With regard to all of the COVID insanity. #1: DON'T COMPLY.
I'll take the case of Eddie Stage. We get to use discovery because the business has a temporary restraining order against it and the person running the business continues running the business without stopping. That's what you have to do.
Document: a response that we got back after sending questions to the agency that obtained the temporary straining agency in court. And they did it with 3 avidavits that had no relevance whatsoever. What's supposed to happen is the agency obtains the physician's affidavit from a physician who's identified someone affiliated or identified with that business as having a communicable disease and then take action. So that never happened. What they're doing is policing interventions that they've imposed on businesses, but they're not policing the discovery and administration of a communicable disease. They're acting as if everybody has it, so they're only policing the intervention, which has yet to be proven anyways. So by these discovery questions, we're going to step it back a little bit. And our purpose here in discovery is to ask for the basis of the junction, and then once we get enough discovery responses to get the restraining order dissolved.
2:47 So we asked if we could see the copies of all the physicians' affidavits, identifying the defendant or anyone associated with the defendant as having been suspected of a communicable disease. And then the attorneys--there was the county and the city involved in this--responded back with a really bogus objection, saying, "Well, we object because your question is too complicated. It's vague, ambiguous, overly broad, it's confusing." And so they cite this case law, but they know that the question is garbage, so they went and answered the question anyway, so at the very bottom, you can see right here: none. That's the answer. [to what question?] Where's the physician's affidavit identifying someone with my business as having a communicable disease? Ah, none. There isn't any.
3:45 And what's interesting is that these attorneys pretty much have unlimited resources. There's no excuse justifying an attorney who's answering this to not know or understand the question. Not a difficult question. It's an adult question. It's not Cat in the Hat, right? Nonetheless, it's not just one attorney. It's any attorney. Whoever did this and didn't understand the response, he could just call up another attorney or a physician and say, "Hey, what do you think about this question?" Now we have a response under oath that says there is no physician's affidavit. And that's actually required to have attained the temporary restraining order. So they got the temporary restraining order by saying to the court, "This business wasn't complying with our interventions." And the court replied by saying, "Okay, we'll give you the restraining order." No, no, no. [everybody in a court of law is leveraging each other] That's not how it works. You go to the court and say, "We've discovered a communicable disease, and here's the affidavit stating . . . ." Can we have our restraining order, and then the judge can yes, and then you have a hearing with the business owner to determine if that restraining order should be sustained. [so no issuance by the court is permanent]
5:15 We're going to use the answer to get rid of the restraining order. So, for business owners, this might be the worst-case scenario. This is the thing that terrifies people, okay. Your attorney should know this. Have to understand the jurisprudence so you can get these guys, you can beat them. And you can beat them. But you've got to start at the beginning and you've got to know what the beginning is, okay.
Identify anyone--employee, customer--as having contracted a disease as a result of patronizing my business.
attorney bar number: Lexus law
west law. check case law. bench book
cheaper if you do a memorandum
