Mass Governor’s Order to Close Gun Stores Ensures that Law Abiding Citizens will be Unable to Defend Themselves Against Criminals & Unaccountable Authorities Lathered Up in Power. Suit Filed

From [HERE] Several gun rights groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts that challenges the decision of Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker to close all businesses selling firearms and ammunition to the public.

Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 13 on March 23, which closed the physical workplaces of all businesses and organizations that do not provide essential services. Under the order, firearm and ammunition retailers were not considered essential services.

On March 31 Baker issued COVID-19 Order No. 21, which extended the length of Order No. 13 and revised the list of essential services. Under the category of “Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and First Responders,” workers “supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, importers, and distributors” were now included. However, firearms dealers were still not considered essential.

In the complaint, the gun rights groups stated that the closure amounts to “a ban on obtaining modern arms for personal defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” Even though the plaintiffs acknowledged that the coronavirus pandemic justified certain changes, they asserted that every emergency has constitutional limits. They alleged that the need for self-defense is “most acute during times of uncertainty and crisis,” so they “need to be able to exercise their fundamental rights to keep and bear arms.” According to the complaint, the order acts “as a perpetual bar” for the acquisition of firearms and ammunition for self-protection.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the order violates the Second and Fourth Amendments, as well as an injunction preventing the enforcement of the order.  They also are seeking damages and attorney’s fees.

The Dependent Media Insists that Author "Dean Koontz Did Not Predict the Coronavirus in 1981" because ‘There is No proof It was created in a Lab’

Nothing to see here according to dependent media outlets such as CNN, the Guardian and Reuters.

Reuters informs ‘don’t believe what you see’ because it is a “patently false claim” that “a 1981 book predicted the coronavirus 2019 outbreak:” A theory widely shared on social media claims that American author Dean Koontz predicted the 2019-2020 Coronavirus outbreak in 1981. Posts featuring the cover of “The Eyes of Darkness” book and a page in which Koontz allegedly describes the coronavirus in his novel have at least 39,000 shares (examples here and here) and at least 2,000 retweets on Twitter (examples here and here) as of February 27, 2020. 

Most of the claims circulating on social media show the book’s cover and a page in the book mentioning a virus called “Wuhan-400”. The widely circulated photo of Koontz’s book page includes some highlighted text reading: “They call the stuff ‘Wuhan-400’ because it was developed at their RDNA labs outside of the city of Wuhan, and It was the four-hundredth viable strain of man-made microorganisms created at that research center”. 

Some claims circulating also include an additional page that mentions the year 2020 and the outbreak of a “severe pneumonia-like illness”. 

This is partly false. While it is true that Koontz wrote about a fictional virus in his novel and that its name “Wuhan-400” refers the Chinese city in which the 2019 Coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) (here) actually started, the illness in his book doesn’t share more traits with COVID-19. 

In his novel, Koontz described “Wuhan-400” as “China’s most important and dangerous: new biological weapon in a decade”. He also wrote it was developed by labs outside of the city of Wuhan. 

There is no proof that the new coronavirus was created in a lab. The virus is believed to have originated late last year in a food market in Wuhan that was illegally selling wildlife (see here). Health experts think it may have originated in bats and then passed to humans, possibly via another species.” [MORE]

At any rate, said book is definitely not apart of The Spectacle as presented to us by ”Doggy.”

Dependent Media - Establishment (dependent) media is both unwilling and incapable of reporting events truthfully, accurately or without extreme bias. News coverage is just that - covering up (masking) and distorting the events and those wielding power behind the events (those reported and deliberately unreported). News coverage has simply become “disinfotaiment” with the sole purpose of perception and knowledge containment as well as reality concealment. You report in the interests of those who are paying you to do so. (see MEDIA, NBC & NEWS).

The Spectacle - a constructed reality; the concrete inversion of life; via the autonomous movement of the apparently non-living. 2) the mirrorization of the noumenon into the phenomenal universe without understanding or overstanding it as such an objectivization in duality. The Spectacle is not a collection of images but a social relation among people mediated by images. The Spectacle is a theoretical construct—a tool for explaining many things about society; how people live vicariously through the dominant images of production, consumption and power relations. It is the thoughtfofms in which people create, contemplate and consume mediated by images of what-life-is, so that they will forget how to live radically for themselves. It is the totality of images and illusions that alienate people from living, its the primary production of modern societies. It is ideology materialized. It is the social relations that are mediated by the mass media; it is what makes people apathetic and reduces them to inactivity. It is what prevents people from realizing what their collective problems are and dissolving them. It is what perpetually absorbs people into activities that prolong their misery. It is the mediated stream of unreality that channels desire-energy against itself, producing a separate world, a pseudo-world apart form one's self-history—from all those powerful institutions of Self-actualization. It is what motivates people to live a pseudo-life in submission to products and machines, basking passively in the acceptance of oppression, to blindly do what is manifestly against their own self-interest, to pollute the land they love and the air they breathe—it is a fundamental sickness of modern societies superimposed over and aided by the "Rolebots" (clones and drones) of Corporate State. It is the mass media and the propaganda from the pure war machine and the military prison industrial police state complex. It is Doggy, the double-bind of not knowing real from unreal, (hypereal) or what you say from what you want. It is the mass objectivization and unholy marriage (union) of the Beasthood with the Syndrome, leaving people fragmented, separated, isolated, alienated, fascinated, pixelated, dilated, intimidated, exasperated, mediated, concatenated, weak, docile, dependent, submissive and uncritical.

New Legislation Expands Immunity Protections From COVID-19 Liability Claims

From [HERE] The North Carolina General Assembly voted yesterday, June 23, 2020, in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion to expand the immunity protections that it created last month in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. House Bill 118 (HB 118) expands immunity for all COVID-19 infection claims arising out of ordinary negligence to all businesses and persons, very broadly defined. Previously, on May 2, 2020, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 704(SB 704), which limited immunity protection to healthcare “providers” and “facilities,” “essential businesses” and “emergency response entities” with the protection for businesses and emergency response entities further limited to claims by employees and customers. The limited reach of that protection was revisited by the General Assembly in HB 118 and greatly expanded. 

This Client Alert explains HB 118 and how it expands civil immunity to all “person[s]” against all infection claims during the ongoing pandemic, building significantly upon the earlier, more limited grant of immunity provided in SB 704. 

We previously provided an Alert on SB 704. Like SB 704, HB 118 passed in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, passing the Senate 40-7 and the House 110-5, and is expected to become law subject to the Governor’s authority to veto it. HB 118, entitled “An Act to Provide Limited Immunity From Liability for Claims Based on Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19),” does not supplant SB 704, but compliments and expands its protections mainly by providing an immunity shield to a much broader and, essentially, all-encompassing category of persons, businesses and claims. 

Specifically, HB 118 provides that “no person shall be liable for any act or omission that does not amount to gross negligence, willful or wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing.” The definition of “person” includes all natural persons and every type of legal entity.[1] While SB 704 provided that same protection against negligence lawsuits, the protection was limited to healthcare “providers,” “facilities,” “essential businesses,” and “emergency response entities,” and for businesses to claims by “employees” or “customers.” HB 118 applies to all of the entities to which SB 704 applied and more. 

The immunity under both laws, however, is limited to ordinary negligence and will not shield persons or businesses from claims or acts arising out of gross negligence, willful or wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing. Although HB 118 does not define these terms, North Carolina courts have defined “gross negligence” as “wanton conduct done with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others.” Suarez ex rel. Nordan v. Am. Ramp Co., 831 S.E.2d 885, 893 (2019) (quotation omitted). In lay terms, all businesses and persons have a liability shield if they make a negligent mistake, i.e., we all are protected if we make a mistake, but not if we make a really stupid mistake. If we make a really stupid mistake or worse, we lose the protection. These issues and what conduct will eliminate protection against liability are sure to be addressed in COVID-19 related litigation, which has begun and is likely to continue for some time.