Eegore wrote on 05/17/20 at 15:23:49:
You mean by citing, again, all of the information publically available that have years of documentation and legal
First, the words, May, Shall, Probably, Could, are prevalent.
Just like writing the word, 'Substantial', in a contract, with no description of what that word means.
Then the absurd rulings of some of the Govs, who have applied their, 'wanna be', Dictatorship is very apparent. Which does not follow the guidelines of preventing the wantonly infecting, or preventing widespread infecting of others. Of which their has been no cases.
(Well unless you look at Calf, were one who has AIDS can Knowingly and Wantonly Infect others. And instead of being a Felony, with a Minimum of a year in Jail. It is reduced to a misdemeanor)Are those, 'rules' pertinent ?
Sure, in a serious event.
Which C-19, started that way, because no one knew.
Then it became a big time money maker, for a very few.
And now, it's a bad Flu, to be added to the list of others.
With the exposing of the State Health services, CDC, WHO, And companies that 'only' say one drug can work, (because they have the patent on it). The jig is up.
And the Lawsuits will abound.
Saying that old statutes are relevant to a, 'buddy/buddy, pick and choose' mentality, would be akin to saying the 2nd, means only muzzle loading flintlocks.
(Oh Wait, their ARE some that say it is) The point. We did not know, we did things, which at the time, we, thought were correct.
Now, we all know better.
So the motors can be put back on the boats.
And when a AG, THREATENS, the Lawyers will be stepping in big time.
LOL, 'Robot Overlords" LOL