Addressing the COVID mandates on 14 April 2020 at the Hood County Commissioners Court

Here is the script I was reading:

Good morning. My name is Scott London. I’m the retired sheriff of Eddy County, NM, where my wife and I also owned a retail jewelry store. My family relocated to Granbury last year, and we love it.

When all of the posturing began surrounding this coronavirus crisis, I began a mantra of “Watch your government. This disease will pass, but the loss of your liberties will not.”

When I read the original order signed on March 19, I was outraged. I initially spewed my frustration on social media. Now that the order has been revised twice, I have reviewed the revised order signed on April 2. Although there are some improvements, I still feel it’s my civic duty to stand before you today.

This capricious order, suddenly telling your citizens they are to stay home, but for a limited list of approved activities is awfully reminiscent of people I used to encounter professionally. They were individuals on house arrest. The differences being, they were convicted of a crime, but still afforded the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizure, as ratified into law over 200 years ago in the fourth amendment. They were also afforded their right to due process, also ratified into law in the fifth amendment. Citizens of Hood County under your order were afforded neither of those rights.

I’m still not sure if I should say thank you for violating religious liberties for ONLY a couple of weeks, but I was happy to see that church services have now been deemed essential.

There has been talk of martial law. I don’t foresee that coming, but 12 months ago, I could have never imagined this happening. So I’ll only mention that according to Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, a writ of Habeas Corpus may only be suspended in two instances: Rebellion or invasion. Neither of which we currently have.

As for my last constitutional point, I would like to bring up the freedom of assembly. It may be prudent to limit gathering size, but our founders included only one restriction on assembly, and it’s not size. PEACEFUL. Peaceful is the only requisite to a lawful assembly, and any law or order to the contrary is unconstitutional, thus an unlawful order.

The order alleges to limit exposure by limiting interactions within the public. To that end, they have limited businesses which can be open, to those that sell essential goods or services. However, it is blatantly ineffective in its mission. It does not require a medically trained expert to recognize the potential exposure anyone may experience if they have been to Walmart, Kroger, H-E-B, Lowe’s, or Home Depot recently. I have had to go grocery shopping for the last two weekends. During both of those excursions, social distancing, though encouraged, is impossible to enforce. Furthermore, 60 to 80% of the people in the store were not wearing masks. So one should ask themselves, what are we accomplishing here?

It's true that citizens under this order have more approved activities than a person on house arrest. So much so, that it makes your order virtually impossible to enforce. Anyone driving the streets could simply say they are out to buy milk. Or anyone walking outside could simply say they are exercising. To threaten people with $1000 fine and or 180 days in jail for violating an order that is virtually impossible to enforce, is a hollow promise. When you give empty threats, you lose credibility.

That being said, most people want to obey the law. Most people want to be a good citizen. Therefore, a lawful order or not, most people will try to comply. An advisory would accomplish the same thing this order is attempting to accomplish. This would allow even businesses deemed nonessential to remain open, as they are essential to the business owner and its employees. Could you not advise them to wear masks, limit the number of patrons per square foot, provide hand sanitizer at all points of entrance and egress? This would allow the business owner who relies on every $10 watch battery sale to make ends meet. Speaking from experience, a year ago, I was this guy. And under your order, that would be unlawful.

I have already been told that there are small business loans available to help businesses through this rough time. I was very proud I operated my little store without having gone into debt. The thought of the government creating a situation where I would be required to be indebted to them to remain in business is infuriating.

We are in a situation where governments decide which businesses survive and which business fail, rather than the free market. That’s nothing short of communistic. And for what? An ineffective approach to accomplish the mission these orders claim to address.

Yes, I'm doing my part to be a responsible citizen who protects my family and community. Most people are willing to do the same, if given good information. Of course, there will always be irresponsible and defiant individuals, but IS this ineffective order really worth giving our liberties away?

Thank you