COVID Update: The Grand Ohio Legal Case for Our Time, Against Kings on Their Thrones

—You can hate the law until it’s not there anymore—

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
September 15, 2020

The news is coming fast, the implications are titanic.

On Monday, I wrote about Thomas Renz, the Ohio lawyer who is taking on a case for a set of plaintiffs, against Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and the state of Ohio.

The charge: DeWine has created massive damage through lockdowns and other “containment measures” designed to stop the spread of the purported coronavirus.

Against DeWine, attorney Renz has mounted a legal case to defeat both Constitutional violations AND gross scientific fraud.

(Attorney press release posted here; Attorney plaintiff document filed with court posted here.)

Update: A crucial part of this case is the DISCOVERY process. Attorney Renz and his colleagues would have the opportunity to sit down with key players in the COVID operation and grill them, in great detail, on matters of fact and science.

Imagine Fauci, Birx, Redfield in the room having to answer very probing questions UNDER OATH.

And the discovery proceedings would be made public, as they happen. Renz would be filing periodic reports with the court.

Another factor. The Ohio court, as part of its verdict, could grant PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. This means it could order the governor of Ohio to cancel the State of Emergency—thereby ending all orders and “containment measures” connected with the Emergency. No lockdowns, no mandatory masks, no mandatory distancing.

Yes, I’m aware that nothing is a slam-dunk in the judicial system. Fingers crossed. But this is a chance, an opportunity, a ray of light, a practical and real possibility.

Further, attorney Renz’s case is a model and a template for other lawyers, in other states and countries, who want to file similar cases.

When a government declares an Emergency, it must explain and justify it on the facts, not on lies and deceptions. Otherwise…

The Constitution no longer exists.

The Law no longer exists.

In their place, there is a reversion to a time of arbitrary edicts, handed down from kings and their wise ones who must not be doubted or challenged.

On what rational basis has Governor Mike DeWine taken away the freedom of citizens? Where is his evidence? What is the quality of that evidence, beyond the mere claim that “experts are always right”?

In his law suit against Governor DeWine, attorney Renz takes up big questions:

What are the REAL COVID case and death numbers?

How much flim-flam has been deployed to cook those numbers?

What is the underhanded definition of a COVID case?

Why is the PCR test useless?

Can a strip of RNA stand in for a virus that isn’t defined?

Is this a pandemic or is it just “another flu season?”

These are just a few of the many questions attorney Renz raises in his lengthy Ohio court filing. He has shocking answers. They do not depend on the news or the assumed primacy of the Coronavirus Task Force or a sitting president or a presidential candidate or a political party or governors. The answers don’t depend on what Governor DeWine thinks or what he has been told.

You could compare this case to a proceeding in which the evidence of a law-enforcement lab is challenged purely on the merits of its findings. The name of the lab doesn’t matter. The government agency which houses the lab doesn’t matter. The so-called reputation of the lab doesn’t matter. What matters is a searchlight centering on fact and truth.

The serious nature of the Ohio proceeding is magnified, because at stake is the freedom of many, many citizens. Their liberty, as enshrined in basic Law, is on the line.

We’re at a crossroads. This case and what happens to it are of vital importance.

Attorney Renz is asking for a jury trial. Citizens would be empaneled to listen to a profound and detailed UNCOVERING of evidentiary fraud, on a truly massive scale. And then this jury would hear how the fraud is leveraging the lockdowns and the destruction of businesses and lives, and the removal of freedom.

This case puts its arms around the immediate future of the country, the Constitution, the basic concept of Law, the difference between a jury and a King, and whatever still remains of 1776.

This case dives into the difference between claims of science, and science, and who controls the distinction.

Winning this one would expose a scientific fraud so solid, so dense, the whole world would see an iron curtain of a century’s duration exploding in front of their eyes.

Victory requires one imperative: follow the Law.

CODA…BREAKING… More good news: federal judge declares Pennsylvania governor’s COVID restrictions unconstitutional.

Bricks are falling out of the walls of the American imprisonment—

CBS News, Pittsburgh: “U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV, an appointee of President Donald Trump, sided with the plaintiffs. Stickman wrote in his ruling that the [Pennsylvania] Wolf administration’s pandemic policies have been overreaching, arbitrary and violated citizens’ constitutional rights…”

FOX News: “The ruling found that [Pennsylvania Governor] Wolf’s restrictions that required people to stay at home, placed size limits on gatherings and ordered ‘non-life-sustaining’ businesses to shut down were unconstitutional.”

In this case, the judge made his ruling strictly on Constitutional grounds. His conclusion is worth reading:

“…even in an emergency, the authority of the government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Action taken by Defendants [Governor Wolf] crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgement in favor of Plaintiffs.”

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, US District Judge William S Stickman IV, County of Butler et al v. [Governor] Thomas W Wolf et al.

NO emergency is so great that it supersedes individual liberty and freedom.

Even if the science underlying the official response to COVID were true (which it decidedly is NOT), it wouldn’t justify tearing away Constitutional and natural freedoms.

The resistance to tyranny is alive.

A million peaceful protestors in Berlin; 460,000 bikers riding into Sturgis, South Dakota, where Governor Kristi Noem has never locked down; numerous other protests the mainstream press refuses to cover; the new groundbreaking Ohio lawsuit filing I’ve been covering; untold millions of people who know what a sham and a crime the whole COVID operation really is…

Lights are coming on and the wind has changed direction.