The Legal Calculus of a Death Lottery

Demand that chancellors do chancery

Objective:  2 pages and plain, colloquial English

Result:  4 pages and kept it real

“state” herein means any sovereign of a nation, province, state, country et al

---

The thesis is that all these lawsuits around COVID-19 mandates boil down to a balance of equities between the public interest and individual liberties heard in courts of chancery.

There are courts of law and courts of equity (often the same physical court and same judge - the difference is in how the judge is allowed to adjudicate).  In a court of equity a judge sits as a chancellor.  A complaint for injunction is heard by a judge-only, not a jury, because injunctions are equitable matters.  The judge must apply the law, but has leeway to fill gaps in the law using equity and fairness.  The chancellor decides.

Most cases brought against COVID-19 mandates were dismissed on a procedural basis called standing doctrine.  The substantive evidence was never heard.  Of the cases that were heard, the legal theories were mostly based on the statutory or Constitutional authority, or lack thereof, of the entity issuing mandates including the state, town, school committee, board of health, or perhaps a corporate employer.  The lawfulness of administrative procedure and dismissals for lack of standing will not be scrutinized in this article.

Common Law nations all have some type of Bill or Charter of Rights and Freedoms preserving the rights of the individual over those of the state.  The concept of natural rights derives from John Locke, Montesquieu, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Magna Carta, St. Augustine, Cicero, Aristotle, and others.

Individual liberties versus the public interest in a court of chancery is how and where the COVID-19 mandate controversies should be decided.  It does not, however, work this way in the real world for a few reasons.

One reason is that law schools in Common Law states teach that legal research and the application of similar case decisions is 90% of the job of an attorney or judge.  That may work well in matters of law such as torts and contract disputes, but matters of equity often have unique and dynamic aspects requiring the chancellor to dwell more on a close analysis of the substantive evidentiary findings.

Most judges want controversial cases to skip by them to another judge.  If one is saddled with such a case, he adjudicates with the knowledge of who signs his paycheck.  Thus, in most cases, judges are obviously not impartial because their source of income is the state.  This is why many believe judges should be elected, not appointed-for-life by governmental officials such as governors, presidents, and prime ministers.  In 2006, England moved to a Judicial Appointments Commission for selection of judges.  How is that working out?

Returning to the matter at hand, review of the vaccine mandates as a death lottery now begins.

Assume there are circumstances in which the state can suspend individual rights during emergencies.  If you are a fundamentalist and cannot get past this assumption, stop reading here as that is not a reasonable stance.

Imagine an invasion by sea can be repelled by a single cannon placed on Bill’s land.  Bill refuses because he has property rights.  200,000 people will die because Bill refuses.  The cannon only needs to be there for a couple days and all  damage to land would be repaired by the state.  If you were the judge, you would most certainly find in favor of the state and allow a temporary violation of Bill’s individual liberties, his property rights.

Bill’s beach example is what is supposed to happen.  A judge hears the substantive evidence, makes findings, and issues an order.  What happens in the real world is that attorneys on both sides cite case law as similar to the situation as they can find.  Perhaps a similar case would be a land owner refusing to allow the Coast Guard to put a beacon on the beach for one day and night during a hurricane emergency.

The most important and oft forgotten variable in these matters is time.  In deciding the vaccine mandate cases, judges should hear the substantive evidence and rely on their own chancellorship, not so much on cases from other places, times, and circumstances.

Circumstances change over time.  What is true today may be untrue tomorrow.  What is unknown today may be known tomorrow.  If judges merely follow case law from a century or a year ago in a place 3,000 miles or 200 miles away, in a different climate, among different people, then that is a breach of the duty of a chancellor to adjudicate unique cases in equity.  The chancellor is supposed to balance the harms and benefits to the public interest and to individual liberties under the circumstances of the then-present time.

The first question to ask is, “Is there a pandemic killing people and, if so, when and where is it killing people?”  Joel Smalley brought attention to an available database from Massachusetts.  Here are the all-cause deaths in Massachusetts from 2015 through 2021.  All-cause analyses do not show policy-induced cause redistribution such as happened with COVID-19.  The label does not matter.  Can you see the pandemic?

Very clearly, there are many deaths above normal from mid-March 2020 through mid-June 2020.  During this time of excess deaths, it is understandable that a Massachusetts judge allow the state to deploy mitigation measures and suspend individual rights.  The judge must believe that the mitigation measures might have some net benefit in order to suspend (bring harm to) the individual rights of citizens.

The emergency was over in mid-June 2020 though the governor kept renewing the emergency declaration until its end on June 15, 2021.  Why?  The state had this information on a daily basis.  After June 2020, for five months, people of Massachusetts were not dying in numbers greater than any year from 2014 through 2019.

The argument that mitigation measures such as masks slowed the spread is a fallacy as seen by the date the mask mandate occurred.  The initial wave was nearly completed by the time the mask mandate of May 6 would have had effect two weeks later.  It had no effect.  The 2020 all-cause deaths curve was then normal for nearly 5 months until a small winter wave mid-November 2020 through February 2021 occurred.

Even if a judge would consider that small winter wave to be an emergency in agreement with the governor of Massachusetts and allow suspension of rights during that time, that little wave again only lasted about 10 weeks.

Without an emergency, no suspension of individual rights or state mandates should be allowed.  There is no benefit.  It is that simple for a chancellor.  The evidence is clear by these irrefutable graphs of Massachusetts death certificates.  Without emergency, all C19 mandates are unlawful.

Regarding vaccine mandates, assume that there was an emergency after February 2021, which there was not, and that people were dying in greater numbers than normal, which they were not.  (Notice those under 75-years-old were not offered the C19 vaccination until February 18, when the small winter wave had already ended).  In other words, what was the rate of COVID-19 deaths at the time vaccinations were made available?

The next questions a judge should ask circumscribe the benefits and harms to the public and individuals cross-correlated with those choosing, being coerced, and choosing not to take the vaccine.

When the vaccine was offered, the public was informed that it was safe and effective.  Claims of 95% efficacy were made.  Sterilizing immunity was assumed (It was assumed the vaccinated were not infectious).  Safety was trusted because trials had been performed, though the data was withheld by manufacturers.

This is the information upon which a judge, as chancellor sitting in equity, would weigh in a balance of harms analysis.

Before looking at the Massachusetts timeline, consider the following.  If the disease had an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 50% and a reproduction rate (R0) of 10, and the vaccine was 100% sterilizing (stopped those inoculated from being infectious to others), one could understand how a judge would affirm a governor’s order for state employees to get vaccinated or be fired.

That scenario is not close to anything resembling COVID-19.  By the time the vaccines were available in early 2021 on a schedule by age groups, the state already had nine months of data showing there no longer was a terrible pandemic.  Again, dismissing that in order to evaluate the other factors, when was there knowledge of safety data.

It has become recently known that Pfizer had trial data in 2020 showing some died from their biological product.  They withheld the information and neither the governmental officers nor the judges had that information until recently.

Legally, however, the prime ministers and governors have a duty of care to The People to demand that information prior to issuing an order to take an experimental product.  They shirked and breached that duty thus exposing the public to a biological product potentially lethal to an unknown portion of the public susceptible to death or injury from it.

One system in place is called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the Health and Human Services Department in the executive branch of the United States government.  VAERS was considered the standard of reporting of injuries from biological products prior to COVID-19.  There are severe federal criminal penalties for reporting false cases to VAERS.  As VAERS reports took off like a rocket in early 2021, the news media and certain bureaucrats began attacking the integrity of VAERS like they had never done before.  Regardless of the propaganda attacks, the records in VAERS were numerous and compelling including more deaths from vaccination than had ever been seen since VAERS came online.

Here is the answer to the legal calculus.  VAERS deaths were plainly available for all to see.  On VAERS data alone, the judges as chancellors had a duty of care to evaluate the evidence of thousands of deaths recorded in a US government-run database.  The balance of harms analysis stops right there (stops again.  It should have stopped at the fact there was not an emergency).  The mandates should have been immediately enjoined.  Because most judges shirked their duties as chancellors in a court of equity by refusing to perform the balance of harms analysis, more people died in the thousands, perhaps millions.

As the year progressed in 2021, more information continued to unfold.  At every point in time, a new case in chancery should have been brought and a new decision made.  One dose was not enough.  Two was necessary, but purported 95% effective.  The effectiveness then waned.  Then they promoted a 3rd dose, but called it a “booster” dose.  Why did they call it that?  Anyone in marketing knows that words matter.  Imagine calling it a “third” dose within 6 months and claiming it’s still “effective”?  The word “booster” implies a boost of something good.  So they called it a booster.  Now a fourth dose is being recommended.  Will they call it an “uber-booster”?

“Safe” was invalidated by the recorded deaths and injuries.  It’s simply a death lottery.  Roll the dice for your child’s life or your own.  Now “effectiveness” is also a prevarication.  They knew before they ever shipped the product that it was neither safe nor effective.  They skirted the legal liability framework by paying the FDA and CDC to advertise for them.  Most of the ads on social media and television are from the states of the world, not from the pharmaceutical companies.

But now you see the pharmaceutical companies advertising blood thinners for clots like deep vein thromboses and pulmonary emboli.  Heart attacks in children and young adult athletes have become every day occurrences.  Deaths from head injuries have risen.  Why?  People lose consciousness from PE’s or the like while standing; they then fall and hit their heads.  The impact causes the body to try to repair it; and a cycle of bleeding and clotting results.

Author bias crept into this analysis many paragraphs ago; and grew in emotion.  It doesn’t matter.  This is an article, not a research paper.  There will be no apology.  This is all factual stuff.

After reviewing the Massachusetts database; and realizing that Massachusetts’ primary industry is medical products and services; and that the New England Journal of Medicine is owned by the Massachusetts Medical Society; and that world-leading medical academic institutions are in Massachusetts; and that the US CDC Director is from Massachusetts, this author is going to do some digging into the influence and possible corruption emanating from Massachusetts and sent unto the world.

There’s no point in continuing with dates and times of specific mandates and cases.  At no point in time was there an emergency worthy of a vaccine mandate (death lottery), let alone an experimental product for which safety trial data was withheld until after 95% of the population had at least one dose and nearly 80% had two doses.  This is utter insanity.

The chancellors being the bulwark of the public interest failed The People.  They abstained, deferred, ducked, and hid from their responsibility of equity as they played the game of case law congruousness into which the legal profession has decayed.  Demand the return of equity!