBA by educational training and a whole systems analyst through Fortune 10 company CFO training, including personality inventory assessment, organizational behavior evaluation, political organization structure analysis, and strategic operations for large contract engagement. Amicus submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in Case No. 24-173 Johnson et al v Kotek et al. The present brief is supplementary to Amicus Beaudoin’s Johnson v Kotek brief. The rampant lower court abuse of Dismissal Doctrines, including mootness in the present case, must be reined in by This Court. A grant of certiorari in the present case is an important step in healing the American judicial system. Throughout this brief, Amicus utilizes the intersecting perspectives of law, economics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, the latter four of which are usually absent from the arguments of one at bar. This amicus brief is submitted in support of the Petitioners. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTThe most foundational right in the United States Constitution is found in the last line of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” which is effected through access to the Article III § 2 courts. The rights of Americans cannot be upheld without citizen access to the courts to sue for redress. This brief further supports the treatise on “Dismissal Doctrines” elucidated in the recent brief from Amicus Beaudoin on “Dismissal Doctrines” in Case No. 24-173 Johnson v Kotek. That prior brief dwelt upon the misuse and abuse of Qualified Immunity and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b) “Standing” that deprive The People of their most foundational right of redress. This brief, in Case No. 24-306 Bush et al v Fantasia et al, adds evidence and analysis of the misuse and abuse of Mootness Doctrine as one of the Dismissal Doctrines causing egregious harms to the society of the United States. Dismissal Doctrines are abused by the lower courts to deny access to plaintiffs for legitimate cases and controversies. Denial of access results in omissions of dispute resolution in law and equity. From 2020 to present, these omissions resulted in the deaths of more than one million Americans and in a devolution of civil society. Cases are rarely heard on substantive bases. The public is kept from knowing facts and truth. And divisive societal issues fester without resolution. ARGUMENTI. The Primary Mission of the Courts is Dispute Resolution.The primary mission of the courts is to interpret and apply law, resolve disputes, and uphold the Constitution. If a people cannot access the courts to resolve disputes in law and equity, they will resolve disputes in the streets as neighbor fights neighbor, citizen fights government, and the greater power wins, regardless of a party’s righteousness or virtue in a dispute. To deny access to the courts through the overuse of Dismissal Doctrines is to drive The People to incivility and drive The Government to tyrannical dominance over The People. The courts are failing in their primary mission of dispute resolution because Dismissal Doctrines are hyperbolically interpreted by lower courts in violation of plaintiffs’ rights of redress, access to the courts, and due process of law. II. Mootness Doctrine Abuse Leaves Society Without Resolution.In response to a purported Covid pandemic, federal and state governments declared emergencies that enabled the use of wartime emergency powers acts such as the Acts of 1950 in Massachusetts, also known as civil defense law. Governments used these powers to tread on the Constitutional rights of citizens claiming it was for the public interest. Mandates, including but not limited to masking, limited occupancy, distance between people, and Covid gene drug injections called “vaccines,” were enacted by governments often without any scientific studies or reasoning to support the mandates. The violative mandates were met with lawsuits from citizens seeking redress. Often, the governments would rescind the mandates, then submit a motion to dismiss the lawsuit using Mootness Doctrine. The Court would allow the dismissal because there was no longer a mandate. Sometimes the governments would reinstate the mandate after the dismissal, or another administrative department in the government would issue a mandate often without the authority to do so. The Department for Elementary and Secondary Education (“DESE”) in Massachusetts is such an administrative department with no authority or expertise to issue a mandate. Yet the mandate was upheld by the state’s district and appellate courts, not through a substantive adjudication of facts, but rather at the pleading stage through a Dismissal Doctrine. The substantive arguments about many mandates were never heard because the cases were dismissed using Mootness Doctrine. This caused more lawsuits to be filed and more dismissals based upon Mootness Doctrine. Most of these filed lawsuits could have been avoided had the initial lawsuits gone through discovery and trials, thus entering into evidence the facts of mask or gene drug or social distancing effectiveness related to the spread of Covid. Id est, stare decisis through collateral estoppel would establish the fact that many of these mandates have no effect; and when that is weighed against the violation of Constitutional rights in a balance of harms analysis, there would be no question that such mandates would be struck down. Mootness Doctrine in the present case left the plaintiffs and society without resolution on the effectiveness of masks. More mask mandates followed in Massachusetts because of the lack of adjudication on the issue and a lack of evidentiary findings. And more lawsuits followed as well. III. Proof of Mootness Abuse - Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho.There may not be any clearer case of rampant Mootness Doctrine abuse than the Los Angeles Unified School District. “LAUSD’s pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies was enough to keep this case alive.” Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, 104 F.4th 715 (9th Cir. 2024) The details of the LAUSD case are extensive and too long for this brief. For brevity, here is the case decision’s Opinion Argument I opening, “This case is about LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. LAUSD has reversed course several times. Because of its importance to the mootness issue, we recount that history in detail.” id The LAUSD case subject matter was about vaccine mandates. In order to avoid having a case heard, the school district would drop a mandate during litigation, move for dismissal using Mootness Doctrine, then reinstate the mandate after dismissal. How many years and millions of dollars were spent by the parties in this one case alone, while purposeful malfeasance and deprivation of rights under color of law were perpetrated on the plaintiffs by the defendants? The defense attorneys in the case thought they were being cute as they violated federal felony statutes depriving the plaintiffs of their Constitutional right to redress. The LAUSD case is but one example. The petitioner’s case should be remanded and heard. IV. The Baker Knew - Governor Charlie Baker Knew That Masks Don’t Stop Covid Before Issuing the Mandate.Governor Baker of Massachusetts enacted COVID-19 Order No. 31, an order for population-wide face covering, on May 1, 2020 effective May 6, 2020.¹ All mask involved cases known to Amicus Beaudoin at the time of this brief were dismissed on one of the Dismissal Doctrines and none reached discovery for fact finding. Amicus Beaudoin’s own case Beaudoin v. Baker, 530 F. Supp. 3d 169 (D. Mass. 2021) was dismissed using Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 12(b)(6) because Baker rescinded Order No. 31 and reissued a new mask mandate as Order No. 55 in November 2020. Order No. 55 had an exception in paragraph 2(b) for hearing impaired and anyone speaking to anyone hearing impaired. Amicus Beaudoin’s complaint stated that he was deprived of receiving free speech from others because Baker ordered others to cover their mouths. Amicus is deaf in one ear and needs to see people’s lips move to aid in his hearing.² Baker, defendant in the lawsuit, then moved the court to dismiss the case on standing after Order No. 55 was enacted because Amicus no longer had an injury-in-fact. The case was dismissed. The cute trick of the defense counsel worked. The substantive case material was never heard. Interesting to This Court should be the 1,263 pages of internal communications from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (“DPH”) that Amicus received, within a day of his case being dismissed, in response to a 5-month old Public Records Request. Within those pages, it can be shown that Governor Baker’s agents within DPH knew on April 20, 2020, two weeks before the mandate was issued, that masks will not stop COVID-19 spread. E-mail communication by and between Professor Gregory Rutledge of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and members of DPH show that Rutledge tested many mask samples under contract with DPH. 1.2 million KN-95 masks were flown into Boston on the New England Patriots jet. Rutledge tested the masks. Most of the masks were found to range from 40% to 65% filtration efficiency with some as high as 88%. Basically, with a perfect fit and no leaks across a test fixture, they were useless against an aerosolized virus. Add to that the instructions and fit testing required within the pages, plus the citations of prior tests, one of which shows coughing into your sleeve to be better than masks, and the result is that masks are utterly useless against Covid-19 as proven by a billion people wearing masks while Covid-19 spread the earth over. All of this information can be found in The Baker Knew (2022, Beaudoin, J.).³ Governor Baker of Massachusetts knew or should have known that masks do not work two weeks before he issued a mask mandate. All of this information was never heard in any case because the cases were dismissed using one of the Dismissal Doctrines such as Mootness Doctrine. Thousands of cases and millions of dollars were wasted cycling through complaints, motions to dismiss, and opposition memoranda never to be adjudicated in a court. The courts have failed in their primary mission of dispute resolution. The world will soon know why and how the United States has fallen into such despair and incivility — Dismissal Doctrines. V. Cassidy.Cassidy Baracka was 7 years old when she died on January 18, 2022. Part I, aka Causes of Death, of her death record states that she died from “Complications of Coronavirus-19 Viral Infection.” Part II, aka other conditions that may have contributed, mentions asthma and fungal and bacterial pleuritis. Cassidy was compelled to wear a mask for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week in school. The mask did nothing to stop Covid transmission. However, what many call a petri dish strapped to your face is believed to have caused her fungal and bacterial pleurisy. Beaudoin v Baker, 1:22-cv-11356 (D. Mass. 2022) was dismissed using Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 (b)(6). Exhibit F of that complaint contains Cassidy’s death record and a VAERS report of a 7-year-old female from Massachusetts who was injected on January 13, 2022, reacted immediately with terrible abdominal pain, 103F fever, and no bowel movement for 3 days. It is believed that the VAERS report tells of Cassidy Baracka’s Covid vaccine experience because no other 7-year-old girl deceased in Massachusetts fits that time frame. If this is true, then the death certifier committed felony fraud by omitting Covid vaccine as a cause of death on Cassidy’s death record, and committed further fraud by certifying that she died from Covid per se. Cassidy’s death was prolifically reported on television and radio news as a Covid death. Parents lined their children up to get injected with the very thing that likely killed Cassidy. (2024, Beaudoin, J. The Real CdC)⁴ These facts of Cassidy’s true cause of death were never heard by The Court because Beaudoin’s case was dismissed at the pleading stage due to another Dismissal Doctrine. The courts in Massachusetts never heard evidence of Ian’s death from clots in his heart at 11 years old days after Covid vaccination, Amaya’s stroke death at 12 years old in the same month as her Covid vaccination, Eden’s stroke death at 17 years old after her Covid vaccination, or Brianna’s stroke death at 30 years old after her Covid vaccination all in Massachusetts. In fact, Amicus Beaudoin can list hundreds of vaccine-caused deaths in Massachusetts and Connecticut that never were heard by any court due to Dismissal Doctrines. The present case may be able to solve the mask debate once and for all. It must be heard, else justice is denied again in the United States. VI. Solutions to the Dismissal Doctrine Overuse and AbuseThe dismissal of the present case must be reversed and remanded as a first step to restoring the rights of the people to access the courts. The lives of one million Americans were needlessly taken because the truth was hidden behind Dismissal Doctrines. Even a remote possibility of repeated injurious conduct by the defendant should preclude allowance of a Mootness Doctrine dismissal motion. When balanced against the foundational right of redress, an allowance of such a motion equates to a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law. The overuse and abuse of Dismissal Doctrines are destroying civil society and trust in government. If this continues, The People will engage in incivility as a matter of instinct to survive tyrannical government mandates to self-harm often resulting in life-long disability or death. Based on the evidence, it is indisputable that the courts are failing in their primary mission of dispute resolution. History will show that disputes regarding election fraud, border activity, Covid response iatrogenesis, fentanyl trafficking, in loco parentis, and climate change are not being adjudicated. Amicus is writing a series of articles and books on this out-of-control systemic and hyperbolic allowance of Dismissal Doctrines. Id est, the root cause of all societal schisms is now Dismissal Doctrines. This Court has a moral duty to engage as soon as possible and solve these issues before the United States splits apart. Amicus is available to help as a whole systems analyst. CONCLUSIONFor the reasons set forth above, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, g Counsel of Record g Law Firm street town, state phone Counsel for Amici Curiae October 2, 2024 Footnotes1 Baker, C. (May 1, 2020). ORDER REQUIRING FACE COVERINGS IN PUBLIC PLACES WHERE SOCIAL DISTANCING IS NOT POSSIBLE. COVID-19 Order No. 31. Office of the Governor. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Found here https://www.mass.gov/doc/may-1-2020-masks-and-face-coverings/download on October 2, 2024. 2 Baker, C. (November 2, 2020). REVISED ORDER REQUIRING FACE COVERINGS IN PUBLIC PLACES. COVID-19 Order No. 55. Office of the Governor. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Found here https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-order-55/download on October 2, 2024. 3 Beaudoin, J. (Mar 27, 2024). The Baker Knew. The Real CdC’s Newsletter. Found here https://open.substack.com/pub/therealcdc/p/the-baker-knew?r=1d6m3v&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web on October 2, 2024. 4 Beaudoin, J. (2024). The Real CdC - COVID FACTS for REGULAR PEOPLE. Summa Logica LLC. Found here https://therealcdc.com/ on October 2, 2024. John 14:6 TRUTHYou're currently a free subscriber to The Real CdC’s Newsletter. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment