U.S. District Judge in Pennsylvania denies the state's motion to stay (postpone) the impact of his ruling declaring most of the lockdown illegal

This proves my contention that the lawyers in all the previous losing lockdown cases were incompetent weenies. THEY NEEDED TO FIRMLY PLEAD that that virus was treatable and that the government was suppressing information about the successful treatments.  They needed to firmly plead that young people were at almost no risk from the virus, treatments or no treatments. And they needed to demand a trial or evidentiary hearing with witnesses to demonstrate that the state had NO FACTS and no argument in support of the lockdowns.  The lawyers for these plaintiffs did not get involved with treatments or preventatives.  But by having the evil doers testify, they showed that they were shooting with blanks with no understanding whatsoever of the original source materials regarding the virus.  

Hon. William S. Stickman IV, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-677: 

First, it is important to note that the Court's judgment did not arise out of proceedings on a temporary restraining order or even a preliminary injunction, but rather, the parties had the opportunity to develop a full evidentiary record under Rule 57. Despite this opportunity, Defendants did not proffer any specific evidence to differentiate between the danger allegedly posed by gatherings governed by specific numeric limitations and gatherings governed by occupancy limitations. The appellate court will be bound by the same record upon which the Court premised its decision. Despite Defendants having every opportunity to make a record, there is simply no evidence that would justify, from a constitutional perspective, the disparate treatment of gatherings.

Defendants' Brief in Support of Stay cites to several newspaper and magazine articles that purport to show the justification for limitations on gatherings. Some of these articles predate the evidentiary hearing in this case, but they were neither discussed nor used as exhibits. Defendants never moved to supplement the record to submit the articles to the Court (as Plaintiffs did on multiple occasions). These articles are not part of the record. Defendants cannot rely upon them to buttress or supplement the record that was properly before the Court and which will be before the Third Circuit on appeal.

Indeed, despite having an opportunity to adduce testimony and exhibits in support of their position, Defendants did not adduce any evidence that would explain and justify treating social, cultural, political and other similar gatherings differently from the commercial gatherings covered by a percentage of occupancy-based limitation. Mr. Robinson testified that there was concern about large gatherings, like conventions, causing "mega spreading events." (ECF No. 75, pp. 55- 56).           But neither Mr. Robinson nor any other witness proffered by Defendants explained the specific need to limit size of some gatherings by a numeric cap, rather than a limitation on occupancy. For example, nobody explained why hundreds may gather indoors to shop (the larger the facility, the more people permitted), dozens may dine in a restaurant (again, the larger the restaurant, the more will be permitted), but no more than twenty-five may attend an indoor lecture, a speech or a wedding.  Defendants failed to adduce evidence that would explain why they made distinctions  between  gatherings  limited  by  number  and  those limited by occupancy.          

Their suggestion of irreparable harm because of the inability to impose set-number restrictions is not supported by the evidentiary record. They did not demonstrate why their limits on some activities by occupancy is reasonably safe but will pose irreparable and imminent danger for other activities. From a different perspective, not only does the record not support the suggestion of immediate and irreparable harm if Defendants may not impose numeric limitations on certain gatherings, but their actions actually show the opposite-that they do not believe that gatherings exceeding their numeric caps will necessarily cause such harm. For example, to avoid litigation in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, Defendants entered a Confidential Settlement Agreement permitting a large event to take place in Carlisle, Cumberland County-Spring Carlisle, a large gathering featuring an automotive flea market and auction. (ECF No. 64-1).6 Defendants agreed to allow the event to proceed with an indoor occupancy of "the lesser of 250 individuals or 50% of the maximum building occupancy." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2a). This limit is ten-times higher than the 25-person cap on gatherings imposed by Defendants' July 15, 2020 Order. Defendants imposed an outdoor limitation on the event of "no more than 20,000 individuals, which is 50% of its capacity." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2b) (emphasis added).  This is nearly 100 times the permissible outdoor gathering limit of 250. The Confidential Agreement also required the event's sponsor to "enforce all applicable social distancing, masking, area cleaning and hygiene requirements." (ECF No. 64-1, Section 2c).

The protests that swept across the Commonwealth throughout the summer are another example of where the record dispels Defendants' suggestion of immediate and irreparable harm if they cannot impose specific numeric limitations. While the plain language of Defendants' orders makes no allowance for protests, Defendants' own actions and the statements of their witnesses show that they do not view that type of gathering as posing a risk of immediate and irreparable harm. Governor Wolf, for example, personally participated in a large protest. The photo of that protest does not indicate that social distancing requirements were honored or enforced. (ECF No. 42-100). Ms. Boateng averred that there have been gatherings that exceeded the numeric caps in Defendants' orders and that "no official action was taken in regard to public entities holding board meetings, town hall meetings, public protests or public rallies that exceeded these numbers." (ECF No. 37, 113). " Rather, individuals attending such events were encouraged to wear a face covering and practice social distancing."

 When pressed for details, Mr. Robinson was unable to offer any actual examples of mega spreading events that occurred at any of the activities limited by numeric caps. He was asked, for example about weddings: "[d]o you know of the existence of a single wedding reception or wedding celebration, a single one in Pennsylvania, that can be identified as a source of the spread of either COVID or the virus, of the SARS virus?" (ECF No. 75, p. 55). He responded "I am not aware. But again, that would be a question that might be better answered by my colleagues in the Department of Health." (ECF No. 75, p. 55). Ms. Boateng, who testified for the Department of Health, did not offer any more details.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER OF COURT

 AND NOW, this 22nd day of September 2020, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Stay (ECF No. 84).

 BY THE COURT:

 WILLIAMS. STICKMAN IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UPDATE:  Attorney Viva Frei from Montreal just LOVES THESE DECISIONS.  He points out that they are different from the other dumb ass rulings BECAUSE THEY HAD A HEARING WITH ACTUAL WITNESSES, including the lying government numbnuts.