‘The court seems to insinuate that the only person with the right to sue is someone who has been forcibly locked in their home against their will, or ripped from their home, taken from their loved ones, and thrown into a quarantine detention center.’
NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews) – The New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division’s Fourth Judicial Department has reversed a lower court’s ruling against a regulation called Rule 2.13 allowing the government to involuntarily and indefinitely detain individuals for the purported sake of public health.
“The language in the [regulation] makes it crystal clear that the DOH [Department of Health] can pull you from your home (and your life) and, with the force of police, hold you anywhere they deem appropriate, including ‘other residential or temporary housing,’” explained attorney Bobbie Anne Cox, who is representing Uniting NYS and state legislators. The regulation says “they don’t have to prove you are sick, they can hold you for however long they want, and there is no way for you to get out of lock up or lock down,” unless a detained person obtains legal representation and sues.
The lower court had ruled in July 2022 that the regulation was unconstitutional and lacking due process, but the state appealed that ruling. The Appellate Division then ruled unanimously on November 17 that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they hadn’t been forcibly quarantined.
“The court seems to insinuate that the only person with the right to sue is someone who has been forcibly locked in their home against their will, or ripped from their home, taken from their loved ones, and thrown into a quarantine detention center, facility, institution, camp, etc…The court insinuates that apparently only that person would be injured,” explained Cox.
“The idea that the State Health Department will lawfully quarantine a New Yorker against their will sounds Soviet,” reacted state Sen. Mark Walczyk. “The Judiciary has a role to play in checking the Executive and I’m deeply disappointed the Appellate Division missed the opportunity to draw the line at tyranny. Governor Hochul is falling right behind Cuomo in a lust for power of the state over individual rights. We’ll continue to fight until we win back a future for New Yorkers that includes freedom.”
‘Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty, far more egregious than other health safety measures…’
For anyone unfamiliar with this regulation, it allowed the Department of Health to pick and choose which New Yorkers they could lock up or lock down, with no proof that you were ever even exposed to, let alone actually sick with, a communicable disease. They could have locked you down in your home, or they could have removed you from your home and forced you to quarantine in a facility of their choosing.
There was no time restriction, so you could have been quarantined for however long they required – days, weeks, months. There was no age restriction, so they could have done this to you, to your child, to your grandchild, etc. In the true fashion of a totalitarian regime, they could have told you what you could and could not do while in quarantine. They literally could have controlled your every move.
The regulation allowed them to use law enforcement to enforce their orders of isolation or quarantine, which means you could have received a knock at the door from your local police or sheriff telling you that you had to go with them… by order of the Health Department.
Furthermore, the regulation had no procedure by which you could be released from quarantine, no way for you to try to negotiate your way out. And it was not COVID-19 specific. There was a laundry list of “communicable diseases” that could have triggered this nightmare loss of freedom – diseases such as Lyme, Toxic Shock Syndrome, COVID-19, and so many others.
In the July 2022 ruling against the regulation, Judge Ronald D. Ploetz wrote, “Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty, far more egregious than other health safety measures…such as requiring mask wearing at certain venues. Involuntary quarantine may have far reaching consequences such as loss of income (or employment) and isolation from family.”
Ploetz continued, “While rule 2.13 provides that isolation and quarantine must be done ‘consistent with due process of law’ and the detainee has the right to seek a judicial review and the right to counsel, these protections are after-the-fact, and would force the detainee to exercise these rights at a time when he or she is already detained, possibly isolated from home and family, and in a situation where it might be difficult to obtain legal counsel in a timely manner.”