Follow us on Facebook
Connecting The Dots – Untangling The Web – Fake Exemptions – What We Know
We started out with a goal of understanding the following: Who was behind the fraudulent ADA exemption cardsWhy persons responsible are not yet prosecuted considering:The impersonation of a government office- namely the US Department of Justice,DOJ is led by the nations top law enforcement official,Perpetrators created and SOLD fraudulent exemptions using the DOJ symbolPerpetrators exploited…
As you likely know, this page is following an ADA case Pletcher v. Giant Eagle (Western District of Pennsylvania). Today, Plaintiffs filed their sur-reply to Giant Eagle’s motion to dismiss – and friends – it made me laugh out loud.
It might be time to talk about Plaintiffs attorneys, Thomas B. Anderson, Esquire and Thomson, Rhodes, & Cowie, P.C. because the argument they put forward on behalf of their clients boils down to:
- There’s no real pandemic. Because ya know -prove it.
- Facemasks don’t work – again, prove they do.
- Our clients don’t have covid – ha ha, really prove this!
- NO MASKS – Hey we won’t accept anything else – duh
- Businesses are but peasants that should bend to our whims – don’t dare set your own safety requirements during a pandemic – especially if they exceed minimum government standards
- English word definitions are wrong – don’t you know – COULD actually means MUST
*Note: Don’t just believe what you read on social media, check the original source. Actual filling is attached.
They actually wrote, and this is where the real laughing started, they actually – wait for it – claim that Giant Eagle’s no-exception policy is illegal, illegitimate, and unnecessary in part because:
…Pennsylvania Human Relations Act & Order of the Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Health Universal Face Covering Requirement” that was published on July 1, 2020. www.phrc.pa.gov/Documents/PHRC Guidance on COVID-19 and Universal Face Covering Order.pdf. The PHRC guidance discusses the Pennsylvania mask requirement and its exceptions and then states: “Accommodations 👉could include, but are not necessarily limited to, entry to a public space or place of employment without a face covering…” Id. at p.1 (emphasis added).Case 2:20-cv-00754-NBF Document 41 Filed 09/22/20 Page 3 of 7
Yes, they actually argue – that PHRC guidance says business COULD allow persons in without a face covering – that somehow translates to MUST. If business MUST allow maskless into private business, then by golly, the guidance MUST say exactly that! It doesn’t. But thanks for the laughs.
The legal profession is a wily beast, ain’t it!