Speaker 0 (0s): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the TrueLife podcast. We are here with the ever vigilant Bobbie Anne Cox, who is doing an, a very important case in New York that is going to have ramifications probably for the rest of the United States. We had a great first show. I'm going to give her a few moments to reintroduce what it is that she is working on. And then we're going to jump right into some very interesting topics. So Papi, I'm going to kick it back to you. Can you start off with you introducing yourself and what it is you're working on?

Speaker 1 (32s): Yes, absolutely. Thanks for having me on again. This is terrific. So yes, I'm an attorney. I'm here in New York and I've been practicing law for almost 25 years now. And this lawsuit that I'm going to be talking about again, today is a lawsuit. I'm assuming the governor of New York, Kathy HoCo, and also the commissioner of health here in New York, state, Mary Bassett, and then the department of health itself, as well as the Health Planning Council.

So I'm suing them on behalf of a citizens' group, which is called Uniting New York state, as well as a group of New York state legislators. So I'm representing Senator George Borrello, Assemblyman, Chris teak and Assemblyman Mike Lawler. And together we are suing the governor and department of health over in a regulation that they have put into place, which is completely illegal on multiple levels.

But I'll just let your, your viewers hear a little bit about it. So The Regulation is called Isolation and Quarantine Procedures. And what it does is it empowers the department of health to pick who they want to put into isolation or quarantine. And that could be in your home for that could be in a facility that they choose. So it could be a detention center or a facility, a camp, you know, whatever you want to call it.

They get to pick where you have to go. They get to determine how long you're going to be there. They don't have to prove that you have a communicable disease. They just have to, you might've been exposed to a communicable disease. They don't have to prove that you're a health threat to anybody around you and there's no age limit. So they can tell you that you have to lock down or lock you up. They could tell your child, they could tell your grandchild.

They could tell your elderly grandparent or your, your parent. I mean, there's just, there's no age restriction. And they also wrote in this regulation that they use local law enforcement to help them enforce the orders. So you could literally a knock on your door like while you're having dinner one night and you know, they can say, sorry, you have to come with us because, you know, we think you might have been exposed to a communicable disease.

So the breadth of power that they've given themselves in this regulation is just unbelievable. And it clearly violates many constitutional rights first and foremost. And what our lawsuit is based on is the idea that they violated separation of powers because you know, the executive branch where the governor is and, and the department of health, that's the executive branch. They don't have the power to make laws.

So only the legislature can make laws. And basically this is, I mean, they're calling this a regulation, but it really is a law because it doesn't have an enabling statute. You know, the legislature didn't pass a law that says, okay, we want to force new Yorkers to lock down or lock them up. If we think they're sick, you know, if the legislature had done that, it would be a different story. But this is coming from the department of health, which is again, the executive branch of government.

So they don't have the power to do that unless, unless the legislature tells them to do that, right. If the legislature passes a law and tells them, okay, department of health, you know, execute this law, you know, that's a different story, but that is not what's going on here. So we brought this lawsuit a couple months ago, we filed a New York state Supreme court. And we are now at the point where we had our oral arguments in front of the judge last week.

And so what that means is we had all our papers, all our motions, everything was filed the back and forth between the two sides. And then at the end of that, we went in front of the judge and we did like verbal arguments in front of the judge. And he could ask questions of us and, and try and understand our arguments better and things like that. So that, that just happened last Friday. So now we're awaiting the judge's decision, which we're not sure when that's going to be issued, but we're hoping it will be issued soon.

So he'll issue a written decision and we'll see, you know, did he, did he rule in our favor or, you know, is he going to side with the state in this matter? So that's where we are right now in the case. I think the main thing I want to point out to, to everybody is, you know, when we were doing these arguments in front of the judge, it was very clear that the attorney general in New York, so that's, who's representing, you know, the governor and the department of health is the New York state attorney office.

It was very clear that they made this regulation because they believe they should have complete power over the people on a statewide basis. Right? So their whole argument is, well don't, you want us to have control don't. You want us to be able to lock people down or lock people up so that we can keep everybody else safe in the community. And you know, my response to that is, well, the legislature never gave you the executive branch, the power to do that.

You know, this, we've seen a lot of this in, in not just in New York, throughout the country, in the past two plus years that we've been dealing with COVID, you know, we'd seen executive branch overstep or overreach on a massive level. You know, we saw it with Biden last year. He told OSHA, which is an agency. It's a federal agency in the executive branch, which is where Biden is. We saw him tell OSHA, oh, you know what?

Make make a regulation. You know, they call it a regulation, make a regulation and, and make it say everybody that has a company that has 100 or more employees in the United States, you have to force your employees to get the COVID-19 shot. Otherwise they have to test weekly and wear a mask at work and blah, blah, blah. You know, and he got sued. Biden got sued over that. So did OSHA and the United States Supreme court, just in January ruled that that was unconstitutional.

They said the executive branch cannot make a law. And that was a law because there was no, there was nothing that came from Congress that told the executive branch and OSHA to make a regulation like that. They just, they just made it up themselves, right? Because Biden told them to. So the United States Supreme court said, Nope, sorry, you don't have the power to do that. That power is reserved for Congress. And if Congress wants to make a wall like that, then let Congress make a law like that.

But you and the executive branch, you can't do that. So they struck it down and it was deemed unconstitutional, no void. It can't be enforced. And it's very similar to our case here in New York, we have the same argument. We're telling the governor, who's the executive branch in New York. You and your department of health can not make laws. That's, that's not the way that the constitution is written. So you need to get back into your lane, stay in your lane, right.

And, and let the legislature do what the legislature, what the legislature is supposed to do. If the legislature wants to make a law like that, they can go ahead and try. Right now we saw a New York, there was a proposed law for several years, which was pretty much the same as this regulation. And it never passed it. Not only didn't pass, it didn't get any support at all. There was one sponsor of that proposed law, and he got nobody else to stand with him on it.

I mean, Democrat, Republican, it didn't matter. Nobody wanted to touch that bill. And he proposed it for seven years. He proposed it, including during COVID, it's still didn't get any traction. Nobody would support it. It never went to a vote. It never had. That was in the assembly. Had never had a sister bill in the, in the state Senate. Like it just, it was a disaster. Nobody wanted to touch it. So I think it's clear that the legislature in New York state doesn't want to force new Yorkers to lock down or, or get locked up.

You know, if the department of health thinks that you might have maybe have a communicable disease, or maybe you were expelled, you, maybe you walked by somebody that sneezed, and now we need to lock you up for, I don't know, three months, you know, I mean, it's just, it's so unbelievable. This regulation, I, I I'm shocked. Not only that they made the regulation, but that they're trying to defend it. I mean, it's, it's unbelievable.

Speaker 0 (10m 20s): It is unbelievable. It it's so coordinated to me. Like, it seems like there's a lot of either money or obviously intelligent people behind it that are, have figured out, okay, well, we might not get it, but if we just keep pushing, we can just use this issue of constantly having it out there until people accepted it. I think it was gerbils who said the bigger the line, the more often you tell it, the more people believe it. And it seems like they're utilizing the same psychological technique, which it's mind blowing to me.

And we could probably get into that. But I think more importantly is the, the arguments that you've recently had. Can you tell us about the arguments that you had when you were in court and in hearing this attorney general speak and what happened there?

Speaker 1 (11m 3s): Yeah, so it was pretty interesting. You know, the judge asked some key questions of the attorney General's office, you know, he said point blank, you know, do you think there's a difference between having people wear a mask, you know, requiring them to wear a mask and being able to lock them up or lock them down because you think that they have a communicable disease. And I think probably 99% of the population would answer that question by saying, of course there is a difference.

I mean, there's a big, different, you know, you're taking someone's freedom away versus you, you have your freedom, you just have to wear a cloth on your face. Right. So I'm not saying that, you know, being forced to wear mask is okay, I'm just saying, is there a difference between those two restrictions on your freedom? I think most people would say yes. And you know, the attorney General's office was like, yeah. I mean, no, I don't really see a difference between those things, you know?

And I was like, I mean, how, how, how can you defend that? So that was one thing that I thought was really telling, you know, another question that the judge had asked him was, you know, so if, if you have the difference between, you know, wearing a mask and, and forcing people to, to quarantine or, you know, isolate, and, and so, you know, what is, what is the reasoning in essence?

Like what, what is, what is your defense, right? Like what, where does this get you? And the, the general response from the attorney General's office throughout all of these arguments was if, if there's an emergency, you know, we think the state, the governor, and the department of health, you know, the commissioner of health should be able to take complete control. But my rebuttal to that is, but you can't just ignore the laws that we already have in place.

You know, you can't just come in, make a regulation and overturn laws that have been in place for like decades. Right? And we have a law, we have a law in the public health laws, section 2120. It already says what you need to do. If you think someone in New York is a health threat, right. And there are a ton of steps that have to be taken. For example, number one, you have to prove the person actually has the communicable disease, right?

You can't just be like guessing like, oh, maybe, maybe you were closed. You know, so that's step number one. But then there were a ton of other safety precautions. You know, you have to, there has to be an investigation. You know, the state has to, or the local department of health has to prove that you're not conducting yourself in a proper way. You know, you're not trying to shield those around you from getting your disease. You know, there has to be a hearing in front of a magistrate.

You know, there has to be an order that's written by the magistrate. Like there are all these protective steps and this regulation just ignores all ignores that provision of the public health law. It conflicts with it, right. It strips all of those protections from the citizen and it just allows the state to do whatever they want. You know? I mean, if you think about it, the way the regulation is written, if you think about it, you could go to, like, you could go to a concert or you could go to an event like a dinner party or, or maybe a political fundraiser.

Right. And then you leave. And then all of a sudden you get a knock on the door and they say, well, you know, you were just at this event and somebody there had whatever, you know, tuberculosis COVID-19, whatever, some communicable disease. And so you're going to have to come with us and we'll let you know when you're allowed to leave. You know? I mean, it's like, what is that? That's unbridled power. What could they do with that? What if they don't like the political event that you attended?

Right. Could, could politics play into this? I mean, the way the rug is written. Yeah. They have no restrictions on them. Right. What if they just didn't like the part of the state that you drove to? Oh, we don't want people going into that section of the state. We want to preserve that for whatever, you know, nature or whatever. Oh, you went into this section that we didn't want you to go into. Oh, we're going to have to lock you up now. I mean, it's just, it's so crazy how much power they've given themselves in this regulation.

You know, another question that judge posed to the attorney General's office was, you know, can you use one enforcement? And their initial response was, well, you know, not, I mean, not really. It was like a fuzzy response. And then the judge kind of pressed a little bit and he's like, well, this section here in The Regulation does say that you can coordinate with local, you know, local law enforcement to enforce your orders, you know?

And then they were kind of forced to admit, well, yeah, yeah. That's, that's what it says. You know, they were just trying to make it seem like, oh, it's no big deal. You know what I mean? It's not really, you know, and then another argument they came up with during oral arguments was, well, you know, we're not actually using this regulation. Like we're not actually locking people in, in facilities right now. And I'm like, oh, okay.

So, but you can, whenever you want, because that's what the regulation says, right? It doesn't say like, oh, this takes effect five years from now on, you know, January 1st, no it's in effect now. And they can do it whenever they want. But the whole argument is you don't have the power to make this regulation. You went behind the back of the legislature.

You know, the legislature wouldn't touch that proposed bill for seven years. And I think department of health and the governor realized it's certainly not going to get through the legislature. So they took basically that same language and they just pushed it through as a regulation, through the department of health, you know, it's, it's so obvious what they did and you can't one branch of government can't use SERP, the power of the other branch of government, because then we have the breakdown of separation of powers, which is really what our society functions on.

And that's the basis of our claim is that you cannot go around the back of the legislature here and take their power just because you want to do something that you think is, Hey, maybe they're doing it because they think it's a great idea. Like, Hey, we really can keep, keep people safe. If we have this regulation, I don't care what they're really what their bottom line reason for doing it is I care that they're violating the constitution. They're, they're breaching separation of powers and they have to be put back in their place.

Otherwise the implications, if this regulation isn't struck down, the implications could be so far reaching because it'll signal to other agencies and not just in New York state, but agencies across the nation, Hey, you can make a regulation that violates the constitution, violates existing state laws. And look, nothing's going to happen to you. Just do whatever you want, but that's not the way it's supposed to work because we elect those legislators.

Right? We don't elect the people that run the department of health, like the health commissioner. It doesn't matter what state you're in. Right? I don't think any state health commissioner is elected, right? So they're appointed. And then all the people that work in the department of health, they're not elected. They're appointed, right. They're government employees. So we can't give unbridled power to unelected people because then we don't have a way.

We, the people don't have a way to have our voices heard, because if you're just an appointed official, what do you care? What the people say, what do you care? What the people think. If you're an elected official, you care a lot because you want to keep your job, right? You want to stay an elected official. And the only way that's going to happen is if you're listening to your people that are voting you into office. So that's the whole reason our founding fathers set this up this way, because they want the people to have the voice.

And our voice is being extinguished. If the legislature can't do their job, and now you have on elected agencies, making laws that hurt the people. I mean, this is, this is tyranny. This is exactly what tyranny is. When one branch of government takes the power from another one that's tyranny, because then the people have no, no recourse. You can't vote out the head of the department of health.

It's just not the way it works. Right? So it's a, it's a really important case. I think it's not just, not just for New Yorkers. I think for all Americans, because a lot of times people look to see what's going on in New York. And I mean, if, if we can have a regulation that pretty much Allows the, the, you know, commissioner of health and the governor to lock people up whenever they want, what do you think the other states are going to do? You know, they're going to say, oh, look, what's happening in New York.

Why can't we do that too? It'll become, it'll be a landslide. You know, the flood gates will open. And I think we'll just see agencies across the country starting to make these horrific regulations and just really, really getting rid of the voice of the people. And that's what this lawsuit is about. So it's so important and people can follow along if they want. We have the citizens group that's involved with the case has an actual web page specifically set up for this lawsuit.

So people can follow along. You can sign up there actually. And you can get like weekly emails, like an email blast goes out every week to update people on the case. But the website is great because it also has videos about the regulation and about the lawsuit. It has a timeline to show people the steps along the way, where the lawsuit is, has photographs from like press conferences and stuff like that.

So if people want to check it out, it's Uniting NYS dot com slash lawsuit. But yeah, it's just so important. People know about it. It's, it's being swept under the rug. You know, mainstream media is not picking this up, which is why I'm so glad, you know, podcasters, like you are picking this up and, and pushing it out because people can't, people don't know. You know, sometimes you don't find out about something until after it's in place and or until after, you know, they knock on the door and take your ten-year-old away, right.

People need to know what's going on so that they can stand up now and say, oh no, no, absolutely not. I'm not gonna stand for this, but we need, we need the word to get out. We definitely need the word to get out.

Speaker 0 (23m 35s): I think when we spoke last time, you had mentioned that there was an Amicus brief file. Were you able to, were they able to talk about that and use that in court? Was it submitted and some miserable there?

Speaker 1 (23m 43s): Yeah. So we did talk about that last time I was on, there is a group of New York state legislators, in addition to the ones that I'm representing in the lawsuit. There's another group who knew about the lawsuit, very supportive of it. So they, they filed what's called an Amicus brief. And it's it's for those who don't know, it's a brief, which means it's a legal document that they draft up. They're not parties in the lawsuit, but they have a heavy interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.

So you can file a brief with the court and you basically support one side or the other, right? You say, Hey judge, this is why we think this side should win and this side should lose. So they filed this brief in supportive of our lawsuit and the attorney General's office completely opposed it, they would not just voluntarily agree to allow it in. So they then forced us to do motions.

Like we had to make a motion to the court and file papers and say why we thought the court should be able to read the brief, they filed papers against us saying, this is why we think the court shouldn't be able to read the brief, you know, there was this back and forth. And ultimately the judge ruled in our favor. Yeah. Which was great. He said, yeah, no. He said, I'm going to let the brief come in. He said, I'm going to read it. I'm going to consider it. So when we did oral arguments last week, I was able to refer to the brief and some of the things, some of the points that were brought up there, which was great.

It was the brief Meekus brief was written by Assemblyman, Andy Goodell, Assemblyman will Barkley and Assemblyman, Joe Gilio. So they got together and did this brief and it's great. You know, it supports our case a hundred percent. They bring up some great arguments in there. And I, you know, that'll be one of the things that the judge will read and consider before he makes his decision in our case.

Speaker 0 (25m 57s): Yeah. It sounds really good tonight. I just want to applaud you. I think the way in which you're arguing this case is perfect. It's, it's why there's so much things to be concerned and worried about as far as back during the government. And it's almost like a hostile takeover, the separation of powers is the focal point where if you attack that it can never move forward. So it's a really well thought out and, and great argument. Was it something, was it, was that focused, something that took a while to come up with to create the strongest argument?

Or how did you come about focusing on that part of the argument?

Speaker 1 (26m 35s): Yeah. You know, that's a good question. Cause I was talking to a bunch of different colleagues of mine before I, the lawsuit. And you know, those that I spoke with thought that this regulation is horrible. You know, it's certainly unconstitutional in the sense that it violates people's right to privacy and their right to unreasonable, to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. It violates their right to due process and all this stuff.

So they agreed that there were all these constitutional issues in there, but they were saying, you know, you have to wait until someone's actually locked up to file a lawsuit. And you know what I mean? I did a lot of research, but I, I just, it came to me that no, that you don't have to wait. That's one type of injury that, that could be sustained because of this regulation, for sure. But there are other types of injuries too. And in this case, the injury that I'm arguing is number one to the New York state legislators, you know, those elected officials who sit in our New York state Senate and our New York state assembly, they're being harmed because they're the ones that are supposed to have the right to make laws on behalf of us.

Right. So their is being taken away. So they're being injured and there's case law. You know, I do a lot of research there's case law that supports my argument. And then for the citizens group, uniting New York state, they're being injured because their voice, if you're extinguishing the boys of the legislators that we all picked and voted for and put into office, you're directly then extinguishing the voice of the people, because the people have the right as per the constitution to elect their representatives.

And those representatives are the ones that are supposed to make the laws that we have to live under. So if you're extinguishing the legislature's voice, you're extinguishing the voice of the voters, right? So there is injury on, on both of those levels. So of course the attorney General's office is challenging that, and they're saying, oh, there's no injury, there's no injury. You know, they're trying to say, you only have injury if you've been taken out of your home and locked up in, in a camp somewhere, or, or if we forced you to stay in your home and you know, now you can't go to work or you can't go to school or whatnot, but, but we disagree.

And that's, you know, that's the basis of our argument is that's, there are different types of injuries and there's injury here, but we'll see, that's one of the big things the judge has to rule on is, is their injury. And not another way to put it as do these parties, do the petitioners, meaning the legislators and the citizens group, do they have standing? And that's what they call it. It's a legal term. And that's one of the big issues in the case. So one of the things the judge has to rule on is whether or not they have standing.

Speaker 0 (29m 53s): Yeah, that's fascinating. I often sometimes wonder, and I, I see cases sometimes. And I, I, my understanding of the law is just like a lay person. I don't really thoroughly understand all of it, but it seems intent. Like sometimes people argue in 10 and that seems so difficult to try and prove that. And if you were to attack this particular situation from another angle where you had to say, these people are doing it to hurt, you know, like if you're trying to prove intent, there that'd be much more difficult, I think.

But yeah, it hasn't been any ex civil rights groups that have reached out to you try to help like the Southern poverty law center or like the ACLU, have any of these groups kind of come to you and said, yeah, you're right. We want to help you out.

Speaker 1 (30m 35s): So, and none of, none of the ones that you mentioned have there have been some other citizen groups that are smaller level, like just within New York state that have reached out and offered to give support children's health defense, which is a national organization, their local New York state chapter has reached out and yeah, they've offered some support and, you know, they, they had me come on their podcast and had me come to a rally and speak at a rally.

And yeah. So there has been support like that. Just, just not really at the national level, more localized within New York state. But the surprising thing is, is that the, the mainstream media, I guess it's not that surprising. I mean, industry media is, you know, not paying attention, doesn't want to know about it because we've had volunteers in the citizens groups reach out and say to, you know, who, whoever it is, you know, Fox news or whatever, you know, Hey, look, there's the story.

You should pick this up. This is really important. Look at this regulation. It's terrible. You know, and so far, no, none of them, none of them are picking it up. You know, we've reached out to a couple people even at like Newsmax and stuff. Like they're not picking it up. So I don't know. It's, it's very interesting that it's sad because the media should be, the media used to be right. I mean, I remember years ago, the media used to be the ones blowing the whistle on the corruption and the horrible things that were going on.

And today that's, that's not what you see. You know, I mean, if, if this situation and this lawsuit was going on 20 years ago or 30 years ago, you know, I would hope that the media would be all over it. Like, oh my gosh, look what they're trying to do in New York. You know? Nope. Haven't seen that yet. So we'll see. We'll see. Maybe, maybe once the judge rules, maybe they'll pick up the story. I don't know, but I I'm sure there will be an appeal.

You know, if the judge rules in our favor and says that this regulation is unconstitutional and, you know, breach of separation of powers and all that, then I I'm pretty certain, the attorney general is going to appeal to the next court, which would be the appellate division in New York. And then, you know, if we went again there, I'm sure they're going to appeal again. And the highest court in New York is called the court of appeals.

So, which is, you know, a panel of judges. So yeah. So w we'll see, I I'm, I'm sure it's, I don't think the state would just give up on that. You know, we win it at this trial court level. I don't think the state's just going to give up and say, oh, all right, well, no problem. You know, because if they gave up, you know, then it opens the door to challenges to their other regulations, which are totally also complete overreach of, you know, executive branch power.

Th this isn't the only regulation that they've promulgated that is, you know, in my opinion, completely illegal. There are other ones too. And, and I do have a couple of colleagues that are challenging and they've sued the governor for these other, like, for example, the mask mandate, that's, that's a regulation that was not through the New York state legislature. So I think there were like five different mask lawsuits going on right now in New York state.

But my, my Isolation and Quarantine lawsuit is the only one going on in New York state at this point. And I'm pretty sure it's the only one in the country. Cause I don't think there's any other regulation in, in a different state that's like this. So yeah. So kind of groundbreaking stuff here.

Speaker 0 (34m 60s): Yeah. I'm so proud of you. And I, I think my audience and everyone who hears this case should be proud. It's it's such it's so it makes, it gives me a lot of hope. And I think it's so American to have an American stand-up we're working pro bono facing the state who has unlimited resources. And it's like, you're standing in front of the machine saying, I'm right here. I'm one person, but I believe I can do this. And that's, that's something that I want my kids to have instilled in them. And so thank you, Bobby. And I hope that when you wake up in the mirror and times are tough, you know, there's people behind you saying we got you, we're going to help you do any way we can.

And if that's getting the podcast out, or if that's telling our friends, you have a lot of people behind you. And what you're doing is one of the most American things you can do. And I'm really proud of you. Thank you for doing what you're doing. It's it's inspiring.

Speaker 1 (35m 51s): Thank you. That's so great to say. It's so great to hear. Thank you so much. Yeah, it is. You're right. It's David versus Goliath, right?

Speaker 0 (35m 59s): It's

Speaker 1 (35m 60s): It's, it's, you know, little old me standing up against, you know, I've got the attorney general and you know, like you said, they have unlimited resources. I mean, If you think about it, it's really, it's terrible because they're using our tax dollars, right. To fight us, you know, standing up for all these new Yorkers, like 19 and a half million new Yorkers, you know, I'm trying to keep free and yeah. And they're using our tax dollars to, to fight against it and they're fighting tooth and nail like they're, you know, they opposed the Amicus brief that took a bunch of time and energy for me to make, you know, put in the paper, draft up papers, put them in, explain to the judge.

And this is why I think the brief should be allowed and that, you know, and then they did originally they removed us to federal court because they wanted to do the case in federal court, which then they probably would have tried to knock it out for lack of jurisdiction, but whatever. So then we had to do motion practice in federal court and then try and get back into state court, which is where we belonged all along. So we had to do motions there. We had to do oral arguments there. So, you know, they're fighting like crazy. They're, they're trying to make it as difficult as possible.

And they're, they're, it's frustrating, but yeah, it, it, it's nice to hear, you know, when I get an email that says, thank you, you know, you're doing a great job and that, that is it. It does help. Definitely. And, and anybody that wants to support the case, you know, we do have on that website for Uniting NYS we do have a donate button there if anybody's able to donate. That's great. Cause I am doing it pro bono, but yeah.

It's and people can really help by, like you said, spreading the word, you know, just, even if you just go out to, you know, your, you take your dog to the park and you're talking to other people and you take your kids to the playground and you're talking to other people, you know, bring it up, tell them about it, you know, take this link to this video, this interview and just start sharing it all over the place and say, Hey guys, check this out. This is crazy. You know, gosh, I hope it doesn't happen in New York because if it sticks, it might happen here too.

You know, like people need to talk about it, learn about it, hear what's going on, understand what's going on and just keep spreading the word. Because like I said, mainstream media is not going to do it. So, you know, we have to do it word of mouth posting on social media, really any way that people can, anybody that knows another podcast or that wants to pick up the story or, you know, a radio show host that wants to do an interview. Like those are the things, you know, I'll get, you know, just local radio shows.

We'll reach out and say, Hey, do you want to come on? And you know, we'll do a segment on you. And I'm like, yeah, great. I'll I'll do it any kind of an interview to get the word out because yeah, they're trying to sweep it under the rug. They're trying to make this be like, not just a secret, but like, oh, it's no big deal. No, it's just another regulation. It's just another rule. And I'm like, we can't let this be normalized. You know, we just, we can't let it be normalized. And we already have, and most places do like most states, even some cities have their own rules, you know, most have rules or laws that say, if there's somebody that's a threat to the health of the community, there are steps.

There are ways to remove that person and, and have them quarantine until they're well, and then they can come back out into society, but it's, it's laid in with protective measures so that the person themselves is not taken advantage of or hurt in the process too. So it's a balance between we don't want to hurt the public, but we also don't want to hurt that person. So that's why we have laws. We have legislators, they sit there, you know, I don't know if you ever have watched a legislative session, but they sit there and they debate, you know, they say, here are the pros of this proposed law and here are the cons of this proposed law.

And they go back and forth and they debate. What's good about it. What's bad about it. Maybe we could change this. Maybe we could keep that it's a negotiation process when, when the legislators make a law, whether it's at the state level or whether it's at the federal level, it's the same process. Really. So that's great. That's what you want. You want people to debate and say, well, I think this is good for this reason. And I think that's bad for that reason. And you want to hear all the arguments and then you want to come to some sort of an agreement and you say, okay, well now we can meet in the middle.

You know, we'll get rid of this provision. We'll keep that one. You know, we'll change this one a little bit. And, and that's how you make a law. That's how you make a fair and just law. And we have laws and we don't need the agencies coming in with the governor and saying, well, we're just going to ignore that. You know, w we're not gonna pay attention to that law because we want this rule that gives us complete Supreme power over everybody.

You know, it's just, it's just not the way it works, guys, you know? So we gotta keep, we gotta keep pushing. We gotta keep educating the public, let people know what's going on, how they can help. It's really, it's, it's so important. It's really top priority because we can't, we can't let democracy dies in darkness. That's for sure.

Speaker 0 (41m 58s): Yeah. That's a great quote. I, I know you've mentioned the websites where people can go around and check things out, and I know that your time is valuable and you have another interview coming up, but can you just tell people one more time where they can find you and what they can do again, to support you. And then I'll put those in the show notes and I'll let you go. But I just really want people to know where they can reach out to you.

Speaker 1 (42m 18s): Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Thank you. So people can go to www.unitingandys.com and then there's a link at the top. It says lawsuit, you click on the lawsuit link, and there's a whole page specifically about the lawsuit. People can sign up for weekly email updates on the lawsuit. You can get videos there about the regulation, about the lawsuit.

You can get a link there to the regulation, so you can read the regulation yourself and see how tyrannical it is. There are photographs on there they're actually flyers. Like you could download the flyer and you could post it on your social media. And yeah, there are volunteer opportunities. If people want to get involved, if people want to do any sort of outreach, there's a donate button there. If people want to donate, it's, it's really, it's a pretty comprehensive web page.

Also Uniting NYS has they're on Instagram. So they have an Instagram channel. People can follow along there. Uniting NYS also has a telegram channel. They're also on getter. So yeah, so there, there are a few different outlets that people can follow along the lawsuit with my, for my actual law office, I have a separate website.

It's Cox lawyers.com. There's a link there to the website page so people can access it through my website, Cox lawyers.com. So yeah, there, there are a bunch of different ways people can follow along and, and get involved.

Speaker 0 (44m 15s): Perfect. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time. Bobbie Anne, thank you. You can catch us the first Friday. We're going to do to work on this as long as you have time and we can get it out and try to help. And I hope everybody that watches, this knows that you can be part of the American dream by standing up to the machine that has tried to get in the way of people's rights forever. And there's nothing more American than being the underdog and standing up for those that can't stand up for themselves and fighting and making a better place, all of us to be. And we can all do that.

We can all make it a little bit better. We can all participate. And so that's all we got for today. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for taking time with me and Bobbie Anne. And we'll catch you guys maybe tomorrow or the next day and thank you for spending time with us. Loha

Speaker 2 (45m 0s): Okay.