“Rules cannot violate law”
On September 29, 2021, Kate Brown’s administrative state agency went a bridge too far with the Oregon Appeals Court.
According to a former state government regulator and CPS investigator source the majority of the ever-growing enlarging administrative state power over the citizen is because citizens bent to it beginning in modern history in 1970 when the child welfare bureaucracies were put in place and parents believed they had to open their doors to Child Protective Services, answer any of their questions and let them have unsupervised access to their children to interview them without parents being present, then increasingly under President Bill Clinton’s 1997 law when the CPS door got opened to child sex trafficking more children were taken. President Trump’s law to begin closing that door
was enacted on October 1, 2019.
According to some observers, Kate Brown and Jay Inslee started using that CPS model of obedience to authority with COVID shutdowns of businesses, the public schools, the hospitals, and the Pacific Ocean with the help of corporate media -- including the Portland mainstream media -- feeding citizens, businesses and parents fear to gain unfettered compliance by simply speaking on TV and writing words on pieces of paper by OHA -- “non-mandatory recommendations” as the Appeals Court wrote on September 29, 2021.
Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon told OHA and Director Pat Allen in Chester Mooney v. State of Oregon
that their guidance was not an "administrative rule" in the case before the court. The case was only dismissed for being “moot”. Moot is not a win for the governor or her administrative state.
The court’s analysis included OHA has had so many “changes” for over a year this particular lawsuit used a former guidance which no longer
existed. Thus, there was nothing for the Appeals Court to rule on under law thus the case was “moot”, that’s the reason for the dismissal not that Kate Brown had won anything that day in court. By the court’s words of “non-mandatory requirements” no person in Oregon is under any law to obey them.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
It is similar to a lawsuit
in Washington State in 2020 against Governor Jay Inslee that when it got to court the governor said he could not “enforce” his suggestions.
Many see with the AAG asserting Kate Brown's executive orders are “unreviewable" by the courts that Governor Brown is now so desperate her attorney general’s office of the state of Oregon would make such an argument, such a blunder with such disrespect and such hubris to the judicial system in Oregon that the Wizard of Oz curtain is now fully pulled open.
The appeals court noted as well in the petitioners' lawsuit in Chester Mooney v. State of Oregon
from the court's comments, that the petitioners did not submit evidence of damages sustained by the petitioners about the "prior guidance" to assess that the “guidance” had any effect on "their rights."
A former state government regulator source noted that “Rules cannot violate law.” The governors of both states appear to hope that no citizen or business would actually look up the law, but instead, simply believe “rules”, “suggestions”, “guidance”, “mandates”, “requirements” were “law”. If rules violate law, rules are “moot”.
One of many Oregon businesses who have kept OSHA at bay by simply asking OSHA in writing that the business needed in hard copy form the US Constitution, the Oregon Constitution, Federal Civil Rights laws, and Oregon law, and to have OSHA’s attorney highlight in yellow which laws and subsections of those laws that their business being “open” was in violation of which law?
OSHA has not responded and has left those businesses alone. The businesses are open, flourishing and mask free.
State government employees are not trained on the U.S. Constitution, the Oregon Constitution, Washington State Constitution, Bill of Rights, Oregon state law and Washington State law. Source documentation emails show state agencies telling their own AAGs that “no” they will not obey a law passed by the state legislature because the managers didn’t agree with that law.
As seen in the complete decision
written by Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Erin Lagesen on September 29, 2021 and as an expert in regulatory government opined, most laws passed by the legislature are moot in that they violate Article IV Section 21 of the Oregon Constitution which is a “shall”, a “shall” that laws must be plainly worded, in other words so that anyone can read them.
Laws have gone too far Beyond the Pale that reading them is more an exercise like in the book of Find Waldo. There will be link after link to this “rule” then this “law” that to follow any of them you’d need to print out, cut them out and get a big white board to assemble them onto that board in chronological order then refer back to the original document, and as the Appeals Court’s references in their decision that Kate Brown and OHA have had so many recommendation changes this case was simply dismissed for being “moot”. A court can’t rule on something that isn’t a law.
Courts rule on law. Courts listen, review then rule on a case when a petitioner has been damaged under the law. Obeying a suggestion by the governor that is not law, where a business or citizen hasn’t been damaged isn’t what courts of law do.
|Post Date: 2021-10-08 06:06:09||Last Update: 2021-10-07 20:25:10|