6th Circuit Opinion on business disruptions
Bad ruling.
We have cases that we think are takings. This puts a serious damper on the litigation plan. I would be willing to help these plaintiffs.
The court held that:
Plaintiffs have not offered any argumentation as to why Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Nor do they direct the Court to any caselaw indicating that Defendants’ various orders violated a clearly established constitutional right. And for good reason: there is no clearly established precedent that pandemic-era regulations limiting the use of individuals’ commercial properties can constitute a Fifth Amendment taking. In fact, the overwhelming majority of caselaw indicates that such regulations are not takings.
I hope they appeal. The opinion is here.
HOPE YOU CAN HELP CORRECT THIS... THANKS... SCOTUS Decision 2013 -Pathology vs Myriad Genetics- SCOTUS ruled the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. 3-MINUTE VIDEO https://www.bitchute.com/video/HTWM3WrfqJqq/ NOW YOU ARE IN A NEW CATEGORY THAT DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS...In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA injections (being used currently) then the (altered) genome Can be patented. This means that everyone who has had the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'. Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'injection' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands NOW YOU ARE IN A NEW CATEGORY THAT DOES NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS...In a Supreme Court case decision in 2013 - Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, Inc - the United States Supreme Court ruled that you cannot patent human DNA as it is 'a product of nature'. However, at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf wrote that if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA injections (being used currently) then the (altered) genome Can be patented. This means that everyone who has had the 'injection' is now technically 'patented'. Anything that is patented is 'owned' and comes under the definition of 'trans human'. Therefore, technically, anyone having this 'injection' can no longer have any access to Human Rights. There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so there should be clarification on this soon. As of now, the high court ruling stands
Not sure if I quite understand this one. The court is saying it’s denied because they don’t believe it goes along with the fifth amendment but more so for the 11th amendment so they denied it?