Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Hans]

I never claimed there were. My OP linked to pending legislation. Did you bother to read it? It's a primary source.

The problem is Tippit - WE did read it you clearly didn't like most of your 'sources'.

 

[Steve]

Sov-cit, CT-er style toothless threat to violence.

Isolating people in order to protect the public from their infectious disease is a major crime, but lynching people you do not agree with is just SOP for one or more posters here. Can you say hypocrite?

 

[MBDK]

I never claimed there were. My OP linked to pending legislation. Did you bother to read it? It's a primary source.

I know I probably ninja'd you prior to this quote, but my last post effectively destroys your narrative on this issue. Do you at least have enough integrity to admit that? Also your link is not to impending legislation, rather to effective legislation, also noted at the bottom of it.

"[Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20.050 (2)(d), 70.05.050, and 70.05.060. WSR 03-05-048, § 246-100-040, filed 2/13/03, effective 2/13/03.]"

 

[Tippit]

https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/wa...cle_7fdeebca-727b-11ec-a1ad-8760e3f062f5.html

Also, from that article:




I leave it to you to find out for yourself the actual minutes of that meeting.

You literally just quoted the problematic piece of the legislation, and then simultaneously dismissed any concerns about it:

However, people focused on another section of the WAC 246-100... Chapter 040. This chapter states, "a local health officer may issue an emergency detention order causing a person or group of persons to be immediately detained for purposes of isolation or quarantine." However, that is used as a last resort and only if the person or group of people are a danger to public health.

Do you understand that leaving the ability of a "health officer" to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a "last resort" and a "danger to public health" constitutes the removal of due process, and is unconstitutional? It's not even appropriate even if the person is an actual public health risk, with say, hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola, or Marburg, or a serious respiratory illness like Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, let alone with a disease that carries a 99.99% infection survival rate for the majority of the population, like Covid.

 

[Resume]

<Disinformationsnip>

There, better.

 

[Hans]

Isolating people in order to protect the public from their infectious disease is a major crime, but lynching people you do not agree with is just SOP for one or more posters here. Can you say hypocrite?

Consistency and non-contradiction is not a sauce he uses much on his word salad pontifications.

 

[MBDK]

You literally just quoted the problematic piece of the legislation, and then simultaneously dismissed any concerns about it:

Because, unlike you, I understand it.

Do you understand that leaving the ability of a "health officer" to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a "last resort" and a "danger to public health" constitutes the removal of due process, and is unconstitutional?

I realize you do not know what you are talking about, as all the provisos are included to prevent such an occurrence. Namely:

"(2) A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.
(3) If a local health officer orders the immediate involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine:
(a) The emergency detention order shall be for a period not to exceed ten days.
(b) The local health officer shall issue a written emergency detention order as soon as reasonably possible and in all cases within twelve hours of detention that shall specify the following:
(i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
(ii) The premises subject to isolation or quarantine;
(iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine commences;
(iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
(v) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
(vi) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
(c) The local health officer shall provide copies of the written emergency detention order to the person or group of persons detained or, if the order applies to a group and it is impractical to provide individual copies, post copies in a conspicuous place in the premises where isolation or quarantine has been imposed.
(d) Along with the written order, and by the same means of distribution, the local health officer shall provide the person or group of persons detained with the following written notice:
NOTICE: You have the right to petition the superior court for release from isolation or quarantine in accordance with WAC 246-100-055. You have a right to legal counsel. If you are unable to afford legal counsel, then counsel will be appointed for you at government expense and you should request the appointment of counsel at this time. If you currently have legal counsel, then you have an opportunity to contact that counsel for assistance."


The rest of your rant is amateurish opinion,

 

[Hans]

Do you understand that leaving the ability of a "health officer" to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a "last resort" and a "danger to public health" constitutes the removal of due process, and is unconstitutional?

Well gosh darn. We've had Health officials since the founding of this nation (and for centuries before when part of the UK) and guess what the laws say they can put you in quarantine.

Odd no one ever took it to the Supreme court. Why do you think that is?

Did you know a police officer or border agent can arrest you without due process? Is that also unconstitutional? LOL For both health officials and police due process begins after they act. They can hold you for 72 hours.

Oh, mental health officials or doctors can put you in detention also without your permission. LOL

You might want to go read that link - serious go read it please you are wasting our times with your made up nonsense.

 

[Tippit]

Because, unlike you, I understand it.

Clearly either you do not understand it, or do not care about the implications.

I realize you do not know what you are talking about, as all the provisos are included to prevent such an occurrence. Namely:

"(2) A local health officer may invoke the powers of police officers, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and employees of any political subdivisions within the jurisdiction of the health department to enforce immediately orders given to effectuate the purposes of this section in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.20.050(4) and 70.05.120.
(3) If a local health officer orders the immediate involuntary detention of a person or group of persons for purposes of isolation or quarantine:
(a) The emergency detention order shall be for a period not to exceed ten days.
(b) The local health officer shall issue a written emergency detention order as soon as reasonably possible and in all cases within twelve hours of detention that shall specify the following:
(i) The identity of all persons or groups subject to isolation or quarantine;
(ii) The premises subject to isolation or quarantine;
(iii) The date and time at which isolation or quarantine commences;
(iv) The suspected communicable disease or infectious agent if known;
(v) The measures taken by the local health officer to seek voluntary compliance or the basis on which the local health officer determined that seeking voluntary compliance would create a risk of serious harm; and
(vi) The medical basis on which isolation or quarantine is justified.
(c) The local health officer shall provide copies of the written emergency detention order to the person or group of persons detained or, if the order applies to a group and it is impractical to provide individual copies, post copies in a conspicuous place in the premises where isolation or quarantine has been imposed.
(d) Along with the written order, and by the same means of distribution, the local health officer shall provide the person or group of persons detained with the following written notice:
NOTICE: You have the right to petition the superior court for release from isolation or quarantine in accordance with WAC 246-100-055. You have a right to legal counsel. If you are unable to afford legal counsel, then counsel will be appointed for you at government expense and you should request the appointment of counsel at this time. If you currently have legal counsel, then you have an opportunity to contact that counsel for assistance."


The rest of your rant is amateurish opinion,

Section 2 is all that matters, which gives discretion to arbitrary "health officers" to kidnap people and put them into camps, without due process. The rest of the sections and subsections contain verbiage designed to give the appearance that there are checks and balances, and that this isn't the complete removal of due process.

 

[MBDK]

You might want to go read that link - serious go read it please you are wasting our times with your made up nonsense.

It is rather expected that the most legally ignorant people raise the most unfounded objections to the actual legal process(es).

 

[Hans]

It is rather expected that the most legally ignorant people raise the most unfounded objections to the actual legal process(es).

Yes. It is interesting that after the USA being in existence for what 245 years? Tippit has just now noted that we've given detention powers to a number of officials that allows them to act before the legal process begins.

 

[MBDK]

Section 2 is all that matters, which gives discretion to arbitrary "health officers" to kidnap people and put them into camps, without due process.

Calling arrests kidnapping and ignoring the actual due process I previously noted, does nothing but highlight the illogical desperation of your pleas.

 

[Resume]

. . . kidnap people and put them into camps.

Sov-cit, CT-er style disinformationist hyperbole.

 

[Hans]

Sov-cit, CT-er style disinformationist hyperbole.

Yep, I let you experts deal with him. Have fun.

 

[MBDK]

The rest of the sections and subsections contain verbiage designed to give the appearance that there are checks and balances, and that this isn't the complete removal of due process.

Sorry, but I just realized you don't know what "due process" is. First of all, due process can be quite different depending on the situation, but in this case that is what the identified portions of WAC 246-100-040 contribute in addition to the due process granted by the normal proceedings of our courts. Nothing in WAC 246-100-040 removes the courts' due process, but rather allows the citizen to have additional safeguards/options. This confusion that leads you to conclude exactly the opposite certainly seems to be associated with your penchant for promoting all manner of illogical claims.

 

[Steve]

Tippit seems to have once again abandoned the discussion.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Tippit needs a big villain to make his decisions look less self-serving and uninformed.

 

[varwoche]

Delete. Ninja'ed.

 

[varwoche]

I never claimed there were. My OP linked to pending legislation. Did you bother to read it? It's a primary source.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. That's existing legislation.

 

[varwoche]

Washington State Isn't Changing Quarantine Rules

A Washington State Board of Health meeting on Wednesday became the topic of a nationwide misinformation campaign as social media users, political hopefuls and conservative pundits pushed false claims that the meeting would include a vote to force unvaccinated residents into COVID-19 quarantine camps.
...
What we’re doing on Wednesday with the communicable disease rule really doesn’t have anything to do with COVID-19,” Grellner told The Associated Press in a phone interview on Monday. “It has everything to do with implementing a change to the code for HIV that the Legislature mandated we do last year.”