DeSantis Secures 3,000 More Life-Saving COVID Treatments For Florida

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Thursday that he has secured additional monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 in his state. The move comes after President Joe Biden cut back on federal distribution of the life-saving treatment to Florida and other southern, red states last week.

“We know there’s going to be a continuing need to make this early treatment available for folks. And so in some respects, it’s sad that I have to announce, but I am happy that we’re not just sitting on our rump — we’re making things happen,” said DeSantis. “So, the state of Florida has been able to acquire an additional 3,000 doses of the monoclonal antibody treatment, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. It got emergency-use approval just a few months ago. The clinical data that they had was really, really strong.”

The governor later went on to slam the Biden administration, saying that the decision to cut antibody supplies to the state is “wrong” and would result in “negative” implications for Floridians going forward.

“We may have to close sites. The hospitals may not have all that they need,” DeSantis said. “There’s a whole host of things. So this is just fundamentally wrong. At the same time, you can’t just sit on the sidelines and carp about it, you’ve got to do something about it.”

“And so our announcement today that we have secured a shipment of the newest monoclonal antibody from GlaxoSmithKline, that’s showing that we’re going to leave no stone unturned and if there’s somebody that needs a monoclonal antibody treatment, we’re going to work hard to get it to them,” he added.

“We are proud that Florida’s success with these treatments has saved countless lives and inspired other states to open monoclonal antibody treatment sites like ours,” DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw told The Federalist. “But sadly, the Biden administration is now punishing Florida for this success. There is no evidence of a national shortage of monoclonal antibody treatment and no justification for the federal government to cut supplies to the states that need it most. Biden is playing politics as usual, and Americans are suffering because of it.”

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Source link

DeSantis Says Parents Should Decide Whether To Quarantine Healthy Kids After COVID-19 Exposure

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Wednesday that Florida parents will be allowed to choose whether their children quarantine after in-school COVID exposure, as long as the child does not have COVID symptoms, according to a revised rule from the state’s new surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo.

“Parents have a right to have their healthy kids in school,” DeSantis commented at a press conference Wednesday.

DeSantis said that schools previously forced students to quarantine despite showing no symptoms after being exposed to a COVID-positive classmate. In addition to learning loss for students, he explained, the policy meant that working parents had to miss work to stay at home with healthy children at a moment’s notice.

“Quarantining healthy students is incredibly damaging for their educational advancements. It’s also incredibly disruptive for families all throughout the state of Florida.” (RELATED: One Of The Wealthiest School Districts In US Reallocates COVID-19 Relief Funds Toward ‘Equity’ Programs)

Across the country, strict quarantine rules have resulted in school districts forcing hundreds of students at a time to stay home. For example, more than 800 Carroll County, Maryland students and school faculty were in quarantine on September 17.

“We’ve been looking at this for a long time. The European CDC always advised against healthy quarantines. They advised a symptom-based approach last year…if someone is sick, they stay home. But anyone who may have been in contact without symptoms should be able to stay in school; they can be monitored, the parents can be notified,” DeSantis said during the press conference. (RELATED: Florida Court Temporarily Blocks Vaccine Mandate)

The Florida Board Of Education (BOE) ruled in early August that parents can use vouchers to take their kids out of school’s that impose mask mandates.

Source link

Federal judge rules in favor of Gov. DeSantis’ mask mandate ban

It’s official: Joe Biden has announced that his Administration will be forcing COVID vaccinations on nearly 1/3rd of American citizens, blatantly disregarding the personal objections of millions of people and moving America ever closer towards a medical dictatorship.

We cannot stand for this unprecedented overreach, and we will not submit to Biden’s tyrannical public coercion efforts.

Please SIGN this urgent petition informing the President that you will NOT comply with these unconstitutional vaccine mandate orders issued by the Biden Administration, and that elected officials should act in their capacity to block these intrusive demands.

On Thursday, September 9th, Joe Biden announced the latest round of federal orders meant to further coerce large swaths of the public into getting the COVID vaccine — many against their will.

While the legal standing of these measures is, at best, dubious, the Biden Administration appears more ready than ever to gut our individual rights and practically erase medical autonomy in our country.

This latest escalation in overreach was announced via a televised speech in which Biden outlined a new “six-point plan” that includes far more than just six avenues to achieve mass medical compliance.

Among the most egregious new federal mandates are the following:

  • A requirement that all private businesses employing more than 100 people mandate their workers get the Covid-19 vaccine or submit to weekly testing (to be implemented by way of a new Department of Labor rule)
  • A requirement that all federal employees and federal contractors get the COVID vaccine
  • A requirement that all healthcare workers in facilities that receive reimbursement from Medicare and/or Medicaid (an estimated 17 million) get the Covid-19 vaccine without an alternative testing option
  • A requirement that all Head Start teachers get the COVID vaccine
  • A federal effort to lobby states to implement vaccine mandates for all school employees, and require regular testing of all students and school staff
  • A federal effort to lobby entertainment venues to require proof of vaccination or testing in order to grant entry to the public
  • A continuation of mask mandates on all federal properties and during interstate travel (i.e. planes, trains, buses)

All in all, these new vaccine mandates, which will go into effect within the coming weeks, will affect an estimated 100 million American workers — 2/3rds of the entire workforce!

And, according to an administration official, violations of these unconstitutional requirements could result in fines of up to $14,000.

While this is clearly a political ploy on the part of the Joe Biden and his team of power-hungry Washington insiders to shift the focus from their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the American public knows better: After nearly a year and a half’s worth of arbitrary, ever-changing, and unconstitutional government mandates in response to the COVID outbreak, it was always a given that the Biden Administration would ramp things up even further when it behooved them.

And now, it would seem that time has officially come.

“This is not about freedom or personal choice,” Biden uttered in his remarks, confirming his administration’s blatant dismissal of all Americans’ right(s) to accept or decline the experimental Covid-19 vaccine.

This is a stunning reversal from Biden’s declaration last December that “I don’t think [the vaccine] should be mandatory, I wouldn’t demand it to be mandatory.”

In fact, Biden even confirmed his intention to flout states’ rights in the process, warning that “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.”

These are not the words of an “empathetic” leader; these are the words of an aspiring dictator. And, for the time being, the only way to stop Joe Biden’s tyranny is through mass noncompliance.

As we’ve said from the beginning, science, basic logic, and common sense should dictate policy regarding COVID and the Delta variant.

But Joe Biden and the federal government have long abandoned those principles throughout this crisis, culminating into this disturbing yet inevitable flurry of intrusive vaccine mandates that use people’s jobs, individual autonomy, and livelihood as leverage.

This assault on our individual rights, private businesses, and American workers cannot be tolerated, and the easiest way to combat these unlawful orders is to just say NO.

Please SIGN and SHARE this most important petition letting Joe Biden know that you will NOT comply with the unconstitutional medical demands being made by this administration, and that action should be taken to block any intrusive action against working Americans and private employers.

Thank you!


‘Biden announces vaccine requirements for private businesses, impacting tens of millions of Americans’:

Source link

Florida Anti-Riot Law ‘Violates the First Amendment,’ Says Court in Scathing Rebuke of Gov. Ron DeSantis –

Enforcement of Florida’s “Combating Public Disorder Act” has been partially blocked by a federal judge, who appeared to agree with those challenging the “anti-riot” law that it was unfairly targeted at black Floridians and people protesting racial injustice.

Challengers to the law argued that it had a chilling effect on free speech and protest in the state.

Lawyers for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis countered that there had been no such chilling effect—why, just look at how black residents were out protesting on June 19 this past summer, they said, pointing to a flyer that billed itself as a “Juneteenth Black Joy Celebration” at a community park in West Palm Beach.

This mockery of an argument didn’t go over so well with the court, which scolded DeSantis for having “conflated a community celebration of a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery with a protest.”

“If Governor DeSantis included this particular post to imply that any gathering of Black people in a public space is a de facto protest, Plaintiffs’ concerns about how the statute’s new definition of ‘riot’ will be enforced are indeed well-founded,” wrote Chief Judge Mark Eaton Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida last week. “It should go without saying that a public gathering of Black people celebrating ‘Black joy’ and release from bondage does not automatically equate to a protest.”

In a decision that opens by detailing Florida’s history of using anti-riot laws “to suppress activities threatening the state’s Jim Crow status quo,” Walker issued a preliminary injunction against DeSantis and several county sheriffs enforcing the new definition of rioting ensconced in Florida’s House Bill 1.

The law—proposed by DeSantis following racial justice protests last summer and enacted in April 2021, just before the verdict in George Floyd’s murder was handed down—stipulates that someone “commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct,” and this results in “injury to another person…damage to property…or imminent danger of injury to another person or damage to property.” The plaintiffs in this case—including the Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward, the Florida State Conference of the NAACP Branches, and several other groups—say this new definition could criminalize not just people acting violently but anyone who shows up at a protest or rally where violence happens to break out.

The “overbroad and vague” nature of the law could subject “non-violent protestors to criminal liability for exercising protected rights to speech and assembly,” the groups argued.

Evidence they provided to the court establishes “that their members have engaged in self-censoring for fear of the challenged statute’s enforcement against them,” noted Walker. “The chill is evidenced by the unwillingness of their members to turn out at protest events in the weeks following HB1’s enactment, the fact that some of the Plaintiffs have chosen to modify their activities to mitigate any threat of arrest at events, and the fact that at least one Plaintiff has ceased protest activities altogether.”

“If this Court does not enjoin the statute’s enforcement, the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands, of law-abiding Floridians,” writes Walker. “This violates the First Amendment.”

The anti-riot act didn’t just open up the possibility that more protesters could be arrested. It also immunizes people who hurt or kill “rioters” from civil liability, while creating several new crimes (including “cyberintimidation by publication”), stiffening penalties for existing crimes, and making an array of other changes. (“There’s a lot going on in this law—not all of it terrible—but there are many troubling components,” wrote Reason‘s Scott Shackford back in April. “There is hardly a place in America where the penalties for crimes are too small, and Florida is no exception. We don’t need to increase the penalties for existing crimes just because they take place during riots.”)

“The intended effect of the Act is to deter the exercise of First Amendment rights by certain individuals—namely, those interested in changing the way police interact with Black communities—by threatening (in Defendant Governor Ron DeSantis’s words) to have ‘a ton of bricks rain down on’ them,” suggest the plaintiffs in their initial complaint.

Moreover, “the text, legislative history, timing, and public statements about the Act made by Florida officials all make clear that the Act was racially motivated,” they argue:

The Act was first introduced in the fall of 2020 in direct response to nationwide protests sparked by multiple killings of unarmed Black people by the police. Through various procedural machinations, the Florida legislature hurried the legislation’s timeline, curtailed public comment, and even gave the Act an unusual immediate effective date in order to coincide with the eve of the verdict in the murder trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin over the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man. And as noted, multiple provisions reveal that the Act was explicitly designed to single out and punish Black organizers and those who lead protests seeking to end police violence against Black people.

In his recent ruling, Walker notes that “it is well within the Florida Legislature’s purview to ban coordinated violent or destructive conduct.” But the language of the anti-riot law is unclear about who will be lumped in with such activity.

The judge spends ample space dissecting the law’s wording. DeSantis “insists the statute is clear in that ‘it merely prohibits participating in, or assisting others in participating in, violent protests,'” he points out. But this interpretation “strains the rules of construction, grammar, and logic beyond their breaking points,” the judge suggests.

Here, our potential rioter must “willfully participate in a violent public disturbance.” This begs the questions of (1) what does it mean to participate, and (2) what is a violent public disturbance?”

This is where things fall apart. Although both Governor DeSantis and Sheriff Williams argue that the phrase “willfully participate” is commonly understood, neither party offers an actual definition. Is it enough to stand passively near violence? What if you continue protesting when violence erupts? What if that protest merely involves standing with a sign while others fight around you? Does it depend on whether your sign expresses a message that is pro- or anti-law enforcement? What about filming the violence? What if you are in the process of leaving the disturbance and give a rioter a bottle of water to wash tear gas from their eyes?…

A “violent public disturbance” raises similar questions. Is a violent public disturbance a peaceful protest that later turns violent? Is it a protest that creates an imminent risk of violence? Do the violent actions of three people render an otherwise peaceful protest of 300 people a violent public disturbance? Does a rowdy group of Proud Boys or anarchists have veto power over peaceful protests under this definition? At least one Florida court has defined a “riot” as a “violent public disturbance.” Perhaps, then, a person riots if they willfully participate in a riot?”

Ultimately, the law creates “a wide scope of potential interpretations for individuals, failing to give them reasonable notice,” while also “empower[ing] law enforcement officers to exercise their authority in arbitrary and discriminatory ways,” the judge concludes. That is, it “both fails to put Floridians of ordinary intelligence on notice of what acts it criminalizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, making this provision vague to the point of unconstitutionality.”

DeSantis argued that halting enforcement of the law would leave Florida powerless to stop and punish violent rioters.

But “the Governor still has the power to take any measures to prevent overt threats of violence or violence, and to declare that a danger exists to the person or property of any citizen or citizens of the state and order any sheriff to exercise their full powers to suppress riots,” points out Walker. “Moreover, state law enforcement officers have numerous criminal statutes at their disposal that prohibit and punish unlawful conduct, and which protect public safety and private property.”

(The judge also clarifies that he is not “enjoining all law enforcement agencies across the state from enforcing this specific law. Instead, this Court is granting the narrow relief of enjoining the Governor and three sheriffs from enforcing Florida’s law against ‘rioting’ as defined by” this new language.)

Lastly, the judge has some words for people who would cheer this new law and new rioting language based solely on whom they presume it will target.

“It is not lost on this Court, nor should it be lost on the public, that this statute sweeps in all manner of conduct and speech, regardless of the point of view of the speaker or the cause he or she may be advocating,” writes Walker. “This definition of ‘riot’ casts a broad net. Though Plaintiffs claim that they and their members fear that it will be used against them based on the color of their skin or the messages that they express, its vagueness permits those in power to weaponize its enforcement against any group who wishes to express any message that the government disapproves of.”

Walker cautions that “while there may be some Floridians who welcome the chilling effect that this law has on the Plaintiffs in this case, depending on who is in power, next time it could be their ox being gored.”

Source link

Ron DeSantis & Regeneron COVID Treatment: Florida Governor Was Right

Florida’s governor was blasted by progressives for promoting Regeneron’s COVID treatment. Now, demand is so great the Biden administration is rationing it.


wo months ago, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida was being roundly castigated for promoting the use of Regeneron’s monoclonal-antibody treatment as part of his state’s efforts to fight COVID-19. Desperate to find something sinister in the push, DeSantis’s critics threw out every charge they could dream up. At first, the line was that Regeneron’s treatment didn’t work. Then, it was that Regeneron’s treatment worked fine, but represented a dangerous distraction from the vaccine. And, finally, it was that Regeneron’s treatment was part of a corrupt plot to enrich DeSantis’s donors.

Today, we learn from the Washington Post that, actually, none of

Source link

Federal Judge Sides With DeSantis on Mask Mandate Ban

On Sept. 15, a Miami federal judge handed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a victory when he ruled against the parents of students with disabilities in a lawsuit over public school mask mandates.

Twelve parents from eight Florida school districts whose children have special needs sued the governor and the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) over a DeSantis executive order (pdf) that allows parents to opt-out of student face coverings. The school boards of the Alachua, Broward, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Miami-Dade, and Volusia school districts were also named in the suit for implementing the governor’s order. The federal suit argued that their children were at elevated risk of becoming ill or dying from COVID-19 if other children came to school without facial coverings.

In Judge K. Michael Moore’s decision, he denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction against the July-issued executive order, which was the catalyst for the Florida Department of Health to issue a rule (pdf) requiring school districts to allow parents to opt-out of any student mask mandates. Thus far, 13 school districts have defied the governor’s order. Two counties, Broward and Alachua, have been fined for non-compliance, while others are under investigation by FDOE.

Moore found that the parents hadn’t exhausted all “remedies” at their respective schools to accommodate their children’s needs before bringing a lawsuit.

One of the attorneys for the parents, Matthew Dietz, said he isn’t sure if an appeal will be filed and hoped that the Biden administration would step in and bring forth some sort of remedy instead.

“We are disappointed in the decision of the court and are evaluating our options at this point,” Dietz said in an emailed statement. “We would hope and expect federal education officials and the U.S. Department of Justice will weigh in on the rights of children with disabilities to be safely integrated into their local schools.”

Recently, the U.S. Department of Education announced a grant program that provides funding for school districts in Florida (and elsewhere) that lose money for issuing “anti-coronavirus practices,” such as mask mandates. State officials were warned by the federal agency that they would be investigating whether the state’s ban on mask mandates violates federal civil rights laws that protect students with disabilities.

In the past, DeSantis has insisted that the new Parents Bill of Rights law gives parents the authority to decide whether their children should wear face coverings to school.

The offices of the governor and the FDOE didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time.

Jannis Falkenstern is an Epoch Times reporter who covers the state of Florida.

Source link

Ron DeSantis Makes Total Boss Move After Biden HHS Takes Over Monoclonal Antibody Treatment Distribution – RedState

As we reported earlier, the Biden administration announced this week that they are effectively taking over the distribution of monoclonal antibody treatments used in the treatment of the Wuhan virus, a move that has understandably angered some southern state governors who have touted the benefits of its use in people who are in the early stages of battling the coronavirus, specifically in how it significantly reduces the chance of hospitalization.

A statement from Biden’s HHS department noted that the rationale behind the decision was to make distribution more “equitable” to states beyond those that are currently requesting the most quantities:

“HHS will determine the amount of product each state and territory receives on a weekly basis. State and territorial health departments will subsequently identify sites that will receive product and how much,” the spokesperson said. “This system will help maintain equitable distribution, both geographically and temporally, across the country – providing states and territories with consistent, fairly-distributed supply over the coming weeks.”

Read their full statement here:

White House press secretary Jen Psaki confirmed the “equitable” plan during today’s press briefing while denying treatment supplies were being cut for Florida:

Most notably, the DeSantis administration came out swinging after learning the news, with spokeswoman Christina Pushaw putting the administration on blast and countering critics who have bizarrely done an about-face on the need to do whatever is necessary to save people infected with the coronavirus:

As it turned out, Pushaw noting that DeSantis was “committed” to making sure his state’s residents could get the treatment “even if we can’t count on the Biden administration” was a preview of what was to come later, as DeSantis announced just a few hours ago that he was trying to work with another provider – GlaxoSmithKline – in hopes of being able to purchase the antibody treatments directly, doing an end-run around the Biden administration:

“What I am doing though, is we’re going to try to cover the bases. I had a call yesterday with GlaxoSmithKline executives about their new monoclonal antibody… Sotrovimab was given EUA, I believe in May. So the Eli Lily one, which is kind of now coming back, but the Regeneron, that was at the end of 2020. Sotrovimab was given EUA in May. The clinical data on that was even better than the clinical data on the Regeneron, 85% reduction in hospitalizations.

It is not approved for subcutaneous injection, so if we get it and we use it at our sites, we’d have to expand the amount of IV treatments that are available, which we’re going to be willing to do. Now they do not have a direct purchase agreement with the federal government, federal government’s bought all the Regeneron. They just upped it for another shipment. Honestly, that should have been done many months ago.

But we are not able to buy it directly from Regeneron. Given that, we do think we can potentially order sotrovimab and we will do that if we can. It has been — the clinical data’s great on it. And so we would be able to potentially use that to meet any of the shortfalls. This is something that, when you have something that has worked you should want to continue doing that.”


The war of words between the Biden administration and the DeSantis administration on vaccines and the antibody treatment distribution issue is especially fascinating when you consider the accusations from Biden’s team over the last several months that DeSantis has been playing politics with the virus and is putting lives at risk by pushing back on mask and vaccination mandates.

Yet here Biden goes more or less rationing the life-saving treatment southern states like Florida need under the guise of “equitable” distribution – just days after saying he was going to up shipments to states by 50%, proving that it’s them and not DeSantis who have been playing politics with the virus – and people’s lives – all along.

Flashback –>> Analysis: Media Attacks on Ron DeSantis Over Vaccines and Regeneron Are About One Thing Only

Source link

The Left Discovers It Loves Evictions as Florida Landlord Challenges DeSantis by Evicting Unvaccinated Tenants – RedState

A major Florida landlord has announced it will evict current tenants who do not have proof of vaccination and will refuse to lease to new tenants who have not vaccinated.

If you’re not vaccinated for COVID-19, you can forget about moving into any of eight apartment complexes in Broward and Miami-Dade counties owned by Santiago A. Alvarez and his family.

And if you’re still unvaccinated when it comes time to renew your lease, you’ll have to find someplace else to live.

Alvarez, who controls 1,200 units in the two counties, is the first large-scale landlord known to national housing experts to impose a vaccine requirement not only for employees, but also for tenants. They’ll be required to produce documentation that they’ve received at least an initial vaccine dose.

The policy, which took effect Aug. 15, could set Alvarez’s company on a collision course with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ vaccine passport ban, which prohibits businesses from requiring that customers be vaccinated.

And yet the landlord might have exposed a loophole in the governor’s ban, forcing courts to decide whether a tenant is equivalent to a customer.

Alvarez says he’s not backing down. Signs posted at the leasing offices of his apartment complexes spell out the policy along with the words “Zero Tolerance.”

“We have to be concerned about our tenants and our employees,” Alvarez said in an interview. “All of these are private properties. We’re just trying to keep people safe and healthy. It’s going to cost us money, but we’re very firm on that.”

There is a lot going on here.

First up, the reaction by the left shows that they are immoral and slavishly devoted to polishing Biden’s shoes or whatever. In August, you’ll recall, the Supreme Court shut down the illegal “eviction moratorium” imposed by the CDC. This, we were told, was Armageddon.

Now, the same people who opposed ending the eviction moratorium are giddy with girlish effervescence over the thought of people being made homeless because their landlord doesn’t like their personal life choices (do this for homosexuals or transgenders or cohabiting couples and imagine how it would play out).

I usually don’t quote stupid rando leftists, but this shows the pettiness and thirst for vengeance goes deeper than policy.

Second, this policy is a frontal attack on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ defense of liberty. In early September, Governor DeSantis signed a law passed by the Florida legislature barring any government agency, elected body, or private business from requiring proof of vaccination on pain of a $5,000 fine per incident.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is not only doubling but tripling down against those trying to impose measures to fight off the coronavirus in the state.

Two days after the DeSantis administration followed through on his threat to withhold funds from school districts that defied his ban on mask mandates, the Republican governor’s office confirmed that Florida will start issuing $5,000 fines to businesses, schools and governments that require proof of COVID-19 vaccination.

DeSantis signed a bill in May that banned vaccine passports, and last week the state’s Department of Health established how it would be enforced. The fines will start Sept. 16.

The eviction and refusal to rent scheme are structured to evade the state law, or so the perpetrators claim.

Alvarez’s attorney, Juan C. Zorrilla of the Fort Lauderdale-based firm Fowler White Burnett, recently responded to a letter from a tenant’s attorney by asserting that the policy does not violate DeSantis’ executive order banning vaccine passports, nor does it violate laws barring discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, familial status or religion.

DeSantis’ order and subsequent state law say that a business entity may not require “patrons or customers” to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery “to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business.”

Zorrilla asserted that Alvarez’s policy does not violate DeSantis’ ban because a tenant is not a “patron” or “customer.”

“We believe that there is a clear distinction between someone who is an occupant of a dwelling and physically on the premises for an extended duration of time versus someone who is a patron or customer and simply visiting for a short duration,” Zorrilla wrote. “By only identifying two categories of people who are transient, we do not believe the Order would be interpreted by a court to include tenants or residents of a business or property.”

Dawn Meyers, a partner with the government and regulatory team at Miami-based Berger Singerman, says the court system will likely have to decide whether residency can be equated with a “good” or a “service.”

“I suspect the governor would view it as a violation of his prohibition, but that may end up needing a judicial determination,” she said.

Lauren Einhorn, who specializes in real estate contracting law for Davie-based Kelley Kronenberg, said she expects courts will ultimately find that landlords can require vaccines. That’s because unlike restaurants, stores or other businesses open to the public, a landlord-tenant relationship is contractually based, she said.

Courts have consistently upheld landlords’ rights to enforce a wide range of provisions, she said, particularly if they are intended to protect other tenants, such as bans on firing guns or manufacturing methamphetamine inside apartments.

IANAL, but this sounds nuts. Under this rationale, a landlord could refuse to rent to you because you don’t have a driver’s license…or because you do. Alleged real estate contracting law specialist Lauren Einhorn seems to miss the point that firing guns and cooking meth in apartments is illegal in all 50 states. Not getting the vaccine is not illegal anywhere…yet. DeSantis needs to slap this down hard and fast, and the fact that his communications director has noticed it is an indication that he’s not going to just let this slide.

Lastly, if you ever thought the mask-n-vax policies imposed by Biden and his cronies and their fellow travelers in state government had anything to do with public health, you probably shouldn’t venture out of your house without a chaperone. This is and always has been about population control and the arrogation of power away from the people and the state legislatures to the benefit of the permanent bureaucracy. Right now, the federal government’s focus is on forcing the entire population to submit to an (in my opinion) unnecessary, ineffective, and possibly dangerous vaccination for no other reason than the government has decided that it wants to impose its will. And, in the words of Joey SoftServe (see Does Joe’s ‘Ice Cream Thing’ Help With Dementia? Alzheimer’s Association’s Surprising ‘Caregiver Tips’),  “our patience is wearing thin.”

To that end, the US government has set out to punish and intimidate anyone who will not submit to the authority of the state. It has ample allies in business to do its bidding no matter what the courts say about federal policy unless state and local government and, in the final analysis, private citizens step up and refuse to comply.


Source link

WIN: Florida court rules in favor of DeSantis, lifts pause on mask mandate ban

Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday temporarily lifting the pause on the governor’s executive order banning public schools from implementing mask mandates.

“Upon our review of the trial court’s final judgment and the operative pleadings, we have serious doubts about standing, jurisdiction, and other threshold matters,” the three-judge panel said about a parent-led lawsuit insisting the governor overstepped his power when issuing the ban. “These doubts significantly militate against the likelihood of the appellees’ ultimate success in this appeal. Given the presumption against vacating the automatic stay, the stay should have been left in place pending appellate review.”

“Accordingly, we grant the appellants’ motion, quash the trial court’s order vacating the automatic stay, and reinstate the stay required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(2). A written order explaining this disposition will follow,” the ruling stated.

The decision comes after DeSantis’ team quickly filed an appeal as the result of Circuit Judge John Cooper’s decision to strike down the ban on mask mandates in schools in late August.

Celebrating the decision, DeSantis tweeted, “No surprise here – the 1st DCA has restored the right of parents to make the best decisions for their children.”

Back in July, DeSantis signed an executive order that prohibited school districts in the sunshine state from implementing any form of mask mandates, providing parents the power to make the best decisions for their children. The state threatened to pull funding from schools that refused to follow the order.

“On June 29, 2021, I signed into law H.B. 241, the Parents’ Bill of Rights, which prevents the state, its subdivisions, or any governmental institution, from infringing on the fundamental rights of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, health care, or mental health of a minor child without demonstrating that such action is reasonable and necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that such action is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by less restrictive means,” the order stated. “Pursuant to Florida law, all parents have the right to make health care decisions for their minor children.”

Source link